This is the second post in my three-part series on #Mental-Illness

1. What is Mental Illness Today

2. What is Psychiatry? - Sigmund's Fraud Explorers

3. What is Schizophrenia? And why are we abusing our Shamans?

In this post I'll be exploring what psychiatry really is in my view, and also trying be introducing you all to #Anti-Psychiatry.

---

What is Psychiatry?

---

Wikipedia's definition

Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study, and treatment of mental disorders. These include various maladaptations related to mood, behaviour, cognition, and perceptions. Initial psychiatric assessment of a person typically begins with a case history and mental status examination.

Okay, nothing new here. I think we all know what psychiatry is.

Are Psychiatrists and Therapists the Same?

Psychiatrists today are responsible for diagnosing mental disorders and prescribing drugs.
They differ from therapists in that they are licensed doctors in the medical profession and can prescribe mind-altering drugs. They also do little in the wake of talk-therapy the way that a therapist/psychologist does. Psychologists are not doctors and are merely trained in psychology in order to offer non-invasive therapies. They're people we can confess our thoughts and feelings to. So basically Rabis/Priests/Imams/Gurus.

---

Psychiatrists are not therapists, though it seems people often confuse the two.
Psychiatrists' chief occupation is to perform psychiatric evaluations. They will get out their charts and their notepads, and ask patients to answer questions. Based on whether the ''patient'' offers the right or wrong answers, the psychiatrist will determine whether he is mentally ill or not. It is essentially a purely arbitrary way of diagnosing people who suffer from mental disorders.

Wikipedia defines it in this way:

A psychiatric assessment, or psychological screening, is a process of gathering information about a person within a psychiatric service, with the purpose of making a diagnosis. The assessment is usually the first stage of a treatment process, but psychiatric assessments may also be used for various legal purposes. The assessment includes social and biographical information, direct observations, and data from specific psychological tests.

Psychiatry today has been worked up into such a precise 'science', that these days psychiatric evaluations are really cut-and-dry, cookie-cutter routine exams.

You check x amounts of boxes, and you get lumped into one category or another of mental illness, and the 'doctor' makes his 'diagnosis'.

---

So what happens when I've been 'diagnosed' with a mental illness by a psychiatrist*?

---

Short answer: You get your meds.

What meds?

Well, the most popular variety of meds prescribed these days are antidepressants.

''Antidepressants are a class of drugs that reduce symptoms of depressive disorders by correcting chemical imbalances of neurotransmitters in the brain. Chemical imbalances may be responsible for changes in mood and behavior.''
Source.

---

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibators (SSRIs/Antidepressants) can reduce the symptoms of depression by essentially making more serotonin available in the brain.

FDA-Approved brands of SSRIs :

• Citalopram (Celexa)
• Escitalopram (Lexapro)
• Fluoxetine (Prozac)
• Paroxetine (Paxil, Pexeva)
• Sertraline (Zoloft)
• Vilazodone (Viibryd)

---

Are these drugs helpful?

Well, that depends who you ask.

Head over to a mainstream website like webmd's ''Fears and Facts about Antidepressants'' page, and you will instantly be ''reassured'' that these drugs are nothing out of the ordinary, and have very positive results.

WebMD also made $10,977,280 in ad-revenue in 6 months. I wonder where that money comes from? People who alledgedly worked there will tell you:

PHARMA.

That's right. Every time we run to those big health publishers like WedMD, Lifescript and Healthline to self-diagnose, they get ad-revenue from Big Pharma.

The Wall-Street Journal reported that their ad-revenue keeps increasing at a pace similar to its unspecified 'double-digit' increases in user-traffic every quarter.

Do you really want to ask your drug dealer whether his product is safe or not? Whether he's got the good shit? Seems like there might be a conflict of interest.

Instead of asking the pharmaceutical companies what the effects of their drugs are, why not ask a fellow person who suffers from depression?

Head over to the hundreds of online forums such as depressionforums.org, socialanxietysupport.com, drugs-forum.com, or even Reddit, and read the literally countless threads started by people who report these drugs have had no positive effect on them after taking them for years..

You will start to get the picture.

People refer to this as the 'Zombie Effect'.

---

Commonly experienced side effects include:

Drowsiness

Nausea

Dry mouth

Insomnia

Diarrhea

Nervousness, agitation or restlessness

Dizziness

Sexual problems (every sort, absence of healthy libido, erectile dyfunction, etc)

Headache

Blurred vision

Though some people do report sometimes finding a drug that has no side-effect (although quite rare when trying the first kind of SSRI), many people perpetually experience side-effects with these drugs.

---

---

Doing some more research, I just read an incredibly chilling article entitled Should we Aim for Cured, Doing Better, Or Still Working on It written by Ed Jones, PhD and published in the 2016 Summer Edition of Behavioral Healthcare Insight for Executives Magazine, p.11.

This is a publication targeted for an audience of healthcare executives.

---

The author's piece starts by explaining how since the days of ''Freud, [his profession has spent most of its history] proclaiming how unique [their] work is and how difficult it is to measure [their] results, or how [they] just proclaim their excellence based on case-studies''. Am hardly able to disagree with him there.

My red-flag went off when his article mentioned the ACA and how new governmental guidelines had been created in order to ''incentivize'' the treatment of the mentally ill. (You can read my post about what I think of Obamacare here.)

The chilling part about the article was what he calls the 1-20-50 mnemonic. Let me break those 3 figures down for you.

• The 1 makes reference to an article published by Health Affairs. The article offered a new analysis showing that mental health was the costliest medical condition in the United States, estimating that the US spent over '' $201 billion on mental disorders like depression and anxiety in 2013'', as HuffPost reported. Kinda makes you think the drug companies could pay WebMD a bit more for their pro-prozac stance, no?
  This makes mental illness the Number '1' most profitable sector in the for-profit healthcare market in the United States. The author highlighted than in the absence of metrics, and with such a profitable industry, it was time for the psychiatric profession to in his words ''Show we are effective and we need to become serious business people, given the significant dollars at risk to win or to lose''.

Yup, a PhD in psychiatry, a real paragon of sanity in our ever-so sane and without a problem world!

• The 20 makes reference to what Milliman Benefits revealed years ago, namely that ''over 20% of total healthcare costs are driven by depression and anxiety''. Yup. Drug dealers. Who doesn't love that sweet-sweet drug mullah baby?

• The 50 here is actually the most frightening figure given the real hidden agenda of the ACA. I know my man @perceptualflaws will get where I'm going with this. The government Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Hah!) reported a few years back that ''The Average US Citizen has a 50% chance of experiencing a behavioral healthcare disorder in his or her lifetime''. (Yeah I wonder why that is in the Slavepublic of the Incorporated States of America).
  Now you may ask, what's so scary about that? If you translate that into plain English, what they're saying is that if you live, work and participate in the US economy, there's a 50% chance that your employer or some other 'manager' (in or of?) your life is going to accuse you of being mentally ill and you will be forced to eat mind-altering drugs for a period of no less than 9 months if you want to keep your job, dummy.

Does that seem too outlandish to say? Actually since that fiasco with the German 'mentally-ill' pilot flying his airliner into the mountain (was that one a psy-ops? I wouldn't be surprised), it has sparked a huge 'debate' about employee privacy rights vs. employers' ''right to know''.

In 2012, ''the federal appeals court covering Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan issued a decision that ruled an employer can violate the ADA by requiring a distressed employee to seek counseling. Counseling can be a "medical exam" under the ADA. '' Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority, 6th Cir. No. 10-2348.

Business owners who employ 15 employees or more are subject to the regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to Cornell University's Employment and Disability Institute, an employer is allowed to require an employee to have a medical exam, including a mental evaluation, as long as the reasoning for the exam is job related and deemed a business necessity. Another legal consideration when requiring a mental evaluation of an employee is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act commonly. This act protects a person's privacy in relation to medical issues. HIPAA does not prevent employers from requiring mental evaluations but does state that while you as an employer can ask direct questions regarding an employee's health, the employee must agree that the information can be disclosed. Source

I think the grown-ups here can all see where this is heading.

First it starts with the military, then the police, then the courts, and in the end, corporations will be able to require a psychiatric evaluation for all of their employees, and if it is deemed that we are mentally ill? They'll be able to force people taking medication or deny them employment.

---

Eventually, when the world becomes so fucked up and warped that we've seriously begun to lose our humanity, they will start putting next-generation SSIRs in the drinking water.

---

---

Before Moving on With the History of Psychiatry - A Short Preface

---

Freud distinguished between primary (id) and secondary (ego) cognitive systems and proposed that the id, or unconscious, was characterized by a free exchange of neural energy and more primitive or animistic thinking. It was the job of the ego, the conscious mind, to minimize that free energy, to “bind” it and thereby regulate the impulses of the unconscious. It was Freud’s attempt to “link the workings of the unconscious mind to behavior,” says Joseph T. Coyle, M.D., chair of psychiatry and neuroscience at Harvard School of Medicine/McLean Hospital and a Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives member.

Source

Okay, that passage is going to be really interesting if you keep reading on. I'm about to blow the door wide-open on the Occult Nature of Modern Psychology, thereby exposing the Fraud that was Freud (Okay-It's maybe a shitty pun but I can't express how fucking wrong I think Fraud's position is on a spiritual level. To me it reflects something that's very very wrong with Man's Spirituality today).

I'm also probably unintentionally gonna pass for a bit of anti-Semite, (haven't all great thinkers done so at some point in their career? - just kidding), but I'm not gonna shy away from telling the truth how I see it. I'm gonna really try to be as diplomatic and unbiased about this, and also if it means anything (which it probably doesn't), my grand-father who I loved and admired very much was a Jew who went through the Shoah, so maybe that will give me a pass (although I don't think that's how Jewishness works LOL).

I would just like to add that within the most elite academic circle, ''the traditional ego has been redefined. A new conceptual theory developed by Hal and Sidra Stone suggests that instead of the traditional Freudian ego of self-psychology, humans may utilize an “aware ego”, or executive choice maker. Modern neuroscience suggests that as we move our center of operation and “choice making” to the aware ego, we make increasing use of the anterior cingulate cortex. Recent studies in our laboratory utilizing PET brain imaging suggest that patients with Alzheimer’s disease and anosognosia (lack of self awareness) also have a defect of the anterior cingulate cortex. Through such research efforts, modern neuroscience is beginning to contribute to the understanding of the basic physiologic principles of the self.'' I will be picking up on this soon

So just to confirm: at least within the field of neuroscience, the Freudian ego does seem to have absolutely no basis in biology, and from what I've read so far on the topic, even modern scientific philosophy for all of its flaws basically agrees that egocentricity is literally what mental illness is.

---

On With the History

---

Okay. In case you've never learned anything before about the history of psychiatry (don't blame yourself if you haven't, they barely scratch the surface on the topic for a $200k college degree), I would suggest that as opposed to making a search for ''Top Psychiatric Hospitals'' in Google, type in ''Top Mental Asylums''

Yes, the difference between those two search results would apparently seem like the difference between night and day.

The term ''psychiatric hospital'' came about with the quote unquote revolutionary psychiatric miracle drugs and treatments that were discovered in the latter half of the 20th century. Before then and the deinstitutionalization movement (largely a reaction to the public's shock when all of these dark and hidden secrets started coming out in photographic forms thanks to brilliant investigative journalism), people who exhibited signs of 'insanity' (what we call mental illness today) used to be locked up in the dreaded and infamous Mental Asylums

Nineteenth-century architecture for the insane produced grand palaces of healing, expressing in brick and stone the enlightened therapeutic ideals of their age.
They were paradoxical structures: massive, but allowing patients to view the natural world outside. Light, air, decent accommodations, useful work, and kindly staff were supposed to help patients recover or remain in compassionate care

---

What were these like?

Like Your Worst Nightmare After The Scariest Horror Movie You Ever Saw

Photos taken from the infamous Life Magazine article about The Philadelphia State Hospital at Byberry

---

Yes, and if those real pictures of psychiatric hospitals takenin the middle of the 20th century aren't revealing enough of the kind of abuse and torture that went on in the mad houses of yester years, this brief top 10 horrifying mental asylums would certainly make it abundantly clear.

For one, the practice of lobotomy originates in the world of psychotherapy and institutionalization. Egas Moniz performed the first lobotomy in Portugal in 1935 and it was soon after adapted by American physicians Walter Freeman and James W. Watts, who popularized the operation. From 1949 to 1951, the amount of lobotomies grew from 5,074 to 18,608 people.

Over the years in America, the ''therapies'' offered to the mentally ill included: beatings, rape, lobotomies (sometimes with ice picks), electroshock/electroconvulsive therapy on veterans suffering from PTSD, insulin shock therapy, forced castrations, forced nakedness, patients freezing to death, patients left to walk around covered in their own and other's urine and feces, feeding children live hepatitis virus, ''being driven to suicide by systemic cruelties'', and scenes of ''neglected children’s screams filling the air, large scale physical and sexual abuse and a general lack of empathy towards patients''. Source

Okay, you get the picture, I'll stop there.

Some might say that the entire medical profession's history was riddled with such inhumane ''treatments'' and that this doesn't solely pertain to the field of psychiatry. And that to that, I might be inclined to agree.

But history is a continuous process. There are very few ''breakage points''. Everything happening today is a direct consequence of what happened previously. You'd be surprised how many of the past's barbaric practices still continue to this day, albeit in a slightly more palatable form.

But okay, let's call this ''the learning curve'' and the way that we humans make progress. We'll put it down to honest trial and error. Fine.

I still feel that much of the stigma that ‘mentally ill’ people face today is the result of the vestige of the inhumane and dehumanizing treatment that we inflicted against mentally ill people in the past. And not to falsely equate one thing with another, but to the extent that (thankfully) the stigma against gender non-conforming people has been reduced in some parts of the world, I feel there is still a huge road ahead of us if we want to successfully demystify mental illness and insanity.

Not surprisingly, when the problems of our modern society began to take root, gender non-conforming people and the mentally ill were all lumped together as the 'insane'...

---

So where did this stigma against the mentally ill start?

---

Well, Wikipedia’s ‘history of psychiatric institutions’ states:

While there were earlier institutions that housed the 'insane', the conclusion that institutionalisation was the correct solution to treating people considered to be "mad" was part of a social process in the 19th century that began to seek solutions outside families and local communities.
In Britain at the beginning of the 19th century, there were, perhaps, a few thousand "lunatics" housed in a variety of disparate institutions but by the beginning of the 20th century, that figure had grown to about 100,000. This growth coincided with the development of alienism, now known as psychiatry, as a medical specialty.

That's absolutely fascinating to me, as I did not know this prior to researching for this article.

I find that quite strange. Telling, in fact.

There seems to be a very interesting correlation between the onset of industrialization and the nature of ''madness''.

That's something I hope to learn a lot more about. My brain is buzzing with questions that I do not yet have the answers to.

Anyway, that's the history of how the field of psychiatry has historically dealt with the mentally ill.

What of the history of modern psychology?

What of Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis?

---

Let's take a look at it, shall we?

---

It was actually a statement made by a clearly fucked-up as all Hell young boy that got me really thinking. I hadn't followed this story as close as I should have, because I'm now realizing there was a lot of information there to unpack:

Quoting from the New York Times:

Dylann S. Roof represented himself during the sentencing phase of his trial and refused to allow the jury to hear evidence of mental illness. He wrote in a journal that psychology was “a Jewish invention.” Court papers unsealed after the trial indicated that he had “social anxiety disorder, a mixed substance abuse disorder, a schizoid personality disorder, depression by history and a possible autistic spectrum disorder.”

Psychology was a Jewish invention?

What? Did I read that correctly?

The story got even more interesting:

The judge in Mr. Roof’s case had to determine not whether he was mentally ill, but whether he was competent to stand trial — in other words, to understand the proceedings and assist in his defense — and able to represent himself.
Mr. Dunham argues that if Mr. Roof had the delusional belief that mental illness did not exist, it was a mistake to deem him capable of making rational decisions on whether to present evidence of his condition, “because his views about mental illness were themselves a product of his mental illness.”

What the fuck? Did you all catch that?

He had to represent himself in his own trial because his lawyer wanted to argue against his will that his decision to not admit evidence that he was mentally ill to the court was proof that he was too mentally ill to be judged for his crimes.

The kid was basically like : ‘Dude I’m not mentally ill. That shit doesn’t exist. I’ve literally done everything that I did because it felt like the right thing to do, and I was aware of what I was doing. The thoughts that were going through my mind and my motivations are and should remain private; they have nothing to do with the punishment I should receive for my crime.’

Let me remind you guys that this was the white kid who went into the church in Charleston and shot up a dozen black Americans after sitting with them for 45 minutes and participating in prayer with them. He knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. In his confessions to the FBI, he even stated that he hoped to bring back segregation or to start a race war… There's a lot there I'd like to get into, but will save it for another post.

But what is this?

Psychology is a Jewish science? I guess intuitively, I always knew a lot of early and prominent figures in psychology and psychoanalysis were Jewish, but this had peeked my interest. Was there more to his statement than blind racism?
(I usually don't take the words of cold-blooded dead-serious dispassionate murderers lightly... If they take the time to articulate something, I assume they've thought about it with meticulous consideration.)

Again, no matter how mentally ill this young boy may have been, and he was clearly SERIOUSLY mentally ill, I'm not one to stigmatize him based on illness. That's a crucial part of the hard-work that lies ahead of us if we want to evolve past the ignorance of stigmatizing people who are mentally ill. Maybe if this young boy hadn't been so stigmatized, he wouldn't have ended up hurting so many innocent people... Who knows...

He may have been many things, but insane doesn't seem to be one of them. (Otherwise he should not have received the death penalty, and in this case, I completely believe he deserved the death penalty. And I'm against the death penalty. He was a monster, no matter how one slices it. I'm relieved he was put out of his misery.)

Anyway

All this led me to finding this article:

---

Judaism and Psychology: Jews have engaged with and steered psychological inquiry since its inception.

---

An article by Jessica Kraft, who seems to be a Jewish blogger writing for My Jewish Learning.

Quoting from her article:

Sigmund Freud’s Jewishness is a hotly debated subject. He always described his father’s background as Hasidic, and his mother was raised traditionally Jewish. Though by the time he was growing up the family had partially assimilated, Freud acknowledged how influenced he was by Jewish thought, and the mystical tradition in particular.

David Bakan, in his 1958 book, Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition showed that Freud was familiar with, and interested in Kabbalah. Bakan advanced the idea that Freud’s psychoanalysis was a secularization of Jewish mysticism.

According to Langman and Dana Beth Wasserman (1990), Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams was based on interpretive methods used to understand dreams in the Talmud.

The aspects of Freudian dream psychology that seemed perhaps shocking to the gentile public were already part of Jewish text: symbolism, word play, enactment of taboos, and numerology.

Psychoanalysis, as it then developed into a standardized practice, was dominated by Jewish men; Sandor Ferenczi, Karl Abraham, Max Eitingon, and Hans Sachs were a few of the 17 initial members of the Psychoanalytic Society in Vienna. Peter Langman has written that, contrary to a prevailing notion of this group’s secular orientation, “the analysts were aware of their Jewishness and frequently maintained a sense of Jewish purpose and solidarity.”

---

Wow. I simply had no idea.

A lot of Freud's best ideas came from the Talmud?

I mean, that's understandable. When you think about it, mythology has always been used to explain aspects of the human experience. In The Interpretation of Dreams Freud coined the term 'Oedipus complex', which came from the Greek myth. The Oedipus complex makes perfect sense.

That got me thinking.

In the field of psychoanalysis, it's true that the only real theorist who properly contrasted, or dare I say opposed Freud's theories was Jung (Jung was of Germanic descent).

In fact, the field of psychoanalysis is still to this day incredibly polarized by these two thinkers and it is still divided into two separate traditions: Freudian and Jungian Psychoanalysis.

In many respects, these two schools of thought differ from each other as staunchly as today's ''religion'' differs from ''science''. They claim to be based on the same underlying truth, and yet are completely divorced from one another.

Well, as it turned out, Freud and Jung had a very particular relationship.

I found a brilliant article written by the Jewish Jungian scholar Aryeh Maidenbaum called Carl Jung and the Question of Anti-Semitism.

Seriously. What a fascinating read. I can't recommend it more highly. If you've ever cared about either of Freud's or Jung's ideas, I think this should be a must-read history lesson. But let me summarize what I gleamed from it:

It seems that Freud recognized the brightness and potential of Yung Jung.

(Couldn't resist, am a sucker for puns).

---

Apparently, Freud was very keen on using Carl Jung to legitimize his ideas.

The fact that Jung was not Jewish was important to Freud, who placed him in what Sanford Drob calls an “unenviable position” as Gentile guarantor that Freud’s work would not be dismissed as “a Jewish national affair.” In addition to being well placed in the field of mainstream psychiatry, Jung was the son of a Protestant pastor. He represented credibility and acceptance for Freud, as he acknowledged in a letter to Karl Abraham as early as 1908: “. . . you are closer to my intellectual constitution because of racial kinship,” Freud wrote, while Jung “as a Christian and a pastor’s son finds his way to me against great inner resistances. His association with us is the more valuable for that.”

The way that Freud was attempting to parade Jung around as a proof that his work was not inherently Jewish could be seen as somewhat problematic, if not to say duplicitous, though I can also recognize the necessity and political expediency that would have been required back in those days... I can be realistic enough to concede Freud must have had his reasons.

In 1934, Jung himself wrote an article, “The State of Psychotherapy Today,” which discussed the differences between what he called the Jewish psychology and the German psychology. “The Jewish race as a whole,” he wrote ''possesses an unconscious which can be compared with the ‘Aryan’ only with reserve. Creative individuals apart, the average Jew is far too conscious and differentiated to go about pregnant with the tensions of unborn futures. The ‘Aryan’ unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish; that is both the advantage and the disadvantage of a youthfulness not yet fully weaned from barbarism.''

Well, as Jung rightly conceded later, that was an overly 'racialized' way of putting it. The very concept of a Jewish race and Aryan race is highly questionable and definitely worth criticizing, and even he later admitted it was 'nonsense'.

However, I think that what he meant in his heart was that different cultures can and do have different psychologies. And that's a point worth noting. Psychologies can be universal but can also be very ethnic. Again, all of this has to do with the ego. The self-image of the psyche.

And this is where I think I might catch a little flack, but it's the point I've been building up to.

The field of psychiatry as it has evolved may have been a (little/a lot?) influenced by various biased cultural psychologies.

And that's something that I, unfortunately, being very ignorant of the Talmud, do not yet feel qualified to speculate about.

I really am quite disgusted with the way psychiatry is practiced today, and I suspect the reason why it functions in a fucked up way may have something to do with it being a little bit neurotically influenced by Talmudic... Dogma? Ideology? I don't know what the word is.

---

It's something I would love to openly discuss in a peaceful and respectful way with anybody who knows anything about the Talmud.

---

Remember that quote from earlier? ''the id, or unconscious, was characterized by a free exchange of neural energy and more primitive or animistic thinking. It was the job of the ego, the conscious mind, to minimize that free energy, to “bind” it and thereby regulate the impulses of the unconscious. It was Freud’s attempt to “link the workings of the unconscious mind to behavior''

That whole idea of having to suppress the impulses of the unconscious, of the ego needing to feel guilty about the 'animal' subconscious and needing to fight it in order to be able to live in society.

There's so much that's wrong with seeing the 'subconscious' as 'animal' base... That 'animal' side is what Jung called the 'Shadow', and what Steiner called 'Ahriman'. It's also what Christians and Muslims call 'The Devil'. It ties in with the idea that human beings are 'Fallen', that we are ruled by the devil...

It's all ego delusion...

Today, this translates as giving carte-blanche to a group of ''doctors'' to feed harmful drugs to 'suppress' and 'regulate the impulses of the subconscious'... Except the ego here is the ''doctor'' and the subconscious is the ''mentally ill''...

In its current form, its evil... It just allows problems to fester and worsen behind the scenes...

The root causes of the illness are never addressed... The medication just masks the symptoms...

Jung's ideas about archetypes; the collective unconscious; the process of individuation; psychological types; synchronicity; shadow; animus and anima; and the importance of “complexes,” and of symbols and myths in dreams...

These have all played such a huge role in my personal spiritual awakening and evolution...

To me, Freud appears as a 'Deceiver'. He paints this picture of humans as being insane... As being weak and the servants of the Devil... Clinging to their sanity with nothing more than a thread of rationality. And though on the surface, I know to many of us, that appears true... But it can't be the truth...

On the contrary, Jung appears like a ''Mystic''... Many of his best ideas came to him after he retreated for many years from his professional work as a psychiatrist working in psychiatric hospitals dealing with mentally ill people. That's when he battled his own shadow, that's when he discovered his own light, his own Soul...

He was on to some serious shit...

He's up there in the Pantheon of Great Teachers who came down to Earth to teach humans about the Great Awakening that is unraveling before our own eyes... He's right there by the side of Jesus, Buddha, Jiddu, Tesla, Einstein, Marley, Gay, Lee... He's a Mahatma, a Great Soul...

Though people still would be willing to fight to death to defend Freud and his ideas about mankind's ''condition'', it's just being used by the Powers-That-Shouldn't-Be to enslave us...

I'm deeply, deeply suspicious of his ideas and what may be a very concerted effort to bamboozle people...

There's no doubt that both were incredibly Luciferian individuals... Their perception of the invisible is poignant...

But are Freud's ideas satanic? Are they designed to keep us in the lower-vibrations?

Like I said, I don't know enough about the Talmud nor Freud's ideas...

And I believe very deeply and sincerely that the Powers-That-Shouldn't-Be... The ''Siths''... Go much deeper than ''The Jews run the world'' blablabla... If anything, the Ashkanazi have been nothing more than useful idiots in a much more Machiavelic and Diabolical plan to enslave mankind...

I don't think Jews have a desire to enslave mankind. Every human being of every race, creed, religion, belief-system, identity group - whatever - can be corrupted and manipulated in somebody else's plans...

They say one man's rubbish is another man's treasure?

I say One man's master is just another man's slave...

---

I'm gonna wrap this post up now. It's getting too long, and I'm sure there'll be more follow-ups as I continue my learning on the subject. I feel like I may have raised more questions than I've answered in this one. But hopefully I've shed some light on a lot of issues in this world.

---

Let me just add a final point to wrap it up.

---

Anti-Psychiatry

---

Wikipedia:

Anti-psychiatry is a movement based on the view that psychiatric treatment is often more damaging than helpful to patients. It considers psychiatry a coercive instrument of oppression due to an unequal power relationship between doctor and patient and a highly subjective diagnostic process. It has been active in various forms for two centuries.

This.

Seriously.

Be Anti-Psychiatry awesome guys and gyals.

It's my honest view that this whole field of medicine is complete and utter malarkey.

We don't need their fucking zombie drugs... What we need is each other... We need love... We need support... We need Elevation, Ascension, Transcendence...

We need Peace.

---

---

I'll be exploring this concept of Anti-Psychiatry in my next post entitled: ''What is Schizophrenia? And why are we abusing our Shamans?''

---

I'll leave you with that.

---

With Peace and Love

Your Humble Light-Worker, Hae-Joo