Materialism & Psychiatry Function As Ideology and
by Gene Zimmer
Modern psychology and psychiatry function as modern "religions" in that they
are firmly believed, made up of a unique system of concepts and ideas (ideology), and
enforced on everyone else whether you agree with them or not. As psychiatry and behavioral
psychology obtain greater and greater government support, this becomes even more true.
Psychiatric and psychological views have infiltrated the legal, governmental, educational,
and various social systems. These are heavily funded and your tax dollars support it
(whether you like it or not).
Psychiatry and behavioral psychology also possesses the tools of enforcement and social
control that modern governments adore. But, ultimately each is
only just another belief system, quite arbitrary and very false, once again
allied with governments (the State) and used to oppress the public. Strangely the humanist will understand this idea about traditional
religions throughout history, but fail completely to see how this applies to the modern
social sciences (i.e. psychiatry, psychology).
Religions have a historical tendency to align with sectarian powers (i.e. governments -
the State). Whenever this has been done, the State has often promoted one religion above
all others, and tended to suppress the differing or competitive religious views. This is
why the 1st Amendment to the Constitution was written:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of
This was designed to prevent the State from supporting one religious view over
others. The government should be separate from any religion (separation of Church
and State), but it should also be kept separate from ANY belief system -
materialism, psychiatry, behaviorism, eugenics, genetics, biopharmacology, and
biochemistry included! No government funds should go to and no legislation should support any
belief system, religious or scientific.
"Religion" and "science" differ only in name - ultimately they are
each only unique belief systems. They exist in different
places on the "belief spectrum". Enforcing either one on the public has negative
results. Personally, I don't want my children forced to study, and believe, either the
theory of evolution or the theory of creationism, both of which are incorrect as
far as I am concerned. It's not one against the other. It's not religion against science.
More often than not they both act to deny Man's inherent nature as a thinking mind and
Man's rights. One needs to rise above the false ideas and apparent dichotomies, and learn
to see from a "higher ground".
You should have the right to believe either, if you choose, but neither
should be mandatory. Public schools, supported by the government, promote the
materialistic approach. They shouldn't, just as they shouldn't promote any specific
Any Rand said it well in discussing the traditional battle between the extremes of
rationalism and empiricism (spiritualism vs. materialism; religion vs. science):
In the title essay of For the New Intellectual, discussing modern
philosophy's concerted attack on man's mind, I referred to the philosophers' division into
two camps, "those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing
it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the
perception of physical facts (the Rationalists) -and those who claimed that man obtains
his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate
facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who
joined the Witch Doctor, by abandoning reality - and those who clung to reality, by
abandoning their mind.
This has been the established defined boundaries of the "battle" within
traditional western philosophy and culture. It is a barren playing field as it gives a
complete loss whichever side one chooses. It's either "all-mind" in a mystical
muddle of conceptual absurdities, or it's "all-physical matter" in a
materialistic mindlessness of biological superiority and temporal hedonism. In the end
both resort to force to gain acceptance and adherence. The modern behavioral psychologist
and psychiatrist are avid proponents of the second school - empiricists - they have
totally abandoned the mind. A "science" of Man can never achieve or excel when
it denies the very thing that creates any "science", Man's mind.
Modern psychology, which by definition is "the
study of the mind", ignores and denies the very object of its own subject!
It's a false battle; it's a false argument. Man has a mind and he relates to and
experiences the world around him. The mind, with the characteristics and functions of
thought, intention, attention, imagination, will, decision, self-determinism, and
responsibility, affects the world (i.e. environment) around the person, and
the world around the person affects the thoughts, opinions, and actions of the person.
It's a two-way street. It's not one or the other. But today the one-sided view of
scientific materialism has been institutionalized into modern society due to government
endorsements and funding of the "social sciences". Man's mind has been
systematically denied with a corresponding deterioration in self-determinism and personal
responsibility. The results are quite negative on society - rising crime, violence, and
immorality, and failing education, families, and general sanity.
Materialism, the modern "scientific approach" to the social sciences,
humanism, realism, pragmatism, or whatever you want to call these are simply ideologies,
containing unique combinations of ideas and beliefs, and more often than not, are
also orthodoxies - demanding that one conform to certain traditional or currently
accepted beliefs and ideas. In today's world you have no choice but to accept and adhere
to humanistic ideas, psychiatric doctrines, psychological theories and modern social
practices because these are the only ideas supported by government.
Materialism, just as any religion, is only a unique set of axioms, assumptions,
opinions and beliefs about the nature of Man, his world, the universe, and how Man relates
to his world and the universe. It is a system of concepts about reality, and
nothing more. It is not "truth"; it is a series of notions that are considered
to be "truth". In exactly the same way were earlier religious ideas and notions
considered to be "truth".
The constitutional amendment written to separate Church and State should have
been written to keep ALL belief systems away from government acceptance, subsidization and
support. Currently the governments of the United States and Europe are so tied up with
these other interests that it may be impossible to separate them. The intent of this
amendment was to allow people, through their own conscience, to decide personally,
without coercion or duress, what to believe and support. I don't want to support studies
or organizations that drug children with addictive Ritalin, encourage electric shocking of
the elderly, or act to degrade Man's view of himself into an animal. But I am
forced, and so is everyone else, to support this modern "religion of
materialism" through property taxes and federal income taxes. And make no mistake
about it, materialism functions exactly as any past religion. I hope some bright
constitutional scholar and lawyer will someday, soon, take this to the courts and
straighten this out.
The modern "materialist" or humanist condescendingly criticizes the
religionist as a fool, and barks his demands at them to cease their infantile praying and
misplacing of spiritual importances. The modern materialist and humanist are equally
the fool, infantile, and have misplaced, through exaggeration, the importance of their own
personal concepts of what Man and reality are and mean. They are fools and
dangerous in exactly the same way they criticize past religions and governments. How?
Because they never consider that their ideas are also only opinions held with personal
conviction. They consider them as "truth", to be disseminated and enforced
upon all equally, just as did the religionists of the past. It doesn't matter that many
people also hold the same opinions today. Group agreement has never made anything valid or
correct. This has been true at any point through history. We each look back and correctly
see the errors in the notions that existed in the past. The majority of the people in 16th
century Europe believed in witches and demons while the Church was systematically
catching, torturing and burning heretics at the stake. The majority of Germans believed in
the ideas of the "Fatherland", "Aryan superiority" and "racial
purity" less than 60 years ago, yet we now can see the absurdity of these ideas.
Majority opinion or belief implies nothing. It never has and it most likely never will.
That's an inherent problem with democracy. The majority opinions prevail, and it has a
tendency to expand while all competition is not allowed, attacked and phased out.
"Modern" educated people think they have risen above "the absurd and
childish beliefs of past societies and religions", but, in fact, they have not risen
anywhere. They have simply switched to another, equally absurd and flawed, set of
beliefs. Of course, they don't, and cannot see this, much less understand it, because they
are believers too - just as were the religious folks in past centuries. The
materialist, behavioral psychologist and psychiatrist is equally convinced of his
possession of the "truth", just as was any well-educated priest of the Spanish
Inquisition (and the priests were often very highly educated - more than anyone
else, but that didn't prevent them from initiating severe oppression on their fellow Man).
There is no difference in how either functions.
They each have a unique package of opinions, beliefs, and convictions about Man and the
universe, they each believe they are "right", and they each are willing to
happily force everyone else to believe the same things as they do. They are both
totalitarians. They are both the victims of their own over-active conceptualizing,
which they each take much too seriously and attribute far too much importance to. They both
believe themselves to be "honest", "truly kind" and
"self-sacrificing" to the needs of the people. The priest of the Inquisition
believed in God, Holiness, the Devil, heretics and witches, and he did everything and
anything to save poor Man from demons and devils. Duress, torture, unconsciousness, and
death were the results of this "glorious" end. The modern psychiatrist believes
in Biology, Heredity, the Impact of the Environment, Chemical Imbalances, Drugs and
Electric Shock and he will do everything and anything to save poor Man from Mental Illness
and Mental Disorders. Duress, torture, unconsciousness, and death are also the results of this
"glorious" end. The concepts have changed, but the activity of the oppressors
remains the same; it's always conducted in the self-purported "unselfish" and
"caring" name of "helping", "decency" and "modern
civilization". It is never helpful, decent or civilized.
A key aspect of what is traditionally called "religion" is the aspect of faith.
Faith is belief in things unseen. It's the personal choice to believe in
things unprovable, unobservable and not open to verification. This is as true for God, the
Devil and angels as it is for aliens, disembodied spiritual masters or elves. The point is
not whether these exist or not, but that ultimately it is a matter of personal choice -
and shouldn't be a matter of government condoning, approved doctrine and funding. Much of
what passes for fact and truth in the social sciences is only opinion,
theories and ideology held with conviction; but also with no honest observable proof or
possible verification. Simply, the tenets of modern social science are held largely with
faith, despite the fact that they are usually presented completely as "truth"
and "scientific". In this regard they are much more religious than
Psychiatry and modern psychology, functioning as materialistic interpretations of Man
and life, act as a unique set of opinions and beliefs about Man, his world, and the
universe, just as any religion or philosophical system. Each is a unique set of
axioms, assumptions, opinions and beliefs about the nature of Man, his world and the
universe. These may be very logical and well-organized structures of concepts and ideas,
but in fact, as anyone knows who has studied semantics, logic and philosophy, are very far
removed from any actual correspondence to existing realities - this is especially
true for the psychiatric notions of "mental illness", "mental health",
"mental disorders", and all the specific psychological "illnesses"
including "depression", "anxiety" and "attention deficit
disorder", which are, in fact, only metaphors to physical body
conditions, and that don't actually exist in any sense of corresponding to observable physical
ailments or diseases.
A mind is "ill", just as a "joke is sick", or "he has a
sick sense of humor". The usage of the words "sick",
"ill", "illness", and "disorder", as relates to the mind,
are metaphorical, but have been assumed to be actual, referring to real
situations and things - when, in fact, they don't. There isn't and has never been any
biological or physical basis to what are currently called "mental illnesses".
These things don't exist in any sense as a "disease" or "illness"
similar to their real physical counterparts. Psychiatry purports and asserts
that these exist as illnesses, in the same way as physical illnesses, but this is not
unlike how the medieval priest purported and asserted the existence of demons and devils
(interestingly, often as explanations for the same or similar unusual or undesirable
behavior). In both cases the general public believes the assertions and the entire complex
belief system. Understanding and interpreting the ideas of "mental illness" and
"mental health" in this way is really just playing with words and ideas, and is
part of the complex nomenclature and concepts of modern psychiatry. If you honestly read
through these pages, and follow up with some of the reference books, you will come to
understand how this is so.
But if you don't, you will probably stay fixedly set in your own very limited, and
largely arbitrary, conceptual framework of reality. What most of us think about reality is
not what is, but only what we conceive it to be. The two are, more often
than not, worlds apart. Modern science as applied to Man and society in the social
sciences is as guilty of this as any religion ever was.
Religions, in the past, allied with governmental powers to forward their beliefs,
through force and oppression. This is what the first constitutional amendment was designed
to prevent from reoccurring. This is what should be separated from the State:
-- ANY set of beliefs regarding Man, his world, the universe and his relationship to
"Materialism", "psychology" and "psychiatry" are
exactly this. The "religion" of materialism is very much connected to the State,
and promoted by the State. It shouldn't be. It functions as a "religion" in
exactly the same way as anything usually called a "religion" in the past.
Atheists, agnostics, humanists, pragmatists, progressives and "social
scientists" have used the government to fund and support their materialistic beliefs
and activities. They have done this in a way to push all other belief systems out of the
picture, and they have come to enjoy an ideological monopoly. They also enjoy complete
subsidization. I am not saying the previous religious or philosophical ideas and practices
were right - I don't think they were. The current scientific views of Man and society came
into existence as a reaction against the previous existing, and usually oppressive,
religious and political views and activities. What they attacked and destroyed deserved it
(i.e. oppressive religions and States), but this doesn't mean what was put in their place
(i.e. materialism, evolution, biopsychiatry, behavioral psychology) are any better. In
fact, they're not. The current modern views of the social sciences are "not
right" and equally act to oppress Man.
There is no "free market place" of ideas, because the materialistic view is
the only one allowed and supported. Prayer was taken out of the schools.
Psychologists staff public schools and teachers give testimony for Ritalin prescriptions.
The theory of creation is disallowed but the theory of evolution is taught. Strict
absolute moral teachings are forbidden, since they almost always derive from some
religion, while moral relativism is encouraged. Simply, the current modern
"scientific" views of Man and society exist only because they enjoy a
monopoly and extensive government subsidization, while all others have been forbidden and
receive no government financial support. In a completely free market system of
ideas, where all ideas could compete equally and fairly, without force, coercion,
or monopolistic support, I doubt they would enjoy anywhere near the acceptance they
currently do. It's not that "the people" want all this - it's what the
government rams down their throats, and the public simply assumes that what they are
presented with is "truth" - it's not, but it's the only show in town.
The first amendment should be forcefully applied, with no belief system supported or
promoted above any other with government funds or actions. Humanism is a religion. It is a belief system.
It functions as a religion, whether it is called one or not. It worships
Nature, evolution, and raw physical-biological existence (i.e. Man's animal nature) above
everything else. It denies Man's mind and all that goes with it. Currently, psychiatry and
psychology function as the modern accepted "scientific" world view of Man and
his world. These views are forced upon the entire society, and no one has any choice. The
State does currently support a religion to the exclusion of all other views and
this religion is called modern materialism.
Man has been wrong about what he has conceived himself and the world to be at every
past point in history; we all know and agree with that - it is very doubtful that we
are now suddenly correct about it all. We aren't. But the government supports the
materialistic ideology and worse, its practices of behavioral control, electric shock,
psychiatric drugs, lobotomy, moral relativism, wacky educational theories in the public
schools, etc. All of these procedures act directly to harm the individual mind and
all it does. This includes a mind's ability to think, create, cause, imagine, intend,
choose, will, attach meaning, determine importances, and responsibly direct the actions of
the person. This has detrimental effects on the society as a whole, because at any time,
the society is no more than the sum total of all the individual members participating in
A "religion" is only a unique sub-category of a larger category, this being -
any ideology or philosophy concerning Man, his world, the universe and Man's
relationship to his world and and the universe. The amendment should have read, or
should be changed to read:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any ideology or
belief system regarding Man, the universe, and Man's relationship to the universe, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.
The government should either support every ideology equally, or support
nothing. This means Yoga, Buddhism, Christianity, Scientology, Hinduism, Judaism, the
Church of Satan, witches, practical magicians, Moonies, pagans, Kabalists, Rosicrucians,
occultists, Theosophists, Druids, spiritualists, New Agers of all types, etc. should each
receive the same support and funding as does materialism, in the forms of
"science", psychiatry, modern psychology and sociology. If you can't see that
all these are each simply unique sets of beliefs and convictions about Man and his
world, then you are probably also too caught up in your own fixed set of notions about
reality. And you also probably have no problem with enforcing them on everyone else,
because you equally view them as "truth".
Please realize that "science" as used in this discussion refers to its
involvement with the "social sciences" - the study of Man and his
societies. "Science" has done fairly well with the material world,
such as physics, chemistry, electronics, and mechanics, but is a dismal
failure regarding Man and his societies. When I attack "science", it is not
as it relates to material things, but only to Man and societies - the "social
The religious proponents in the past believed their ideas completely and justified
their actions to suppress others because it was "truth" (to them). It was
"obvious" to them that this was so. The proponents of "materialism",
psychiatry, psychology and modern "science" believe completely, and in
exactly the same way, that their ideas are "modern" and "correct",
and also similarly justify their actions because it is the "truth" (to them). It
is "obvious" to them now also, just as it was to any believer and oppressor of
There is no difference between the religious and the scientific with regards to
what they do and how they act upon the general public. None at all. This is
often difficult for "modern people" to see, because one tends to become
"stuck" within their own strictly defined belief system, which they don't
recognize as a belief system at all, because they "live it", and instead,
experience it as their own perception of "truth", but it is completely true
Sadly, the Constitutional fathers of this country didn't perceive the first amendment
in this larger framework, and the amendment wasn't written in this broader context,
otherwise the current abuses could have been prevented.
It is also sad that every period of history, including our own, is characterized by
people who consider themselves supremely intelligent, in-the-know, aware of "the
truth", smarter, superior, educated, humanitarian, and who are also completely
willing to enforce their beliefs and opinions upon everybody else (whether in the name
of "religion" or "science"). Today the suppression goes by the names
"science", "materialism", "humanism", "psychology"
and "psychiatry". And just like the oppressive religionist of days past, they
say and promote that they care, honestly want to help, and intend to bring about a better
world. Maybe they do, but they are deluded. The world they bring is always on the tears
and pain of others, and, in fact, it never is any better.
This argument is not "anti-science" and "pro-religion". Both
have been and continue to be tyrants. Both have been guilty of the same exact
behavior. I say it's time to transcend both of them, wherever either initiates
power and force over the thoughts, ideas, beliefs and behavior of others. Both have
tended to deny the mind of Man and Man's ability to think, will, intend, imagine, decide,
choose, and act responsibly. Science and religion have their functions and uses. They
should be available to the degree any person wants what they have to offer. Neither should
align with any government power. This is not currently a problem with religion, as
government does not support or endorse religion(s). It is a major problem with the
modern beliefs of materialism and science as applied to the subject of Man and his
The founding fathers were very cognizant of the fact that human nature had much to be
desired. That's why they tried to put together the Constitution in such a way that the
government couldn't ever gain too much power. Sadly, they seemed to have failed because
the ideologies of psychiaty and psychology impose on all our lives through government
endorsement and subsidization. The creators of the Constitution knew man had a tendency to
invalid opinions and the acceptance of arbitrary notions, and additionally that Man had a
horrible historical proneness to attempt to enforce these on his fellow Man. This is amply
covered in the Federalist Papers. It seems that the federal government has gotten so
involved in ensuring commerce, which is part of their job, that it has taken the position
that as long as commerce is occurring at a high level then everything is fine. The problem
is that the federal government is quite blind to the positive or negative effects some of
these sectors of commerce may have on the poeple of the country. Apparently people in
government never think to ask whether the products of the major drug companies,
psychiatry, or modern psychology, which consitutues a major part of the US economy, have
beneficial effects. In this sense the government is "neutral", but this approach
has had very harmful effects on people and society. The government needs to be more
vigilantly aware of Man's inherent weakness as clearly laid out by the Founding Fathers.
Government endlesly supports commerce, but takes no concern whether the products of
certain commerce are harmful or directed by misguided individuals (i.e. psychiatrists,
psychiatrists, social scientists).
But fundamentally, the government should not endorse and support modern
"materialism" or "science", as applied to Man in the social sciences,
in any form, simply because the government should not support any ideology above or
to the exclusion of any others. Hopefully the realization and application of this doesn't
come too late.
For a more involved study of Man, what he is, belief, reality and force, see the essay
on Reality, Belief and The Mind.
Say NO To Psychiatry!
Back to Main SNTP Page
|Pursuing Truth in all subjects...
|ęGene Zimmer 1999 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED