G. Brock Chisholm
He added:
Chisholm went quite a distance further:
What is ironic about this is that modern governments, including the US, endorse and use modern behavioral techniques and psychiatric methods to manipulate and control people. The US government has spent millions of dollars on psychiatric and behavioral research. Behavioral methods are nothing but about control, and more and more, in accordance with some social scientist's notions of what constitutes an ideal society. Psychiatric drugs, brain surgery and electric shock have been used consistently by intelligence organizations of all countries as interrogation methods and political punishment. The public education system has been infiltrated with psychological practices, such as outcome-based education and other affective methods, which concentrate largely on beliefs, attitudes and values, and their formation and alteration. Whose kidding who? Psychiatry and modern psychology wouldn't exist if they hadn't sold out to the large powers and financial interests who fund and support them. Psychiatry and psychology, as practiced today, are almost completely about control and the manipulation of attitudes, belief, values and behavior. Chisholm is simply not quite telling the truth. With that said, let's address Chisholm's above statements about morality and right and wrong. There can be no society, culture or civilization without morality, and the concept of right and wrong. One would think that two or three thousand years of history and thinking men and women would have clearly shown that. But not to Chisholm and his cohorts. If people don't see anything wrong with killing, stealing, promiscuity or lying, then they will tend to kill, steal, act promiscuously and lie. Without some sense of morality, or some code of acceptable conduct, self-discipline is impossible because there is no road map to follow and there are no rules to even try to abide by. There can be no "moral" behavior without morality and a moral code (whether religious or otherwise). If these things are not taught in some way, sternly and without equivocation, then they will not exist. Morality doesn't come about through some magical process of social osmosis. It develops through clear and purposeful instruction. Any theory or method that ignores or denies this is false and will simply not work. Or possibly, what they actually intend to achieve is not what they are saying they want to achieve. All the fancy theories and progressive practices won't change that. They will only result in a decrease in moral behavior. In other words, crime, divorce and violence will rise. Society will decay and eventually falter. The occurrence of these things in the modern world are a direct result of Chisholm's and others' wacky social and psychological theories. The erosion of values is a direct result of their denial of the need or use of any values. Politicians have been deceived by the purported "social science professionals" and fund extensive social programs based on inane theories and idiotic psychological practices based upon these flawed theories. Modern education, various social services, and the criminal justice system are riddled with these ideas. There can be no success, and won't be any success as long as these incorrect notions are used in education and society. In line with Chisholm's statements, modern educational practices tend to deny the usefulness and even the validity of moral codes. It tends to dismiss any set of rules or dictates set up and presented as objective truth. In other words, every person is to decide for themselves what's right or wrong, with absolutely no guidance or assistance from any external statement of expected or required standards of behavior. To Chisholm and his followers the imposition of any code of conduct is harmful, causes neuroses, and limits freedom. Of course, if someone has no sense of what might be a "correct behavior", how will he or she ever act in accordance with it or aspire to it? The answer is that he or she won't. Chisholm also laid out the agenda for his peers, which was the entirety of the social sciences:
Chisholm's fantasy has now had time to play out into the present era where the once-definable line between good and evil has become decidedly gray, an age when drugs, murder and promiscuity are daily fare. This wasn't accidentally and was exactly what the psychiatrists intended. He also stated that any child who believes in Santa Claus has had his ability to think permanently injured. In light of what we see in our streets today, Chisholm's refutation of his anticipated critics a half century ago is plainly ludicrous:
This is exactly what has been produced! There is much more immorality, lawlessness and social chaos today than there was 50 years ago. This is no accident or due to anything other than the implementation of these inane theories and practices. Chisholm's theories are steeped in other specific past philosophies and theories. These are:
Taking a look at each of these shows the flaws involved in the theories and the poor results when applied to real situations. Humanism Humanism can only be understood by what it asserts. On the surface much of what it promotes seems agreeable, but upon closer examination it can be seen to be flawed and actually responsible for much of the trouble in the world today. You cannot accept or disregard humanism as "all or none". Some of the ideas make sense, and some are largely flawed. In practice though, almost everything promoted under the name "humanism" has serious results of a harmful nature on Man and his civilizations. It constantly criticizes and belittles all traditional religions while admitting itself to be of a religious nature. Simply, it is equally based upon belief in opinions and theories untested and unseen. This is not how they view themselves, but this is an accurate statement of how they operate. There is as much faith held by a humanist for the doctrines of humanism as for a Christian's belief in God or a Theosophist's belief in the Great White Brotherhood. I am not saying major oppression has not existed due to certain past religions. It most certainly has. But modern humanism is no different, while pretending to be something else entirely. According to humanism as set out in the Humanist Manifesto I & II:
Said simply, Man and his societies are solely the product of physical evolution, as presented by Charles Darwin, and has "developed" only according to adaptation to external environmental forces (i.e.translated as behaviorism in the subject of psychology). The theory of evolution is a theory. It involves much speculation, a very selective presentation of data, and much wishful thinking. To base a "science" of people on these notions and to allow numerous social scientists to enforce their opinions on the society at large is plainly absurd. Basically, these ideas are more ideological than "scientific" and again have more the flavor of religion than science. They want it to be true, and they use flawed "scientific" explanations to support their beliefs.
While humanism seems to promote "reason" and the power of the intellect, in fact, they do no such thing. They flatly deny the mind of Man and all that goes with it, including thought, imagination, will, self-discipline, morality, responsibility and creativity. To them you are a beast, to be manipulated and controlled like an animal in a farm yard - more behaviorism. They are right when they say "as far as we know", but the truth is that they know very little. To them, all consciousness, awareness, thought, belief, will, imagination, meaning, purpose, intention, desire, self-discipline and even personal responsibility are nothing more than either chemical reactions in the brain or stimulus-response reactions to evolutionary and immediate environmental forces. There is no room for the concept of originality or purposeful self-determined thought within their ideological framework. You are a product of Nature, read that to mean "biology", and they worship the concept of "biology" as much as any religion worships God. Humanism is very much a modern version of Nature worship, without all the paganistic trappings, but presenting itself as "scientific". There is definitely no room for the notion of the human mind as a causative agent, which chooses, makes decisions, directs the physical body in action (i.e.controls behavior), and acts upon the environment. To them you simple "behave" and "react" to external forces, and thought and awareness are nothing more than annoying by-products of biology and electrochemical processes in the brain. The result of this is that the concepts of self-control, will, self-determinism, and personal responsibility cannot and do not exist within their ideological frameworks. This is a bad thing for us all.
Most traditional and even modern New Age views consider Man to possess, have or be a soul. Man's essence involves an "inner" personality, invisible to physical detection, but nonetheless real and substantial. Without getting into a argument or discussion about a "soul" or "spirit", it can still be correctly said that thoughts, ideas, feelings and imagination are truly invisible. They can't be seen or detected by anyone except the person who has them, but they are real. An idea can't be weighed, a feeling can't be monitored, the imagination can't be observed, and intention can't be detected, except by the person having or doing these things. Yes, there might be some slight correlation between EEG and brain wave tests to thought, emotion, and imagination, and electrical and chemical forces may effect changes in thought and emotions, but there is a huge difference between detecting relational electrical and chemical processes in a brain, and visa versa, and the actual thoughts, emotions and mental phenomena themselves (as experienced by any person having those thoughts and emotions). The objective measuring of mental phenomena via a brain or otherwise using devices and electronic gadgetry will, and can never be the same as the personal experience of the subjective reality. They are of a different order of things. Obviously, if the content of a mind is invisible, so can be the mind itself. What it is, how it functions, and where it is has not been figured out, because taking a purely "scientific" approach as applied to the physical sciences, they have taken the view that if it can't be seen, quantified, and measured with traditional scientific measuring tools, then it doesn't exist. Therefore, since it doesn't exist, it isn't worth considering, examining or investigating. This is the attitude and approach of modern experimental psychology as begun by Wilhelm Wundt in Leipzig Germany in the late 1800s. But functionally the mind surely exists and does the things described above, even if the mechanics of it and the actual relationship to the body isn't clearly understood. What they propose is absurd. I have a mind. You have a mind. We all know this even though no scientist can prove it. A mother loves her newborn child. This "love" cannot be seen or experienced directly by anyone except the mother. She knows it exists. She feels it, and others feel it as a manifestation through physical interaction and her behavior. But the modern scientist would have us believe it is meaningless and not worthy of examination because it can't be quantified and measured. This same argument could go on for many other aspects of human mental activity. The mind has been neglected and tossed in the garbage. This can only have disastrous effects because every great thing ever created or invented originally had its source in the invisible mind of some person. Additionally, the thoughts of each person truly define their personal world of meaning and the life they experience. Life exists for humanity only because of the mind and what it does for each of us. The mind does exist. It involves of a different order of things than the physical world it is interacting with, and it follows different laws. Its invisibility alone should make that obvious. Its potential, capabilities and solution (i.e. resolution of mental problems) will never be discovered by the modern approaches because part of their belief structure involves the notion that it doesn't exist. This is one reason why modern psychiatry and psychology are doomed to failure. The application of their theories and practices will always result in further mental failure and social chaos. They ignore the basis of all society, the individual mind of Man. Traditionally, the life of Man has been viewed as a sort of battleground between the conscious reasoning mind and appetites, desires, urges and emotions. There is a mind-body duality, which can be understood and perceived functionally, even if not directly observable mechanically. It has been the conscious reasoning mind of Man, and its recognition, which has enabled civilization, its improvement, betterment and advancement, both materially and socially. The modern approaches toss out this view. You are viewed only as a biological animal with desires, appetites, compulsions and urges, and their plan is to figure out how to construct the best social arrangement that satisfies these for the most people. That is the true meaning of their concept of modern democracy - the highest level of raw physical survival for the greatest number of human biological organisms. How a society or civilization can exist without a personal sense of self-restraint and responsibility is anyone's guess. Of course, in the end it can't and it won't.
This sounds fine except that this means the complete realization of a biological organism as a self, with no concern for anything else. In practice this manifests as an over-concern for personal physical pleasure, gain, and sensual happiness. Food, shelter, sex, entertainment, and "feeling good" become the primary concerns. There is no room for ideals, dedication to lofty goals, adherence to standards set by self or others, or anything outside of the direct personal experience of raw physical reality. It degrades into a self-centered selfishness and hedonism with no concern or respect for anything or anyone outside oneself. Welcome to the "me-generation". Man has always achieved and risen to grander heights because he has postulated various "higher", "better" and "more noble" possibilities, whether these be religious, political, social or economic. This is a direct result of the mind of Man directing the organism to conform to its own elevated notions of morality, ideals, personal responsibility and meaning. None of this ideals or goals "exist" or are "observable" to any scientist. They are objects of Man's mind. These invisible things that exist in every mind of every person are concepts, ideas, and beliefs, and they have no direct causal relation to any biological fact or situation. This involves self-discipline, work, considering others and dedication. These ideas have nothing to do with the humanist vision of life and society. They stress the "here and now" because they react strongly against the notion that Man has too often placed his happiness and salvation in the hands of some religion or future spiritual reality (i.e. heaven) while ignoring the real problems of Man and societies. I don't disagree with that. Past religions, including Christianity, have not been good models of tolerance, understanding or advancement of truth. In some cases the attention on heaven or an afterlife, and the belief in its future existence resulted in various people neglecting and even refusing to attempt to do anything about their poor conditions or situations. Ironically, humanistic notions and practices have not brought Man any closer to the resolution of his true problems as an individual and as a society. In fact things are getting worse with the implementation of their invalid theories and ineffective methods. But there is another angle here. Suppose Man is, at his most basic nature, a mind, an invisible entity related to but not the same as the physical body. Suppose one of things a mind does is to create belief and attach meaning to everything and anything, both visible and invisible. Suppose that is an accurate statement of what we each do. In fact, if you discard the part about a mind being invisible and not the body, it is a fairly accurate statement of what people do. We conceive things to be, both visible and invisible, and consider them important to some degree for ourselves and others. Every person does this, although different for each person, in regards to everything they are involved with physically and mentally. Let's say this is more of an accurate statement of what people actually do, what they have always done, and what they will always do. Who are the humanists or anyone then to say that the Christian notion of heaven, the Buddhist idea of Nirvana, or Sufi idea of the Supreme Love of God are wrong? Again, their measuring stick is solely biological existence, and that is not necessarily the whole picture, or at least isn't necessarily what some people consider to be of primary importance to them. For a mind that sets lofty standards, establishes high goals, agrees upon difficult ideals, and directs the organism to achieve these things through dedication, discipline and hard work, raw biological existence seems a pallid third-rate concern. Realize, from a certain view of past human oppression, much of what they attack is valid. The criticisms made against past religions and states are largely valid. The problem is that they put nothing useful in place of what they destroy and also throw out much good with what they perceive as bad. Also, the "here and now" is defined in raw materialistic terms. They ignore the entire mental realm of Man. Man's mind may possess tremendous potential beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Possibly Man's mind is separate and even separable from the body. But we will never know because the possibility of all this is systematically denied by their approach. Again, Man's mind could be studied, examined and codified according to the scientific method, but instead it has been ignored due to flawed biological assumptions and ideological leanings. Additionally, psychiatric methods act to harm the ability and functioning of any mind through the use of powerful psychoactive drugs, electric shock and brain surgery. Whatever potential a mind natively possesses, as a mind, is reduced and inhibited through all psychiatric treatments. Any person requires a basic level of biological existence and survival as a prerequisite towards expanding into and achieving other things, whether these be social, political, economic, religious or otherwise. A certain level of food, shelter, clothing and protection from the raw physical elements are necessary, but only as a minimal starting point from which a creative human being can then grow out into other areas. Treating raw biological survival and physical pleasure as the complete end of all human purpose is ludicrous, but this is what humanism actually devolves into. Rationalism - Reason Philosophically, rationalism is a result of applying the notions of the physical sciences to all other areas of life, especially the "social sciences", to Man and his societies. With the advent of modern (physical) science and Man's taking of greater control over his environment various philosophers had the wonderful notion that the entire "problem" of Man and his civilizations could be solved by applying pure reason and science to the subject of Man himself. Communism, under the name of dialectic materialism, was one such attempt to apply "science" to an aspect of Man's societies. Originally it was presented as a "scientific" study of Man and his economic conflicts. Most of us realize now that it was much more a case of a mere ideology and set of opinions parading as "science", instead of being a valid science. The results of the application of modern communism have been complete failures in addition to experiments in extreme human oppression and suffering. Always examine the results of the application of any theory or ideology. That is the only thing that means anything. Don't continue to listen to complex theorizing and fancy explanations when the evidence is sitting right in front of you. Ideas have consequences. Theories get unique and specific practical results. Every application of communism has failed. It is safe to say there is something fundamentally wrong with the notion in the first place. Also, with psychiatry and modern psychology, the applications of their theories, in actual practice, routinely fail to change anything for the better. Modern educational practices based upon psychological theories result in poorer academic performance and immorality. Modern psychiatry has failed to produce happy, calm, creative and responsible people. It is also safe to say there is something fundamentally wrong with their notions in the first place. That is largely the subject of this essay. But remember, always look at observable results, and disregard the arguments of those who continuously fail and add further confusion to people and the world. Disregard their statements of intention and honesty. It is meaningless whether they have "good intentions" or "act honestly" when the application of their ideas destroys the moral fabric of an entire nation. It is meaningless whether or not they have "good intentions" when the application of their theories harms people through institutionalized psychiatric drug use, electric shock treatments and lobotomies. The primary problem is that the mind of Man was forsaken as an object of "scientific" investigation. Instead, Man has come to be viewed solely as a biological organism, to be addressed genetically and in a stimulus-response manner, like any other animal. This is absurd because it is only Man's mind that separates him from the rest of the biological kingdoms. Granted, Man has done some really oppressive things with his mind, but this doesn't excuse consigning it to the garbage bin. It is also the source of everything great, decent and wonderful. It is, in fact, the source of any and all meaning any of us have about anything, whether physical, mental, or spiritual. The solution is not to throw out the mind because it has failed at times, but to dig in, investigate, and solve why it fails, and also to promote and encourage all that is good about it. This is again, the flaw of modern psychiatry and psychology. They attempt to "solve" Man by neglecting what he or she is at the most fundamental level, a mind. The result is biochemistry, behaviorism, and genetics instead of a true understanding of Man and his mind. Various subjects, traditionally called religions, although actually dealing more with psychology (a "study of the mind" by definition), have dealt with this invisible aspect of Man. The Vedic Hymns of the Hindus, Sufism and various segments of Buddhism (i.e.yoga) have examined various aspects of mind. Some have produced various techniques designed to enable a person to become aware of and expand the potentials of their mind. Western thought has systematically ignored these subjects due to a misunderstanding of terms, and also due to a general tendency of these subjects to affiliate themselves with religious opinions and dogma, which has alienated or antagonized many investigators. Despite all that, these things have never been carefully or honestly examined by any traditional modern techniques utilizing the methods of science. Instead the mind has been forgotten, and we now have biopsychiatry, behaviorism, and wacky psychological theories, which somehow aim to "cure mental illness" while ignoring and denying the mind. Rationalism could work with the mind, but the very basis of it's approach to reality denies the mind. Instead of acknowledging and encouraging the Man's mind to form ideals, strive towards achievement, assert belief, and exert self-determined responsibility, we have hundreds of social scientists attempting to manipulate beliefs and attitudes as a way to construct societies, which satisfy Man's basic physical needs as the only desirable goal. Revolutionary Ideas The American and French revolutions were reactions against the tyranny of despotic monarchs and governments, and oppressive religions that had allied themselves with specific European monarchs. These were valid and much needed reactions against human suffering and suppression. The problem is that the baby was tossed out with the bath water. To the humanists, and almost all modern social scientists, all governments and religions act to oppress Man. They take the attitude that all government and religion is inherently evil, false and prone to inhibit the freedom of Man. The founders of the American constitution knew clearly the dangers of any government and did their best to write this document in a way to guarantee Man's freedom, and limit the ability or tendency of the government to oppress future generations. Sadly, they weren't entirely successful. Once again a powerful governments have allied themselves with a religion to oppress Man. This modern religion goes by the name of modern materialism. In actual form, modern materialism manifests ideologically as psychiatry, psychology and the social sciences. These things are very far from "science" and are almost completely of the nature of ideology. The majority of the ideas within these fields are not much more than opinions held with conviction (i.e. beliefs). Modern humanistic views, along with modern psychological and psychiatric theories, have become the new religion, which the government supports, endorses, and forces upon society. Although the social sciences present themselves as the result of honest scientific methods, they are truthfully nothing more than another unique and quite arbitrary set of opinions, beliefs and attitudes about Man, the world and the universe, which have gained the acceptance of society and the support of various social and political entities. Strangely, the very thing that the humanists and rationalists detest, the affiliation of an ideology with a governmental power, is what they have brought about. It seems that they don't mind though, because the government is supporting their views! They use their ideas to destroy all other notions of Man and the universe (i.e. religions, philosophies) while happily allowing their own notions to exist to the exclusion of all others. Of course, they don't see it this way. They see it that "modern science" has delivered the "truth" to them through "honest research" and they selflessly give it to Man in all it's greatness. This is complete delusion and quite honestly extreme stupidity. But believers of every ilk always conceive themselves to be right, whether their belief system be one of religion or science. Again, this is something the humanists and rationalists will easily understand about past oppressive religions and governments, but will chronically fail to understand about themselves. In a nutshell, they have used the concepts of limiting government and destroying religion to set themselves up as the only government supported ideology. Ironically, a tenet of humanism advocates the prevention of the forwarding of any specific ideology:
Obviously, they consider their unique ideology immune from their own edicts. This is one of many examples where what someone or some group says has little to do with what they truly believe and do. The hypocrisy they attack so freely within past religions (i.e. Spanish Inquisition priest who claims to love Man so much that he will torture and murder him for his own benefit) is invisible to them when it comes to their own actual behavior. They don't and can't see it, but they are guilty of exactly the same flaws and crimes against humanity. Neurosis & Psychosis Starting with Freud and continuing with other psychologists, is the notion that a major part of Man's problems are due to the crazy beliefs, which have been foisted upon him in the name of religion, nationalism and philosophical systems. Sexual repression is a common example where many supposed neuroses and psychoses are due to overbearing notions of sexual discipline, virtue and restraint. It is true that certain absurd beliefs have been a cause for the inability of certain people to deal with life due to their own internalized strict and even absurd moral ideas. But again, they have thrown the baby out with the bath water. The book and movie, Carrie, by Stephen King was an interesting dramatic metaphor showing the results of religious and sexual repression. They have taken the idea that all morality, self-restraint and self-discipline are concepts enforced upon Man that inhibit his inherent creativity and natural goodness. This is absurd. Any honest student of history or human nature knows that all people have an irrational tendency to evil, especially if left unchecked. This is much more an observable scientific fact than all their wishy-washy preaching about man's inherent natural goodness and how parents and teachers must get out of the way and simply allow a child's creativity to blossom like a beautiful flower or butterfly. The modern psychological notions of Man as naturally good, only needing a non-oppressive environment to bring out his inherent best, is simply wrong. There is a good part within Man. But there is also a bad part. Call it whatever you like. This is a romantic idea based upon the philosophy of French philosopher Rousseau and his notion of the "noble savage". The idea is that Man is harmed by civilization and social institutions and the best anyone can do is leave him alone to unfold and grow naturally into his pure perfection. This idea also contains the Darwinian notion of the "natural biological evolution towards better conditions" inherent in all life, which is simply false, although strongly believed by many. This is all very interesting and cute, but it is quite absurd to base "science" on these notions, which is exactly what has been done. Once again, it's more opinion and fancy theory that has become institutionalized into the very fabric of society through numerous activities of the social scientists. Its a flawed notion that produces harmful results when applied (i.e. declining moral behavior). Man doesn't evolve to natural perfection and goodness when left alone, but instead, without a civilized environment and carefully chosen education he tends to become an immoral and stupid brute. There is no natural morality. The idea is as ludicrous as the notion of a natural mathematician or natural athlete who evolves through no education and develops simply by leaving him or her alone. These things are taught. That's what distinguishes Man from the rest of the animals. He can be taught. Failure to teach Man is a major error and crime because it ignores another of Man's most basic capabilities, and one which has enabled the advancement of civilization, Man's ability to learn. Learning is also another (very important) function of Man's thinking mind. Chisholm really believed that a child's belief in Santa Claus results in major mental disorder. This is ludicrous. Sticking a hot poker in the eyes of a 2-year old or repeatedly raping a 4-year old cause major mental turmoil. I am sorry, but it is simply not so that a belief in Santa Claus causes major mental disorder. My children believed in Santa Claus. Many other children believed in Santa Claus. I believed in Santa Claus. Many of you probably did also. It may have been a minor shock when they (or we) learned the truth, but they (we) readjusted their (our) view of reality and moved on smoothly and easily. I sure did not begin wetting my bed or stuttering the day I discovered the Christmas presents all neatly piled in the hall closet. Chisholm would have us believe that any and all beliefs in anything unseen or even outside oneself is pathological. That is how he views religion and all concepts of morality. It is true that there have been many stupid beliefs about many stupid things. But belief, in some form, is necessary to existence. You can't extinguish belief or the mind it emanates from without severe consequences. Tied up with this is the notion of the "fragile mind". This is so stupid. Things like watching your family being torn away and executed in front of you causes real mental stress. Violent rape causes real mental stress. Believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is so extremely minor in comparison. It's quite laughable that someone could promote this idea, much less be taken seriously by a majority of the modern educated world. This has much to say about the tenuous nature of the modern educated world of official academia. As with many psychological theories, they take a very minor and quite meaningless aspect of Man and living, blow it out of proportion, and bestow upon it a gross over-exaggeration of significance and meaning. The flip-side is that they neglect and devalue areas of valid importance, such as moral teachings, the mind of Man, and self-determined personal responsibility. Realize a large portion of psychology and psychiatry, especially the basic assumptions, are ideological in nature. They are not based upon firm science, observable fact or provable theories. True scientists welcome dissenting views, and even encourage opposite views as a prod to further future research, the formation of new theories, and the expansion of knowledge and understanding. Modern psychologists and psychiatrists largely abhor, resist, and actively fight dissent, altering views and conflicting opinions. They are not true "scientists" and the subjects have little to do with true "science". As with all belief systems based upon ideology, and not science, the adherents resist opposing views. Legitimate science is based upon and concerned with accurate observations and statements of the way things truly behave. Legitimate science always subjects itself to rigorous challenges that seek to falsify its premises, but ideologies can never be proven wrong because they are opinions held with conviction, and beliefs are often not subject to correction. People believe what they choose to believe. There is far too much belief and opinion parading as "verified facts" in the social sciences. The adherents of modern psychological theories of both moral and regular education (i.e. values clarification, situation analysis, OBE, whole language) are near fanatical on the subjects. It is a faith, a religion, a grandiose ideology to them. They appear at times to act as if it were a battle for the survival of the entire known universe. They do often attack and criticize what they view as "wrong" in a severe manner. They envision themselves, in a very deluded manner, as changing the world to a new wondrous and glorious place. They take it that seriously, and continuously assert the validity of their notions despite large amounts of evidence showing clearly that their methods don't work. At times, their methods even get opposite results. But they care little for results or proof. They are sure they are right, and no amount of facts, failed people or even collapsed societies will change their views. In the end they will justify all failures and explain them away as being due to something else besides their own defective theories and practices. Simply, they cannot be dealt with on any level of reason or sensible argument. They are elitists. They believe they know more what is better for you than you do yourself. They shouldn't be argued with at all. They can't be argued or reasoned with. They shouldn't be treated with any respect, because they show no one else any. Don't extend them the benefit of the doubt and assume they possess intellectual ability and honesty, because they have neither. They are fanatics and incapable of self-criticism. They are the modern religious zealots dedicated to enforcing their opinions and beliefs on the rest of us. They should be ignored, their theories and methods forgotten, and the rest of us should get on with creating a decent world. They are a sad chapter in Man's seemingly unending propensity to accept and follow ridiculous notions and practices, and the sooner they become a minor page in some dusty old history book, the better for all of us. Chisholm's views are representative of the entire field. He is not a unique aberration. In fact, he is the status quo and revered by most members of his affiliated fields. This doesn't portend well for Man or his future civilizations. There is only one solution and way out ... Say NO To Psychiatry! Back to Main SNTP Page
|
||||||||||||||||
Psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm is a highly influential past president of a
leading psychiatric body, the World Federation for Mental Health. He was also the director
of the World Health Organization from 1948-1953. He is a major influence on modern thought
in psychology, psychiatry and the social sciences.In 1945, Chisholm said:
