Conduct Under Fire
(EN: This book is somewhat controversial - not merely because of its topic, but because of its origin. It is presented as a synthesis of various Soviet documents on the practice of brainwashing, but may in fact be a fabrication to provoke outrage and opposition to the communist party and due to its suspicious origin is considered that it may be a hoax or a work of science fiction. I've read it, and preserved notes, as it seems interesting and plausible, in spite of its dubious validity and origin.)
The psychopolitical operator may find himself under attack, either as an individual or the member of a group. He may be denounced as a communist, or attacked for malpractice. He may be attacked in a variety of ways - but whatever the source and reason it is important to remain calm and aloof, to stick to the argument that he is competent and is acting in the interest of society.
Generally, an operative is exposed when he has been too overt or ambitious in his practices, attracting attention and calling into doubt the purpose of his activities. An operative must achieve a certain reputation, amass a number of examples that demonstrate the effectiveness of his treatment, as a defense against any accusation. Counter-attacking those who make accusations is also helpful - calling into doubt their knowledge and expertise, and questioning their own agenda. Since the field of psychiatry, and particularly the practice of psychoanalysis, is largely experimental, there are ample allies that will assist in the defense of any practitioner as a means of defending the reputation of the field.
There is an admonition against using "murder and violence" unless this is done within the safety of an institution whose reputation has been established, in which any violence can be explained as an experimental or extreme method of treatment and any murder can be disguised as a suicide or dismissed as an unintentional and unusual outcome. Once the reputation of a psychopolitical operator is established, he no longer needs to be as circumspect. His activities will be considered a recognized and standard treatment for insanity, tolerated and even defended.
There is some consideration about the subjective nature of psychiatry: a patient is "healthy" only if a number of established professionals consider him to be so, or "insane" if only one established professionals considers him to be so. The literature in the field is so inconsistent and nebulous that any diagnosis or assessment can be justified - and if any explanation is demanded, it can be provided in verbiage so vague and effuse as to prevent any counter-argument.
Considering the testimony of "expert" witnesses in trials that assess an individual's sanity, there seems to be no consistent standard: anyone who presents himself as an expert is instantly granted credibility regardless of his credentials. There is some danger in a nation with a free press that such cases will be "tried in the newspapers" and a biased story written to pander to public interest - which is less of a problem in nations where the media is well controlled.