The Public Menace
By Aron C. Mason
oston psychiatrist Sheldon Zigelbaum specialized in the treatment of Vietnam veterans and providing expert testimony in cases involving veterans and others accused of violent crimes.
He could never be accused of discrimination when it came to accepting clients. Zigelbaum had testified to excuse a man who murdered his girlfriend with a knife, another who shot six people at point-blank range, and even a former helicopter pilot who smuggled 30 tons of marijuana into Maine allegedly as a result of Vietnam Syndrome.
Zigelbaum once testified that a man who killed several people with a shotgun was not conscious and therefore had no capacity to discriminate right from wrong.
But other evidence shows that Zigelbaum apparently suffered from a severe reasoning impairment himself.
Three of Zigelbaums patients revealed that their treatment from Zigelbaum had included sexual intercourse. When Zigelbaum claimed innocence, more patients he had sexually molested came forward. He was ultimately stripped of his license by the state medical board.
It is not surprising to find that a psychiatric expert, testifying to shelter criminals, is a criminal himself.
A look beyond the public image behind which psychiatry usually hides shows that such conduct and even worse is the rule, not the exception.
According to the 1990 report Psychotherapists Sexual Involvement with Clients: Intervention and Prevention, psychiatry and psychology account for the largest percentage of [sexual abuse] cases, with psychiatry regularly showing the higher frequency rate, far above any other form of therapy or counseling.
[The psychiatrist] will continuously educate judges, plaintiffs and defenders to such a degree, that actually he becomes, genly and slowly, the leading element of the trial; then he will fill charges, defense and verdict, with his ideas, having the outstanding high goal in mind, to direct all and everything into the port of the higher man-breeding where the medico is the safest pilot (guide).
More and more psychiatrists are involved in a wide range of illegal and immoral acts against society which are increasingly being brought to criminal prosecution by law enforcement officials such as health insurance fraud, assault in the form of forcing life-threatening drugs on patients, illegal detention through the institutionalization of competent citizens, barbaric battery through treatments using electric and chemical shocks, inhumane experiments involving both animals and humans which have cost thousands of lives, and many other atrocities too numerous to list. Their well-documented crimes are so extreme and far-reaching that they have led to the passage of many new laws in states across the country to protect the public from their brutalities.
Yet, incredibly, despite their long-running, worldwide track record of abuses against humanity, psychiatrists today are accepted in the American justice system. And, whether dreaming up new reasons to set unreformed criminals free or concocting testimony which indicts the innocent, psychiatrists have been the principal public menace demolishing the underpinnings of our judicial system.
Murderers, rapists and assorted purveyors of wrongdoing have, for decades, turned to psychiatrists, psychologists and their brethren for ways to avoid conviction.
What these mind manipulators promote and stand for is fundamentally at odds with the concept of justice. It is an outrage that they ever managed to insinuate themselves into a courtroom. Justice depends on being able to rationally determine the right from the wrong in order to exercise its duty to protect citizens from dangerous criminals by removing them from society. Psychiatry, on the other hand, has done all it could, not just to blur this distinction, but to eradicate it altogether.
Of course, a person who commits criminal acts is, by definition, insane he cannot tell right from wrong otherwise he wouldnt commit lawless acts which harm others. Yet, according to psychiatry, an insane criminal should escape responsibility for his acts and either go free or get turned over for further mind-warping treatment. Establishing ways for a criminal to claim innocence by reason of insanity thus completely contradicts and eviscerates the justice system.
This was not an accident. It is part of a systematic campaign to actually eliminate the sense of right and wrong, eradicate responsibility and take over the courts. In fact, World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH) cofounder J.R. Rees, put psychiatrys plans succinctly in 1940: We can therefore justifiably stress our particular point of view with regard to the proper development of the human psyche, even though our knowledge is incomplete. We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life.... If we must infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of 5th column activity!
Reinterpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong, said Chisholm, was a key objective of practically all efective psychotherapy. He pointed to psychiatrists and psychologists some of the most immoral, lawless and destructive persons in society as examples of persons who have escaped from these moral chains of right and wrong.
|World Federaction of Mental Health cofounder Brock Chisholm|
One of the most damaging of these incomplete psychiatric theories was uttered in 1945 by WFMH cofounder Brock Chisholm.
Reinterpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong, said Chisholm, was a key objective of practically all effective psychotherapy. He pointed to psychiatrists and psychologists some of the most immoral, lawless and destructive persons in society as examples of persons who have escaped from these moral chains of right and wrong.
Even the expert designation utilized by such ersatz mental authorities is contrived. No one, other than themselves, has ever bestowed this status upon them.
Nor do they have anything other than ruined lives to show for what they term their treatment. At best, it pacifies, and at worst destroys the recipients utterly.
And, since the fateful first day when a psychiatrist gave a criminal defendant his escape route, they have led the way down the road to a progressively more and more dangerous society.
When, and how, did it all begin?
Invading the Courtroom
Disorders and syndromes such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Vietnam Syndrome have been advanced by many psychiatrists to excuse violent criminal acts against people and property. But the earliest influence in courtroom workings was the insanity defense.
Freedom has been at the forefront of exposing the fraud of this defense and other judicial tampering by psychiatrists. We now examine the defense from its beginnings to what it has become today and why.
The first United States case in which the defense of temporary insanity was used came in 1859. In February that year, before 12 shocked witnesses in Lafayette Square across from the White House, Congressman Daniel Sickles shot and killed Philip Barton Key, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Sickles claimed he was jealously enraged over an affair Key had been carrying on with Sickles young wife. With public opinion solidly behind him, Sickles was acquitted in a highly publicized murder trial. He thus became the first beneficiary of the temporary insanity plea in American legal history and the precedent for psychiatrists providing the scientific basis for a plea that let murderers go free.
In the years that followed, the plea gradually and quietly caught on in criminal cases of lesser stature across the country. The emergence and growth of psychiatry led to an increasing insinuation of their expertise into such cases. Decades later, the practical and mental imperialism of psychiatry was nowhere more baldly exposed than in the theories of Erwin Stransky, court psychiatrist and psycho-hygienist. In 1918, the General Magazine For Psychiatry published his outline of a program, in which he wrote:
Therefore the forensic activity of the psychiatrist can become a good part of applied psychiatry in the noblest sense of the word, by helping diplomatically to restrain and to dominate the human mind in the sense of race hygiene and protection of the society. Then almost automatically our profession will get its proper part of this domination....
[The psychiatrist] will continuously educate judges, plaintiffs and defenders to such a degree, that actually he becomes, gently and slowly, the leading element of the trial; then he will fill charges, defense and verdict, with his ideas, having the outstanding high goal in mind, to direct all and everything into the port of the higher man-breeding where the medico is the safest pilot (guide). In this way the psychiatrist in the courtroom can fulfill a great deal of his mission as educator of man, if he only wants to, wants in the sense of a medical imperialism which is the imperialism of culture....
The next step was to find a way to excuse behavior when it was clear that the individual knew that he was committing a wrongful act. In 1929, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia adopted the irresistible impulse rule. Such an impulse could override the reason and judgment and obliterate the sense of right and wrong.
But the psychiatrists were not satisfied. What if the perpetrator committed a deed he knew was wrong but had systematically planned out the crime rather than acted on impulse? The definition of insanity, it seemed, was too narrow. A British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, 1949-1953, stated, The criminal act [such as murder and suicide] may be the reverse of impulsive. It may be coolly and carefully prepared; yet it is still the act of a madman. The insanity lay in psychoses due to disease of the brain.
We can therefore justifiably stress our particular point of
|World Federation of Mental Health cofounder J.R. Rees|