Violent Remedies
(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.)
In the field of medicine, it is generally understood that harm must be done to a patient in order to restore his health. Surgery involves the cutting of healthy tissue to remove disease, and an act as brutal as removing a limb may be necessary to restore health to the rest of the body. It is tolerated, even by the parents of the patient, whose natural instinct is to be protective - they will help restrain their own child while a doctor inflicts a painful and brutal treatment upon them, because it is believed to be necessary.
Violence against the patient is also acceptable in the treatment of psychological disorders. It ranges from the relatively low level of violence, such as using strait-jackets and other forms of restraint, to therapies that inflict pain or discomfort on the patient to discourage unruly behavior, to shock therapy and surgical procedures that damage the brain. All of this is accepted because it is understood to be necessary to bring the patient to a desired way of thinking and behaving.
The more resistant the patient to the ideals of communism, the more brutal the treatment must be to break down their resistance. The operative should not be reluctant to go to the extremes when necessary, and even if the means of treatment is made public, this will only serve as encouragement to others to rectify themselves to avoid brutal treatment. And again, if it is believed to serve the greater good, the most horrifically brutal treatments will be condoned and even encouraged by society at large.
There is a general sense that any punishment must fit the crime, and any treatment of patients must be counterbalanced by the benefit it does them. However, this equation also works in the reverse: when people see a criminal being brutally punished, they assume his crime must have been heinous; and when they see a patient suffering a violent treatment, they assume his condition must be extremely severe. In that way, violent treatments create a public sense that individualism is a very severe mental disorder, and they will support even greater violence to eradicate it.
However, it remains important to maintain the perception that violence done upon patients is for therapeutic reasons: if it is done for the amusement of their assailant, this is not tolerated. Practitioners must project a sense of detachment, perhaps even reluctance and revulsion, and the manner in which their patients are treated. Brutality is to be regarded as "unfortunate but necessary" - and the reluctance of the practitioner gains him even more support from society, which will sympathize with one who undertakes an unpleasant duty for the greater good. Thus, the operative becomes of a messiah.