Friday, December 23, 2011

Corrupt forensic psychology

Criticism of forensic psychology is not new. A famous 1880 novel said this:
In the trial scene from Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky, speaking through the lips of the defense attorney, issued a stern warning to the legal profession:

Profound as psychology is, it's a knife that cuts both ways.... You can prove anything by it. I am speaking of the abuse of psychology, gentlemen.
The 1947 movie Miracle on 34th Street is shown often at Christmastime every year. It is about a psychologist who gives an evaluation to Santa Claus, and then tries to get him committed to a mental hospital. The corrupt judge finds an excuse to avoid the unfavorable publicity. There is also a single mom with no faith. It is actually an excellent feel-good movie that is much better than its remakes.

Critics who take this movie too seriously have accused it of bad law and bad logic. But at the time the movie was made, it really was possible to commit a man to a mental institution based on a psychiatrist saying that he was delusional. Nowadays, there has to be evidence that the man is a serious threat to harm himself or others. So I guess that the field of forensic psychiatry has made some progress. The field has gotten worse in other ways, such as forcing dangerous psychotropic drugs.

Here are more examples of using bogus psychology for political purposes. Wikipedia explains:
In the Soviet Union, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place. Soviet psychiatric hospitals were used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. This method was also employed against religious prisoners and most especially against well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion. In such cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured. Formerly highly classified extant documents from “Special file” of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union published after the dissolution of the Soviet Union demonstrate that the authorities of the country quite consciously used psychiatry as a tool to suppress dissent.
Kevin MacDonald argues:
A major theme of The Culture of Critique is that several Jewish-dominated intellectual movements developed theories in which ethnocentrism by Whites (and only Whites) was an indication of psychiatric disorder. This was true not only of the Frankfurt School, perhaps the main offender, but also Richard Hofstadter’s diagnosis of “status anxiety” for Whites concerned about their displacement and Erich Fromm’s analysis in terms of “sado-masochistic reaction formations” (see here, p. 195ff). All of these movements were facilitated by psychoanalysis, an infinitely plastic bit of anti-science that was able to get any desired result.

We are now seeing a trend for psychiatric diagnoses to be given to Whites who are angry about the massive invasion of non-Whites that are destroying the traditional cultures and threatening the status of the traditional populations of White countries. Anders Breivik was recently diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic for his rampage, mainly against young activists and the children of the leftist Norwegian elite he viewed as responsible for the immigration assault on Norway. This despite the fact that his operation was well-planned and despite the fact that his manifesto shows that he is quite intelligent and has read widely on the ongoing disaster of the Muslim invasion of Europe.
Apparently Norway authorities have some sort of purpose in declaring Berwick insane. My guess is that it is either to discredit his ideas or to keep him locked up without trial or both. Either way, the psychiatrist is a dishonest tool of the govt. (Berwick ought to be kept locked up for his murders, of course, but they don't need crooked psychiatrists to do it.)

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

unrelated. Saw this calif case, and it made me think of you and the flack you took over your kids and hairbrushing

The case revolves around a stepfather who towel dried his eleven year old stepdaughter’s hair as he had been doing for six years once every month or so. I know that you would not be surprised with the decision of the Commissioner (judge) on this case. The stepfather was put on the California “Child Abuse Central Index” before the first hearing in Dependency Court and charged with Sexual Abuse..

Anonymous said...

No wonder why there's no reference to MacDonald in wikipedia.

Ideology: White Nationalist
Kevin MacDonald is the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic. A psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach,

Pinker...

Steven Pinker, the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, wrote that MacDonald's work fails "basic tests of scientific credibility."

George on Pinker...

"So who do you believe? A big-shot Jewish Harvard psychology professor or some feminist activists?"

George said...

Here is the Wikipedia article on MacDonald. MacDonald and Pinker are both evolutionary psychologists, a controversial field.

I quoted Pinker on the decline of violence because he just wrote a whole book on the subject and documents his conclusions. Pinker has also attacked MacDonald, saying he has not read MacDonald's books and that they are unworthy of his attention. I would take Pinker's criticism of MacDonald more seriously if there were some substance to it.

Anonymous said...

It's not just Pinker. Another scientist, John Tooby, who, along with his wife Leda Cosmides, gave the field of evolutionary psychology its name in 1992, directly challenged MacDonald's work. Tooby told Salon.com in 2000 that "MacDonald's ideas — not just on Jews — violate fundamental principles of the field." John Hartung, the associate editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and an associate professor of anesthesiology at the State University of New York, called MacDonald's The Culture of Critique "quite disturbing, seriously misinformed about evolutionary genetics, and suffering from a huge blind spot about the nature of Christianity."

The list goes on and on.


Who else posts MacDonald's writings
besides you ?

David Duke, an anti-Semite, former Klan leader, and author of the book Jewish Supremacism, has posted MacDonald’s writings to his Website

George said...

I don't play the guilt-by-association game. If MacDonald is wrong, then go ahead and show me where he is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Why not first show me where you're right ?

I'm just asking you these same 2 questions again, and you're just not answering them again.

What were the anti christian explanations that they gave for their opinions ?

What did they say that gave themselves away as christian haters ?


"they were both unable to give any explanation for their opinions other than their own anti-Christian hatred."

George said...

I did have another evaluator who was a Christian. He treated me with respect. He believed in having a strong role for the father. He wanted to do what was right, regardless of what the court had done previously.

But the two psychologists appointed by the court were completely different. They were prejudiced and anti-Christian. They have no morals and they have no Christian values and respect for others who have Christian values. They were only interested in destroying family relationships, and it bleeding money out of me in the process. And yes, they were both unable to give any explanation for their opinions other than their own anti-Christian hatred. They are bigots of the worst sort, and they should be exposed for what they do.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I believe that the were prejudicial towards you, but I I've seen the same players favor the christian parent over the jewish parent, too.

Yes, they were out to bleed money out of you, but it had nothing to do with any religious issues.

And yes, they were both unable to give any explanation for their opinions other than their own anti-Christian hatred.

I'm just asking you these same 2 questions again, and you're just not answering them again.

What were the anti christian explanations that they gave for their opinions ?

What did they say that gave themselves away as christian haters ?

Anonymous said...

If MacDonald is wrong, then go ahead and show me where he is
wrong.

14th amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

MacDonald proposed a federal constitutional amendment to repeal the 14th and 15th Amendments.

McDonald is wrong because to repeal the 14th amendment would deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Also,, you'd written extensively of being denied your 14th amendment rights.

Do you feel McDonald is right or wrong about repealing the 14th. amendment ?

Anonymous said...

"I don't play the guilt-by-association game."

Sorry. I know how you feel about Joe McCarthy/guilt by association...

Anyway, do you share any views with David Duke and the KKK ?

George said...

MacDonald is a psychology professor. I was quoting him on the subject of psychology. If he misstated the facts in that quote, please let me know. I am not endorsing his political views. I know very little about his political views. I had never heard that he favors repealing the 14A and 15A amendments. If so, then I do not agree with on that issue. I did a quick search, and I was unable to confirm it. If you want to post a link, go ahead. But his politics are irrelevant to my post.

I quote all sorts of people with different political views. Please keep your comments related to the subject matter. Again, I don't play the guilt-by-association game.

Anonymous said...

They were prejudiced and anti-Christian. They have no morals and they have no Christian values and respect for others who have Christian values.

What did they say that proved to you that they were anti christian, and that they have no christian values and respect for others who have christian values ?