Back in the USSR: Those claiming “vaccine” injury are (we’re now told) just insane

Having called severe reactions to the COVID jabs extremely “rare” (although they’re not), and deemed inflammatory heart disease among young athletes “normal” (although it’s not), doctors in Big Pharma’s pocket are now telling us that many, if not all, of those reporting—and, often, displaying—grievous harm post-“vaccination” are deluded—i.e., nuts—due to Functional Neurological Disorder (FND), which has been on the books for years, but has now been specifically deployed to make all those horrific “vaccine” injuries seem like a pathological delusion: “Vaccine Effect or Functional Neurological Disorder?” asked MedPage in late August. (This gambit was recently the subject of a segment on Stew Peters’ show:

https://www.brighteon.com/d68b1f37-fb03-4abd-bdc7-54b1cf19ae76)

Such psychiatric gaslighting has long been used, worldwide, to silence voices countering the Big Narrative, whatever it may be. It was, of course, a common Soviet practice, from Stalin’s late reign up to the early Eighties, to keep dissidents in psychiatric hospitals (psikhushkas), diagnosing them with “sluggish schizophrenia” and other ad hoc mental illnesses. Such faux-medical detention was widespread in China under Mao, especially during the Cultural Revolution; and, in the Seventies and Eighties, it was used to squelch dissent in Cuba.

And yet such punishment had arguably been deployed way back in 1865, in not-the-least-bit-communist Vienna, when the heroic doctor Ignaz Semmelweis—who outraged his peers (and saved the lives of countless mothers, then and later) by urging them to sterilize their hands before delivering babies—was lured into a madhouse, where he was beaten and straitjacketed, dying of a gangrenous cut just two weeks later (an early martyr to the lethal “medical consensus” of his gory peers).

Nor (despite the jokey title of this article) do we Americans have any right to crow about our perfect innocence of such “communist” repression, since it has happened here, though nowhere near as often, or for such long stretches, as under Mao or Brezhnev (at least not yet). In 1927, an anarchist named Aurora D’Angelo was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for evaluation, after helping organize a rally on behalf of Sacco and Vanzetti. In 1958, four years before James Meredith’s historic enrollment at the University of Mississippi, one Clennon Washington King, Jr., a fiery civil rights activist, showed up on campus to apply to the school’s graduate program in history—only to be seized by state police, led by Gov. J.B. Coleman, and hustled off to a psychiatric ward, where he spent almost two weeks. (Some psychiatric mischief may have figured also in the silencing of James Forrestal— first US Secretary of Defense, who, in 1949, leapt, or was thrown, from the window of his 16th-floor room at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md—and of Frank Olson, the Army scientist who, in 1953, was thrown from—or, rather, through—the window of his 10th-floor room in New York’s Statler Hilton Hotel.)

While such forcible faux-medical detention of the non-compliant has been rare in the United States, psychiatric diagnosis—or something that sounds kinda like it—has been deployed time after time, deliberately or out of ignorance, to cast dissidents, or whistleblowers, or any other inconvenient witnesses as cracked. This tactic, or error, is known as the “Martha Mitchell effect”—”the process,” notes Wikipedia, “by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health clinician, or other medical professional labels a patient’s accurate perception of real events as delusional, resulting in misdiagnosis.” The feisty wife of John Mitchell, Nixon’s Attorney General during Watergate, was thus very publicly “misdiagnosed” as suffering from “paranoia” back in 1972, after she tried to blow the whistle on that scandal (by telling UPI reporter Helen Thomas what she knew about it). Although she was never formally detained in a facility, that slur induced the media, and, therefore, everybody else, to write her off as loco, until her vindication when the scandal finally broke (and she was belatedly honored as “the Cassandra of Watergate”).

And yet such “misdiagnosis” has been used to maintain order since long, long before Team Nixon took the White House (on a “law and order” platform). Way back in 1851, in “Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race,” Dr. Samuel Cartwright, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Louisiana, coined “drapetomania” as a name for “the disease causing negroes to run away.”

The cause in the most of cases, that induces the negro to run away from service, is as much a disease of the mind as any other species of mental alienation, and much more curable, as a general rule. With the advantages of proper medical advice, strictly followed, this troublesome practice that many negroes have of running away, can be almost entirely prevented, although the slaves be located on the borders of a free state, within a stone’s throw of the abolitionists.

Back then, doctors also came up with dysaesthesia aethiopis, “a form of madness,” writes Jonathan Metzl, “manifest by ‘rascality’ and ‘disrespect for the master’s property,’ that was believed to be ‘cured’ by extensive whipping.” As Dr. Metzl demonstrates in The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease (Beacon Press, 2010), that medical impulse to treat black slavery as a natural condition, and the appetite for freedom as insanity, did not disappear after the Civil War, but recurred with the intensification of the civil rights movement in the Sixties and Seventies, when black people—males especially—were disproportionately diagnosed as “schizophrenic,” with “masculinized belligerence” as their chief symptom.

One could write another book, or several, on the repressive use, or function, of medical misdiagnosis to maintain an unjust or unhealthy or atrocious status quo. How many women with real illnesses, or good reason to be terribly unhappy, have been magisterially written off as “mad,” “hysterical,” “neurotic,” and put on drugs to keep them quiet? And how many survivors of horrendous sexual abuse—whether male or female, children or adults—have been misdiagnosed as fantasists (a reflex that goes back to Freud), and sometimes even punished for their claims?

And then there are those other, quasi-psychiatric strokes of propaganda used to gaslight, or denigrate, those who know better than to swallow some Big Lie. Thus “conspiracy theory” casts as (somehow) pathological one’s wholly rational distrust of elite intentions, just as “the Vietnam syndrome” made it seem (somehow) neurotic to be wary of American involvement in another pointless and protracted foreign war. (“By God, we licked the Vietnam syndrome!” the elder Bush exulted when the propaganda drive impelling “Operation Desert Storm” had millions cheering early on.) Likewise, “vaccine hesitancy” casts the very sensible disinclination to get jabbed with an experimental serum, whose lethal impact is unprecedented, and beyond dispute, as itself a psychological disorder (and one to which those “schizophrenic” African-Americans have been especially susceptible).

By variously urging us to doubt the evidence of our own senses, and what we’ve learned from our research, all such slurs have paved the way for this latest propaganda head-game, which wants us thinking that what’s happening all around us, to so many of us, isn’t happening to anybody anywhere—a stroke of Holocaust denial that should one day be among the charges when those doctors, and their masters, stand indicted for their crimes against humanity; for the aim of that denial is to keep the “vaccination” program going, by blacking out the overwhelming evidence of what it’s really doing to people all around the world.

Thus that Big Lie is every bit as heinous as, say, Himmler’s order, in the spring of 1945, that his commandants destroy all evidence of the extermination apparatus, and not let any prisoners survive, lest they reveal the awful truth (which was also largely blacked out by the New York Times). Nor is this new stroke of denialism any less appalling than the Soviet denial of the deliberate famine in Ukraine back in the Thirties (a genocidal program categorically denied by the New York Times’ man in Moscow, Walter Duranty, who later privately admitted that the famine was much worse than people thought).

In short, this claim, or suggestion, that all those “vaccine” injuries aren’t real is yet another sign that we’re all precisely where we thought we’d never go, what with our complacent self-regard as decent citizens of a “democracy” where they would never, ever do such things. That they would do just such things, and are now doing them, right before our eyes, is evidenced not just by that Big Lie (among so many others), but also by outright repression of the sort that we’ve reflexively condemned when it was carried out by left-totalitarian regimes.

On Dec. 18, Dr. Daniel Nagase, a family physician in British Columbia (and an outspoken champion of Ivermectin’s use in Canada) told Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, on her podcast, that Dr. Mel Bruchet, an 81-year-old grandfather, had been violently seized, in his own home, by eight members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and hauled away, in handcuffs, for psychiatric evaluation, after which he was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, on the pretext that he was suffering from “possible dementia.”

What was the real reason for that Soviet-style abduction? Dr. Bruchet had been working hard to publicize this year’s anomalous spike of 13 stillbirths at a Vancouver hospital—only one of several such increases variously noted nation- and worldwide. (A few days earlier, MPP Rick Nicholls asked the Minister of Health, in parliament, about the 86 stillbirths recorded this year in Ontario alone. He got no answer.) That such statistics are taboo, and that Dr. Bruchet had been targeted for trying to call attention to just one of them, is quite clear from the screaming “fact-checks” launched against his claims by Canada’s “free press” since mid-November, as you can easily see from a quick Google search on “stillbirths” and his name. You’ll also see that Google’s algorithm makes it hard to find a clear, impartial exposition of the case that Dr. Bruchet made, and that those “fact-checks” claim to have “debunked”—although they don’t, since many of them contradict each other (as such strident “fact-checks” tend to do). What they all do make clear is that this good old doctor is a “vaccine” dissident, and that such dissidence is now as dangerous throughout the “democratic” West as it was once was in the shadow of the Kremlin.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/cWG5ZVmdDeLO/

This, then, is where we are—and where we’ll stay, until we’ve either been injected or “detained,” until enough of us acknowledge what we’re really up against, join those of us now fighting it, and finally bring it down, completely and for good, so that this never happens anywhere again.