This article is not about all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the official story of “the Batman murders” at the Aurora Theater. This article is about the use of psychiatry in the judicial system.
Judge Carlos Samour has ordered James Holmes to undergo a second sanity review. Holmes’ lawyers are appealing that order, so once again, everything is on hold.
Holmes has already entered a plea of insanity, meaning he committed the murders but was crazy at the time. And he’s already had one sanity review in a hospital. But the Judge didn’t like that review, and neither did the prosecution. Why? No one is permitted to say, but it’s obvious the prosecution is upset because the first review concluded that Holmes was/is insane….unable to tell right from wrong.
The prosecution wants the case to end up with a guilty verdict and the death penalty, not with an insane Holmes assigned to a prison hospital as a psychotic.
The Judge wants the second sanity review to focus tightly on whether Holmes was sane or insane on the night he “killed people in the theater.”
So how do psychiatrists decide that question?
In order to do so, they have to go through Holmes himself.
Is Holmes now sane? Can he look back and provide an accurate account of his state of mind then?
“Well, I’m quite sane now, and I can see I knew right from wrong then.”
If Holmes is sane now (whatever that means), why should he admit he was sane then and risk dying at the hands of the State? If he’s sane now, he’ll say, “I was crazy that night. I couldn’t tell right from wrong.”
How do the psychiatrists navigate through that?
If Holmes is insane now, whatever he remembers about that night in the theater should be automatically discounted and ignored.
But psychiatrists, with their pseudoscience, have a reputation to uphold. They have to make it seem as if they know what they’re doing. They have to pretend their word games and their diagnoses are connected to the reality of the mind.
That isn’t the case, of course. No official diagnosis of any so-called mental disorder has a defining test to back it up. It’s all a hoax.
Eventually, after their second sanity review, psychiatrists will enter an opinion with the court. They’ll claim that some sort of objective analysis was done on Holmes, bypassing his fractured mental state. They’ll sell their snake oil to the Judge.
And he’ll buy it, because psychiatric reviews are part and parcel of the modern judicial system.
The bottom line? Aided by the sold-out political establishment, the men who really want to control the destiny of this country are using psychiatry and the “mental health” system to create a Police State.
“Everybody has a mental disorder, and must be treated.”
UPI is now reporting that 1 out of every 13 schoolchildren between the ages of 6 and 17 is on a prescription psychiatric drug. These drugs, all of them, are toxic. They sedate the brain. They initiate out-of-control hyper-manic states. They scramble neurotransmitters. The SSRI antidepressants, in particular, push people over the edge into violence; suicide, homicide. Holmes himself was under psychiatric care prior to Aurora.
These drugs are chemical warfare, eating out the population from the inside.
James Holmes is a poster boy for the mental-health system.
“If only his disorder had been caught sooner, if only he were treated, we could have avoided the tragedy in Aurora.”
Therefore, children must be screened and monitored from an early age, diagnosed, and dosed with drugs.
Whether Holmes’ second sanity review comes back with the finding that he was insane in Aurora, the story-line has already been set in concrete: he was suffering from a mental disorder. That fits the overall agenda. That promotes the necessity of psychiatry judging and running the minds of every person.
Freedom dictates the opposite.
Some of you may be wondering about my statement that psychiatry is a pseudoscience based on nothing more than arbitrary fantasies.
Here is just a bit of the evidence for that assertion:
Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 3 years, almost no one noticed.
His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).
Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.
Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.
Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:
“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”
That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”
After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”
Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.
Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre sojourn:
“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”
Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…
Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science. Or healing.
Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.
BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]
Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.
So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.
These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.
Dr. Barkley employs a corrupted version of logic in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. If a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have psychiatry at all, our whole profession would rest on nothing—and that is patently absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”
That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.
Psychiatry is a pseudoscience. A fake.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com