New Freedom Initiative one of those things under discussed

by **yesferatu** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:15 pm

because so much else is being implemented, it is a casualty in the battle to stay aware of everything going on. This relates to the Bush psych screening program.... I may be addressing a few things already quite familiar to you with this issue, but really, think about it: what if Clinton had stated he wants to start getting all americans psychiatrically evaluated, and has come up with just such a program. Woe! would be an understatement. Yet in bizarro-Bush world it is reported and nothing in reaction close to that nor any reaction that one would have expected. And maybe it is because SO much else is/was going on. I dunno. While I am not a fan of Cruises' woo-woo scientolgy anti-psych rants, the anti-pychiatry movement is worth researching, especially when the cthulhu we call the Bush family interests, as always, leads us into yet another Bushian sphere of influence which leads to yet another pile-on of "WTF is going on"?: <<Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, wrote a whistleblower report in which he stated that behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission was the “political/pharmaceutical alliance” that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antipsychotics and antidepressants. He further claimed that this unholy alliance was “poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab.” In an article in the British Medical Journal, Jones shows that many companies who helped launch TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) are also major contributors to Bush’s re-election funds. For example, Eli Lilly manufactures olanzapine. This is one of the drugs recommended in the New Freedom plan. Lilly has numerous ties to the Bush administration according to the British Medical Journal. It says George Herbert Walker Bush was once a member of Lilly’s board of directors. Our current President Bush appointed Lilly’s chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, as a member of the Homeland Security Council. Eighty-two percent of Lilly’s $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000 went to Bush and the Republican Party.>> <a href="http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=830">here</a> The whistleblower report is <a href="http://psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf">here</a> <<On a website describing the Take Back America conference in June of 2003, Moyers is paraphrased: “[The Bush Administration] would privatize public services in order to enrich the corporate interests that fund campaigns and provide golden parachutes to pliable politicians. If unchecked, the result of these machinations will be the dismantling of every last brick of the social contract…. I think this is a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America.” The destruction of America is evident in many ways. Do not be fooled; the Bushites intend to control all they can, and if that can include your brain, they will do it. If Big Pharma benefits, all the better. The New Freedom Initiative is an early step toward both, and $20 million has already been set aside to implement the initiative.>> <a href="http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=830">here</a> <<TORREY & STANLEY FOUNDATION LINK TO BUSH, AND PENTAGON There are other financial links that need to be discussed. While there is no evidence the military is directly involved in funding the implant research, they have an indirect connection. It's time to talk about something that many of us have avoided, because we may sound crazy. But I have to bring the subject up: It is a matter of public record that both E. Fuller Torrey and the Stanley Foundation have direct connections with the US Defense Department through the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Wait -- Before any wild speculation about Defense Department mind control experiments, I have some very practical and reasonable and down to Earth questions: Why -- why -- is any taxpayer money going to anything associated with a special interest group that actively lobbies for more forced drugging, a group that is actively engaged in research on bizarre mind control implants? How can the Stanley Foundation pretend to be an objective scientific organization, when the group they created and largely fund -- TAC -- is actively lobbying state legislatures and Congress for their extremist plans of more forced psychiatry? And why should my taxpayer money help support or be associated with this anti-Freedom activism in any way, shape or form? Why is Torrey still a part-time employee of the Defense Department, through the Uniformed Services University? See a piece BELOW from the Stanley Foundation itself about their connection to the Uniformed Services University, which is part of the Defense Dept. This is where Stanley and Torrey keep their precious, huge collection of brains for experiments. They even make a weak joke about their "brain bank." There is also a link below showing Torrey as a current Defense Dept. faculty member. The Bush Administration cannot claim ignorance about Torrey's and the Stanley Foundation's anti-freedom fanatacism. The Bush Administration has already made it clear that they support pro forced psychiatry extremists. Bush appointed a close colleague of Torrey, psychiatrist Sally Satel from the American Enterprise Institute, to a key advisory mental health advisory position in the Bush Administration. Both of the Cheney's are said to be close to Dr. Satel [see links below]. The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health paid lip service to the idea of empowerment and self-determination... but meanwhile Drs. Satel and Torrey may be the real face of the Bush mental health policy. So it's also time to ask: Exactly what kind of support is the Defense Department giving to organizations promoting actual, documented mind control implant experiments? >> <a href="http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/implant_2.shtml">mindfreedom</a> <<And there is this Tidbit: Alexander Cockburn, in both the Nation and the New Statesman, was one of the first to connect the dots between the Bush family and Eli Lilly. After George Herbert Walker Bush left his CIA director post in 1977 and before becoming vice president under Ronald Reagan in 1980, he was on Eli Lilly’s board of directors. As vice president, Bush failed to disclose his Lilly stock and lobbied hard on behalf of Big Pharma—especially Eli Lilly. For example, Bush sought special tax breaks from the IRS for Lilly and other pharmaceutical corporations that were manufacturing in Puerto Rico. Cockburn also reported on Mitch Daniels, then a vice president at Eli Lilly, who in 1991 co-chaired a fundraiser that collected $600,000 for the Bush-Quayle campaign. This is the same Mitch Daniels who in 2001 became George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget. In June 2003, soon after Daniels departed from that job, he ran for governor of Indiana (home to Eli Lilly headquarters). In a piece in the Washington Post called “Delusional on the Deficit,” Senator Ernest Hollings wrote, “When Daniels left two weeks ago to run for governor of Indiana, he told the Post that the government is ‘fiscally in fine shape.’ Good grief! During his 29-month tenure, he turned a so-called $5.6 trillion, 10-year budget surplus into a $4 trillion deficit—a mere $10 trillion downswing in just two years. If this is good fiscal policy, thank heavens Daniels is gone.” There is much more to this very detailed article.>> <a href="http://psychwatch.blogspot.com/2004/05/eli-lilly-zyprexa-bush-family.html">link</a> Anti-psychiatry did not start with Tom Cruise nor monopolized by scientologists. <<Coming to the fore in the 1960s, anti-psychiatry (a term first used by David Cooper in 1967) defined a movement that vocally challenged the fundamental claims and practices of mainstream psychiatry. Psychiatrists R.D. Laing, Theodore Lidz, Silvano Arieti and others argued that schizophrenia could be understood as an injury to the inner self inflicted by psychologically invasive, “schizophrenogenic” parents. Arieti won the American National Book Award in the field of science for his work Interpretation of Schizophrenia, in which he rejects the medical model of schizophrenia and advances instead a psychological approach to the disorder. Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz argued that “mental illness” is an inherently incoherent combination of a medical and a psychological concept, but popular because it legitimizes the use of psychiatric force to control and limit deviance from societal norms. Adherents of this view referred to “the myth of mental illness” after Szasz's controversial book of that name. (Even though the movement originally described as anti-psychiatry became associated with the general counter-culture movement of the 1960s, Szasz, Lidz and Arieti never became involved in that movement.) Michel Foucault, Erving Goffman and others criticized the power and role of psychiatry in society, including the use of “total institutions”, “labeling” and stigmatizing [4]. The novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest became a bestseller, resonating with public concern about forced medication, lobotomy and electroshock procedures used to control patients.>> One of the nmaes mentioned is R.D. Laing. This guy is interesting. <<Laing is often regarded as an important figure in the anti-psychiatry movement, along with David Cooper and Michel Foucault. However, like many of his contemporaries, labelling him as 'anti-psychiatry' is a caricature of his stated views. Laing never denied the value of treating mental distress, but simply wanted to challenge the core values of contemporary psychiatry which considered (and some would say still considers) mental illness as primarily a biological phenomenon of no intrinsic value.>> Take his view on madness, whic is very Phillip K Dickian in a sense: <<Laing argued that the strange behaviour and seemingly confused speech of people undergoing a psychotic episode were ultimately understandable as an attempt to communicate worries and concerns, often in situations where this was not possible or not permitted. Laing stressed the role of society, and particularly the family, in the development of madness. He argued that individuals can often be put in impossible situations, where they are unable to conform to the conflicting expectations of their peers, leading to a 'lose-lose situation' and immense mental distress for the individuals concerned. (In 1956, Gregory Bateson articulated a related theory of schizophrenia as stemming from Double Bind situations.) Madness was therefore an expression of this distress, and should be valued as a cathartic and transformative experience.>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry">here</a> He wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039471475X/sr=8-1/qid=1149628062/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3926825-0756141?%5Fencoding=UTF8">The Politics of Experience</a> nearly forty years ago. Here is a sample: "All those people who seek to control the behavior of large numbers of other people work on the experiences of those other people. Once people can be induced to experience a situation in a similar way, they can be expected to behave in similar ways. Induce people all to want the same thing, hate the same thing, feel the same threat, then their behavior is already captive - you have acquired your consumers or your cannon-fodder." In this society the anti-psychiatry movement is imprortant to consider in fighting the peculiar brand of fascism now entrenching itself in the corpse of the USA. Hopefully, no one takes this the wrong way. I am not condemning anyone for seeing a psychiatrist or having a shrink. And if meds helped you, I can agree that they may have been positive. I just want to bring up some discussion. Has anyone noticed how whenever an arrested Bush protestor is reported, the article always mentions court ordered psychiatric evaluation as an element to their release?

by **blanc** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:31 am

In the UK I believe there is consideration of changing the post hospitalisation treatment of mental patients towards introducing ways of forcing compliance with medication. This, like so many erosions of freedom, has some root in genuine care. Patients do not always comply with medication - usually because of unwanted side effects, and sometimes their condition deteriorates because of this. But several questions are raised. Use of medication for mental illness has IMHO slowed down research into the causes of mental illness. In schizophrenia, for example, there have been other 'models' and treatments, which are mainly ignored. The connection between child abuse and serious mental illness is known, but has not led to increased effort to fight organised paedophile crime - instead the victims are offered a pill. Resources for treatment programmes are sometimes funded by drug companies, research is drug company led. Forced medication for deviant behaviour (usually a tranquilising drug) leads us directly to soviet style psychiatry. The psychiatric medication of children, eg ritalin - is alarming.

by **yesferatu** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:16 pm

<<By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer Mon Jun 19, 6:48 PM ET WASHINGTON - A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position. ADVERTISEMENT The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.>> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays_1">yahoo</a>

New Freedom Initiative one of those things under discussed

New Freedom Initiative one of those things under discussed

force

saw this today

Who is online