ON CHARGING AT WINDMILLS (and other things that might whack you)

ON CHARGING AT WINDMILLS (and other things that might whack you)

The other day, McJ put up a link to a story of a New Zealand journalist, Clare Swinney, who was incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital against her will for 11 days. She had written about the truth of 9/11 and had sent DVDs to television station personnel showing this truth. She also accused these people of lying about this truth. I felt very disturbed after reading this story because it brought to mind experiences of my own and of friends of mine who have fought for justice for themselves and others. These experiences don't match exactly Clare Swinney's, of course, but they are similar in that the weight of the State/Medical/Judicial/Police/Criminal complex has been brought down on me and my friends who are victims, supporters and/or whistle blowers. The results to varying degrees have included severe psychological stress and burnout; severe physical assaults and injuries and the loss of careers, health, money and freedom.

I mention the above experiences because I will be making some recommendations to people who are challenging the system (or may in the future) and some of these recommendations may sound risky or even dangerous. But I want to show that I am aware of the consequences of these actions and I don't recommend them lightly. They come from experience and I believe them to be, in fact, the safest way to handle “unwanted attention from the authorities”. These encounters are always scary. Don't kid yourself otherwise. But by preparing a strategy beforehand and adopting the attitude that in the immortal words of Jason Bourne, “this isn't just some story in a newspaper. This is real”, you will give yourself the best chance of maintaining the maximum level of power over your circumstances possible.

Clare Swinney repeated some of the mistakes that I have made and some that my friends have made in other situations. So I will use her story to illustrate what I am talking about. Of course, it would make it easier to follow my arguments and recommendations if you have read Clare's story beforehand. It, too, is rather long I'm afraid, so take a cut lunch with you but save a sandwich for when you get back here!

I am going to use Clare's testimony of her reactions and behaviours as examples of what not to do. There will be a few “shoulds” in my advice. I do not mean this in any way as a criticism of Clare. We all learn the hard way most of the time. I certainly have. Clare has published this account of hers, so I assume she wants others to use it and benefit. And full marks to her for doing so! This takes courage. Though this scenario deals with a psychiatric committal, the tactics and advice can be generalised to many other threatening situations. Whether you agree with my points or not, I hope you will have benefited from thinking through this situation in advance.
So on to Clare's story then:-

Two social workers lobbed on Clare's front door step unannounced and wanted her to accompany them to a psychiatric hospital for assessment. She went with them: this is her first mistake. Instead of going with them, she should have asked to see the committal order. If none is forthcoming she should have gone back inside, closed the door and called a lawyer to get his/her arse down there asap. Never go with anyone against your will unless you have been arrested.

Secondly, never let anyone into your home unless they are a friend or they have a search warrant. It doesn't matter what your neighbours might think about 'white coats' or police standing outside your door! From this point onward, it is much more important what you think of yourself rather than what the neighbours might think of you. Non co-operation would have saved the day for Clare.

If and when you get a lawyer to turn up, you do not ask for advice so much as give him/her instructions. You tell them to go out there and get rid of the cops (or social workers) by asking to see the court order authorising your arrest, should you not have asked for this already and/ or not been shown it. They either have it or they don't. If they don't have it and your lawyer wants to negotiate with whomever is harassing you, ring for another lawyer. I'm serious. Lawyers, for the most part in my experience, are incompetent or have interests opposed to yours, or both. I'll come back to lawyers later.

Clare went on to say, “ I asked if my flatmate, Brian Kennedy could come with us and attest that I was fine and most certainly not suicidal.
I picked up my bag and appropriate evidence for the meeting.”

You don't have to prove you are not suicidal. They have to show you the authority to take you into custody. If they have that authority and you go with them, then it is the 'authorities' that have to prove they are justified in their treatment of you. Taking her magazine, Clare thought this would show she is not mistaken in her assertions re 9/11, therefore not insane and therefore not suicidal (all incorrect connections there i.e. mistakeness does not equate with insanity and insanity does not equate with suicidality). This worked against her because it distracted her from the issue of whether she was suicidal or not and allowed her oppressors later to avoid it, too.

It is important to establish what the issue is and keep this foremost in your mind.

Clare in taking the magazine is focusing on defending herself rather than demanding the social workers defend what they are doing i.e. the legality of the situation. Understandable enough, of course, if you are caught totally by surprise and haven't thought this possibility through beforehand. Never-the-less, it is her second mistake. The point, again, is to not co-operate with these people. It is in their interests to surprise you and rush you through their “process”. Never co-operate no matter what they threaten you with. These people are not on your side and never will be. They are paid by the State and you have to assume they will always do what they are told. That is what they are trained to do, after all. If they are rushing you or threatening you, count on whatever they want you to do as being totally against your interests, at the very least, and most probably illegal.

Two police turned up hot on the heels of the social workers. Police presence always implies the threat of arrest. People naturally want to avoid that and so tend to comply with whatever else the police might want to avoid being thought of as, or being treated as, a criminal. But you've already gone past that point. Never talk to the police under any circumstances. This is nicely reinforced by this law professor's talk via Distant Ocean (thanks for the link, Winter) giving many more reasons than I had ever thought of. Be sure to watch part 2 as well.

In Australia and the US, and I would assume in New Zealand, too, you do not have to talk to the police, period. They can threaten arrest, of course. Here's where you do something different. You say, “What's the charge?” You've called them on their threat. They will either back down and then have to leave or they will arrest you at which point you do not have to talk with them, anyway. If the police arrest you, you can be sure they were going to do it all along despite whatever else they might say. They have a license to lie, and they do. Some of them wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up out of their soup. Never rely on anything the police say. Check everything if and when you can.

The story continues,-
“At Whangarei Hospital, Brian and I were transferred into Ward 7, which is a secure, locked up area, and then herded into a meeting room, where we waited for several nail-biting minutes before the middle-aged psychiatric registrar, Dr Mothafar Abass entered and introduced himself. In a rather detached fashion, he advised that he would be conducting my suicide risk assessment, and then hurried through it, as if he was pressed for time.
Mindful that this was to determine whether I was to be committed under the Mental Health Act, I found his manner disturbing to say the very least. He didn’t appear to fully understand me, nor did he give me sufficient time to explain myself to a level appropriate for this kind of evaluation, and in one instance, he even spoke over me in a rush to get to the next question.”

What's wrong here? Clare is talking again. She is co-operating with the doctor: This is the third mistake. Clare doesn't realize she is slipping the noose over her own head here. She doesn't realize that the pompous fart interviewing her can't put the noose over her head himself. He needs her to do it for him. To that end, he's rushing her and not allowing her to think- “nor did he give me sufficient time to explain myself to a level appropriate for this kind of evaluation, and in one instance, he even spoke over me in a rush to get to the next question.”

To get a committal order, you need a doctors signature. Ordinarily the doctor signing the order is the treating doctor known to the 'patient'. What is going on here is this tool is establishing himself as the treating doctor. He can't do that without her co-operation. He subsequently detained her using her own words (after twisting them) as the justification. It is clear now that the social workers arrived on Clare's doorstep without a committal order. Again, non co-operation would have saved the day for Clare.

Clare describes sending 9/11 DVDs to teevee personnel and that this brought on the unwanted attention. Well, this is what is going to happen. Not only was she appealing to the wrong people (they are on the other side's team) but she was making a highly visible target of herself. I can only assume she thought the troubles were with a few “rogue elements” in the system not the whole system in its totality. Understanding the complete corruption of the whole system is vital to your longevity if you want to fight it. Automatically trusting police, lawyers, the legal system, media, psychologists and psychiatrists has led to a lot of grief for myself and friends. Believe me, it is all connected at the top and pressure can be brought down on anyone within the system. And the system includes all government departments and organisations, all corporations, most religious organisations and many community organisations and anyone dependent on any of them. Doesn't leave a lot, does it?

Clare then goes on to describe threatening emails and the threatening presence and behaviour of someone she believed (probably correctly) to be a member of the the government's 'intelligence' agency (SIS). The thing with threats of the nature that Clare describes is that if you were of enough trouble to them, you would just wake up dead one morning! Killing people is a hassle, though, even for the SIS, and there is always risk involved. Killing people also tends to make martyrs 'for the cause,' which is a cost to the system which needs to be weighed against the benefits. Killing people also tells many others surrounding the victim that there is an alternative world going on that is very different to the one on teevee and in the newspapers and to the one they were taught in school. The PTB do not want to break this spell. Their real purpose in intimidating people is to cause panic, to stop the activist doing whatever they were doing, or to continue on but in a fearful manner and upsetting their own judgement so much that they then aid in their own downfall.

If you are an activist and you are being threatened, and if you find yourself extremely fearful as a result, but you still feel committed to carrying on, I would advise you to beat a strategic retreat instead. At least until you feel confident in your ability to handle stressful encounters and think straight. If in doubt, take a break if you can, anyway. You don't want to be your own worst enemy. It's no disgrace. It's stupid to fight when you can't win and have a lot to lose when you have the option of walking away and saving your fight for another day.

Clare said further on:-
“Although I tried to get Dr Abass to listen to me about the context my statement was made in, my hopes sunk like a submarine when his body language indicated he’d stopped listening to me and his resolve to commit me was rapidly gathering momentum. . . .

. . . Nonetheless, to my horror, at my assessment’s completion, Dr Abass told me I would be held in the secure unit under the Mental Health Act for 5 days for further assessment. And as if this news wasn’t bad enough, he told me I hadn’t been threatened, I had misinterpreted the messages and that was because I was suffering from a delusional disorder. He said he was prescribing antipsychotic medication to combat this problem and as I was depressed, he told me I should go on a course of antidepressants also.”

If Clare had not talked to the doctor nor shown him the threatening emails, how would he be able to declare her delusional? If he can't determine she is delusional, how can he prescribe anti psychotic drugs? Without the anti psychotic drugs, it is much harder to manipulate Clare, which is the whole point of the exercise, after all.

Not understanding the all pervasiveness of the corruption of the system, Clare still expected common sense to prevail: the fourth mistake. She did not understand that this was all planned and that the personnel she would be dealing with would have been worded up as to what to do in advance. It's all a piece of theatre . . . . and she played her part on cue, as anyone would without prior knowledge of what is going on. If you ever find yourself being 'railroaded', expect everybody with authority that you think might help you to be “in on the gig”. Never co-operate. Don't play your part because they need you to play your part for it to work. If it were me in this situation, I'd hope I'd be stating simply and as calmly as I could manage that I will not be co-operating as I believe I am being held illegally and I will be seeking redress. If Clare had had enough alertness to the real situation, she might have asked, “have you been threatened over your residency status here in New Zealand by anyone, doctor?”, and sat back and enjoyed the 'stunned rabbit in the headlights' look! Who knows, she might have also given him that little look that says, “the gig's up, sport. I'm gonna tan your hide and hang it on the fence!”

At a minimum, you try and look like you are in control of yourself. They rely on you not being in control your emotions and therefore not in control of your thinking.

The next phase went like this-
“As a polite way of telling the staff to “piss off and leave me alone,” shortly after arriving I stuck a notice above my bed: ‘WHILE MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE BEING COMPROMISED LIKE THIS, PLEASE DO NOT EXPECT ME TO PARTAKE IN ANY SO-CALLED “TREATMENT”.’ Of course, it didn’t work. At night-time, I was forced to take Risperidone, a mind-altering medication administered to treat schizophrenia.”

Clare made a threat she did not enforce: the fifth mistake. Never make a threat you are not prepared to, or not able to, go through with. If you don't follow through then you lose respect in others' eyes and worse, you lose respect in your own eyes. Self respect is vital for survival in situations like this. It's far better to not make any specific threats; just do it if you are going to. What Clare did was warn the medical staff so they could prepare for the encounter in advance.

If you put the pills in your mouth and swallow them, it is much harder to convince a jury later that you were forced to take them than if you were held and injected with the 'medication'. The staff will know this. If anybody makes an overt threat to you, you have to “call 'em” on it. In this case, Clare should have called their threat to inject her by not co-operating. You cannot lose. Either they will inject you forcibly or they will not. If they don't, you have had a major win. If they do you will be forcing the staff to face squarely what they are doing. One or more may crumble in the face of this. You will also be in a better position later if you are able to sue them, as I have said. Even if you don't sue in the future, you will be better off in the present because you haven't “ratted out ” on yourself. By putting the pills in your mouth, you are agreeing to their abuse. That makes you complicit in it. You are telling them that it is okay. It consequently undoes your self respect. Better to resist and keep your self respect than to not resist at all and lose your self respect. Without self respect, you are weaker and much more vulnerable.

This whole scenario is about dominating your mind. Don't co-operate in it. State again as firmly but as calmly as you can that you do not agree with the treatment and you believe it is illegal and you will be seeking redress. (Don't say how. Though this is a threat, it is non specific. Leave it open and don't be drawn into discussing it. It's purpose is to sow doubt. Being non specific, it will better play on the fears of those not committed to the system. These will be the lowest ranks and if anybody is going to help you it will be the lower ranks, not the supervisors who have more to lose by bucking the orders from on high. It may be humiliating to be held down and injected but it won't be as humiliating as taking the pills yourself (voluntarily) and then looking back later and seeing how you caved in mentally.
The more Clare co-operates the more control she loses.

The next day, Clare is talking to the head psychiatrist, the medication is having its desired (by the doctors and those behind them) effect-
“In a beleaguered manner, as the Risperidone was making me drowsy, I tried to describe my frightening ordeal and show him my e-mails and my article, Why Does TVNZ Lie to Us About 9/11? but he wouldn’t even spare 10 seconds to lean over and look at them. He said he didn’t want to hear about them and told me I was “delusional” because I believed 9/11 was an inside job."

Because Clare had started out defending herself instead of demanding her assailants defend their actions, she is off on the wrong foot in tackling the psychiatrist. The issue is about her suicidality not delusional thinking. She has let him control the discourse. This is a repeat of the third mistake; co-operating with the doctor and his narrative/agenda. She is reacting all the time and on the backfoot. You can't win from there. If you let your opponent control the narrative, you lose. By not co-operating, by not talking except to say you are being held illegally, you control the narrative and the interaction, though it may not seem like it at first. Again, she would have been much better off simply stating that she believes she has been detained illegally and that she will be seeking redress. And that's it.

You get what you want by posing the possibility that it will be more painful for them to continue to hold you than to release you. Raising the illegality issue puts him on notice. You have to assume that all 'authorities' in this situation have been leaned on, i.e. there will be penalties for them if they don't work against your interests. Appealing to their supposed good natures is not a winning strategy. Appealing to their sense of self preservation is.

All the apparatchiks in these hierarchies know that if the shit hits the fan people like them will be the first to be fed into this same fan if it all gets too hard to protect the higher ups. It's worth remembering that what they are doing is illegal and they know it. You don't have to get their agreement to anything you say. Don't get into a conversation. You just need to put it out there. You just need to hear yourself say it. You just need him to hear it. You are asserting the truth of the situation, your own mental strength and sanity. After this point, the less you say the better and by doing so the more you are in charge of not only yourself but anyone who tries to interact with you.

The story then progresses to a legal hearing. It is notable that the issue for the doctors at the hearing (and unfortunately for Clare, her own father, too) is delusional thinking and only towards the end does Clare introduce the fact that the issue is suicidality. What she finds out later (and not from her lawyer) is that she was, indeed, being held illegally.

Also notable is that the junior doctor reneged on his support for Clare when it was show time. And so did her own lawyer. This is worth repeating – and so did her own lawyer! This is not uncommon. People forget that even though you pay your lawyer, you, as a client, will be gone very soon but the lawyer needs to live on within the system for years to come. This is the sixth mistake. Many (if not most) lawyers will defer to the system and those in charge rather than do what they are payed for – defend you and your interests to the bitter end. There's also straight out incompetence, of course. Lawyers know that most clients haven't a clue what their lawyer should be doing for them and therefore have no way to assess their performance except for reflecting back on that sickening feeling the client gets walking out of the hearing or the court afterwards of, “WTF happened in there!!"

So, to sum up:-
Don't let anyone other than friends into your house without a warrant.
Never talk to the police or anybody attempting to function with that power under any circumstances.
Never go with anybody against your will unless you have been arrested
and then-
Never co-operate in your own hanging. Force them to use force.
Always call them on their threats towards you.
Never make threats in return unless they are vague, lawful and down the line time wise.
Save everything you have till you get to court. Assume that is where you are going.
If you are reasonably intelligent and articulate, defend yourself. Pay lawyers for advice (and check it) but never let them talk for you at a hearing or in court.

Oh, and never sign anything!

Your greatest ally in circumstances like Clare Swinney's is your own sense of worth. You preserve it best by resisting their mental domination. And the best and ultimately safest way to do that is through non co-operation with your oppressors and making sure some sensible ally of yours knows of your situation.

Or the Readers Digest version, - KKK:-
Keep breathing,
Keep thinking and
Keep your mouth shut!

There's a couple of counter intuitive statements in the foregoing I know and I haven't explained everything because of space, so questions are welcome.


Thanks, James

Another very good piece. I wish I were coherent enough to make a more detailed comment, and maybe when I wake up I will be able to do so, but for the moment I just wanted to say THANKS for starting my day off with a constructive jolt!

McJ's picture

Great Post James

Great post James with lots of great advice. Having had my 'heyday' in the 60's I have still retained a healthy dose of suspicion for authority. When I read her article I kept wondering "Why did she go with them in the first place if they weren't arresting her?" I'd like to think I would have insisted on a lawyer but when you are taken by surprise like she was I know it would be hard to think what to do. So, thanks for giving as all a set of instructions for what to do if we ever so unfortunate as to find ourselves in a position such as Claire's. I was also wondering if anyone knows what the laws concerning this are in Canada because how you react would be dependent on knowing what your rights are and these can differ from country to country. People in Canada have a tendency to think we have the same laws (rights) as they do in the US (from watching too much American TV I suspect. smiling ).

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

too much American TV?

It's certainly possible.

This much is sure:
There's no such thing as too little American TV.


Another great post James. I have pdf'd it, will print it and read it over every so often. You might well have saved me a lot of anx so thanx in advance.

You're welcome

thanks very much for the kind words, folks. I sure hope it does save someone some grief down the line.
It's a whole different world out there to what they teach you in school. I think that is the great beauty of the internet.

The shitheads get to rule mainly through ignorance so a little knowledge can make a big difference. In a sense, it is all stuff we know mostly but just laying it out and connecting it gives it added meaning, I think.

How Do We Stop Them

I just did my usual try and tell someone about 911 and 1 world government and met with some polite ( usually its derisive) resistance. Anyway in the end she said it was too scary to think about and how would we stop them anyway. One very important thing people around the world can do is oppose any more countries moving to electronic voting. Where election processes are still working there is the possibility for change. I really think more people are aware now about what is happening and if they realise that electronic voting and stopping it could hold the key to slowing the advance of a new world order then they will have something to fight for. This is a front that those outside the US can still possibly defend at this stage.

Stopping them

I know others here disagree, but I think voting is a waste of time given the nature of the 'two party' system because both parties are run by the same people now. When the Whitlam government was thrown out here in Oz by the CIA and the local compradore class in the seventies, I thought then that this system is bullshit and haven't bothered with it since. And it's only gotten worse since then. An awful lot of energy is poured into it and, frankly, I think that is one of its main purposes for those that run things; to absorb and contain the energy for change. "Make your vote count for change (you can believe in). Here, blow in this bag"! That's how I see it anyway wink

I think it is better to attack the credibility of those who would rule us. And given that our universal enemy is the psychopaths, talk to people about the nature and prevalence of psychopathy and where all too many of these sickos end up in our society i.e. in power. It is knowledge people can use in their every day life (you know, the bitch that's running the school tuck shop, never mind the lawyer they used last year!) as well as undermining the authority of the PTB.

Educating people about the Swine Flu scam and vaccination, similarly is both knowledge people can use today in their lives and has a flow on effect in unveiling hidden govt agendas.

Radically changing the politics is not going to happen overnight, unfortunately. People need first to be able to see through the deception and the best way is through something that impacts on their personal lives and benefits them today.
Ultimately, the system is dependent on deception; not guns or courts or jails or even Diebold voting machines.

For a more long term view, I've written suggestions here and here

There's their own incompetence working for us, too. An inevitable side effect of corruption is incompetence. Not everything they plan works out. For example, the One World Currency seems to have stalled, for the time being anyway.

James - I agree

I do agree that the 2 party system is pointless even in NZ. Our labour party were marginally better than National. However as things deteriorate this might change. If you still have your voting system in tact at that point there may be a chance of electing someone outside that 2 party system. If we change to electronic before that point then there is not much chance of doing anything at all if and when people are ready for change.

Opportunity Cost

Sally, I'm coming mainly from the idea of "opportunity cost" which is an economic concept that takes into account of the 'profit' you miss when engaged in doing something else, thought it may be 'profitable', it is less so. The difference is your opportunity cost.

Besides, the elections have been rigged (from my observations) for sometime in Australia, anyway. Why wouldn't they be? Anyway, I add this by way of explanation of how I see it rather than criticism of how you see it. And who knows how it will pan out?

How are OZ Elections Rigged?

How have they rigged your elections in OZ James? I know media manipulation controls peoples choices but are peoples ballots disapearing or what?

Getting stiffed

Hi Sally. First up, I don't know how it was done only that it looked like it was and that these people have the resources and motivation to do it. So by applying Occam's Razor which says that the simplest answer that fits all the known facts is almost certainly the correct one, I can say that the last election but one i.e. the one Howard got re-elected was almost certainly rigged. He was deeply unpopular and had been for a long time and pulled the scam of “truth overboard” (a scandal familiar to Oz electors). All the lies were exposed in spite of the biased press coverage, yet Howard/Liberal Party was returned. A few months prior to this election some fellow (can't remember his name) from Bush/Cheney team who headed up their (fraudulent) re-election came over and spent time with the Howard re-election team.
The Labor Federal Member round here is very popular and actually hard working for the electors and was expected to carry the day regardless of party politics. Everybody expected him to walk in. Everybody was shocked when he lost including his Liberal opponent who said exactly that when interviewed by the local rag.

The Labor member was returned in the following (the last) election when Rudd was elected. Before that election, Cheney comes over to talk to Rudd. The only reason I can think of that Cheney might do that is if he wants to convey a message that cannot be conveyed by other means other than face to face and get an agreement in private. The obvious topic would be Afghanistan.

But the biggest factor in asserting that elections are rigged is that it stands to reason that they would be. If I were to say that the Las Vegas casinos when run by the mafia did not declare all their revenue to the IRS, would anyone doubt me? Why not? Because we know the mafia people concerned have the resources to do it, have clear motivation to do it and it is entirely in character for them to do it.

The same goes for the architects of the New World Order (for want of a better name). They have unlimited resources at their command and a lot of control already. They have a track record of having no scruples and it is imperative for them that a country like Australia does not wander off the reservation.

That's it. I can't prove it but who needs to? You have to make these sorts of assessments when deciding where to commit your resources.

Speaking of committing resources, this might be a good time to say I'm taking some of my own advice and will be taking a mental holiday from all this for a while.

Its a lost cause then :(

Thanks for that James. You take a lot of trouble with your comments ( maybe it comes naturally )which are always infformative and enjoyable. It does seem to be almost a lost cause sad They have their man Key sorted over here and I'd imagine we'll have evoting or another riggable system soon. You've earned a break and actually you can have one if you bloody well want one. Its your choice. I don't do much here just pester people for information really smiling but feel the need for a break also.

psychiatry is an arm of the state

thanks for this great yet scary piece, James. You said : "Understanding the complete corruption of the whole system is vital to your longevity if you want to fight it", which is right on. I include psychiatry in this system, as it's a very powerful and insidious arm of the state, make no mistake about it.

There's nothing more dangerous than talking to a shrink. Once the "diagnosis" is made, you are kicked out of reality, your rights vanish into thin air more quickly than if you were a good old "enemy combattant": try to defend yourself, that's paranoid personality disorder, ask questions and you are refusing treatment.

It's a very bad place to be, once you're in that cage. And it doesn't take much to include criticism of the state into that category - think of how quickly psychiatry created diseases over the past 20 years, think of how many feelings, opinions and actions have been filed under psychiatric symptoms, and you get a picture of what psychiatry is for. Money AND control.

If it weren't bad enough, psychiatry is a billion dollar industry, hence locking you up and drugging you up is a profitable activity just like dropping bombs on civilians. That's a powerful incentive, on top of controlling dissent.


Thanks Cryptic. Psychiatry (like all the professions and all government organs) is corrupt; no question. Do a search on "Ewen Cameron" for instance, and follow the leads down into the abyss. (Check my spelling if you have trouble). They have a long history of working hand in glove with the various alphabet agencies. All the mind control programs and all the systematized torture programs wouldn't exist without the involvement of psychiatrists. Psychologists aren't exempt either.

This is not to say, of course, that all practitioners are personally corrupt but you must start out with that as a distinct possibility and hold that view until you have strong evidence to change your mind. I have had my share of troubles with the profession but also have received invaluable (probably life saving) help from one psychiatrist. Needless to say, she agrees with you and me about the nature of her own profession.

It is interesting to note that in Australia psychiatrists are not trained in counselling during their formal training unless they take extracuricular studies in Freudian Analysis. Analysis is ok if you are Woody Allen but worse than useless if you happen to be anybody else, nevermind being a trauma survivor. (Freud traded truth for fame and glory)

Psychiatrists are also not trained in, and are therefore not qualified to make diagnoses of mental illnesses; believe it or not! Only Clinical Psychologists are trained and qualified to do this. However, Clinical Psychologists are not qualified to prescribe drugs; only psychiatrists can do that! (Not that I am endorsing drugs, though)

And these types presume to adjudicate over what constitutes mental health. Phhhhaaaarrkk!

Link for Cryptic

Aangirfan has a post up which has a lot of info and links on psychiatrists and mind control you may be interested in, Ewen Cameron gets a mention. (I was going to mention Tavistock Institute the other day. It's there, too, along with a host of others!)
Search their site for stuff on Jersey while you are there. More stuff on organised child abuse, the System and what we can now call 'Swat' operations.

Thanks for the link

Thanks for the link James.I've read quite a few things about Cameron, some of it in "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, and elsewhere on the web.

I know there are honest psychiatrists, my concern is more with the way it's used by the state, in its "official" forms (links between the American Psychiatric Association and torture, a relationship that goes way back to Cameron himself, links between psychiatry and big pharma, etc.).

Re Swat

This is great, McJ. I'll comment more on it later. And from a lawyer, too. I just knew there had to be a good one out there wink

McJ's picture

I found it via Catherine

I found it via Catherine Austin Fitts blog. I would have linked to her but I had saved the article and I couldn't find it again on her blog. I find some good stuff over there and her blog might make a good addition to our BlogRoll.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

The System

That article is such a great find, McJ. Thank you very much again for putting it up.
I am currently helping two people (separate cases) who are targets of these "Swat" type operations. Behind both operations are satanists.
Many of these people are able to communicate across professions and industries and government agencies via groups such as the Masons (and satanic cults, of course). An old girlfriend of mine once told me her grandfather, a Supreme Court judge at the time, once quipped to her that he was the only judge on the Supreme Court bench who wasn't a Mason. That's how you get advancement in the law. The police have their very own lodge! A neighbour's son had to quit the police force to escape harassment and persecution because he would not partake in corruption. He wasn't whistleblowing, he just didn't want any part of it. What does that tell you?

Few people realise just how bad the situation is. I even doubt many of the corrupt participants in all this shit know how bad it is. Little wonder whistleblowers get so beat up. The only thing that limits the perps is widespread public exposure that they can't control; which isn't much!

The moral for me is to not make a high profile target of yourself and work at the grassroots level. Don't battle the shitheads; go round them and just help those that need help. Gradually, the rising level of community awareness will make it possible to do something about the structure of it all. But not until then. Well, that's my take on it, anyway.

McJ's picture

James RE: SWAT

She really doesn't pull any punches in the article and I especially liked her conclusions. While she hints at the true nature of the problem during the body of the essay with statements such as: "the limits of the adversary’s moral character, if any" (which I read as psychopath) and " [an attorney] needs to develop the ability to think as the adversary thinks (which, of course, presents a true danger to the attorney’s own moral character and peace of mind)", plus framing the SWAT in terms of the seven deadly sins. She just comes flat out and tells you what she believes is going on in her conclusion. There is a "evil force", a "beast", "He Who Cannot Be Named", behind these SWAT operations and the only way to deal with it is to recognize it for what it is and "confront the eye of the beast frontally". Seeking revenge or restitution is not the way to defeat it (by this I assume she means you would just move towards the evil, play into it's hand so to speak). So, the way to defeat it is to align yourself with the forces of good, have a "higher purpose".

It is actually a rather astounding conclusion for her to write and brave I might add. I would be most curious to read more of her thoughts on what she considers to be a "legal way to fight the evil forces...which is largely spiritual".

I find this all very interesting, especially after learning of your experiences James and how you have dealt, and are dealing, with them.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Spiritual battle

It is, indeed, a spiritual battle and the point of it all is the destruction of humankind. Satan's method is to use humans to do it because he can't of himself. This is why it needs to hide behind and operate through the myriad psychopaths in our midst. The psychopaths, in turn, like to hide behind patsies and organisations and societal structures wherever possible. Once this is seen, everything becomes a lot simpler to understand and counter.

Jesus referred to "the World" (that is, the spirit or the ambitions of organised society, the culture, if you like) as being counter to his kingdom and referred also to satan as the Prince of this World. Hello-o-oo! So why don't Christians make the connection? Because they are led away from this by their own leaders which tells you all you need to know about appealing for help from that quarter. The churches function as part of the “World” and all that that entails.
The Law is largely useless or worse, too, for the same reason. Jesus even said to avoid going to court!

Seeking revenge is to put yourself in the same mindset of the enemy. You don't want to go there. Somewhere (it may even be in the bible somewhere!) it has been written, “Holding violence in your heart is the same as clutching a viper to your chest”. There is a wealth of wisdom in that saying. And this is the approach I have been forced, (kicking and screaming !), to adopt to survive physically, psychologically and spiritually. I am talking about non-violence and non-hatred (if that's a word) not pacifism. I am in the same camp in this as Gandhi and even Jesus.

Seeking restitution is also extremely problematic. It is no different to complaining to the Mafia for restitution of property stolen by one of their members and doing it loudly in public. What do you think the outcome will be? What almost all whistleblowers and all victims of all sorts of crimes don't understand is that all the organisations and all the forums belong to the enemy. Getting victims to understand this, and Lucille Compton referred to it, is hair pulling stuff, believe me. And I started out this way, too. Understanding this one point can save a ton of grief and even lives.

It is paramount to survive; then educate those around you about psychopathy and its organisation throughout our society and encourage them to spread the circle of knowledge wider.
Retreat when you need to as it can only be fought as a guerrilla war. And following spiritually sound principles and practice which also means taking a close look at anything that might be illegal in your own life for your own safety and those dependent on you.

I am totally against the

I am totally against the injustice done to Clare Swinney as she was sent to the psychiatric hospital forcibly. I truly acknowledge the courage of Clare Swinney as she exposed the truth of 9/11.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.