Thursday, September 3, 2009
Psychology Today Hit Piece Labels Conspiracy Thinking A Psychotic Illness
Psychologist Gartner fulfils the very criteria he levels at "conspiracy theorists" to claim their concerns are a product of mental instability
Paul Joseph Watson
September 2, 2009
In an article entitled Dark Minds: When does incredulity become paranoia, Psychology Today writer John Gartner attempts to make the case that the concerns of "conspiracy theorists" are not based in reality but are a product of mental instability, while himself fulfilling every criteria for what he claims classifies such people as psychotics – ignoring evidence that contradicts his preconceptions while embracing the ludicrous "conspiracy theory" that powerful men and governments do not conspire to advance their power.
Probably somewhat upset about how our coverage of the dangers associated with the swine flu vaccine has contributed to a global revolt against mass vaccination programs being readied, Psychology Today’s gravy train of big pharma advertisers will no doubt be pleased to see the publication wastes no time in savagely attacking radio host and film maker Alex Jones, dispensing with any notion of fairness and zealously going after him as early as the second paragraph.
The nature of this vicious hit piece (PDF link) is confirmed when Gartner laments that Jones refused to provide him with phone numbers for friends he grew up with, presumably frustrated that he couldn’t dig up some dirt from an old girlfriend to throw into the mix of what is nothing more than a personal attack on Jones’ character, and a complete departure from any debate about the issues Jones covers on his radio show, which is the phony pretext that Gartner used in order to secure the interview in the first place.
Gartner has trouble believing that eugenicists occupy powerful positions, even in the aftermath of the John P. Holdren story when Obama’s top science advisor was exposed as having advocated forced abortion, sterilization and mass drugging of the public. Despite the fact that we sent Gartner dozens of pieces of evidence for his article, he cites a single national security memorandum and dismisses it as "a bland policy report".
Mr. Gartner was obviously too lazy to read the entire document and/or too stupid to comprehend it.
The document to which he refers is National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller’s intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and war.
The document, declassified in 1989, identified 13 countries that were of special interest to U.S. geopolitical objectives and outlined why population growth, and particularly that of young people who were seen as a revolutionary threat to U.S. corporations, was a potential roadblock to achieving these objectives. The countries named were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.
The study outlined how civil disturbances affecting the "smooth flow of needed materials" would be less likely to occur "under conditions of slow or zero population growth."
"Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action," states the document.
The document called for integrating "family planning" (otherwise known as abortion) with routine health services for the purposes of "curbing the numbers of LDC people," (lesser-developed countries).
The report shockingly outlines how withholding food could be used as a means of punishment for lesser-developed countries who do not act to reduce their population, essentially using food as a weapon for a political agenda by creating mass starvation in under-developed countries.
"The allocation of scarce PL480 (food) resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production," states the document.
Later in the document, the idea of enforcing "mandatory programs" by using food as "an instrument of national power" is presented.
This is the quintessential example of powerful men conspiring to use eugenicist policies in order to advance their power. Gartner’s lazy claim that the document is just a "bland policy report" is manifestly absurd.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this isn’t a "connection" that we invented out of fresh air to make our brains release dopamine, as Gartner’s bizarre hit piece goes on to claim, it’s there in black and white, but Gartner has either failed to read the whole document or has performed his own act of psychological gymnastics and summarily dismissed the evidence because it does not fit with his preconceptions – the very charge he levels at "conspiracy theorists" in his hit piece.
Gartner says conspiracy theorists are "immune to evidence" and yet he displays that very trait in this instance.
It isn’t long before Gartner regurgitates the tired old cliche about people needing to create conspiracy theories and some semblance of order to make themselves feel better in a chaotic world. He even claims that "finding meaning in sometimes insignificant events" creates dopamine, an overproduction of which can lead to schizophrenia. Of course, none of this has any relation whatsoever to powerful people planning the future of the planet that they rule (a ridiculous "conspiracy theory" in Gartner’s mind), but Gartner’s objective isn’t to disprove the claims of Alex Jones in a logical manner, it’s to denounce the messenger using convoluted and ham-fisted psychological rhetoric that isn’t even applicable.
But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The greatest purveyors of myths and "conspiracy theories" about political events have and always will be authorities and governments. Scientists who recently investigated why so many people believed the falsehood that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 found that Americans wanted to believe that Iraq was connected to 9/11 because it helped them make sense of current reality. How is that any different from the claim that conspiracy theorists invent connections to help them better comprehend current events?
Beyond the accusations of who invents what to justify their worldview – conspiracists and debunkers alike – are the facts. History is littered with political conspiracies that actually happened and were not the manifestation of unstable minds.
Indeed, history tells us that the bigger the lie, the bigger the conspiracy, the more likely the masses are to believe it, and governments throughout the ages have harnessed this trick to pursue their agendas since time began. In such an environment, those who aggressively question the official authodoxy, or "conspiracy theorists" as Gartner labels them, should be welcomed as a key bulwark against the kind of tyranny and oppression that has blighted the world at numerous intervals in the past, aided in no small part by the quack psychologists in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that classified skepticism of the state as a mental illness, an implication Gartner regurgitates in his hit piece.
It was not deception on behalf of "conspiracy theorists" that convinced Germans to follow Adolf Hitler, the lies that built the Nazi tyranny came directly from the state. It was not the beliefs of "conspiracy theorists" that hoodwinked Americans into thinking Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that particular "big lie" came directly from the lips of the President of the United States.
"We’re all conspiracy theorists to some degree," writes Gartner and never has a truer word been spoken. Gartner has to be the biggest conspiracy theorist of all because he seems to hold the ludicrous belief that powerful men do not get together and plan things, which in Gartner’s mind is a viewpoint indicative of a psychotic mind.
As is always the case, the debunker, in this case Gartner, completely fails to grasp that his stance is completely out of touch with modern day sentiment. He poses as some kind of authority figure casting down his disdain upon the bedraggled minority of "conspiracy theorists" below, yet he is in the minority. It is Gartner’s twilight zone world of angelic governments who commit no sin except within the twisted minds of dangerous psychotics, in light of admitted conspiracies that continue to be exposed on an almost daily basis – the phony terror alerts, the cronyism of the banker bailout, the torture scandal, that represents a genuine display of psychotic thinking.
Gartner is really scraping the barrel when he unearths a 7-year-old incident about a disturbed man attempting to enter Bohemian Grove carrying guns in an effort to portray conspiracy theorists, an in particular Alex Jones, as a physical danger to society.
In reality, the kind of warped thinking that Gartner embraces, that skepticism of government is a form of mental illness, is one of the most dangerous threats to a free society that ever existed.
As we have seen before in history, the designation of political opinions deemed to be antagonistic towards or even merely skeptical of the state as a psychological illness is a hallmark of tyranny.
In the former Soviet Union, psikhushkas — mental hospitals — were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. The Soviet state began using mental hospitals to punish dissidents in 1939 under Stalin.
According to official Soviet psychiatry and the Moscow Serbsky Institute at the time, "ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure." Treatment for this special political schizophrenia included various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, lumbar punctures, various drugs — such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and insulin — and beatings. Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag: A History, indicates that at least 365 sane people were treated for "politically defined madness," although she surmises there were many more.
These kind of "treatments" for the "mental illness" of being a conspiracy theorist or merely being skeptical of government were brutally enforced by quack psychologists in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, a fact that Gartner, trapped in his bubble of delusion and ignorance of any evidence that contradicts with his preconceptions, claimed to be completely unaware of when we confronted him with it.
Quack psychologists like Gartner who define distrust of authorities and alternative explanations for the "official story" put out by governments who have repeatedly proven themselves to be liars as a form of psychosis are themselves as mentally unstable as their much vaunted peers – people like the insane cocaine addict Sigmund Freud and the Nazi child abuser Alfred Kinsey – and represent a far greater danger to society than the "conspiracy theorists" that they so readily seek to denigrate.
by Larry Simons
I just sent John Gartner this email. I fully intend to make the trip to Baltimore and do an interview if he agrees. My guess is, he won't respond at all. If not, I will give him a call. I will keep you updated here if/when he responds and whether the interview will take place.
Here's the email I just sent minutes ago:
So, in your article titled, "Dark Minds: When does incredulity become paranoia" are you suggesting that there are no conspiracies? Are you saying that there are not powerful people who meet and discuss world policy that effects us all? The Bilderberg group doesnt exist? Globalization doesnt exist? If there is no cover-up about 9-11 at all, why is there so much secrecy and hundreds of questions that have been IGNORED by the government and political leaders about it? Why was any mention of World Trade Center 7 completely omitted from the 9-11 Commission report? Are we "crazy" to even ask the questions? And when we get NO answers, we're "conspiracy nuts"?
I also noticed that in your entire article, you didn't debunk one thing Alex Jones claims, not one. It was a complete hit piece on his character. I don't live far from you. I would be very happy to visit Baltimore soon and sit down and have an interview with you to ask YOU questions and to provide facts for you that essentially prove the things that Jones claims. Would you agree to a sit-down interview? You shouldn't be against giving me time to interview you and present facts to you since in your article you said about Jones, "When I asked if I could interview his family or childhood friends, he insisted his family was very "private" and he had not kept in touch with a single friend. When I asked if I might look them up, he became irritated."
So, I ask you, if I invite you to a sit-down interview and provide evidence to you that the things Jones claims is true and at the very, very least covered-up, would you agree to it? Or will you give me the same response you claimed Jones did? Since you criticize others for not agreeing to deeper questioning and research (by the way, questioning Jones' friends and relatives has nothing to do with whether Jones' claims of conspiracies are true or not) then you should be 100% willing to sit down with me and give me at least an hour to do an interview based on the completely false information in your article.
You claim that people that hold "conspiracy theories" are out of touch with reality and that "conspiracy theories exist on a spectrum from mild suspicion to full-on paranoia". OK, you are entitled to believe that, but can you do an interview with me and be willing to see the proof I present to you that the things Jones says is most certainly true? Or will you claim, "I have no time" or "I'm really not interested in giving you any spotlight or credence"? Prove that YOU are the sane, responsible, normal person and I am the crackpot by sitting down with me for an hour and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm a looney. You should have no problem doing that, right? If the truth rests with you, then you should jump at the chance, right?
What I predict you will say (if you respond at all) is: "I know you will view my turning you down for an interview as me being scared of what you have to present to me and will only add to your already delusional list of conspiracies, but I really do have a lot on my plate and have a busy practice here to attend to". But yet you didn't mind taking the time out of your "busy" practice to write an article about Alex Jones and how "crazy" he is, although not once in the article did you refute one thing he said.
Here is my official invitation to do a one hour (at least) interview with me and the date and time you designate. Baltimore is only 70 miles from me. I'd be happy to make the drive. I realize the article was about Alex Jones, but it offends me as well, since I hold many of the same views as Jones. This interview will be respectful and civil and I would like it to be filmed. You should have no problem at all with it being filmed if you believe your views are 100% fact----and plus, wouldn't you want to make a "conspiracy nut" like me look foolish on film? The date and time can be any time you like. It doesn't have to be this week, next week or this month. It can be whenever you have one hour to sit down and talk to me, so don't write back and tell me that you have next week booked and the week after and the week after that. It can be anytime.
I thank you for your time. I'm looking forward to your response
Also posted at Prison Planet, here