Summary of GEP’s newsletter 1/17 of July 2017
This bulletin may be the last one in a line of forty years. The latest annual assembly of GEP, Walter von Baeyer’s Society for Ethics in Psychiatry (until 1999 Society against Psychiatric Abuse), has decided to let its work run out since its “draught horses” have grown old and younger forces have not appeared to continue its work comprising case work AND the review of the historical and pseudo-scientific roots of psychiatgric abuses. We deplore this outcome since GEP’s help has continuously been asked for by victims of psychiatric abuse until today. Naturally, it’s not amazing that there is no crush of colleagues to succeed in our position since our work had to be done on a strictly honorary base over 40 years. And it had been supported neither by the hierarchy of psychiatry nor the political establishment, the latter perhaps being more likely interested in “flexible psycho sciences”.
Even the well known abuses in former Soviet psychiatry were sentenced only reluctantly by international psychiatrists e.g. at WPA’s congress in Honolulu in 1977 by a 90:88 vote. By attributing the diagnosis of Narcisstic Personality Disorder to president Trump American psychiatrists have not only toppled the widely spread animosity of the establishment against him but have also violated their own ethical standards like APA’s Goldwater rule of the 1970s. Highly avowed principles were overridden in psychiatric practice time and again. Incidentally, we are no fans of Trump’s politics.
It seems, however, that not only individual deviation from good psychiatric principles cause harm but some weaving flaws within these principles are doing so, as well. Psychiatry and psychology are indispensable in assessing or excluding and in healing or at least alleviating mental diseases. Psychoanalysis, however, which has been exposed to be a mere pseudo-science by many scholars especially in English and French speaking countries is interspersing modern manuals of those disciplines and thus endangers or even spoils their practice and expert reports until today. “Psychoanalysis” is an official title offered by the official German medical board (Bundesaerztekammer). Freud has attributed psychiatric diagnoses to opponents, even former friends, easily. And since they have been included officially into those modern diagnostic manuals like DSM and ICD dubious Freudian diagnoses like Narcisstic or Borderline Personality Disorders have been distributed generously by some colleagues, even to the president of the United States.
The next World Congress of Psychiatry is taking place in Berlin in autumn 2017. At WPA’s congress in 1971 it has been Walter von Baeyer, its first German vice president (1966-71), later GEP’s honorary president, who showed at WPA’s congress in Mexico that a severe conflict between psychiatrists in East and West in those days had to be addressed. The then existing political tensions at the time have helped to overcome those problems which were of more an ethical than a political nature. Today there are dangerous conflicts between East and West again. Happily they don’t touch upon psychiatry. But some of psychiatry’s lasting or even new shortcomings have to be addressed nonetheless. In any case the improved means of communication will help to expose and, thus, to overcome them. After 40 years we end GEP’s work with hope.
Dr. F. Weinberger, GEP July 7, 2017
Summary of GEP’s newsletter 2/16 of November 2016
In GEP’s newsletter („Rundbrief“) 2/16 we summarize the main elements, content, history and present situation of psychoanalysis as we could present them in some TV spots recently. Mr. Schlagmann, a psychologist and member of our board, disputing it with 17 politically supported psychoanalytical bodies shows the confused situation in this part of “mental health care”. This part while always being supported by politics and the media has been conquered by pseudo-science, now, almost completely.
We report on a new open discussion on political abuses of psychiatry in the former GDR. Like many other hardships or even crimes of the former communist regime they have been softened by Western agencies during the last two decades leaving back many frustrated victims of the former totalitarian regime.
And we discuss gender mainstreaming, another questionable outcome of Freudism reaching back to Wilhelm Reich. His Freud-Marxist concepts have been backed by highest political bodies. Today they are about being introduced in Germany by federal and state governments in most artful ways. Thus, we welcome the new resistance in our country against such alienations which obviously are being „pushed“ on all Western countries as part of the New World Order. Being especially concerned about a confined field of psychiatry, our profession, we welcome similar criticism concerning general politics that has been voiced during the now ending election campaign in the USA. At least, the situation has been clarified for many people.
Dr. Friedrich Weinberger, GEP November 7, 2016
Summary of GEP’s newsletter 1/16 of June 2016
GEP’s Newsletter („Rundbrief“) 1/16 is reporting about the activities and concerns of our group during the past few months. We were able to address some of them also in two TV-spots: one on Russia Today (RT Deutsch), the other one on an alternative channel: Quer-denken.TV. We discuss the disturbing developments in psychiatry and psychotherapy since the cultural revolution of the 1960s and present some cases of psychiatric abuses resulting from it. The case of Gustl Mollath with his over seven years of psychiatric internment for political reasons has been the most upsetting of them but by no means the only one.
Opposing Soviet psychiatric abuses some decades ago we see these abominable malpractices happening in our own country now – in the West. Considering this background its turn against Putin‘s new Russia seems to us to be rather hypocritical. As ever we fight for a neat and respectable psychiatry and against its abuse against dissenters. Thus, we fight also against pseudo-scientific distortions in psychiatry which have always been underlying its abuses.
The most influential of them is psychoanalysis today. In spite of having been dethroned by reputed Anglo-American scholars since the 1970s scientifically psychoanalysis has dominated American psychiatry for decades nonetheless. And it is exerting highly dubious influence on international psychiatry even today inter alia by some distortions APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has introduced into fundamental categories of psychiatry. It has instigated psychiatric reforms since the 1960s – and psychiatric malpractices and abuses, as well.
Dr. med. Friedrich Weinberger June 8, 2016
Summary of GEP’s newsletter 2/15 of November 2015
In recent years we had to fight psychiatric abuses in Germany and have been successful in some few cases. We have not seen them happening in spite of the new diagnostic manuals DSM and ICD but rather as a consequence of them. This new American based diagnostic system has produced diagnostic negligence so more as it leans at the ideas of psychoanalysis. Freud who has labelled many of his opponents and even many of his followers to be mentally ill has been reduced to the status of a quack during recent decades specially by eminent Anglo-American scholars. With DSM and ICD, however, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has succeeded to push Freudian terms into international psychiatry. And Western media present Freud as a giant of wisdom as before. Thus, Freud is continuing his influence on psychiatry and the public. American psychiatric diagnoses and attitudes are imposed on psychiatrists and psychologists everywhere. Often enough they ecause damage on many individuals, old an young ones, in various ways. Beyond that they declare ever greater parts of the population to be mentally ill needing psychiatric assistance. The introduction of the new diagnostic system in German psychiatry has been part of the 1960s’ cultural revolution and its psychiatric reform. We have criticised this in several of GEP’s newsletters already.
GEP’s new information bulletin (Rundbrief 2/15) of November 2015 also picks up on what is the paramount political issue in Germany today, the mass immigration from the Middle East and from Africa into Europe, specially to this country. It has a lot of different aspects. We assess it also to be an off-spring of the 1960’s neo-Marxist cultural revolution which has been a composition of some ideas of Marx and much more of Freud. Of course, there have also been beneficial results of this “new left”, e.g. the war in Vietnam being ended, sexual restriction being softened. Some prominent psychoanalysts have recommended the immigration of foreigners for balancing out the low birth rates in the country in the 1990s already. We do not see the substantial change of the country and its population and other results of “Freud-Marxism” in such a glowing light. Free opinion has been restricted´. “Political correctness, “moral imperialism” also seem to be their results.
The construction of political consciousness and the contributions of psychiatry, psychology and mental healthcare have been discussed by many scholars and writers since long but never on the boulevard. Especially those who complain about political developments like today’s mass immigration have never shown any interest for the “industry of mind” which has created the precondition for such a disruptive development. Obviously, it is directed by higher echelons. The psychiatric hierarchy sees the profession to be challenged only for integrating the incoming masses and quelling the unrest
A major contribution to Rundbrief 2/15 has been made by Dr. C. Discher who has experienced the habits and procedures of modern (neo-Marxist) German psychiatry in a hospital near the frontier to Poland as an adolescent some years after the fall of the wall. Later on he could recover arduously from this treatment, could study and become a Dr. phil. in English and French, eventually. He has posted his experiences in a book which will also appear in English with the title THE VOICES OF THOSE REMAINING so that his experience will not have to be suffered in other countries, as well, resulting partly from professional negligence, partly from a psychiatrically ill-informed public.
After 1945 we, too, have welcomed American re-eduation in Germany as a way to a more humane society. In the 1970s and ’80s we have supported the APA in fighting Soviet psychiatric abuses. However, after having experienced the continuing Neo-Freud-Marxist revolution of consciousness (being followed by, eventually, similar Neo-Lib and Neo-Con ideas) and their results on psychiatry and all other fields of society we have begun to re-consider it.
The only statesman who has acknowledged the malice of systematic psychiatric abuse has been Michail Gorbachev so far. Today we welcome the resurgence of Putin’s Russia. By its mental strength and its capability in sustaining suffering, Russia has overcome the rule of Tartars, Stalinism, the invasion of Nazi-Germany and many other plagues. It seems to be resistant against psycho-political subversion. A new balance of power may be beneficial for the world, last but not least, for psychiatric healthcare, as well.
Dr. Weinberger, GEP
 from quite different political corners like Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, C. von Schrenck-Notzing, L. LaRouche – for naming only some few.
Summary of GEP’s newsletter 1/15 of June 2015
In its new information bulletin (Rundbrief 1/15) GEP presents some of the most horrible and sensational scandals in German (and international) psychiatry of recent times. Some of them have been brought to an end with the help of some members of GEP. We see these scandals resulting from the uncritical acceptance of the American diagnostic manual DSM and its plagiarism ICD by international psychiatry. From its beginning DSM has been based on Freudian pseudo-science. Also in its more symptom-related new versions (IV and 5) DSM is spreading and strengthening Freud’s charlatanism, thus, flinging psychiatry back into a state of pre-scientific arbitrariness. The pertinent cases of psychiatric and psychological malpractice are its results. They render these diagnostic manuals unacceptable. Freud has long since been dethroned scientifically also by Anglo-American scholars.
Summary of GEP’s newsletter s (Rundbrief) 1/2014
This bulletin (GEP’s Rundbrief 1/14) reports on three present-day cases of psychiatric (and psychological) abuse in Germany which we could help to ward off, eventually. They were quite similar to those in the former Soviet Union. The engineer Gustl Mollath had been interned in a psychiatric hospital for seven and a half years of forced confinement in clear words for reporting illegal (but highly protected) financial transactions. He has been released in August 2013 due to our psychiatric counter-examination of his case. The recent re-opening of proceedings has not brought his case to a definite end. Peter Putzhammer, an attorney in law, whose capacity to stand trial had been doubted by one of the most reputed German forensic psychiatrists could safeguard his legal rights eventually due to a similar counter-report of ours. And Andrea Kuwalewsky, a police officer, was found unfit by a psychologist to educate her beloved four children (5 to 12 years old) and thus was deprived of them in November 2013. She could take them home in August eventually after a counter-expertise of us notifying her mental fitness had stirred up the local media and thus the public in the surrounding. It has not been our psychiatric expertise itself but in first instance just the public indignation incited by us which has lead to the more appropriate evaluation of these cases by the courts.
Psychiatric and psychologic misdiagnoses resulting in tragic míscarriages of justice destroying the lives of many innocent people, young and old ones, are no individual malpractices but are part of the modern diagnostic system of psychiatry, DSM and ICD. This system has included mere pseudo-science: Psychoanalysis. Freudian tenets have been dismantled by many reputed scholars especially in English speaking countries since the 1970ies beginning with Henry Ellenberger’s THE DISCOVERY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS. The American psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey is the author of FREUDIAN FRAUD, another of the many books – which showcase the extent of swindle in this field of “science”.
But even those who have uttered meticulous criticism against Freud have by-passed the fact that psychoanalysis while withdrawing somewhat from the public scene has penetrated silently the whole psychiatric system put down in ICD and DSM by camouflage thus making Freudian pseudo-science even more “efficient” or better to say, more destructive. Psychoanalytical terms like Borderline-Personality-Disorder, a mere conglomerate of ubiquitous unspecific traits in man have found entrance to the diagnostic manuals like DSM-III-R: 301.83, in later versions repeated and ICD-10: F 60.31. Such constructs are implemented upon many a mother and other normal persons impairing their civil rights when played out in court by often dubious “psycho-experts”. Many of DSM’s and ICD’s diagnoses are based on weak and flexible criteria and, thus, are handy means for the mighty to crush opponents or other unpleasant people. As we know from Hitler’s times most German psychiatrists shy away from rebuking unreasonable or even criminal requests by higher levels. In a moment of honesty the prominent German psychiatrist Holsboer (by no means our ally) has characterized the modern diagnostic system of psychiatry as follows: “If somebody meets five of nine criteria in a manual, he/she has the illness. If he/she meets only four, he/she does not have it. What a nonsense”.
The new diagnoses in DSM and ICD, some of them outright “Freudian” quackery, have been issued by a bunch of (by no means undisputed) “experts”. They don’t result from decades of observation, debate and latest agreement of the entire psychiatric community as did psychiatric diagnoses before. Some of them originate even from psychologists, alien to the psychiatric profession. The new DSM-5 is not the only problem.
The nonsense being constitutive of many of the “new” diagnoses is happening now worldwide and has been implemented by an ever growing hungry crowd of “shrinks”, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, etc. Even Russia has joined ICD in 1999 obviously falling out from their own fryíng-pan into Western fire. “America”, better to say: a bunch of American “experts” seem really to be “the only Superpower” (Z. Brzezinski) in the world – of psychiatry. But you may assume as well, they themselves are the puppets of an international political “class” which is interested in maintaining and strengthening a “psycho-industry” that confuses and denigrates human beings for better controlling them.
Over 40 years, the fight for an ethical mental health care has been going on. As long as psychiatric “expertise” allows or even promotes abuses, this fight cannot come to a standstill.
Summary 2/12 (September 2012)
In GEP's newsletter (Rundbrief) 2/12 we report on psychiatric abuses in Germany (and China), some new cases and some old ones which we have been presented in former editions already. Here we report on their further development. To some extent they have been exposed by German general media but not by the professional bodies until now.
We tackle the conditions of such malpractices. To some extent we see them lying in the "autistic-undisciplined kind of thinking in medicine" which has been described by the famous Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler. Whereas "Evidence Based Medicine" has taken over most fields of health-care today the "undisciplined kind of thinking" has been continued throughout the psychiatric reforms of recent decades including the modern classifications of diseases (diagnoses) (DSM and ICD) and all their new terms and concepts of treatments.
Of course, there has been real need for psychiatric reform in many countries after WW2 since 1.) the material exhaustion of the preceding years had hit the care for the mentally ill worst (they had to be compensated now urgently) and 2.) new psychiatric drugs had emerged from the 1950s which have substantially eased much of the plight of the mentally ill. All this was offering but also requesting new perspectives and new endeavours in this field.
Psychoanalysis, too, had reached the peak of its influence at this time promising healing for all suffering of individuals and of society - while scarcely justifying it. Psychiatric reform, we can say, has risen from of a mixture of real needs, real new chances and totally unrealistic, pseudoscientific promises. In the meantime more sobriety has gained ground obviously specially in the English speaking world. Nonetheless the remnants of psychoanalysis, true fruits of "the autistic-undisciplined kind of thinking in medicine", are living on in psychiatry and specially psychotherapy, last not least by their infiltration in the many terms of modern diagnostic manuals such as DSM and ICD as well as in therapeutic applications. In Germany psychoanalysis is also blossoming under the guise of "Psychosomatics & Psychotherapy" being officially acknowledged here as a medical faculty. In this hidden form psychoanalysis is even more influential today as ever and often more dangerous.
There is some unrest today about psychiatric abuses in China. The fact that healthy people are stripped from their basic rights, parents, mothers, fathers robbed of their little children, healthy public servants being dismissed from their positions and innocent healthy men even being imprisoned in psychiatric wards for years on the basis of dubious psychiatric-psychoanalytical DSM-/ICD-diagnoses and by forced applications of pseudo-therapies is taken dispassionately in today's Germany, a "state under the rule of right". Neither relevant politicians nor their dependent psychiatric hierarchy who have promoted psychiatric reform care passionately about them, avoiding specially to ask about the connections between such human rights violations and their praised reform.
By psychiatric reform politicians have gained grounds in Germany now for depriving their citizens of their constitutional rights. Has this been the reason why they have promoted this reform and have curbed all timely criticism? Did they use its unquestioned necessary features for dissimulating and carrying through the questionable ones thus being able now to abuse psychiatry for their aims, promoting their agenda e.g. removing the parent-child relation -
 Das autistisch-undisziplinierte Denken in der Medizin und seine Überwindung, Springer, 1962
GEP’s new Bulletin (Rundbrief 1/12) reports on some favourable and some disadvantageous developments in (German) psychiatry. The fact that some prominent colleagues have distanced themselves from psychoanalysis recently – of course, it continues to be the most widely practiced psychotherapeutic method in this country – may be a sign of growing rationality in this field. We thought we could further this development by promoting the International Network of Freud Critics (INFC) and have seen some moderate effects, so far.
However, we have to report on rather unpleasant events, too, new psychiatric abuses in our democratic country beside the „old“ examples of such abuses in its former communist part, the GDR. A lot of scientific and political bodies prefer to play them down similarly to what their predecessors did with Nazi crimes before.
Anyhow, these latest malpractices have been brought to public attention by the media, the TV and different journals, in recent weeks and months. The public echo on one of them (the case of Gustl Mollath – Rundbrief 1/11) is exceeding all former reports on scandals in this field and it seems to be only the beginning. Everybody understands that what has happened to Mollath may happen to anyone, since the cooperation of juridical, psychiatric and political bodies has been so complete that all public interest and the increasing help Mollath is receiving from supporters have not succeed in setting him free.
Not only personal responsibilities are at stake in this and similar cases of medical malpractice but also proneness to the latter inside the structure and the (to some extent pseudo-) scientific content of modern psychiatry and psychotherapy itself. If you look only to the modern classification systems like DSM and ICD and consider Personality Disorders like the Paranoid Personality Disorder including the Querulous Personality Disorder (ICD-10: F 60.0) you must not be astonished that it is implemented frequently since its definition is so vague that it can be attributed to almost all opponents. It has also impacted on some of the above mentioned men and women and has ruined their professional careers by its excessive pretentions. APA’s DSM-V is promising still more of such scientific inconsistencies.
All this seems to represent Western “reformed” psychiatry with its new diagnostic “reliability” and its “more human” dealing with sufferers. It shows its “superiority” to former psychiatric schemes, especially to Soviet ones. Another result of this psychiatric reform mostly instigated by some self-proclaimed “leading authorities in this field” (or their political masters) seems to be the increasing numbers of psychiatric sufferers reported worldwide.
We subscribing psychiatrists began our professional work in the 1960s, and our fighting against new politically instigated incursions into psychiatric ethics has been faced with numerous distortions and deceptions over the years. Recently, we learned that even some leaders of American psychiatry whom we had appreciated as allies for many years concur with communist collaborators of the former secret police of the GDR (Stasi) now (see summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 1/11). Of course, the political camps of former days are intermingled and blurred, today. But there is still a frontier between right and wrong. And psychiatric abuse once being centred in communist countries but now being met even in our midst will always be recognized as one of the most malicious attacks on man.
Seeing the unbiased new attentiveness for the mentioned new cases of psychiatric abuses we are confident that the fight will be continued as long as they continue to occur. Psychiatry that has gone astray often enough has found and will find its way back to enduring ethical standards. Reasonable criticism from outside and inside will help.
Dr. med. Friedrich Weinberger
Prof. Dr. med. Klemens Dieckhoefer
Vice President, GEP
 In Ethics in Psychiatry – European Contributions, Springer 2010, e-ISBN 978-90-481-8721-8, page 286, they speak of “rather limited psychoanalytically reasoned treatment methods with appropriate proof of effectiveness”, without saying why “rather limited methods” should be more effective than full-scale Freudian procedures, the efficacy of which is zero.
 In our latest Rundbrief 1/11 we have reported already on the case of a businessman whose international trading enterprise for precious carpets in Munich has been ruined by a highly ranking representative of international psychiatry. We have presented the case of four public servants, investigators of tax evasion dismissed from their employment by a psychiatrist obviously on instigation of political superiors. Gustl Mollath (see above) who is interned in a forensic ward since almost six years has been examined by me (W) and by another experienced colleague and has been found in good mental health, the sentence against him being a charade. And there have been other well documented cases of psychiatric malpractice or even abuse, as well. We regard such incidents resulting from “The Autistic-Undisciplined Thinking in Medicine” & psychiatry (Eugen Bleuler) and regard the acceptance of psychoanalysis as another example of this.
 Ethics in Psychiatry – page 548
Summary of GEP’s Bulletin (Rundbrief) 1/11 of July 2011
In this bulletin (GEP’s Rundbrief 1/11) we expose the reasons for the lack of attention paid to those who have suffered painful systematic abuses of psychiatry in the former GDR. Our association has fought them primarily in the USSR since 1977 but is fighting them wherever they occur.
After the break-down of the Soviet Union the American Smith-Richardson-Foundation has declared it would not like to hear about this issue any more. Starting with a new book (COLD WAR IN PSYCHIATRY, ISBN 978-90-420-3048-0) by Robert van Voren (alias Johannes Bax) we review this fight. Until 1990 the horrors of these abuses has come to international attention only from the former USSR. As van Voren has revealed now (unintentionally?) the fight against them has been “fought” or better: has obviously been deflected during the 1980s by the tops of some psychiatric associations, e.g. the APA and the WPA, the American and the World Psychiatric Associations. Their representatives have mostly been communists or ex-communists themselves, the vice-president of the WPA being even an unofficial collaborator of the secret police of the former GDR, the “Stasi”. Van Voren praises him for being an “upright communist” and presents himself and some officers of the APA as imparting “feelings of friendship and mutual respect”, now. Thus, it is not surprising that the result of their former “fight” has been that Soviet psychiatrists who abused their profession and tortured dissidents – they had withdrawn from WPA in 1983 fearing to be expelled at that time – could return to this international professional body in 1989 without having changed their positions or their practices. Similarly it’s not surprising that communist influence can be felt in psychiatry today, even more.
We learn from van Voren’s book also that the red top of the APA (of the 1980s only?) has instigated psychiatric reform inter alia by publishing the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is used world-wide together with a similar international system of classification of diseases, the ICD. By their vague and inconsistent diagnostic definitions these manuals allow or even seduce psychiatrists to declare almost everybody to be mentally ill and incompetent and thus deprive them of their rights – e.g. when wanted by higher echelons.
The systems of reform-psychiatric diagnoses have become a means for enforcing orders of superiors regardless of their legality and of their political colour. Recently, they have been used in Germany for expelling civil servants from their positions while properly performing their lawful duties. Reform-psychiatry has become an instrument of exercising almost totalitarian power. In our bulletin we describe what happened to five citizens in our midst, one of them being confined to a psychiatric hospital since over five years just for speaking out against criminal manoeuvres of some high financial potentates (“banksters”). The man has been examined by me and has been found in perfect mental health. It seems that his long confinement is also a result of the Smith-Richardson-Foundation’s unwillingness to hear about psychiatric abuses any more.
The fact that one of the most highly ranking German psychiatrists has recently been sentenced to pay an exorbitant high compensation for professional misconduct may be a warning to our colleagues world-wide not to go astray from medical ethics even under the guise of psychiatric “reform”.
In former bulletins – many of them can be inspected under www.psychiatrie-und-ethik-de – we have highlighted criticisms of Freudian tenets by some American colleagues. Freudian Fraud (the title of a famous book of the eminent American psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey M.D.) is another part of “psychiatric reform” pretending scientific correctness like DSM and ICD. Having been spread world-wide psychoanalysis, too, has not become less fraudulent or less bewildering for individuals and societies by that. Since the psychoanalytic movement originated in the USA we have taken such criticisms by American colleagues to be a sign of relief and hope for all the world and continue to support the International Network of Freud Critics INFC. Having experienced the great moral capacity of our American colleagues who have opposed psychiatric abuse numerously e.g. at the World Congress of Psychiatry in Honolulu 1977 we are confident that they, too, will not tolerate our profession to be reversed into a means of indoctrination, fraud and terror, eventually.
Dr. med. Friedrich Weinberger, Neurologist & Psychiatrist, President, GEP
Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 2/10
Rundbrief 2/10, GEP’s information bulletin of November 2010, discusses first a case of political abuse of psychiatry in the former GDR (1945 – 1989). It is extraordinary not only for the cruel suffering of the victim (L.T.) and the contribution family members have rendered to the state’s psychiatric oppression. It is extraordinary also since some official bodies and doctors have obstructed the rehabilitation of L.T. for 16 years after the fall of the dictatorship. We see some highly ranking psychiatrists to be more interested in transferring reported harm into scientific studies than rendering real help to sufferers like L.T. Their festering wounds help these doctors to promote their own academic career and, incidentally, help them to protect the reputation of their wounding professional predecessors and the reputation of their (psychiatric) institutions.
We review a newly published book, Psychiatrie in der DDR, where those who have experienced communist psychiatry report their experiences, former patients mostly with disgust and glad to have survived, the psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists mostly satisfied with red psychiatry they have served before with their best intention.
An analogy of such attitudes is the long lasting protection of some Nazi criminals by the German state department, the Auswaertiges Amt, which has been exposed recently and is discussed broadly in our country now accompanied with open indignation and remorse. In spite of some lip services in this case the evil-doers of the second dictatorship on German soil are protected in still larger numbers and seemingly with even more sophistication and impudence, the motives being similar here and there: protection of the revered institutions.
Further we discuss a report of Deutschlandfunk that has recently reported about Russian psychiatry mentioning former Soviet psychiatric abuse. We could hear Aleksandr Podrabinek a well known former plaintiff of this practice, and could hear Professor Yuri Savenko again, both living in Moscow. In what they said about the present situation in their country we found a lot of common traits, many of the former mal-practitioners being in high medical positions as before here and there. Political abuse of psychiatry is still in vogue today in China.
Happily we can also point to a highlight of good services for the victims of political-psychiatric oppression by a German ministry. The state of Thuringia has registered 21 of them appropriately and brought them to official acknowledgment and compensation. We would wish we could report about similar achievements also by other political bodies in our country.
Further we discuss psychotherapy. We present an original letter of Freud which has become known publicly only recently. Freud who has insisted again and again his tenets to be pure science calls them a “creed” here – obviously by a Freudian slip. Whereas psychoanalysis as a therapeutic practice seems to be in steep decline in English speaking countries it is flourishing in Germany and some other parts of the world as before. We ask how tenets and methods which have been called a “creed” by their inventor himself can be sold as “evidence based medicine” to suffering people by doctors and ask how even some reputed Freud critics can by-pass this practice continuing in those countries being protected by national and international medical and political bodies. In addition we expose another psychotherapy and its absurdities which are similarly fostered and, thus, popular today (not only) in Germany, Bert Hellinger’s “family positioning”.
We then present a text of a mail we have sent recently to over 2.200 German psychiatric colleagues in free practice. Beside other points we have informed them about the severe sentence against a reputed clinician in German state psychiatry for professional misconduct. Our psychiatric journals mostly controlled by them (and by Big Pharma) usually don’t report such sensible stuff. We have pointed to the responsibility of free psychiatric practitioners not only for mental health but also for independent expert opinion, a decisive pledge for a free society.
Acknowledging the contribution other “psycho-professionals” like psychologists have rendered to psychiatry (e.g. in the field of anxiety disorders) we see the independence of psychiatry including independent expert opinion to be jeopardized by all the bonds of psychiatrists with other “psycho-professionals” in and outside of the “multi-professional teams” of social psychiatry. The majority of psychiatric treatments needs the confidential dual setting of a patient and his competent doctor. Aldous Huxley, a critic of psychoanalysis, too, has warned us of mental health services rendered by “re-conditioning centers” of a Brave New World. It’s looming, he said, “just behind the next corner”. Some officers of national and international psychiatric associations did not really resolve our pertinent concern in recent years.
Friedrich Weinberger M.D., President, GEP Professor Klemens Dieckhoefer M.D. Vice President
Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 1/09 (July 2009)
The main topic of this new bulletin of GEP are the abuses of psychiatry and psychology for political ends in the former communist part of our country, again. After long lasting hesitation they have been acknowledged by official bodies just recently. As we have given many examples of them over the years we have exposed the practice of systematic psychiatric abuse in the GDR in a comprehensive article in a prestigious journal of Berlin’s Free University, now. In the bulletin we also discuss the mild handling of this and other human rights violations by German authorities and the media in present days.
Eventually, we see these failures resulting from directives from high echelons of international health administration like the WHO. Before becoming its first Secretary General G. Brock Chisholm M.D. has requested world wide reform in psychiatry and the humanities and has established the guide lines for them in an address to the US administration in 1945. Denigrating “the concept of right and wrong, the poison long ago described and warned against as ‘the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” Chisholm has recommended “the reinterpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong […] the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”. We ask: Are these ends really the goal of psychiatry and psychotherapy and their reform which has been backed emphatically by many Western politicians?
Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 2/08 (of November 2008)
GEP’s new bulletin (Rundbrief) 2/08 first shows another case of systematic psychiatric abuse in the GDR, the former communist part of our country, and then continues with cases of psychiatric malpractice which have taken place there just recently. This is hardly consistent with the stainless picture professional bodies of psychiatrists and psychologists display of their disciplines everywhere. It is buttressed by political bodies and the media. In spite of many real achievements psychiatry has reached in recent decades in delivering “mental health care”, its dark chapters should not be swept under the carpet since evil turns happen in this field time and again ruining prosperous careers, destroying human lives. And the atrocities of communist and specially Nazi psychiatry occurred not so long ago.
Psychotherapeutic tenets like psychoanalysis reportedly have mostly been abandoned in Anglo-Saxon countries today. In spite of being regarded as quackery in some quarters of other parts of the world, too, they have been acknowledged officially and pushed into “scientific psychiatry” there, specially in Germany, recently. In this bulletin we cast some light on J.L. Moreno’s Psychodrama as another kind of psycho-babble which, strange enough, is backed intensively by catholic quarters now. Since these tenets are bare of any proven therapeutic efficiency we wonder why they have been promoted so vigorously during the latest decades – in first instance by politicians and “enlighted” media.
Having been founded for fighting psychiatric abuses for political ends GEP is asking: Do some “democratic” politicians foster psychiatry as a means to stifle critics (we report on real present cases of this procedure) and do they support questionable psychotherapies as an efficient way for bewildering people (perhaps whole populations) thus making them more pliable to their suggestions? Public awareness of psychiatry and psychotherapy is necessary and must not be left to anti-psychiatrists.
Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 1/08 (May 2008)
In this bulletin (Rundbrief 1/08) GEP presents new cases of psychiatric abuse which have occurred in the former GDR similarly to what has happened in the former Soviet Union. Beside psychiatry, however, psychology has been abused systematically in the GDR for crushing political opposition hiding often behind a smokescreen of humanely looking medical treatment. This way of discouraging or “decomposing” (“zersetzen”) dissenters has been more subtle or even unrecognizable for the public and the victims themselves. Thus, it suits better to the “needs” of an advanced dictatorship. Today, we are most disappointed or even up-set by the way medical AND state bodies and some of their international peers, too, disregard and even deny these human right violations and the still bleeding wounds caused by psycho-methods and psycho-professionals during the second dictatorship on German soil. Time and again we experience many of our colleagues recommending their services for overcoming the plight of the victims and simultaneously playing down or by-passing the former contribution of their disciplines to it. After 1945 they have done similarly with the crimes in Nazi medicine.
Another topic of professional dishonesty and, thus, of our concern is the Freudian Fraud. We pick up a title of a book of the American psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey (HarperCollins, 1992) and review it for elucidating the rise of psychoanalysis on the other side of the Atlantic from where it has been re-imported to Germany after 1945. We explicate its history in first instance, however, for demonstrating its recent decline in the New World after having produced many evil consequences. On the European continent Freudian pseudo-science which has never shown any real therapeutic efficacy is still fostered and protected by the medical, judiciary and political establishment. Seemingly the Christian churches have been duped and taken in first by Freud’s anti-Christian movement in the 1950s which has probably become the decisive precondition for the success of Freudo-Marxism in the 1960s in many Western countries. But we assess it to be still more embarrassing that the international scientific community has similarly bowed to the flop leading to widely spread FASHIONABLE NONESENSE (quoting A. Sokal’s and J. Bricmont’s book – Picador, 1998) in our modern world. We close the bulletin by the article Psychoanalytic Mythology of the British Freud-scholar and physicist Allen Esterson (first published by the web-site butterflies&wheels) and by the review of a chapter of his book SEDUCTIVE MIRAGE (Open Court, 1993) concerning the “Frink affair”. Having been sobering in the English speaking world this story is presented by the Rundbrief to German readers for the first time.
GEP’s board consists mostly of psychiatrists who, of course, have no interest to belittle the advances of their discipline and the good services it is providing for many sick people, today. Glossing over its many shortcomings and even fraudulent facets, however, is doing harm not only to the patients but to all the society and the discipline itself. So we wonder how all the misbehavior within this medical field could develop and be accepted by the many experts in this field and by the public, the medical administration, the media and the political class.
Friedrich Weinberger M.D., chairman, GEP
Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 2/07 (September 2007)
This bulletin (Rundbrief 2/07) of GEP reports on its recent efforts, including an address its chairman gave to students in Eastern Germany in July. It reports on some results of the former Communist dictatorship in psychiatry there. Then it points to present governmental efforts in changing human “roles” in society; e.g. “gender roles”. This kind of change is commonplace in the conservative “political class”, too, in Germany. Resistance against such “Brave-New-Worldian” development is weak. But the criticism published in the Rundbrief has been uttered by a well known author, Gabriele Kuby, and thus may reinforce GEP’s position.
Further we treat the psychiatric reform of the latest decades, some of its advantages and shortcomings and its Neo-Marxist background. The Rundbrief ends with a dialogue of GEP’s chairman with Norina Kuchta, a psychiatric colleague from Eastern Germany who has experienced psychiatric abuse recently for criticizing some of her left-wing professional surrounding. She has been co-opted to GEP’s board in the meantime.
The Rundbrief tackles the Freudian pseudo-science broadly again. The International Network of Freud-Critics (INFC) established in 2003 on GEP’s web-site (www.psychiatrie-und-ethik,de) has developed well in the past four years, publishing amounts of well founded information in English, French and German. 14 million KBytes have been loaded down from all over the world in August 2007. In September it will be even more. GEP is trusting that fraud in mental health care will end, one day. And it will continue its way as it has done over the past 30 years.
Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 1/07 (January 2007)
In this bulletin GEP announces the 30. Anniversary of its formation – and looks back upon a mixed array of results of its long lasting endeavors. On the one hand we have seen (and have contributed to) the end of (psychiatric abuse in) the former Soviet Union and (in) the GDR – here ending also the abuse of psychology for political aims, our first and foremost goal. On the other hand we have met a slippage of psychiatric care into a rather socialist condition with sometimes almost totalitarian traits in our own country (e.g. opposing these and similar developments being widely discouraged, obstructed or even suppressed by the heads of faculty, the media and politicians).
The acceptance and the growth of the politically loaded Freudian pseudo-science within and outside the medical (specially the psychiatric) profession have been a trigger or even a precondition for this development as they have contributed already before to the creation of the “New Soviet Man” in the early Soviet Union during the days of Trotsky – failing in the very end but, nonetheless, harmful enough for so many. Freud’s writ, however, has been in power almost everywhere in the West and in many countries, even today, still runs. Since a scientifically stringent and pervading criticism has in the meantime deposed Freudianism in other, especially English-speaking countries, GEP could gladly join its own critical reservations and post them on the new level of the International Network of Freud Critics in 2003. It could thus contribute to their further spreading and success in the world. We regard the establishment of the INFC-website to be not only a most necessary but also a most promising activity in the original direction of our aims since 30 years: opposing harmful fraud in psychiatry especially when it’s fostered or implemented politically.
We assess the lasting adherence of German doctors to Freud and similar rhetoricians to be a deplorable residue of a long lasting credulous, perilous and sometimes detrimental indolence toward scientific-ethical challenges. On the other hand we support their present vivid opposition to the government’s attempts at reforming (some suppose: destroying) the so far liberal and social health care system in the country seeing this opposition as a sign of a new sense of freedom and social responsibility and of new courage among German doctors, eventually, giving new hope for the future.
For his “inestimable contribution to the fight for human rights” Dr. Friedrich Weinberger, the chairman of GEP since its beginning, has recently received the award of the Federal Republic of Germany by the state’s president Horst Köhler.
Summary 1/06 (April 2006)
This newsletter of GEP (Rundbrief 1/06) starts with a speech given to victims of persecution by the former communist state in Germany, GDR. Many of them have experienced a kind of repression which is the first concern of GEP – the abuse of psychiatry and psychology. GEP is worried also about the outstanding compensation for the damages these people have suffered since its withholding obviously results from biased expert assessments. And this and many other shortcomings in today’s psychiatry and psychology result from their inclination to, or subversion by, pseudo-science.
Although many state agencies, mass media and medical bodies still continue to foster Freudian and similar pseudo-sciences, a vigorous resistance has evolved in many Western countries as the failures and dangers of corrupted science have become more visible. This is the main topic of this bulletin. GEP together with INFC strive and look forward hopefully for the success of their efforts. Please go to the trilingual site: www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de
Summary 1/05 (July 2005)
GEP’s new bulletin (Rundbrief 1/05) takes up the fate of victims of the latest totalitarian system, communism, which has been experienced in the Eastern part of Germany like in many other countries for decades. From its beginning in the 70’s, GEP has fought the special “achievement” of “really existing socialism”, psychiatric abuse for political ends and its psychological refining in the former GDR, the “Zersetzung”, “decomposition” of opponents. In spite of the existence of documented clear-cut cases, denial of the abuse of the healing discipline continues in today’s democratic Germany as well as in the psychiatric community worldwide. A parallel to the govern mental downgrading of the victims of communist persecution has been the recent forced abolition of a privately erected memorial for the 1067 per sons who were shot at the former Berlin wall. The government did not deem necessary the erection of such a memorial .
We see this in the ongoing battle between „anti-fascism“ and „anti-totalitarianism,“ the former being the call of the communists. This formula seems to serve others, too, who look for a new totalitarianism. We see it spreading smoothly in our country and in others under the cover of democracy. A symptom is the steering of opinion in psychiatry and psycho logy by global authorities, i.e. the in creasing restriction of what can be discussed openly. The obligatory psych iatric-psychological screening of all youngsters by school services ordered by president Bush recently seems to go in the same all-pervading, all-controlling direction.
A special example is the suppression of free discussion of the Freudian fraud. Some of its followers try to protect it by invoking anti-Semitism against the critics. The French psychologist Jacques Bénesteau member of our council has recently been so accused. His book MENSONGES FREUDIENS, however, is researched carefully and does not contain anything justifying such denigrating assessment. In fact the accusation is mere slander. By such means some people try to protect fraudulent ideology in science and in society. Concerning the debate of anti-fascism and anti-totalitariansm we point to the deliberations of Karl Jaspers and Hannah Arendt.
We see one institution in the world which has taken the way of freedom in recent times, newly and unexpectedly, and thus has been most efficient in bringing down com munist dictatorship – the Catholic church with its recently deceased Polish pope. Of course, the church, too, has not spoken out against the Freudian fraud during the last decades. But after the splendid “victory of the Christian message of freedom”over the similarly anti-Christian communism (conceived by the Vatican-II. council) we, a secular group of “psycho-professionals” and lay-people, feel new reason for hope.
The church won a splendid victory over Nazi psychiatry in Germany in the 1940s. If there are new totalitarian tendencies in the world today and the psycho-disciplines are being involved again, it should be possible to overcome these tendencies. There is sensible resistance world-wide and beyond religious boundaries.
Summary 1/04 (June 2004)
GEP’s new Information Bulletin (Rundbrief 1.04) refers first to a congress which took place in April 2004 at the Academy for Political Education in Tutzing (near Munich). Under the general heading of “Psychiatry as a Servant of Totalitarian Regimes”, it addressed some of the shortcomings in psychiatry. In the first instance, the crimes, mass-murders of patients in Nazi psychiatry; but, for the first time, it also allowed for free discussion of recent political challenges in psychiatry e.g. the political abuses of psychiatry in the former Communist part of our country, the former GDR. As has happened with other crimes of Communist totalitarism, psychiatric abuses in the GDR have frequently been minimised or even denied by bodies of mainstream politics in the West.
One of those who experienced psychiatric internment for political reasons reported about his situation in 1968 and his resultant sufferings (Dr. Koch had protested against the destruction of an ancient church by the communists in Leipzig). His presentation deeply impressed the audience. Dr. Weinberger, GEP’s chairman, could illustrate the historical background. The assembly, however, remained hesitant to speak of “systematic abuses of psychiatry in the GDR” since it did not want to blame the many psychiatrists in Eastern Germany who kept their hands clean during the years of Communist rule. Human rights violations in psychiatry have often been addressed with undue hesitation at the international level.
At the end of the three days meeting some light was also shed on those psychological abuses which were developed specially in the late GDR (e.g. systematic decomposition – “Zersetzung”). They could easily, inconspicuously be implemented even by “democratic systems”. Psychiatry is Janus-headed. Even in the best democratic state it has to serve the state’s interests as well as the patient’s. GEP is concerned about growing outside influences in this medical field on national and super-national levels which often have been promoted under the cover of “psychiatric reforms.” They have deeply changed this discipline during the last decades in many countries – often in a more restrictive rather than liberal direction.
The introduction of psychoanalysis inter alia as an officially acknowledged healing method in many countries of the West has widened the influence of psychiatry far beyond the limits of psychiatric illnesses. Since there is no proof of therapeutic efficacy in psychoanalysis and since it is a much-applied method in psychiatry now, reaching, of course, the „walking wounded“ rather than those suffering from severe psychiatric illnesses, it can influence – and mislead – many of our fellow citizens.
Last fall we were able to establish the INTERNATIONAL NETWWORK OF FREUD CRITICS together with some scholars in other countries, specially with Prof. Robert Wilcocks of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, and Jacques Bénesteau, clinical child psychologist of the children’s hospital attached to the University of Toulouse, France and others. This web-site has developed quickly (on www. psychiatrie-und-ethik.de). But it seems to us that its creation did not happen one moment too soon since Freudian pseudo-science is being supported by political bodies in a lot of Western countries. We wonder about the reasons for this support.
It is evident that there are enormous new potentialities for political and ethical influence (and control) in this “new psychiatry“ – which, of course, is less psychiatry than one more manifestation of the modern plague of pseudo-sciences in the medical profession. We are confident, however, that by being critically and honestly alert to the problem, we will be able to overcome the swindle of outside interference in mental health care in the long run.
F. Weinberger – R. Wilcocks
Summary of GEP’s bulletin 2/03
GEP’s information bulletin (Rundbrief) 2/03 of November 2003 is strengthened by important supporters,
1. High-ranking clerics within the Vatican, e.g. Archbishop Dr. Cordes, head of the PONTIFCIUM CONSILIUM ‘COR UNUM’, who has fought against the detrimental influences on some Catholics of the “psycho-industry”, specially of socalled “group dynamics” after we (together with others) had warned of fraudulent “psycho-technologies” spreading even within the Catholic community. He has encouraged us to continue our quarter-century campaign against abuses of psychiatry and psychology for political ends.
2. The British linguist Robert Wilcocks Ph.D., a professor for Modern French Literature at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and a prominent participant in the international campaign against psychoanalysis or better: against fraud in psychotherapy. (A text of his can be read in the English section of GEP’s website: www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de, the review of the books of an American psychiatrist and an American psychologist on Freudian “cornerstones.”)
As we have often done in recent years, we have shed some light on the present state of the (mostly evasive) discussion of psychiatric abuses to curb political dissenters in the former GDR. We then have considered the strange situation in Western psychiatry and the influence of psychoanalysis in it. The political aspects we see and demonstrate here, of course, are not seen by all of those who write in this newsletter. But all of them agree that the Freudian tenets are fraudulent and proven to be fallacious to such a degree that their dismissal from all parts of society and specially from the “healing professions” is long overdue and – should it take place in the near future (as we are sure it will) – could have political repercussions.
We congratulate some of our American psychiatric colleagues for having taken up the issue and fight against the swindle which has corrupted our pro fession internationally to a large extent morally and politically – and which has been spread over the world earlier specially from American psych iatry. Such scandals like the move for “normalizing” pedophilia at the latest annual con vention of the APA in San Francisco in May 2003 or the long lasting silence to Soviet psychiatric abuses during the 1970s have to be seen as “small fish” if even basic assumptions of the profession turn out to be clearly fallacious but tolerated not only in the “leading” Western nation but internationally. The credibility not only of the psychiatric profession but of the Western system is at stakes.
We have addressed these and similar problems fairly gently for over quarter of a century. In this newsletter we address them more bluntly – the „softly-softly“ approach not having achieved the appropriate response over this long period of time. Since there is new support for our positions inside and outside our association we have new hope that the problems will be solved in the near future. The time is ripe. The INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF FREUD CRiTICS has begun its work.
Summary of Bulletin 1/03
GEP’s new bulletin (Rundbrief 1/03, February 2003) tackles “group therapy”, “group dynamics” primarily. Rudolf Willeke, a retired school director in Westphalia, who has long studied their different tenures and practices and has published books on the issue, explains how they could become the most influential psycho-technologies. And he explains their devastating effects as the prevailing method of modern brainwashing.
Willeke, an engaged catholic, deplores the wide expansion of “group dynamics” within many institutions of his church. Recalling what Malachi Martin has described in his book: Windswept House (Doubleday, New York, 1996), Willeke refers to many of the present difficulties and even scandals of the church originating in the intrusion of these “dynamic” tenures going back to Freud. Freud and his psychotherapy are questioned more than ever today, especially in English speaking countries (see the presentations on “Psychoanalysis” in the English section of our website). Remember that group therapy, a therapeutic swindle like large parts of individual psychotherapy, has been conceived as a means of “reeducation” from its very beginning – not only of the Germans after WW2 but of all peoples, a means for re-evaluating all their values and thus a means for better manipulating them (see our presentation of General Chisholm’s lecture of 1945 in our website – Glimpse into the History of Psychiatric Reform). Now that some tiny resistance is arising, at least within catholic rows, there is hope that our and other peoples will eventually come to grips with the impact of psycho-technologies.
Our bulletin further tackles questions of psychiatric abuse in the former GDR. A realistic assessment of these practices in the former communist part of our country is taking place there, after more then a decade. This provides a hopeful sign that political facts are recognized with growing understanding and commitment to truth and justice within our society against the many distractions and distortions of the media, the medical and psychological associations and the politicians.
Summary of GEP’s Bulletin 2/02
Our Rundbrief 2/02 of November 2002 treats recent developments in issues of political abuses of psychiatry. Attention to such malpractice taking place now in China has been directed recently by influential organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry (GIP). Having once been associated with the latter, we felt it appropriate to distance ourselves from it, since their judgments on what and where is psychiatric abuse and what is to be done on behalf of its victims seemed to us to be rather arbitrary and dependent from foreign influences. Abuses e.g. in the former communist part of our own country were ignored and even denied by GIP. Half information is better than nothing but can be harmful sometimes.
From the beginning of our work we observed the reactions of national and international bodies on psychiatric abuses. Great national and international health organizations, the media, and the political class have often been quite hesitant or even evasive in severe cases of these human rights violations. At the same time political influences on Western psychiatry appeared more and more dubious. Psychiatric “reform” for example, having been initiated by politicians in many countries, has different aspects some of which in our opinion are scientifically unfounded and even politically dangerous.
The reform is enlarging the outreach of psychiatry to ever greater parts of the population and is focussing it more and more on directives of political bodies. It is transforming the discipline, at least in our country, more and more to that of former communism: an instrument of the rulers for influencing or even aligning the values and thoughts of the people, embarrassing their rights and freedoms and making ruling easier for rulers. This totalitarian drive, of course, is supported now by our red-green government but has been initiated by the former conservative faction of rulers as well.
The new outreach of psychiatry has been effected in the first instance by incorporating ever greater parts of pseudo-science, especially psychoanalysis. By teaching Freudian (Freud-Marxist) ideology to students of different professional directions, doctors, psychologists and still more frequently social workers and other “social engineers,” the politicians have created the manpower for staffing new psychiatric-psychological services and institutions and thus enabling themselves to condition the political thoughts according to their ends. In the last decades they have pushed German psychiatry into a new dubious and often fraudulent condition – making scientifically unsubstantiated claims, giving untenable promises and hiding totalitarian perspectives. Freudian ideology, however, has been the backbone of this reform. Most saddening is that it has been quite impossible in this country to speak out against the flourishing untruth within the profession, its perversion in the former GDR as well as its present move in this totalitarian direction.
However, new hope has arisen since stringent criticism is mounting against Freud in Anglo- and Francophone countries now (look for literature into our website: Psychoanalysis). Some of our psychiatric colleagues there fortunately have kept their reason also in other issues of the discipline. Many of the results of the Freudian swindle may collapse over night now. Much suffering prolonged or even produced by it unfortunately will hardly do so. All those who have supported the fraud, many psychiatric bodies up to the World Psychiatric Association and the WHO and many of their international supporters in policy and the media, prestigious foundations, GIP etc. could be blamed deeply tomorrow. But, of course, since there are many who think they can profit from fraud in medicine it is by no means decided how the matter will develop.
In any case we feel encouraged to continue the fight against dishonesty in mental health care and its political abuse.
Summary of GEP’s News Bulletin (Rundbrief) 3/01
Our Newsletter „Rundbrief 3/01“ is starting from the terror which has stricken America. Political deliberations can not begin otherwise in these days. This atrocity has been declared by some newspapers to be „a reaction to the globalisation“. Its trademarks are free trade, open mindedness, free information, but also a lot of rather disputed re-valuations of values such as abor-tion, euthanasia, genetic alienation and – concerning the issues of our association – psychic manipulation, open and disguised fostering of drug consumption, open and disguised abuses of psychiatry and psychology for politi-cal ends, for influencing and controlling people on behalf of their „Superiors“ (A. Huxley). Brave New World is basing in first instance on psychological programs. Re-cently, there have been warnings of Brave New World even in president Bush’s surroundings. Since long time we have uttered such warnings and have been scolded for them.
Our new Rundbrief is mentioning different con-tributions of psychiatry and psychology to such a ques-tionable future. We discuss the new drug liberation which our red-green federal government is introducing in spite of sharply increasing numbers of addicts and drug related deaths. We ponder upon the ongoing influence of Freudian tenets. Since long we accuse our German medi-cal associations and the politicians of having elevated this pseudo-science to an acknowledged „health disci-pline“ regardless of lacking proofs of its therapeutic effi-ciency, regardless of ongoing attempts to pretend its effi-ciency and regardless of all the human damages resulting therefrom. But are all these developments not more an international affair? We highly appreciate the sophisti-cated critical studies on Freud which have appeared in some English speaking countries in recent years. But it seems that these committed critics, too, ignore the last-ing dominance of Freudianism in international „mental health care“ and its political background. We remember to V.E. Frankl’s Logotherapy as a real non-reductionist alternative in psychotherapy.
And we point out to Dr. G.B. Chisholm’s re-markable words of 1945: „…’good‘ is recognized as just as great a menace as ‚evil’… They are fruits of the one tree and are different aspects of the same thing… The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the con-cept of right and wrong… these are the belated objec-tives of practically all effective psychotherapy… If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility… to root out and destroy the oldest and most flourishing parasitical growth in the world, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil… Man’s freedom to observe and to think freely is essential to his sur-vival…“ (PSYCHIATRY, Vol. 9, February 1946, No.1). These words have been supported by highly ranking politicians from the very beginning. Obviously they were the base for an enormous augmentation of psycho-professional services in all Western countries and for a lot of deviations within the psycho-professions and our so-cieties after World War two.
Undoubtedly, there is some reason in Chisholm’s deliberations. Would our world, however, have really been or would it be better off before, in or after 1945 by renouncing „right“ and „wrong“, „good“ and „evil“? Are the disasters of those times and of our present time like the recent one in America not more likely the results of the evaporation of these principles? So big a problem the categories of good and evil, right and wrong (e.g. the „war of the good against the evil“) may contain, can we afford to give them up? Aren’t they the base of all civilisation? Are the pseudo-scientific tenets of Freud & Co. more reliable than the wisdom of centuries of cultural development? And are we psychiatrists and psychologists really in a position „to take the responsibility for“ their „eradication“, let alone that we have never been asked whether we are all ready to take it – we psychiatrists who are well prepared to treat mental illnesses but recur to nothing but faith or ideologies (and pseudo-science) when it goes beyond these limits? Are Chisholm’s words not suitable to evoke doubts about the moral condition of Western psychiatrists and psycholo-gists and, eventually, of all Western culture?
Chisholm’s deliberations have obviously been the base for all social widening of our discipline. Obviously it has been the reason for its repeated and widely spread disregard of psychiatric abuses yesterday in the Soviet Union, later also in the Eastern part of our country and today in China, for acceptance, acknowledgement and promulgation of Freudian and other reductionist pseudo-sciences, for acceptance of drug liberalisation and increasing drug distribution by medical and state’s agencies – all this being accompanied by never ending self-adulations of the heads of our profession on national and international grounds thus immunizing themselves against criticisms from within and outside the profession.
Chisholm’s ideas and the political support they have received from the very beginning have brought the change of Western values from their Jewish-Christian origin to today’s neo-liberal, neo-Marxist or even Huxleyan set of values. Are they the „Good“ for which we have to fight now? Neither the Taliban-terror nor a Brave-New-Worldian dictatorship which President Bush has addressed recently can be our aim!
We assess broad international discussions of our professional affairs to be necessary. More information at:
Summary of GEP’s Bulletin (“Rundbrief”) 2/01 (of March 2001):
25 years ago our Association had begun to fight political abuses of psychiatry when pertinent news came in from the former Soviet Union. Since the most atrocious crimes had happened in German psychiatry during Nazi rule before – mass-murder initiating the holocaust – we, a group of German psychiatrists and “laymen”, felt specially committed to resist politically inspired crimes in this professional field wherever they newly arise, be it also in milder forms. We became rather amazed at the composure which some of the official psychiatric organisations in our country and in other countries including the WPA and the WHO displayed in front of this new category of human rights violations. Eventually, together with other groups we could move them to take a stronger stand. But they all dropped the issue completely when the Soviet Union ceased to exist and free information became accessible from Eastern European countries for the first time. Just at that time we got knowledge of psychiatric abuses even from the Eastern part of our country, the former G.D.R. This issue, of course, is of special interest for us. The German text of our information bulletin 2/01 (Rundbrief 2/01) gives more information about this topic.
“Abuse of science” in mental health care, however, is a theme in other connections, too. In her extraordinary book MANUFACTURING VICTIMS the Canadian psychologist Tana Dineen for example speaks about such “abuse” in regard to the inflationary expansion of offers of professional “help” for psychic problems which often are void promises only presenting a kind of modern “Psychology Industry”. Other moves in some Anglo-Saxon countries are going a similar direction. By the works of Frederic Crews (Unauthorized freud), Richard Webster (Why FREUD WAS WRONG), Allen Esterson (SEDUCTIVE MIRAGE), Han Israels (in German: DER FALL FREUD), Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and others the base of Sigmund Freud’s construction was put in question. Many psychiatric associations, however, go on to advocate and foster the Freudian swindle as they have done during long times of the last century, already. How many suffering people thus have been put off or even ridden into more suffering? How much money has been wasted? In 1999 when the spell of psychoanalysis has been broken in wide parts of the world, already, the German doctors’ Assembly (Deutscher Aerztetag) has acknowledged the fraud. It was considered as a true medical speciality.
There is still another problem in the field of psychiatry and psychology which is close to abuse. “Psychiatric Reform” has been widely propagated by the professional associations and the media as a mere set of charity with psychoanalysis at its top. Of course, every social institution is to be “reformed” continuously. In fact psychiatry has experienced a decisive “reform” – by real scientific progress. By the new pharmaceutics the fate of many patients could improve greatly, many psychiatric wards could be closed etc.
“The world is changing very fast, leading to new stresses on many individuals which make them more vulnerable to psychiatric diseases or in need of professional help…”
Prof. J.J. López-Ibor, President of the world Psychiatric Association, inviting to a new congress taking place in Madrid, Spain, in next May – not asking how many colleagues and laymen in the world are weary of such unfounded phrases.
All stressing of “change” in psychiatry and all the emphatic glorification of its “reform” by the associations and the media, however, are by no means aiming to further improve the situation of the sick. The primal aim of most of the emphatic “reformers” obviously is to expand psychiatry and psychology for influencing and controlling the “normal” individual and social life. This is no mere suspicion. This is printed and you can read it in published psychiatric literature, e.g. in Dr. G.B. Chisholm’sThe Re-Establishment of Peacetime Society (Psychiatry, Vol. 9, No.1, February 1946). According to these deliberations the professionals are planned to be “social influence purveyors”. Dineen has quoted so the Canadian lawyer A. Scheflin. And, obviously, for this purpose the politically well adapted leaders of “soul-sciences” push all “reasons” far fetched, right or wrong, and all stuff to impress people and tout clients – no matter whether highly sophisticated or junk science such as psychoanalysis. Psychiatric associations are by no means less active in this respect than psychologists trained in the liberal arts. Most of their promises and exaggerations of “changes” and “needs” mostly strive for more money and more influence only.
In European countries where health service is more socially (or socialistically) regulated than in the United States the proponents of Psychiatric Reform try to get more money specially from public sources. They do so even if all “mental health service” thus will be dictated fully by state’s bureaucrats and ideologists such as the Neo-/Freudo-Marxists of the 1960s. Their theoretical base was largely laid by Freud’s neo-analyst off-spring like Dr. Chisholm. Here you find the blueprint for all the “re-education” and “value changing” and other harm “psychology-industry is doing to people” (Dineen). When some professional organizations (according to Phyllis Schlafly – www.eagleforum.org) e.g. the American teachers’ organization NEA are regarded to be the best partisans of the value-changers the psycho-professional organizations can be considered of no less capability.
At least, in our country the reform of psychiatry has been the real product of the 1960s’ cultural revolution whose representatives serve not only as ministers in our Federal Government, today but are in many other influential posts as well. In psychiatry they have reached their aims by less violent means than casting stones and firebombs against the police. In 1974 they only broke up doctors’ parliament (Deutscher Aerztetag) when psychiatry and psychiatric abuse were discussed in a way they did not like. Today some of them are heads of psychiatric hospitals. You must not be amazed that they earlier have played down psychiatric abuse in the USSR and deny any abuse in the former GDR, now. Perhaps the experiences we have made with fraudulent psychiatric (and medical) authorities in this country in former times are helping at least some of us now to keep sound distance from them whenever non-scientific but ethical and political questions are at stake.
Beside other points our bulletin tackles the drug problem which has been introduced in Germany by our (Neo-)Marxists and which is sustained and widened by them until now. Drug substitution has been the favourite topic of our left wing parties. The resistance of the conservative side, however, has been amazingly weak over the years so that the impression has arisen that the origin of the problem might not be as leftist as it mostly seems.
By all its obvious bias and its unfounded claims “psycho-industry” meets more and more criticism around the world. Change is overdue. But, as Dineen has pointed out, „…a change of this magnitude can not come from within the professions, the fraternal organizations and the licensing boards which have failed to protect the public and continue to promote the industry”. It has been politicians who have created the psychiatric, “psycho-industrial” problem (see Chisholm). So it would not be inappropriate if politicians would help to solve it, now. Such a change would be beneficial for those in poor health and in good health and would help our societies as a whole. Last but not least it would help to re-establish truth in science.
Of course, one can ask why to oppose just the special scandals in psychiatry. Are modern life, modern medicine not full of questionable developments? In the Netherlands doctors are killing their old and sick patients legally, now. The killing of unwanted unborn children has become legal almost world-wide. Cloning and the utilisation (or abuse) of human lives for the well being of those who can afford it are in progress in many countries, too. Distribution of drugs, manipulating of minds, declaring opponents to be mentally ill can be considered to be minor medical faults in comparison, sometimes even as expressions of freedom. And obviously they are widely considered to be correct and therefore, discussed critically in the public no more. You can also ask: Is the responsibility really with the doctors or is it more within the “democratic majorities” in all our countries where the development is taking place. Or is the responsibility, eventually, at the international “classe politique” which is backing or even leading it by their media and/or their “social influence purveyors” in psychiatry, psychology and social work etc? In this case the (Western form of) “abuse of psychiatry for political ends” would even be the most basic problem of all the others we have mentioned above.
Sometimes it seems that there are more questions than answers. We can only invite you to discuss them thoroughly with us.
Summary to GEP’s Bulletin 2/00 (of July 2000)
This bulletin (Rundbrief 2/2000) refers to the systematic abuse of psychiatry in the former communist part of our country or – to be more specific – to its systematic denial in today’s state of “democratic legality.”
Then it covers the alienations of psychiatry which after WW2 were conceived in some Anglo Saxon countries for the re-education not only of the Germans but also of those democratic populations in the West which just had crushed Nazism. The concept of Re-education written down e.g. in Psychiatry, Vol.9, No.1, 1946 by G.B. Chisholm M.D. has been the base of the cultural revolution of the 60s and of all those reforms of psychiatry which were enforced at the same time in many western countries. They are enforced now in the countries of Middle and Eastern Europe by high political bodies, Big Money (and a former ally, the Geneva Initiative of Psychiatry). For long times the concept was hidden from us and from most citizens (psychiatrists included) in all other countries, as well. According to Chisholm et al. the purpose of the “Re-education” is the preservation of an ever lasting peace. If this purpose is 1.) real and 2.) is to be reached by the means of psychiatry and psychology would their implementation for such ends be appropriate? Or would it represent more a political abuse of these sciences?
The preservation of peace has often been the pretext of communist dictators for the preservation of their regimes and it is a calculated bait also in A. Huxley’s totalitarian concept of Brave New World. Sometimes it seems that our leaders in politics, the media and in “psycho-sciences” are prone to realize this “postmodernist” concept. This would explain why the terror of communist psychiatric abuse was of little public concern in the past and continues widely to be played down today, as well.
Re-education and the cultural revolution of the 60s have been based on Freudianism from the beginning. Detrimental results appear more and more in our societies. So we notice with satisfaction that Freudianism is seriously questioned in the USA today. Even the APA which has promoted this pseudo science continuously all over the world seems to be forced to retreat from it, eventually. We think it is time to discuss these developments more thoroughly now on an international base.
Summary to GEP’s Bulletin 4/99 (November 1999)
In this circular letter we present and explain the new name of our Association of psychiatrists and lay people: Walter-von-Baeyer-Society for Ethics in Psychiatry.
Then we expose further details of psychiatric abuse in the former German Democratic Republic. It is being negated by almost all in the political and professional community in Germany and abroad, e.g. at the last World Congress of Psychiatry in Hamburg, August 8-11, 1999. When this practice occurred in the Soviet Union in the 60s and 70s, it was played down for long time, too. Others, however, including our Association considered it to be a real crime against humanity and, eventually, defeated it. So we wonder about the reasons for the present international denial of these human right violations in the former GDR.
We also expose other dubious developments in psychiatry e. g the backing by highly ranking psychiatrists of ill-advised drug politics in many countries. We further discuss some schools of psychotherapy that are increasingly challenged in Anglo-Saxon countries as being pseudo-sciences (e.g. by Frederick C. Crews, Unauthorized Freud). They are supported by medical and state agencies in Germany.
According to some American critics, many of these dubious developments originate or were promoted in the United States by leftist circles; other say: by “Big Money”. As it may be: we highly appreciate that there are also many well-established organisations in the States that fight these developments and defend traditional values. We only wonder why many of them restrict their activity to their limited issues, politically and geographically, and refrain from contacts with others who fight the same battles within their own respective countries. Those who strive to change values, “persons and societies” in the direction of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a dictatorship, were effective to high degree by maintaining broad international connections. We discuss why their opponents are not.
Some of our psychiatric opponents, especially those who negate psychiatric abuse in the GDR, claim that we “believe in conspiracies” implying something delusional. We refer to Marilyn Ferguson’s book “The Aquarian Conspiracy” where the American sociologist has disclosed an “Open Conspiracy” and many contributions of psychiatry to “ personal and social transformations”. In former circulars, we have demonstrated that “soft” forms of psychiatric abuses are spreading in some European countries as a weapon in political debates. A commission of the German parliament (Bundestag) has publicly considered members of “sects” and “fundamentalists” to be in a dubious mental condition whereas large parts of the Catholics and members of other Christian denominations, including the Pope, are openly defamed by the media to be “fundamentalists”. Some highly ranking psychiatrists give support.
In the United States, there are similar conflicts between those who want the “transformation” of men and society and those who oppose it. We think that increasing attention should be given to the double nature of psychiatry and other “human sciences”. Beside help for sick people, they always encompass the danger of abuse by their political leaders. Widening the scope of psychiatry to “Social Psychiatry” means widening and increasing government controls of our personal lives in all our countries. Those who are concerned are invited to contact us.
Summary to GEP’s (the former DVpMP’s) Bulletin 1/99 (February 1999)
This edition of DVpMP’s Rundbrief (circular of the German Association on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry, a group of lay people and psychiatrists) covers two main issues, firstly the question of psychiatric abuses in the former GDR and their assessment in Germany nowadays, secondly – and strangely connected with this point – the complex of psychiatry, psychotherapy and so called psycho-groups. Calling „cultists“, „fundamentalists“ etc. those who dissent with the mainstream of „modern“ thought of „political correctness“ (and sometimes of demoralization) and thus implying that they are in a dubious psychic condition, are evidently spreading not only in post-communist Russia (see our Rundbrief 2/98) but also in some Western countries, especially in Germany. This is even more alarming as some psychiatrists participate in this kind of defamation. Obviously, this is part of a „cultural war“ which widely goes on – under the German name „Kulturkampf“ even in the United States (see page 5). It is bordering upon a new kind of psychiatric abuse for political ends. The connections with our original theme of Soviet psychiatric abuse are manifold.
Totalitarian tendencies are seen by many observers of today’s political life. They are apparent in the efforts of some state leaders and of their supporters in various social fields, such as in education, psychology etc. We wonder why the outspoken communist bias of some high ranking Western psychiatrists was rarely noticed. Their contributions could be the most effective in corrupting traditional values and thus promoting new totalitarism. Of course, there is a lot of criticism against psychiatry in the world. Often enough, however, it is mixed with strange ideologies and thus deprived of seriousness. „Anti-psychiatry“ is no answer to the current problems. Criticism of improper expansions of psychiatry in everyday life is, however, legitimate and necessary. Fortunately, there is strong resistance against totalitarian tendencies in many parts of the world. We see our endeavours to be part of it.
Summary to DVpMP’s (today GEP’s) bulletin 2/98 (of May 1998)
This issue of DVpMP’s newsletter (Rundbrief 2/98) begins with recent cases of psychiatric abuse for political ends in Turkmenistan. It continues with the wrong and misleading heading „GDR – No Systematic Abuse“ (see box below). In our former newsletters (Rundbrief 1/96 and 1/97) we have presented five clear cut cases of such abuse and have demonstrated that this method of communist repression has indeed taken place in the former socialist part of our country, too. We wonder why a lot of reputable people, some German ministers, the large majority of the press and even the Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry (GIP), our former ally, try to play down and even deny this horrible method of totalitarian repression. Why do they want to rewrite history? (In the case of GIP, however, we are surprised by nothing any more – see Vladimir Bukovsky’s comment on page 8).
from GIP’s bulletin Mental Health Reforms No.1:
DDR – No systematic abuse
Under the heading „No systematic abuse of psychiatry in the DDR“ the Associated Press reported from Potsdam that a Brandenburg commission of experts has found no indications that critics of the Communist regime were put into psychiatric clinics against their will…
We further discuss the participation of high ranking psychiatrists in the distribution of „psychedelic“ drugs and in the promotion of euthanasia, both clear cut betrayals of medical ethics and expressions of the „Culture of Death“ (John Paul II) reminding of worst crimes of Nazi psychiatry. We go on discussing the participation of some of our colleagues and academic teachers in the wide spread campaign against new religious minorities and other dissidents comparing their activities with similar developments in today’s Russia. Recently, the situation in our country has been criticized by the US Foreign Office and even by the Human Rights Commission of the UN after a visitation in Germany in the fall of 1997 (see footnotes 88-94).
In our opinion this development is the result of neomarxist (freud-marxist) ideology and of the ensuing concept of „planned (social) change“ (R. Lippitt) which were created mostly by Anglo-American psychiatrists and psychologists in the forties. Having resisted psychiatric abuse in marxist governed Eastern countries for many years we are now confronted with neomarxist distortions of „psycho sciences“ originating in the West and often offered under the guise of „psychiatric reform“. „To change the attitude and behavior of the population in general regarding the use of psychoactive substances“ is one of the outspoken objectives of many „psychiatric reformers“ like GIP. We deplore not only the objective but the manipulative way of its pursuance. We regard it to be a „soft“ but by no means less dangerous form of psychiatric abuse.
Today, there is much suffering worldwide by the off springs of neomarxism. Consequently there is a rising resistance against its effects in many countries. We think that it is time to look into their roots in „psycho sciences“. They, of course, imply a lot of healing power for sick people. Under political influence, however, they also bear many risks for all of us and our (still) friendly, free and democratic societies (Dr. Hoff Sommers).Further English text on pages 27, 28, 32 & 3
Summary to the Bulletin 1/97 (of September 1997)
This edition of the circular letter (Rundbrief) of the German Association on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry (DVpMP) covers in the first instance the issue of psychiatric abuses in the former GDR. As with so many of the crimes committed under communism the issue is played down or even bluntly denied now by reputable medical and political bodies in Germany and beyond. We expose different types and clear cut cases of Soviet style abuse which took place in the former socialist part of our country.
We consider the reasons for the widespread disregard of this category of human rights violation. In American psychiatry of the early 70’s there was a good deal of hesitation in opposing psychiatric abuse in the USSR, too. The same kinds of offence in the GDR are now denied even by those (see the box) who – like the Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry (GIP) – formerly campaigned against abuses in the USSR together with us (when we formed the International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry). We show that playing down the crimes of „applied socialism“ was and is within the behaviour pattern of the „New Left“ whose ideology was created mostly by „mental health professionals“ (some German socialist émigrés among them) in America in the 40ies and has spread world-wide in the 60ies. We also recall that a cover up of psychiatric abuse was practised by such high ranking bodies as the Human Rights Commission of the UN, the WHO and the UNESCO. How does this fit in with their aim of building up a „New World Order“?
Due to past excesses in the psychiatry of their countries psychiatrists in the DVpMP and their partner organisation, the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia, feel that they have a special obligation to defend the humane ideals of their profession. The more psychiatric abuse for political ends is played down the greater is the danger of its re-emergence – perhaps in different forms than met until now.
Some of those who – from WHO to GIP – have played or play down psychiatric abuse are very active now in promoting a form of „Mental Health Reforms“ in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Thus these reforms, too, have to be regarded with caution.
Content of Chapters