After Sandy Hook: how psychiatrists will become policemen

After Sandy Hook: how psychiatrists will become policemen

by Jon Rappoport

January 6, 2013

Obama, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, stated that mental-health services must be made more available, presumably to stave off future killers.

Of course, this is monstrously wrong, since so many killers have acted under the compelling influence of SSRI antidepressants and other brain meds. The drugs are known to induce violence.

More mental health means more murders.

Now we hear that Joe Biden’s presidential task force on gun control is meeting with psychiatrists (backup link on here). Here is what they’re discussing:

Databases. They want to tighten background checks on people who buy guns, and the checks could include discovering whether applicants have ever been under psychiatric care, and if so, what diagnosis(es) was made.

In order to do that, there will have to be a comprehensive database and a tracking system that extends into, and from, every psychiatrist’s front desk. Law-enforcement will have access to that database.

What happened to doctor-patient confidentiality? It’s possible this issue can be skirted merely by affirming that a gun-applicant has seen a psychiatrist at some point in time—which fact could exclude him from purchasing a weapon.

Organized psychiatry would, of course welcome a comprehensive database of Americans who have obtained psychiatric care. It makes their profession seem even more official than it already is. And it imparts a tinge of USSR-like power.

The implication: “We know who you are. We know you’ve been under the care of a psychiatrist. Wherever you live and work, we can call you crazy if we want to.”

This always was part of the psychiatric agenda, behind the smooth facade of “offering help to those in need.”

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is also sensitive to the fact that many Americans would never walk into a shrink’s office if they thought that would hinder their chance of owning a gun. (Note: for the “Dec 20, 2012 APA Letter to Congress Regarding the Massacre in Newtown, CT”, click here)

But weighing the pros and cons, the advantage is on the side of linking gun-ownership-refusal with psychiatric-treatment history. That makes the APA more powerful. It brings them closer in concert with law-enforcement.

It essentially makes the APA and all its doctors into cops right along side local police forces, state police, the FBI, the ATF, DHS, and the US Marshals Service.

Who could resist that promotion?

Of course, in any case involving a murderer, where it’s suspected that a psychiatric drug induced the violence, unearthing that possibility would be cut off at the pass. The sordid facts would be protected/buried by the full force of the federal government. Another perk.

Local mental-health clinics (drug dispensaries) would bloom like weeds. After all, how are you going to prevent violence unless you corral millions more Americans and put them in front of a shrink or a suitable surrogate for “pre-screening?” It’s The Minority Report come to life.

This system eventually burgeons into a full national program to cut violent crime through prevention. And who will be in charge of making delicate judgments about the likelihood that any person will commit murder? The psychiatrists, naturally. More power for them.

This goes beyond deciding whether a resident of the US can own a gun. It invades any aspect of a person’s life to assess his “mental predisposition.” That’s precisely the kind of infrastructure that would come into being.

Don’t imagine for a moment that psychiatrists actually have the ability to make scientific calls on these questions. Their entire pantheon of 297 official mental disorders is such a pathetic fraud that not one physical test exists to make a diagnosis.

No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic test.

But that’s never stopped them before, and it wouldn’t stop them in the new Psychiatric Police State. They’d keep winging it, and they’d realize they have to err on the side of caution, to avoid getting caught with their pants down, when a killer is found to have received “clearance” from a psychiatrist to own a gun or walk around unsupervised.

Therefore, many more Americans would be marked down for “special tracking” and mandatory 72-hour holds in mental lockups.

While in such custody, the strategy would be to load up the patient with as many drugs as possible, to render him docile after release.

Is this entire nightmare scheduled to happen this year? Of course not. But gradual steps eventually add up to a fully boiled frog.

The Matrix Revealed

In the world of brain research, the principal push is toward creating the conditioned human. Behind the mask of curing disease, that’s the real agenda. And it ties in quite nicely with a culture in which every human is looked upon as a potential threat to life and limb of his fellow humans.

The shrinks will say they care. They’ll say they only want what’s best for you. They’ll say these mental disorders only need the right drugs to keep them under control. They’ll say we’re all in this together. They’ll say their diagnosis-treatment is the most humane program ever devised in the history of the planet. They’ll say it’s all about greatest good for the greatest number. They’ll say whatever they need to.

Biden and Obama are trying to make a definitive move to take away guns. But for the psychiatrists, this is a trial balloon. Inside the profession, there will be debates about whether linking gun ownership to psychiatric history is a plus or a minus for shrinks.

Will it enhance or injure their reputation and standing? What about doctor-patient confidentiality?

But the first steps are being contemplated. The issue is on the table.

In the “old psychiatry,” before smooth PR and modern marketing really took over, doctors were far more ready to make predictions about the future political ramifications of their work. Absolute madmen like Dr. Jose Delgado and Dr. Ewen Cameron went public with the idea that no human being has an inherent right to his own personality.

The true role of psychiatry, they asserted, was to re-invent human character, personality, behavior, and thought, from the ground up.

Well, decades later, with psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies tied to the hip as one juggernaut, and with marketing departments modulating their pronouncements to fit these times, a redux- prospect is emerging.

Psychiatry can pick up its old political and social banners again. It can enter into an even closer embrace with big government. It can announce that violence can be substantially curbed through an expansion of mental-health services. It can frame this program as both a humane necessity and a leap ahead into “a better world for all of us.”

It can begin, cautiously, at first, to bring back the utopian promises.

We have the science. Our understanding of the brain is expanding every day. We’re literally seeing why and how conflict arises between people, and we’re seeing it in the folds and channels of that wondrous brain. And we can do something about it. We’re on the cusp of a new dawn…”

Yes, the psychiatric police are ready to take the next step.

“…in the disputes between the East and West concerning the Russian opponents of the Soviet regime… [m]any dissidents went to lunatic asylums and were treated as mentally sick. Western doctors and the press accused Soviet doctors of being blind instruments of the regime and of having broken the solemn oath of their calling. The Russian doctors thought the West had gone mad in reproaching their behavior. For them, anyone who opposed such an efficient police power must be mentally disturbed. In their view, only those who had what Seneca called Libido morienti (the death wish) would dare to provoke the State. The Russian doctors were convinced that they were undertaking a humanitarian mission by placing the opponents of the regime in asylums and thereby reducing their aggression–the only hope for their survival. To reduce the outstanding to mediocrity was always a medical and human duty in a state where mediocrity had the better chance of survival.”“Man: The Fallen Ape” by Branko Bokun

Meanwhile, behind certain closed doors: “Gentlemen, it’s interesting, isn’t it, how so many killings over the last twenty years have been committed by people under the influence of our drugs. And yet, we use the murders to prove how people need more of these same drugs. Sales skyrocket. And now we can become plainclothes cops with more ultimate power than any cops in history…”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at

Three paranormal experiences

Three paranormal experiences

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2013

A healer of enormous capability, Hadidjah Lamas, worked with me in the 1970s, in Los Angeles.

Once, during a session, while I was lying on the table, something happened I was completely unprepared for. I saw, quite clearly, a dark metal mask sitting a foot or so above me in the air. It began to spin, and then it moved across the space of the room, sped up, and exited.

A few moments later, my space was flooded with blue and gold particles. They effervesced for several minutes. When I stood up, I felt as if I’d just taken a two-week vacation in the South Pacific.

As a painter, I had several interesting experiences in the mid-1990s, while I was working in my studio in Santa Monica. One day, I painted improvised black shapes on large pieces of cardboard. When I was done, I leaned the pictures against the far wall, lay down on my bed, and looked at them for several minutes.

I imagined the shapes were letters or words in a language. All of a sudden, the shapes transmitted something. For a few seconds, what was coming at me was more than I was imagining, as if a gate had opened.

The language of the shapes wasn’t in words, as we understand words. It was all motion and sensation. I understood it perfectly. It was about the exhilaration of flying, and the feelings were ecstatic, but this particular range of ecstasy was entirely new to me. It was as if the new language was expressing a higher cloud-layer of emotions, a whole series of them, from a space we could all reach, if we put aside our ordinary preconceptions.

I was so moved by this, I embarked on a 15-year period of painting what I called forgotten or imagined languages.

These glimpses and sudden revelations are indicative of what lies outside the boundaries of our culturally indoctrinated perception.

A baby learning to speak his native language cannot be explained in any normal systematic way. It isn’t a series of steps smoothly taken. It isn’t done through a graduated lesson plan. Every day, the baby makes leaps and experiences wholesale revelation.

When an actor takes on a role in a play, likewise there is no way to chart his progress in getting into character. There are key jumps of comprehension that exceed explanation.

Finding a new and genuine solution to a problem can’t be mapped out. There is always that jump into the answer. A rigid cause-and-effect chain fails to describe the process. And to assume the brain is originating breakthroughs is speculative and unsupported pseudoscience.

To use the word “paranormal” is really to talk about magic. And on this planet, there is a taboo about that. It cuts deep. The taboo implies that the act of doing real magic exceeds what is permitted to human beings.

And to explore magic or actually DO it, or even notice it when others do it, is shameful and should be accompanied by massive guilt.

Because, as the story goes, God doesn’t want humans to have too much power. What better tale to illustrate that than The Fall. The Eden myth. There in the Garden, Eve succumbed to persuasion, and she and Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Bang. Retribution, suffering, shame, guilt, excommunication.

The Roman Church (empire through mind control) capitalized on that story, dressed it up, and sold it over and over.

This is one reason why, on Earth, people who make magic fail to see it themselves, and those who would otherwise observe the magic also fail to notice it. Taboo.

If you dispassionately read the Old Testament, you could infer that the God described was, in fact, a kind of magician who decided that he wanted a territory of his own where the only magic allowed would be his.

What he was after was control of the paranormal. Exclusive ownership. So he did everything he could to “cast a blanket or a field over the planet” that would exclude others from doing what he could do.

It could then follow that a relatively few humans on Earth, somehow managing to make magic on their own, would ironically be blind to it. And people seeing it happen (objects spontaneously disappearing, other objects appearing, etc.) would likewise see nothing.

From this state of affairs, you get the blind leading the blind.

As a painter, I have thought that, walking through a museum, I’m seeing magic displayed on the paintings on the walls. Why shouldn’t these works be seen as just as real as the walls and the floors and and ceilings and spaces of the museum rooms?

Many years ago, I was sitting in a theater watching a swashbuckling sword-swinging costume drama starring Elizabeth Taylor and Stewart Granger. In one scene, they were sitting close to each other, deep in conversation.

For some reason, I decided to suspend the idea I was watching a movie. Instead, I concentrated on Taylor and Granger talking to each other. A minute or two passed.

Suddenly, I was in a new space.

These fully dressed characters receded. I was watching two people talk. It was quite startling.

This wasn’t an intellectual experience. I had blown through the “space of the movie” and I was THERE, and I was seeing directly into the two people up on the screen. They were unmasked. I had let myself into the space behind the space.

There was no movie, no artifice, no story, no background, no acting. All that was gone. I remember a thought drifting through my mind:



I was in a kind of space I had never known existed. I was no longer “keeping a distance.”

I was, so to speak, in the room with these two people, and I was watching them talk to each other. The utter immediacy of it was shocking. There was no acting at all. That was gone.

But it was a movie, wasn’t it? Apparently, only on one level was it a movie. That is how we conveniently see it. On another far more compelling level, it was a doorway into reality-plus.

The Matrix Revealed

We hear all sorts of technology talk about how movie makers are going to erase distance and immerse people in their films, to give them a living experience. Well, I can testify there is a much shorter route to that goal. The thing is, it destroys old taboos.

Because we have the capability to be in any space we want to be in, whenever we want to be in it. And when we get there, we experience, first-hand, how we’ve crossed the threshold between manufactured consent and ecstatic, unique, individual perception.

Was what I encountered when I penetrated the fourth wall of the theater what everyone would encounter? Or was the movie, the illusion a gateway into many possible deeper spaces?

That would be a question to discuss when we went there and came back.

I fully understand that people could call these three paranormal experiences nothing more than imagination. And if that’s the “worst-case scenario?” That’s saying imagination creates reality. Which puts us in paranormal territory of unbounded dimensions.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at