The hammer of the victims

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of the books that I wrote in the last century:
 

This quotation explains perfectly why the so-called mental health professions have so much power in our societies:

To commit violent and unjust acts, it is not enough for a government to have the will or even the power; the habits, ideas, and passions of the time must lend themselves to their committal. —Alexis de Tocqueville [1]

Since psychiatrists and psychoanalysts diagnose people who are actually victims of insulting environments, their fundamental postulate is precisely to deny what they are. In psychiatric Newspeak the expression ‘victim of the environment’ has been eliminated; the aetiology of any disorder has to be looked for in the reign of the somatic. By doing this it is methodologically impossible that the profession will blame the parents even in cases of flagrant physical, sexual or emotional abuse toward the children (schizophrenogenic emotional abuse was what Helfgott and Modrow suffered). Thus psychiatry carries out an important function: to exonerate the family, the cell of civilisation, of the devastation manifested in the children.

Civil society lives in denial too. It doesn’t want to see that inside its most sacred institution maddening abuses exist on its most vulnerable members: children and adolescents. Both present-day university professions and civil society are as ignorant and superstitious of this situation as the Middle Ages was about diseases caused by microorganisms.

Voltaire saw the learned inquisitors as what they were—instead of diagnosing as ‘heretics’ the persons that the Inquisition tortured and murdered. Henceforth his call Écrasez l’infame! against the church, with which he annotated his liberating letters.

Nowadays the therapeutic state took over the labour of social control of the theocratic state. The call Écrasez l’infame!—Crush the infamy!—can be no more pertinent to refer to a profession that tortures and murders souls of children through psychological re-victimizations and handicapping drugs.

The studying of perpetrators is a revaluation of values of psychiatry: a new science that in lieu of hammering the victims it studies the perpetrators, or simply perps. In this revaluation of all psychiatric values science has to re-orient itself to the study of maddening parents (cf. Helfgott’s life), re-victimizing psychiatrists (cf. Breggin), charlatans who call themselves analysts (cf. Masson), and the civil struggle to abolish the therapeutic state (cf. Szasz).

In addition to these lines of investigation and struggle, my dream is that the study of perps will eventually include a new type of literature to reclaim for biographers and autobiographers the study of the human soul which was usurped by politicians that people call psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and clinical psychologists (psychiatry, psychoanalysis and clinical psychology are pseudosciences). One of the paradigms of this new literature is the study by John Modrow, who contributed to solving the mystery of why some adolescents get mad (in psychiatric Newspeak, ‘schizophrenia’) if subjected to parental abuse and psychiatric re-victimization.

If this new kind of vindictive autobiography doesn’t develop in the future, the true study of the human psyche will stagnate. The Lithuanian poet Czeslaw Milosz, Nobel laureate in 1980, has said that events such as the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War and even the Trench Warfare of WW1 were not autobiographically recalled in a satisfactory way, independently of the fact that historians have written entire libraries about those events. [2]

The same can be said of the absent autobiographies of the victims of our society. Hundreds of thousands of Doras didn’t recall literarily their testimonies. Brilliant politicians like Eugen Bleuler and Freud took their words out of their mouths and spoke in their names. Hersilie Rouy, Julie La Roche, Modrow and a few others are the exceptions.

__________

[1] Alexis de Tocqueville, quoted in W.H. Auden and L. Kronenberger (eds.), The Viking book of aphorisms: a personal selection (Dorset Press, 1981), p. 297, quoted in a lecture by Thomas Szasz presented in the Foucault Symposium in Berlin University, May 1998.

[2] Czeslaw Milosz in La experiencia de la libertad/3: la palabra liberada (Espejo de Obsidiana Ediciones, 1991), pp. 102f.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

12 Comments

  1. Compare the title of this post with my previous article on psychiatry, “The hammer of the witches”.

    I still believe that “psychiatry, psychoanalysis and clinical psychology are pseudosciences” for the simple reason that none of them blame abusive parents for the mental distress of the abused offspring. The denial continues in our century.

    • Excuse me, Mr. Tort, but as a reader of your blog, I find your criticism of psychology to be very subjective and nurture-based rather than natural. You seem reluctant to accept any idea that mental conditions could be anything but a result of external causes mostly related to “child abuse”.
      To this in particular, I present the case of Phineas Gage:

      “Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was an American railroad construction foreman remembered for his improbable:19 survival of an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain’s left frontal lobe, and for that injury’s reported effects on his personality and behavior over the remaining 12 years of his life‍—‌effects sufficiently profound (for a time at least) that friends saw him as ‘no longer Gage’.

      Long known as the ‘American Crowbar Case’—‌once termed ‘the case which more than all others is cal­cu­lated to excite our wonder, impair the value of prognosis, and even to subvert our phys­i­o­log­i­cal doctrines’—‌Phineas Gage influenced 19th-century discussion about the mind and brain, par­tic­u­larly debate on cerebral local­i­za­tion,​​ and was perhaps the first case to suggest the brain’s role in deter­min­ing per­son­al­ity, and that damage to specific parts of the brain might induce specific per­son­al­ity changes.”

      “Harlow described the pre-accident Gage as hard-working, responsible, and ‘a great favorite’ with the men in his charge, his employers having regarded him as ‘the most efficient and capable foreman in their employ’; he also took pains to note that Gage’s memory and general intelligence seemed unimpaired after the accident, outside the periods of delirium. Nonetheless these same employers, after Gage’s accident, ‘considered the change in his mind so marked that they could not give him his place again’.

      “The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intel­lec­tu­al faculties and animal pro­pen­si­ties, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not pre­vi­ous­ly his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times per­ti­na­cious­ly obstinate, yet capricious and vac­il­lat­ing, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intel­lec­tu­al capacity and man­i­fes­ta­tions, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart business man, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaint­ances said he was ‘no longer Gage’.”

      • Just curious, have you read this?

      • Yes I have read those articles. They say nothing about the kind of brain injury that affected Gage and changed his personality [albeit temporarily]. To be honest, they seem kind of morally slavish, like something a Leftist would write.

        Just curious, how do you explain Psychopathy [Ted Bundy Syndrome]? Brain scans exist to detect these as they have no active prefrontal cortex. A few cases of these and similar pathologies involved zero child abuse. Dahmer did what he did and as deranged as it was, he experienced nothing that could explain why he stalked negroids to eat.

      • I never said that neurology is pseudoscientific, only that biopsych is.

        Have you read this?

    • The crocodile tears you here are shedding for those victimized by biopsychiatry apparently don’t extend to the ones killed in the National Socialist T4 program. Logically, your jihad against psychobiological reductionism should leave you most incensed against a Darwinistic view such as that of the National Socialists, who commonly viewed all mental “disorders” as a manifestation of inferior genetics. What a hypocrite!

      • NS men were wrong on that subject.

        Who are you?

        Are you Spahn Ranch who used to comment on this site until last September?

        Are you the same Jack Frost who used to comment on The Occidental Observer (whose posts I advertised here)?

        Who are you?

  2. Harassments by groups, collective harassment, whether its police harassing someone or bullies at school or some other group, any sort of group harassment can cause brain damage. Verbal abuse can cause brain damage. Brain damage can manifest in strange behavior which can then be diagnosed as mental illness where drugs are prescribed that can cause more brain damage and make the person in a worse state.

    • Bingo.

      Even if neuroanatomical correlations are found in certain cases of maladaptive behaviour, this is likely to be interpreted as evidence that the environment isn’t culpable in the persons dysfunction, when the opposite might be the truth. Actually we already see this happen when drug induced brain damage is presented as evidence of congenital brain abnormality.

  3. @RevileChrist César is not a Darwinian. E.g., he hates non-Whites not because they’re non-White but because they’re evil.

    I for one don’t understand it either why a society should cure weak men. Let them die. For millennia they did. Now you want to cuddle them.

    Bring back smallpox, witch hunts, schizophrenias of all kind! Bring back child burning! And destroy the Autobahnen! Then wait and see whether something good comes out of the tophet.

    Question: If a woman wants a traditional family, is that good or bad?
    Answer: it’s irrelevant, woman’s wants should not be accounted for.

    • How would we “bring back” Smallpox?…

      And forgive me if you’ve explained elsewhere or if it should otherwise be obvious, but what is your problem with the Autobahnen? That it’s too safe or something?

      • Anti-vaccers can certainly help. And energy devolution. And terrorism.

        The Autobahnen are bad because the ease of transportation leads to miscegenation. That’s why I posit that NS-men were not only feminists* but also miscegenators.

        *Encouraging women not to be whores is feminist.

        P.S. Just like César with his Judaism-Christianity-greater Judaism path, so have I come full circle with the term Feminazi. Lemmings use it to denote manly women, I might employ it to scorn the feminine men such as Hitler.

        P.P.S. Now that I think about it, both NatSoc and Manson are so useless, timid and degenerate, literally the only good thing about both of them is the Swastika. The Swastika symbolizes the bond with that mythic past when men still existed.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: