Psychiatrists Debate Pathologizing Racism, Depathologizing Pedophilia

Posted by James Bowery on Saturday, 10 December 2005 20:06.

It was only a matter of time with this sort of scum.

Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness

Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.

Psychiatric Association Debates Reclassifying Pedophilia

In a step critics charge could result in decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

This reminds me of the time the “psychiatrists” decided, within a few year span during the early 1970s, to take homosexuality off of their list of pathologies and then pathologize “homophobia”. In that few year span leading “psychiatrists” managed to declare their recently-former-selves to have been suffering from a “psychiatric” disorder.

But never mind—there is work to be done here right? Having marched forward and transcended minor setbacks to progresss in psychiatric treatment, like lobotomy we’re now poised for far more precise treatment of “phobias” using Oxytocin.

Let the cranial injections begin!

Tags: Cultural Marxism

Comments:

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:51 | #

This is good - anything that exposes psychiatry and psychology for the anti-civilization Cult they really are can’t be all bad.

Posted by John S Bolton on Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:32 | #

They’re trying to make it sound as if disaffinity which increases as genetic distance increases could be considered unnatural, while the a lack of the impulse to protect one’s close relatives such as children, which would be shown by classifying pedophilia as not unnatural and criminal, could be considered healthy and viable. Government money and establishment, as in court proceedings, allow for biologically non-viable approaches to be treated as if they were healthy. The professoriate is always testing to see what can be gotten away with, before they make bold to tell officials to go ahead and start the civil war and dictatorship.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:34 | #

If I might I’d like to stick this in here, which I think is à propos: it’s an excerpt from an e-mail Jim Kalb received from a Turnabout reader describing a facet of liberalism’s nature, in which MR.com regulars will recognize an eloquent statement of Mark Richardson’s point about liberalism’s rejection of that which is inherited:
______

“Liberalism is a regime of compulsory soul-crushing evanescence. [...] In ‘Where we are in a nutshell,’ you wrote:

” ‘Liberals and the Left […] basically don’t like existence. When something exists it excludes things, and can’t be made into something else, and that seems intolerant, obstinate and even aggressive.’

“I know that you are not exaggerating. I’ve been thinking about this very thing. Existence practices ‘the politics of exclusion.’ Liberalism cannot abide it. Neither can it abide inheritance, existence spanning time. And so another facet of the spiritual penury to which Liberalism condemns man is revealed. Liberalism is mandatory futility.

“A present with no future is futile. Liberalism robs the present of a future by despising and dismantling the inherited, the overhang of the past into the present. Yet this very overhang of the past into the present is the necessary means for the present to have a future. Inheritance is the bridge spanning the past into the present and the present into the future. Being-though-inheritance is the means of escaping futility.

“But it just cannot be allowed. We must be futile. As nice as it sounds, being-through-inheritance requires receiving, shaping, and passing on, and these are forms of action and action is ‘hate.’ Why?

“By acting in the present, I run the risk of creating or conserving something, aiding and abetting existence. And if that happens, I will have created what will be inherited as a past by tomorrow’s present. By taking action now and creating the past of tomorrow’s present, I will have waged ‘the politics of exclusion’ against those living in tomorrow’s present. ‘Hate.’

“But to get back to your post, destructive action is ‘hate’ too though, right? Don’t worry, I’ve seen the light. Yes, like creation and conservation, it too is action in the present that structures the future. Yes, structuring is ‘the politics of exclusion.’ But this is structuring with a difference, for destructive action promotes the inheritance of absence.

“Swapping existence for absence is the one good ‘politics of exclusion.’ Existence is ‘hate,’ and so excluding it is A-OK.

“Liberalism always makes sense.”
______

Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!

Posted by Andrew on Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:42 | #

Yep Svi,
This is good new:
If any had doubts that financial gain was not a motive to secure employment opportunity, and rewarding the Failed and ramped thieves by creating a bigger pool of them, then this reversal of Knowledge is most welcome. If only to help identify for future reference for the New Nuremberg trials.
Beem me up Scotty: No signs of intelligent live forms there.

Posted by http://www.kleinheider.net/2005/12/batty_bigots_an on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:27 | #

Interesting post over at Majority Rights juxtaposing two evolutions in psychiatric thought. Read it.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:48 | #

Psychiatry, being a branch of medicine, probably deserves more respect than psychology , which seems to me to be largely guesswork.

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:59 | #

There is no need to malign the entire profession because of a few powerful leftists that give it a bad name. The case studies described in the article are readily classified using existing diagnoses in DSM-IV-TR. Specifically, the diagnoses would fall under the category of persecutory delusional disorder or some type of paranoid disorder co-morbid with other disorders.

Most psychiatrists see attempts to pathologize “racism” and “homophobia” and depathologize gender identity disorder and pedophilia for what they are—absurd. However, it would take a bold psychiatrist to stand up for reason since doing so would get him labeled as a bigot by the leftists in the profession. It is unlikely that pedophilia will be depathologized anytime soon, but there is a chance that gender identity disorder will be removed from the list of diagnoses, not because most psychiatrists think that it should be removed, but because leftist pressure will scare many from being vocal about their opposition to depathologizing it.

Let me clarify the issue using a type of example that MR readers will generally be familiar with.

In Oct, 2004, the U.S. President signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (H.R.4230), which happened to be…

“A Bill to authorize the establishment within the Department of State of an Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, to require inclusion in annual Department of State reports of information concerning acts of anti-Semitism around the world, and for other purposes.” [Emphasis added]

The State Department initially opposed this bill, but officials capitulated to Jewish pressure lest they be accused of anti-Semitism, which is political death in the U.S. Now, it would be incorrect to say that most officials in the State Department and the President supported the Bill; most of them undoubtedly fully well understood that the U.S. has no reason to monitor global anti-semitism, but had little choice other than to suppress public opposition to the bill on their part and allow it to pass.

Similarly, Psychiatry or Psychology should not be maligned in general because of the horrible work/ideas of a few mental health professionals.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:59 | #

I enjoyed this quote:

“I don’t think racism is a mental illness, and that’s because 100 percent of people are racist,” said Paul J. Fink, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. “If you have a diagnostic category that fits 100 percent of people, it’s not a diagnostic category.”

Posted by Matthew on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:41 | #

This will never happen because of implications down the road

If the UN says Zionism=Racism, then Zionism will become a pathology and they would can of worms the anti-racists don’t want to open up

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:24 | #

Put this in your “pathologizing racism” pipe and smoke it, leftists!:
______

“I thought [Peggy] Noonan’s column was good—for a Wall Street Journal piece.

“But it carried a canard I frequently see on our side. The canard being that the only problem with our massive immigration is that it is illegal. Our side uses this argument a lot because it fits in with the tendency in American politics to point with righteous indignation to corrupt practices and demand change. It makes us feel high on our horses to be on the side of the law. It leaves them in the position of arguing on the side of law-breakers.

“But to me, it wouldn’t make a difference if all these foreigners were legal or not. What difference would it make if my Mexican neighbors with their 15-member household (plus livestock) are legal or not? In fact I think it would be worse if they were all in fact legal, because then there would be no potential recourse. How could I even hope to deport them? And how many would come flooding in seeing their cousin’s legal status?

“No, the problem is importing massive numbers of people who are so radically different in custom, religion, race and ethnicity from us. That’s the problem. Not economics, not legality, not even relative criminal propensity.”
______

—“All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”—Enoch Powell
—Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!
—Balkanization is better than Brazilianization!
—The 1965 Immigration-Holocaust Act: the gift that keeps on giving!
—What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the usual suspects!

Posted by June Gordon on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:38 | #

I dropped by the site partly to drop off the URL to the WaPo article. But, I see that that Jimmy B. Bad already has an entry about it. Reading the piece, you fellows immediately came to mind. There have been mental health professionals interested in the relationship among obsessive-compulsiveness, delusion and racism for at least a decade. But, it appears study of the situation is getting more attention now. If any researchers are looking for a small collection of specimens, the participants in the inaccurately named Majority Rights would be a great place to visit.

Posted by Kubilai on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:50 | #

Why not? It only makes sense to get a visit from “June Gordon” after the litany of leftist loons having graced this site. Kind of like the proverbial cherry on top of the cake. There must have been a global “full moon” these last several days that all the wackos have decided to eruct their delusions for our pleasure.

Posted by Phil on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:06 | #

Mental defectives like June Gordon are to be ignored. Double digiters are simply not worth arguing with and wasting time over.

Posted by Phil on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:20 | #

have been mental health professionals interested in the relationship among obsessive-compulsiveness, delusion and racism for at least a decade.

Only a decade? Are you sure? You will have to extend that to every single American public figure and American society until the 1950s.

By that definition, until the 1960s, the West only produced mental defectives (You probably believe that too but that assumes you have the intelligence to read History).

Anyway, as I said, arguing with double digiters is a waste of time.