In the fourth question of his survey, Benjamin asked:
Is psychiatry really a pseudoscience? Is the etiology of schizophrenics/psychotics truly that of parental trauma victims? Are neuroleptics/psychiatric drugs detrimental to health? Do parents cause the vast majority of the DSM-5/ICD behavioural patterns labelled as distinct disorders? Is mental illness environmental in origin? Is the psychiatric genetics position scientifically bankrupt?
Ben and I exchanged a few words in the discussion thread, but he recently added via email:
By the way, on the final (closing) comment by you on ‘Survey’, on Greg Johnson’s inability—even as he proofread it—to take in the information… that’s something I’ve never in my life understood about people. I can see it would really bother you!
They read the extensive full-proof document and they still don’t agree. I can only assume it’s an intelligence lack/dogma thing—some type of faulty methodology that arises from lower emotional intelligence. There’s some type of screen in the way, like a cognitive dissonance, and they just can’t process the evidence (the orthodox bias imposed by society is too great; that or the psychological implications in their own lives of taking it seriously, that private life ‘can of worms’ I mentioned before…).
I mean, of all points you’ve discussed with me (usually me, as not many others participate) that concern psychiatry on WDH—of pretty much all topics discussed there—psychiatry criticism is the most comprehensively debunked by now, with a superb level of detailed evidence, all bases covered, and you still get people somehow not grasping it (or not seeing why it’s important).
The reason racialists block topics we should be discussing, but which are a kind of taboo (for example Nordicism, which wasn’t taboo among Anglo-American eugenicists before WW2), is that the human mind is a restrictive container. There are notions, such as saying, “a fraudulent profession (psychiatry) has been taught in medical schools”, that show that the mind of the normie, or neo-normie racialist, is blocked by iron walls: ideas that simply cannot penetrate the membrane of our reason.
We human beings fortify ourselves in our certainties: for example, that what is taught as science in universities is always science. Often, the “insignificance” of reality doesn’t cause us cognitive dissonance (e.g., that psychiatry presents its central tenet, that mental disorder is a biomedical entity, as an irrefutable hypothesis according to Popper’s litmus test for distinguishing between real science and bogus science).
Sight and hearing can annihilate the believer! That’s why the normie closes his eyes and ears to the harrowing testimonies of the trauma suffered by those who endured terrible abuse in their childhood, which led to their mental disorders as adults: a plain refutation of the psychiatric medical model of mental disorders that, lacking biomarkers (unlike neurology, which does study biomarkers), dogmatically blames the brains of those traumatised by their parents:
7 replies on “Bogus science”
To Mauricio: sorry – it was my fault you didn’t understand my ‘Is the etiology of schizophrenics/psychotics truly that of [being] parental trauma victims?’ question. I forget not all are native English speakers here. I know contemporary research gives a roughly less than or equal to 1% genetic contribution, speculatively (and it’s hard to replicate). I just don’t take that as statistically significant. I’d put it down to either imposed head injury, brain damage co-morbidity, or brain damage by neuroleptics. Same with the drugs they use… I’d say that 15% who get a benefit from antidepressants according to the paper I quoted might well be because they enjoy the narcotic tranquillizing effects. I wish more of the budget went on investigating these sort of angles.
To the site in general: Just to back this article up (this might sound petty/myopic – I don’t think it is though), I see this myself (Lulu doesn’t tell me my accurate stats but I know Consumption has shifted, by latest reckoning – and the only Amazon buyers were opportunistic small book sales websites – 2 copies since it’s been released). I think it’s fair of me to conclude that this site doesn’t care. I’d give it out for free as PDF if I knew people would read it. I’ve given a few copies away so far. It’s not a money-making venture (much as Lulu set a basic price to work around).
(I wasn’t asking for personal ‘sob story’ pity either, or ‘fame’/’attention’; but it’d make good research evidence for anyone detached and impartial on this – a bit like John Modrow’s work).
Preferably though – having read it recently, I hope as many people buy and read How to Murder your Child’s Soul as possible (+Day of Wrath in PDF).
I know this topic is boring/irrelevant to some here (or perplexing). I just wish it wasn’t. I stick to my own minor ‘best point’ over this matter though: ‘where’s our ethnocentric friend/enemy distinction if we’re treating Aryan (child) psychiatry-traumatised child abuse victims – already betrayed by shoddy Aryan parents – like dirt to be swept under the rug?’ I’m an adult so I don’t think of myself here. I worry for the next generations though, if this isn’t assimilated by us, right here, right now.
I know those parents were traumatised too. I’m certainly interested in society-wide ways to break the intergenerational cycle of abuse though, and one way is to publicise this issue as widely as possible. I think it needs a few more observations and responses.
@ Ben,
I hope you don’t mind that, since I just read your last email, I replaced “IQ” with “emotional intelligence” in your quote above (regarding Greg’s low “emotional quotient”).
Oh yeah that’s fine, thanks. Sorry if I rambled in that. I’m never quite concise enough over these points – preferably I’d (ideally) wish other wrote a bit more! Soundbites don’t cut this issue.
I know we like to be curt, but sometimes less isn’t more. I’m not the site owner, but as another regular reader, I grow tired of generic/obvious responses, stubs, & familiar truisms, and this is a long-neglected topic. Personally, I’d love to know (and have harboured this wish long term) what every single other commenter on here thinks in response to these 6 questions.
The more silence there is, the more I’m in the dark over what people really think, and thus the less I can know them/trust them… (much are there have been a few good responses so far, for which I’m very grateful). I think that’s why I made it artificially unambiguous, i.e. ‘yes/no because…’ as opposed to subjective and nuanced – just to see if I had been precise enough myself in soliciting honest feelings. Honesty works better than agreement initially.
I see people here as vastly superior to Greg. I hate being let down.
Either way, I want to shut up now. It’s open to anyone, in genuine interest…
Alas, no one is really interested in finding out whether psychiatry is indeed a science…
Apparently not. Oh well, I find that interesting in itself.
Maybe they all know already by now and just don’t want to say (I doubt it) – I should rephrase that: maybe they all ‘know’ already and don’t want their minds changed by an exhaustive 20 year+ (joint-) presentation of detailed meta-analyses covering all angles. I don’t actually know. Perhaps there’s some reason I haven’t thought of. I wondered about conflicting time schedules/time-zones and real world life commitments at first, but that doesn’t seem to impact much on the other racialist platforms.
Perhaps someone is afraid they will offend me (or you), and have to get argued against (or banned), despite presumably not agreeing with a damn thing (and yet not being prepared to defend their own position). I find that ‘having it both ways’ attitude odd.
Sorry if I seem a bit snappy today – I am. Surely it’s not everyone, I say to myself! I mean, there’s been some quality comments recently. I liked Dale’s perspective.
Given the real life fallout of this, I consider those who cannot get to the nub of this issue to be effectively anti-Aryan traitors. They have put themselves in the position of becoming as much as my enemy. I can’t do anything about that, but I can make a note of it. Perhaps someone could prove me wrong.
I’ll hope by the time this gets posted it is obsolete.
Tere, the woman in whose apartment I lived for ten months in Gran Canaria, once told me that you’d only be interested in anti-psychiatry if you’d been assaulted by psychiatrists (she was).
That’s a bit of an exaggeration, since critics of the profession have included quite a few non-victims who were never drugged or institutionalised.
But Tere has a point: generally, people gloss over this issue just as, we might add, normies and neonormies gloss over what happens in slaughterhouses.
I just reread all your comments above.
Besides what I told you today in my email titled “stray dog,” there’s a thought I’ve had for decades that sheds light on the matter.
In 1983 I said to a psychoanalyst (not Amara, a more humane one): “How can society be interested in my case if it doesn’t care about children living on the streets?”
Bingo.
Trying to prove, say, that Peter Helfgott’s abuse drove his son David to schizophrenia (a real-life case brought to the screen in the Hollywood film, Shine), is far more complicated than just seeing a child living on the streets—and the average person in the city I happen to live in doesn’t care at all (cf. also the novels of Charles Dickens).
To understand our dark age, you always have to keep in mind the words of Alexis de Tocqueville: “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.”
My emphasis.