Mental Health as the New Weapon: America’s Descent into Psychiatric Authoritarianism, By Mr. (Dr) Abigail Knight (Florida)
We've seen this playbook before, and it always starts with supposed good intentions. A crisis is identified. The state steps in with sweeping powers. And before long, that temporary "emergency measure" becomes a permanent tool of control. Today, in the name of mental health, America flirts with the same descent into authoritarianism that characterised the worst moments of the Soviet Union's psychiatric gulags.
Let's not pretend this is just about the homeless. Former President Trump's executive order empowering federal agencies to forcibly detain the mentally ill under civil commitment laws has been hailed by some as compassionate, a response to rising disorder, drug addiction, and untreated psychiatric illness on city streets. But read the fine print. The policy includes no new funding for mental health care or affordable housing. What it offers instead is power: the power to remove individuals from public life on the basis of vague "risk" assessments, not actual criminal behaviour.
This is the critical shift. The legal system once required probable cause, charges, a trial. Now, the bar has been lowered to "you seem off." That's not due process, it's pre-crime policing in a white coat.
We've already seen this kind of weaponised psychiatry used on political dissidents. NSA whistleblower Russ Tice was labelled "mentally unbalanced." NYPD officer Adrian Schoolcraft was institutionalised for exposing internal corruption. Marine veteran Brandon Raub was detained for controversial Facebook posts. These aren't isolated abuses, they're red flags flapping in the anti-liberal wind.
Meanwhile, the surveillance infrastructure quietly expands. Your wearable fitness tracker could soon feed real-time behavioural data to federal agencies. AI-driven systems now scan social media, facial expressions, heart rate fluctuations, all in the name of "wellness" and "public safety." But what happens when a political rant or a depressive episode triggers a digital red flag? The same Deep State that labels "anti-government extremists" as domestic terrorists, now wants access to your biometric stress responses. What could go wrong?
This is where we must remember the lessons of history. In the Soviet Union, psychiatric hospitals were often prisons for dissidents. "Dangerous ideas" were treated as symptoms of mental illness. Resistance was reclassified as delusion. No charges were necessary. No trial. Just isolation, drugs, and the slow erosion of identity. The term "gulag" didn't always mean a Siberian work camp, sometimes it was a white room with no exit, where ideology wore a stethoscope.
The modern American variant doesn't look like that, not yet. But it rhymes. Mental health roundups begin with the homeless, then expand to include veterans, gun owners, political activists, and eventually anyone who refuses to march in step with the official narrative. All it takes is one line in a government database: in need of evaluation.
Laws like red flag gun confiscation already operate on this logic. No diagnosis. No crime. Just a report. Just a hunch. Just enough to knock on your door and take your rights away.
And don't expect your watch, your phone, your health records, or your social media history to protect you, they'll be used against you. The state now blends mental health surveillance with predictive policing, pre-crime AI, and behavioural profiling. It's a digital dossier of your psyche, ready to be weaponised.
Of course, the excuse is always the same: we're doing this for your safety. The homeless need help. The unwell must be protected from themselves. The discontented should be rehabilitated. But the pattern is clear: every emergency — drugs, terrorism, pandemics, now mental illness — becomes a doorway to more surveillance, more detention, more control.
This isn't a war on illness. It's a war on dissent. A war on unpredictability. A war on difference.
If we don't draw a hard line now, we risk waking up in a society where wrongthink is treated as a symptom, and resistance is a disorder. The gulag doesn't need barbed wire anymore. It just needs a diagnostic manual.
Welcome to the era of the Brave New World Thought Ward. Enter at your own risk, and don't forget to smile. Big Brother is watching.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-08-04-speak-the-truth-government-mental-health-gulag.html
"Are you thinking something illegal? Get ready to be jailed for it "Minority Report" style. Did you say something about the government that was derogatory? Off to the non-free-speech gulag for you. Welcome to the police state tyranny we all knew was coming, George Orwell style, nonetheless. The thought police are coming, and you could be declared mentally unfit to walk the streets at any moment. Are you ready?
In a chilling reflection of totalitarian regimes past, the U.S. government is increasingly using mental health laws to detain individuals without due process, raising alarms about a new form of political repression. An executive order issued by former President Trump, aimed at addressing homelessness through expanded involuntary civil commitments, has drawn heavy criticism for laying the groundwork for a modern-day police state. Framed as a compassionate response to mental illness and public safety, the policy allows for the forced institutionalization of individuals based on vague assessments of mental instability rather than concrete criminal behavior.
Mental Health as a Pretext for Political Control: The government is increasingly using mental health justifications, such as civil commitment laws, to detain individuals—especially the homeless and dissenters—without due process, replacing legal standards with subjective psychiatric evaluations.
Pathologizing Dissent: Historical and recent examples show how political opposition is being reframed as mental illness. Whistleblowers, veterans, and critics of government policies have been forcibly detained or labeled mentally unfit, echoing Soviet-era tactics of silencing dissidents.
Surveillance and Predictive Policing Infrastructure: A vast surveillance network—including AI-driven behavioral monitoring, biometric tracking, and wearable data—is being expanded under the guise of public health, enabling pre-emptive detention based on perceived risks rather than actual crimes.
The Rise of a Thought Crime Regime: With red flag laws, vague extremism labels, and executive orders targeting entire categories of people, the state is laying the groundwork for a system where beliefs, fears, or criticisms of government can be criminalized as threats to public safety—signalling a dangerous shift toward authoritarianism.
The New Gulag: Mental Health Detentions and the Criminalization of Dissent
Critics warn that this approach paves the way for the government to label dissenters, activists, or even the unhoused as threats, thereby justifying their removal from society. This echoes Soviet-era tactics where psychiatric diagnoses were used to silence political opposition. With no new funding for housing or treatment, the move appears more punitive than rehabilitative—weaponizing mental illness to expand state control. The government's increasing use of behavioral data from wearables, AI surveillance, and red flag laws to monitor "pre-crime" behaviors exacerbates these concerns.
The consequences are already visible. Whistleblowers and critics such as NSA's Russ Tice, NYPD officer Adrian Schoolcraft, and Marine veteran Brandon Raub have all been forcibly detained under questionable psychiatric pretenses. Government programs like Operation Vigilant Eagle and DHS threat assessments now blur the lines between political activism and extremism, casting a wide net over veterans, gun owners, and constitutionalists.
This approach replaces legal standards with subjective medical judgments, undermining fundamental constitutional protections such as probable cause, due process, and the presumption of innocence. Once dissent is equated with mental illness, opposition becomes pathologized and punishable not for actions, but for beliefs. Historical precedents—from Soviet gulags to Cold War-era administrative exile—show how psychiatric repression can serve authoritarian ends.
The infrastructure for such repression is growing: surveillance systems, AI-powered behavioral analysis, mental health data access, and preventive detention laws. While often justified in the name of safety, these tools risk turning the U.S. into a society where thought crimes are punished with institutionalization. The danger is not hypothetical—it's unfolding in real time, with state power expanding under the guise of compassion and security.
This "mental health gulag" begins with the homeless, but could soon encompass any critic of government policy. As history has shown, once the machinery of repression is set in motion, it rarely stops with its original targets. The fight against terrorism, drugs, and pandemics all began with legitimate concerns but evolved into mechanisms of surveillance and control.
Now, a new war looms: the war on dissent. If left unchecked, policies like these may criminalize resistance and usher in an era where freedom of thought itself becomes a liability. The cost of inaction could be the erosion of liberty under the silent weight of institutional power."
Comments