Coming Soon/In Process: a second review with my omission about psychiatry being both Treason and fascism even though this book is more than less a confession that psychiatry is both.
"When there is no evidence of validity of psychiatric evaluation regarding a particular legal question, it should not be assumed the evaluations can be made accurately. Rather, when evidence is lacking, the assumption should be that psychiatrists cannot make such evaluations accurately, especially in view of the general findings that validity of diagnosis is usually very low wherever it has been tested."--Jay Ziskin, Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony, 1995.
Margaret Hagen quotes on page 48 of her book and this post picks up as review of Whores of the Court following from the last post about it. The thesis for the original review is not carried on in this post which begins with chapter 3, "Three Kinds of Liars."
The thesis of the first and original review contends, from what is said in the first two chapters, that psychiatry is both Treason against the United States of America and fascism.
The thesis of this second review is that psychiatry is medical insurance fraud, a very real and terrible crime which may also be considered a crime against humanity and/or War crime.
Returning to the Ziskin quote, his logic can also be explained as hearsay opinion being like an opinion not born of facts--it is at most how someone feels or wishes they would feel about someone else or any situation.
Feelings are not facts as people have moods, different feelings. A psychiatric feeling-diagnosis want to be considered a fact, or the psychiatrist want to insist their feelings are facts, is exactly what Ziskin is speaking to. He does not, like Hagen does not, go on to then realize the invalidity of their own psychiatric-emotional analysis.
Like tarot card readers they and all psychologists are also writers, as they would write their psychic intuitions and call it diagnosis. Hagen goes on in this chapter to suggest there are three types of liars: 1.) emotional distress 2.) psychologists 3.) bamboozlers-perjurers. She spends most of the pages in this chapter exploring the second group.
Those afflicted with emotional-mental distress she explores in the context of torts--those people who seek damages awarded to them in court for their emotional and mental distress. She writes, "The tort business is a billion-dollar industry in America. By 1980, some five million lawsuits were being filed annually in the United States. Whether that number has increased, decreased, or stayed the same is a matter of some contention, but whatever the actual numbers it is clear that psychology has played a huge role in expanding both the variety of possible claims and the size of possible awards."
Then going on, "So in most standard tort cases today, claims for mental or emotional distress or psychic damage that causes loss of enjoyment of life's activities are now routinely tacked onto claims of personal injury resulting from any of the innumerable accidents and incidents for which the blame can be laid at someone's door."
This all being accurate, what isn't spoken to by Hagen is how the United States is caught up in one all encompassing witch trial or the Judiciary itself is the agency for and by which people evaluate psychic damage.
What does she mean by psychic damage? She means what Freud called the ego or that identity a person has in a courtroom where damages are assessed. Being a psychiatrist she isn't want to be obvious nor overstate her point--undermine her own credibility with which she would make her points.
So ego damage or psychic damage is what Hagen is really talking about--a society lost to the Salem Witch Trials, still in 2022 the society no more evolved than that for it's Judiciary or that in the USA.
She only speaks to the civil lawsuits despite the many criminal cases and all the money associated with criminal justice (higher paid attorneys). Her focus in the book is more than less an omission of what is also true in the criminal justice system in juxtaposition to the tort system.
She has a contemporary feminist attitude in her sarcasm too, of the same sort Kate Harding expresses in her book Asking For It which I reviewed a long time ago here on this blog. She wields her facts so, writing, "Today, according to Jury Verdict Research, Inc., damage to your mental health is worth one hundred times what loss of ability to satisfy your hedonic desires pays."
She writes on, "And just who do you think is going to make the claim for you that you do indeed suffer from a psychological in jury clinician, of course, Who else?" Then she quotes Gordon (1976a, p.3), "In cases of personal injury, the psychologist can explain to the court and the jury the personality changes that the allegedly injured individual has undergone as a result of the injury, the problems the injury has created in his family life, and how such injury affects his vocational adjustment in the future."
What she doesn't speak to is the logical inference that from such a Judiciary with medical-clinical oversight on psychic damages, being upset is of more importance that whether or not the person so upset is responsible for their own emotional-psychic individual.
The clinician is very much third party in injury cases, or impartial as they are expert witnesses or like the Judge so situated in court. At the very least the clinician, as a professional, has empathy for the Judge more than anyone else in the court.
Its that establishment of empathy within the context of the courtroom Hagen speaks to, in my opinion, by not speaking to it in this chapter. She easily could and the facts are, logically speaking, as I've said and so not because I say them--they are evident.
The culture accepts this legal system or Americans willfully submit to US Courts for jury trials because they believing being upset is more important than who deserves to be upset. It is moral relativism as Judge and Psychiatrist or he said she said as none would want to be upset it is who is most upset who is most to blame in cases of crime and reward damages to in torts.
Simply being upset, or who is most upset, is what the juries are operating on for jurisprudence as it has evolved since mental health clinicians became so important, in American society.
Hagen has pointed this out but either lacks the moral courage (most likely) and intellectual capacity (also most likely true) to draw inference from her evidence to so illuminate the common situation of Americans.
She jokes, in a dry way, "Dr. V.I.P. Harvard tells the court that in his professional opinion, you suffer from the serious disorder of post traumatic stress syndrome."
She gets more serious, "It is clear that what used to be the well-guarded province of the prosecutor or judge or jury--the determination of what wrong was done, who is responsible for that wrong, and what the compensation should be--are now all decisions that belong, in fact if not in law, in the realm of the professional psychologist......How did we come to the point that we have literally handed over to a bunch of entrepreneurs the determination of injury, not only in standard tort cases but even in cases of discrimination and disability?"
I'll say here and won't back it up here but will in my book, to answer this question--incest marriages are legal in roughly half the US states so then so is the practice of slavery and torture allowed from parent to child as the right of the parent and a population boom of people in the autism spectrum coinciding for the post war normal.
Forgetting my own and deeper analysis Hagen goes on to admit the USA is guilty of the "medicalizing of legal competence and insanity and the consequent cornering of that market by the psychologists."
And it is guilty because that is Treason and exactly what the Nazis did when their medical doctors insisted on racial-psychiatric profiling; but forget about that too. It is simply the fact that is what happened, legal competence became a cornered market for serial medical fraud. It made medical insurance fraud a market that was also cornered.
She quotes (Foster 1897, p. 169), "Gentlemen of the jury, there are three kinds of liars: the common liar, the damned liar, and the scientific expert." She quotes this on her page 51 then authors, her own words, "or when the matters before the court are beyond the experience or the understanding of the judge or jury."
Suffice it to say who is more expert on a legal proceeding than a judge, the benched authority in any given legal proceeding? Its a Judge who "washes his hands" or otherwise turns over both plaintiff and defendant, prosecutor and defense, to the third party attorneys and extra judicial, psychiatric-medical authority.
She doesn't say this because at page 51 her own production of her thesis, that experimental psychology/psychiatry ought not be considered Treason and fascism, medical insurance fraud and a crime against humanity has still not been made.
Her book, Whores of the Court, makes it's thesis statement at the end rather than classic beginning and so totally 100% wanting much like Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen in his Zero Degrees Of Empathy effectively plagiarizes Frederick Nietzsche want to call Asperger Syndrome ubermensch.
Dr. Hagen commits a comparable conceit here on page 51 saying, "For psychological expert witnesses, the experimentalists and the clinicians followed two very different paths to today's prominent role in our courtroom." This statement is factually untrue, completely false as both follow from medical malpractice, medical insurance fraud.
Hagen will go on to vilify clinical psychologists and martyr-pariah experimental psychologists but for all her labeling the clinicians whores, she never explores the criminality of clinical psychology as if experimental psychology legitimizes it or would make it above the law--this her series of fallacies to suggest two different paths with one validating the other despite the clinical path being false: fraud going forward, progressive thinking.
She concisely summarizes the history of experimental psychology before she explains how they are inseparable or inter-dependent by relating the story of Hugo Munsterburg as what began to happen in US courts in 1908 when Mr. V.I.P. Harvard and imported anti-intellectual from Europe dumbfounded low IQ and autism spectrum people.
That is what she explains in brief on pages 52 and 53. She summarizes how sociopaths (amoral thinkers) and anti intellectuals at Harvard and other universities pretend most everyone didn't already know how the abuse of power can corrupt people.
They, every psychologist regardless of clinical or experimental status, pretend the Milgram Experiment had to be conducted to "prove" abuse of power can corrupt people and never surmise that Dr. Milgram was one of the most sadistic mentally retarded people US universities ever produced. The psychiatrist is void of moral responsibility and a cargo capitalist.
Dr. Hagen is no exception. She clearly understands her own career and her very book, a work of great omission. All the credit she really needs is that of a typical (not cliché) sarcastic feminist, in my opinion, for this to be totally obvious.
Dr. Hagen is no exception. She clearly understands her own career and her very book, a work of great omission. All the credit she really needs is that of a typical (not cliché) sarcastic feminist, in my opinion, for this to be totally obvious.
She knows more than she is saying. She is writing so people would not speak of the logical inferences from what she writes about, or the writing between her lines.
With credit as a woman living in a rape culture, she is well worth the read even if her book is more of an attitude suggestion than valid thesis--convoluted as her thesis really is for gross omission.
Her concise history does not mention Dr. Sigmund Freud prescribing cocaine to rape victims he then told the courts were schizophrenic nor his boy Dr. Carl Jung and his prescribing psychedelics drugs and have sex with his own patients. Her history begins with Dr. William James and Dr. Munsterburg as if psychiatry's practice in the US were different than in Europe or elsewhere.
She never questions Dr. Munsterberg's obvious mental retardation and total disregard for logic--that his experiments are like those of hard science, that a mock trial or staged event would approximate a real event.
With credit as a woman living in a rape culture, she is well worth the read even if her book is more of an attitude suggestion than valid thesis--convoluted as her thesis really is for gross omission.
Her concise history does not mention Dr. Sigmund Freud prescribing cocaine to rape victims he then told the courts were schizophrenic nor his boy Dr. Carl Jung and his prescribing psychedelics drugs and have sex with his own patients. Her history begins with Dr. William James and Dr. Munsterburg as if psychiatry's practice in the US were different than in Europe or elsewhere.
She never questions Dr. Munsterberg's obvious mental retardation and total disregard for logic--that his experiments are like those of hard science, that a mock trial or staged event would approximate a real event.
Her argument entirely depends on the moral cowardice and intellectual feebleness of her readers, that they wouldn't see the obvious anti-intellectual cargo capitalism psychiatry has always been and perhaps nowhere else so terrible as in the USA. After all, if she can be a sarcastic feminist, is that the extent of criticism for what is truly the sadistic madness of psychiatrists? Finding out will be her journaled experiment.
She quotes Munsterburg, "The time for such applied psychology is surely near... The lawyer alone is obdurate. The lawyer and the judge and the juryman are sure that they do not need the experimental psychologists. The go on thinking that their legal instinct and their common sense supplies them with all that is needed and somewhat more."
Hagen relates the real history of the USA as in the beginning experimental-clinical (the clinic is the experiment, epistemologically speaking) was rejected by legal experts and how those experts quickly yielded to the folly of the mob want for an anti-intellectual expert for "the court of the people" in the USA. She never says that, but she does quote Loh.
"All was quiet on the psychology-law front during the 1940s. There were scattered studies on the usual topics of witness testimony, evidence rules, and criminal behavior, and simulations of jury decision making were introduced. On the whole, this work did not add significantly to what had been done before, and provoked no response from the legal profession."
Hagen doesn't mention psychiatry was far more popular in Europe before the War and Hitler himself was a total fan of psychiatry as were all Nazi medical doctors. She doesn't know but it seems safe to assume the American lawyers didn't like what the Nazis were into so psychiatry was marginalized during the War, in US courts and universities.
That all changed only a few years after the War was over. It also so happened the racist, rapist moral degenerates in the USA increasingly identified with fascist technology not the least of which was psychiatry.
She writes, "A critical development in the modest expansion of the role of experimental psychology in the legal system took place in the 1950s through psychologists testifying in cases involving the impact of pretrial publicity, and civil rights."
She would do better for posterity, as an intellectual, to point out here how the plight for racial justice was the obsession of the Nazis before it was obsession in America and how pretrial publicity is extra judicial authority or the lynch mob itself. After the War, the Nazi's former fascist ideology increasingly gained favor among the Klu Klux Klan and Scottish Rite Freemasonry clubs as each had once lain claim to American society itself--that it was their respective club, proto fascist or plutocracy. Psychiatry was the new occult.
After the War, the USA found itself in a new world order and more than a little confused. Both the Soviet Union and United States, indeed the entire world gained access to the psychiatric way of dismantling courts and installing a deep state of occult psychiatrists--the Nazi or fascist legal system replete with race categorization was gradually adopted and had completely taken hold in the Reagan administration.
Hagen is writing after all that became the American establishment we have today in the Biden administration. She published in 1997 and quotes Munsterberg's self fulfilling prophecy about psychiatry in light of history.
Dr. Hagen writes like a fascist when she says of psychiatry following the 1950s, "Research psychologists had developed reliable techniques of conducting surveys with samples that began to approach being truly representative of the population relevant to the survey." That is factually not true because what psychiatry does is not epistemologically sound research, it is research grant fraud it is mob racketeering, that to less pedantic marketing-spam.
She may be referring to the techniques such as the Milgram Experiment and those which came after the 1950s; but in the 1950s it was chimpanzees in cages and experiments which approximated the Milgram Experiment or any Ponzi scheme. Never were there any legitimate scientific controls and always opinions supplanted fact for a group of academics who fundamentally do not understand their own genetic mental retardation, sociopathy or autism.
Be sure, the psychiatrist has since Freud and always will reject the very notion of epistemology or how one claims to know what they know. Psychiatry is always a statement of fact that is merely an opinion and with confidence proportional to agreement.
The mob mentality, as such, is miss understood by the psychiatrist as something they should orchestrate in the mind of another, or as the psychiatrist would help another person understand still other people who are not present nor even known to the psychiatrist. This alone is their art and total contempt for science.
Every questionnaire is psychotherapy without right or wrong answer. Such data is meaningless unless meaningful to a fraud who would then associate moral or emotional importance to it as would another person and so the Ponzi scheme goes. Once agreed too, the data is then stripped of emotional authenticity and presented as science: the cargo capitalist.
Dr. Hagen totally does not care, which is why she is a psychiatrist. Its that sentiment that is universal among psychiatrists. They simply believe (and probably because they are all also in the autism spectrum) this is the best human beings can do for their emotional well being, or well being in general. They can scheme.
They believe they are something like the Brahmins of humanity, or psychiatrists, and so inform courts with their opinions based on facts that aren't true facts by rational and scientific standard merely opinions stated as if they were scientific facts. They insist otherwise and have no shame, indeed both certified and bold face liars.
At the end of the day, every single day and without exception in both past and future, the opinion will never be certifiable as are facts by hard science.
She quotes Munsterburg, "The time for such applied psychology is surely near... The lawyer alone is obdurate. The lawyer and the judge and the juryman are sure that they do not need the experimental psychologists. The go on thinking that their legal instinct and their common sense supplies them with all that is needed and somewhat more."
Hagen relates the real history of the USA as in the beginning experimental-clinical (the clinic is the experiment, epistemologically speaking) was rejected by legal experts and how those experts quickly yielded to the folly of the mob want for an anti-intellectual expert for "the court of the people" in the USA. She never says that, but she does quote Loh.
"All was quiet on the psychology-law front during the 1940s. There were scattered studies on the usual topics of witness testimony, evidence rules, and criminal behavior, and simulations of jury decision making were introduced. On the whole, this work did not add significantly to what had been done before, and provoked no response from the legal profession."
Hagen doesn't mention psychiatry was far more popular in Europe before the War and Hitler himself was a total fan of psychiatry as were all Nazi medical doctors. She doesn't know but it seems safe to assume the American lawyers didn't like what the Nazis were into so psychiatry was marginalized during the War, in US courts and universities.
That all changed only a few years after the War was over. It also so happened the racist, rapist moral degenerates in the USA increasingly identified with fascist technology not the least of which was psychiatry.
She writes, "A critical development in the modest expansion of the role of experimental psychology in the legal system took place in the 1950s through psychologists testifying in cases involving the impact of pretrial publicity, and civil rights."
She would do better for posterity, as an intellectual, to point out here how the plight for racial justice was the obsession of the Nazis before it was obsession in America and how pretrial publicity is extra judicial authority or the lynch mob itself. After the War, the Nazi's former fascist ideology increasingly gained favor among the Klu Klux Klan and Scottish Rite Freemasonry clubs as each had once lain claim to American society itself--that it was their respective club, proto fascist or plutocracy. Psychiatry was the new occult.
After the War, the USA found itself in a new world order and more than a little confused. Both the Soviet Union and United States, indeed the entire world gained access to the psychiatric way of dismantling courts and installing a deep state of occult psychiatrists--the Nazi or fascist legal system replete with race categorization was gradually adopted and had completely taken hold in the Reagan administration.
Hagen is writing after all that became the American establishment we have today in the Biden administration. She published in 1997 and quotes Munsterberg's self fulfilling prophecy about psychiatry in light of history.
Dr. Hagen writes like a fascist when she says of psychiatry following the 1950s, "Research psychologists had developed reliable techniques of conducting surveys with samples that began to approach being truly representative of the population relevant to the survey." That is factually not true because what psychiatry does is not epistemologically sound research, it is research grant fraud it is mob racketeering, that to less pedantic marketing-spam.
She may be referring to the techniques such as the Milgram Experiment and those which came after the 1950s; but in the 1950s it was chimpanzees in cages and experiments which approximated the Milgram Experiment or any Ponzi scheme. Never were there any legitimate scientific controls and always opinions supplanted fact for a group of academics who fundamentally do not understand their own genetic mental retardation, sociopathy or autism.
Be sure, the psychiatrist has since Freud and always will reject the very notion of epistemology or how one claims to know what they know. Psychiatry is always a statement of fact that is merely an opinion and with confidence proportional to agreement.
The mob mentality, as such, is miss understood by the psychiatrist as something they should orchestrate in the mind of another, or as the psychiatrist would help another person understand still other people who are not present nor even known to the psychiatrist. This alone is their art and total contempt for science.
Every questionnaire is psychotherapy without right or wrong answer. Such data is meaningless unless meaningful to a fraud who would then associate moral or emotional importance to it as would another person and so the Ponzi scheme goes. Once agreed too, the data is then stripped of emotional authenticity and presented as science: the cargo capitalist.
Dr. Hagen totally does not care, which is why she is a psychiatrist. Its that sentiment that is universal among psychiatrists. They simply believe (and probably because they are all also in the autism spectrum) this is the best human beings can do for their emotional well being, or well being in general. They can scheme.
They believe they are something like the Brahmins of humanity, or psychiatrists, and so inform courts with their opinions based on facts that aren't true facts by rational and scientific standard merely opinions stated as if they were scientific facts. They insist otherwise and have no shame, indeed both certified and bold face liars.
At the end of the day, every single day and without exception in both past and future, the opinion will never be certifiable as are facts by hard science.
Human beings are people and as such can't be controlled as inanimate objects nor lower forms of life. They more they would be objectified, the more fraud inherent in the data. Psychiatry has and will forever be the professional contempt for logic and science and celebration of the mob and ignorance, passion.
Hagen quotes Loh again, "In 1961 the Supreme Court put the seal of approval on the methodological competence of such research surveys and reversed a conviction because of pretrial publicity in Irvin v. Dowd, 336 U.S. 717 (1961). In the famous case of Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), the Supreme Court reversed Sheppard's murder conviction based at least in part upon the Court's acceptance of the reliability and methodological soundness of surveys of the effects of negative pretrial and mid-trial publicity. (Loh 1981, pp. 672-73).
Another way to point to the same trials as examples of success for psychiatry is to point to the failure of the courts. Here we have what was the beginning in a very radical change in jurisprudence. The last time mob-populism was an authority in US courts were during legally sanctioned lynching and before that the Salem witch trials.
What happened in the 1960s, to what is called the jurisprudence of the court (established legal precedence) is, the sentiments of the mob or people in the community with no connection to the trial other than the crime happened in their community, are again taken into consideration.
Dr. Hagen does not accurately account the legal history as she claims psychiatry broke through or first authoritatively established itself in the US legal system in the 1960s but when psychiatry is understood for the practice it is rather than the letters of the word "psychiatry" it is evident the sentiment of the mob is again considered by the courts in the 1960s so retrograde "progress" as it were.
The best argument, at least in my opinion, is the school to prison pipeline was built in the 1960s as were all the then new state and secular American universities or in the 60s what was built in the 50s became fully operational.
Hagen writes, "A dozen years earlier, in 1954, a crucial case was decided with lasting implications for the parties to the case, for society as a whole, and for the future of the forthcoming marriage of law and psychology in the American justice system. Not quite a first date, this case was surely a turning point in the relationship. Since there has been no going back."
That is true of the progress of psychiatry and also mass incarceration and indeed fascism as citizens increasingly turn each other in to mental health authorities, mob popular opinion authorities or expert jurists who I'm sure are also genetically brain diseased with autism; but this never even considered by psychiatrists--that it is they who are the very worst criminals and indeed Traitors much like the Klu Klux Klan and other societies only dreamed of becoming.
Perhaps they are content with mob populism and I've met psychologists who have convinced me they are. Still, popular opinion is for those who lead unexamined lives--in my opinion of who Socrates was talking about when talking about people who had lives that were not worth living. Psychologists then, as I understand them, are at best sophists. The Courts now run, the Judges now controlled, by sophistry as in a dark age.
There is no exercise of the human mind when it comes to repeating what you were told or simply copy and paste for being social. To be politically correct or to parrot political correctness is very much the society psychiatry established.
She continues, "This case was the landmark school desegregation case. Employing the "finding" of psychologists, part of the case was built on the foundation of the famous "Brandeis Brief." In 1908, Louis Brandeis (later to become a Supreme Court justice) had argued persuasively that conclusions of social scientists should be considered when evaluating the merits of limiting the workdays of females. His presentation laid the groundwork for the crucial Brown v. Board of Education case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954."
This is to say, as psychiatrists function as insurance for fascism and slavery, they adopted a scientifically false premise of race and racial segregation because social scientists had previously convinced the court to make women unequal as in less capable workers--so limiting their opportunity to equal employment.
There is no doubt de-segregation was the government re-legalizing house slaves, black house slaves, for white people as the government did not provide funding to black communities for their schools they instead mandated blacks be re-located as minority status in white school districts to get a "proper" education.
Never mind the Human Genome Project has proven there is no gene for race nor sexual orientation, its the social sciences or rather pseudo sciences as psychiatry is as I've said--medical insurance fraud--and sociology has no contempt for epistemology like psychiatry does despite both being social sciences.
Throughout the entire 1960s and still to this day, the scientific reality that different races have never existed in the physical world and that racism has always been the big lie--that lie there are different races of people--continues to be popular like the opinion the Earth is flat, once was.
Flat Earth theorists, like race theorists, win as all time morons and the very least intelligent people the species Homo Sapiens has produced. The level of incompetence to refute all reason and hard science that the Earth is a globe and people are a species without races is both tremendous and popular. The latter for race believers as today few people insist the Earth is flat--to be sure.
The overarching inequality being measured in wealth is then irrationally and in an abjectly immoral and dishonorable way, rendered into a question of race and races, by our courts and with all thanks for this reality owed to the Traitors who loved Hitler and his social sciences, the psychiatrists.
Dr. Hagen points out how the society or at least the Americans running the courts want to be in fashion as "color blind" people, or more sophisticated by being less able--reverse psychology, as if being blind to color and seeing only in black and white would someone solve for the problem of racism.
She writes, "By the middle of the 1980s, experimental psychologists were testifying all over the country--wherever the judge would allow it--on the confusions and distortions of memory that result from various police interrogation techniques, and the serious difficulties witnesses encounter with cross-racial identification."
In the 1980s President Reagan also completed the Continuity of Government project and very real government spending on maintaining a shadow government without Constitutionally derived authority, begun by President Kennedy.
The American dystopia was sold in the 1980s as the super power, sole super power of the world-nation or that the USA had effectively conquered the world or any nation which would oppose it's national interests.
Hagen quotes Loh again, "In 1961 the Supreme Court put the seal of approval on the methodological competence of such research surveys and reversed a conviction because of pretrial publicity in Irvin v. Dowd, 336 U.S. 717 (1961). In the famous case of Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), the Supreme Court reversed Sheppard's murder conviction based at least in part upon the Court's acceptance of the reliability and methodological soundness of surveys of the effects of negative pretrial and mid-trial publicity. (Loh 1981, pp. 672-73).
Another way to point to the same trials as examples of success for psychiatry is to point to the failure of the courts. Here we have what was the beginning in a very radical change in jurisprudence. The last time mob-populism was an authority in US courts were during legally sanctioned lynching and before that the Salem witch trials.
What happened in the 1960s, to what is called the jurisprudence of the court (established legal precedence) is, the sentiments of the mob or people in the community with no connection to the trial other than the crime happened in their community, are again taken into consideration.
Dr. Hagen does not accurately account the legal history as she claims psychiatry broke through or first authoritatively established itself in the US legal system in the 1960s but when psychiatry is understood for the practice it is rather than the letters of the word "psychiatry" it is evident the sentiment of the mob is again considered by the courts in the 1960s so retrograde "progress" as it were.
The best argument, at least in my opinion, is the school to prison pipeline was built in the 1960s as were all the then new state and secular American universities or in the 60s what was built in the 50s became fully operational.
Hagen writes, "A dozen years earlier, in 1954, a crucial case was decided with lasting implications for the parties to the case, for society as a whole, and for the future of the forthcoming marriage of law and psychology in the American justice system. Not quite a first date, this case was surely a turning point in the relationship. Since there has been no going back."
That is true of the progress of psychiatry and also mass incarceration and indeed fascism as citizens increasingly turn each other in to mental health authorities, mob popular opinion authorities or expert jurists who I'm sure are also genetically brain diseased with autism; but this never even considered by psychiatrists--that it is they who are the very worst criminals and indeed Traitors much like the Klu Klux Klan and other societies only dreamed of becoming.
Perhaps they are content with mob populism and I've met psychologists who have convinced me they are. Still, popular opinion is for those who lead unexamined lives--in my opinion of who Socrates was talking about when talking about people who had lives that were not worth living. Psychologists then, as I understand them, are at best sophists. The Courts now run, the Judges now controlled, by sophistry as in a dark age.
There is no exercise of the human mind when it comes to repeating what you were told or simply copy and paste for being social. To be politically correct or to parrot political correctness is very much the society psychiatry established.
She continues, "This case was the landmark school desegregation case. Employing the "finding" of psychologists, part of the case was built on the foundation of the famous "Brandeis Brief." In 1908, Louis Brandeis (later to become a Supreme Court justice) had argued persuasively that conclusions of social scientists should be considered when evaluating the merits of limiting the workdays of females. His presentation laid the groundwork for the crucial Brown v. Board of Education case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954."
This is to say, as psychiatrists function as insurance for fascism and slavery, they adopted a scientifically false premise of race and racial segregation because social scientists had previously convinced the court to make women unequal as in less capable workers--so limiting their opportunity to equal employment.
There is no doubt de-segregation was the government re-legalizing house slaves, black house slaves, for white people as the government did not provide funding to black communities for their schools they instead mandated blacks be re-located as minority status in white school districts to get a "proper" education.
Never mind the Human Genome Project has proven there is no gene for race nor sexual orientation, its the social sciences or rather pseudo sciences as psychiatry is as I've said--medical insurance fraud--and sociology has no contempt for epistemology like psychiatry does despite both being social sciences.
Throughout the entire 1960s and still to this day, the scientific reality that different races have never existed in the physical world and that racism has always been the big lie--that lie there are different races of people--continues to be popular like the opinion the Earth is flat, once was.
Flat Earth theorists, like race theorists, win as all time morons and the very least intelligent people the species Homo Sapiens has produced. The level of incompetence to refute all reason and hard science that the Earth is a globe and people are a species without races is both tremendous and popular. The latter for race believers as today few people insist the Earth is flat--to be sure.
The overarching inequality being measured in wealth is then irrationally and in an abjectly immoral and dishonorable way, rendered into a question of race and races, by our courts and with all thanks for this reality owed to the Traitors who loved Hitler and his social sciences, the psychiatrists.
Dr. Hagen points out how the society or at least the Americans running the courts want to be in fashion as "color blind" people, or more sophisticated by being less able--reverse psychology, as if being blind to color and seeing only in black and white would someone solve for the problem of racism.
She writes, "By the middle of the 1980s, experimental psychologists were testifying all over the country--wherever the judge would allow it--on the confusions and distortions of memory that result from various police interrogation techniques, and the serious difficulties witnesses encounter with cross-racial identification."
In the 1980s President Reagan also completed the Continuity of Government project and very real government spending on maintaining a shadow government without Constitutionally derived authority, begun by President Kennedy.
The American dystopia was sold in the 1980s as the super power, sole super power of the world-nation or that the USA had effectively conquered the world or any nation which would oppose it's national interests.
Adolph Hitler made similar declarations in Germany and not without much celebration from Americans who would have preferred the USA on the side of Germany instead of the (now former) Soviet Union.
Without objectivity Hagen goes on to describe the incompetent Baby Boomers who avoided the Draft and going to Vietnam proving to be complete dilettantes obsessed with drug experimentation in the 60s had matured by the 80s as psychologists and psychiatrists testifying in courts and never does the legal community cry out Treason, never medical insurance fraud--it simply stops questioning what the psychologists say.
The courts accept the fallacy of different human races as scientific fact despite the scientific facts of biology proving otherwise and for centuries logic alone is enough to refute by the 1980s. They also surrender to the lunacy of gross military spending in peace time so as to provoke or force an arms race with the Soviet Union. No other world leader since Hitler did that until Reagan did.
The courts accept the fallacy of psychiatric experiments as if 10 people in a study are no different from any particular person who might be a witness, plaintiff or defendant in court. A study of 10 people none of whom are the person in question is considered more important than what any person would testify to as the courts become convinced of racist biology theory and the notion of equality such studies of third party people are more relevant than any known person's account of the facts.
The 1980s evidences the Baby Boomer generation is borderline mentally retarded or otherwise without objective morality, only amorality and sociopathy. Today the fifth iteration of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or psychiatric bible insists sociopathy is the natural condition for healthy people. This too is patently, on the surface and evidently false; yet society in the West has been totally emasculated by what I believe are plainly, openly, incestuous and autistic families--murderers, rapists, thieves, frauds and incompetents.
President Reagan and President Bush Sr. both, openly, use the CIA to start Wars and distribute narcotics in the USA. The arms race is literally fueled by a faux war on drugs beginning in the 1960s and lasting to this day. Even when such government activity directly produces 9/11 as such mercenary-proxy warfighting indeed made possible the funding, training and sociopathy the 9/11 attackers required to accomplish their mission, still America remains emasculated by autism spectrum morons: their own courts.
Dr. Hagen touches on none of that as she is want to exalt the establishment; yet be sarcastic-feminist niche which may also merely be women in the autism spectrum full of hatred and contempt for what they can not, won't allow themselves to understand: the reality is objective. Again, she publishes in 1997 so 9/11 hasn't happened; but still.
At page 57 Dr. Hagen has explained experimental psychiatry as clinical studies, effectively the studies she cites regard specific court cases where people who were not on trial nor subject to the proceedings of the trial were studied--compelled to participate for reasons of their own and not disclosed. Those studies are clinical for what few controls on their experiments they claim, so it is no exaggeration Dr. Hagen has defined experimental psychiatry as clinical studies and then insists clinical psychiatry is in juxtaposition to experimental psychiatry.
This is not a psychological operation on the part of Dr. Hagen, this is her total contempt for logic and reason. Like all psychiatrists she omits a rational critique and writes, simply states without citing nor explaining in her own words how what she says should be considered true instead of false: "Experimental psychological research of this type was and is carefully conducted according to strict principles of sound scientific methodology."
She omits all comparison of psychiatric methodology compared to the scientific methodology of the hard sciences. She frankly pretends people are objects like inanimate chemical compounds. The repeated experiments she refers to are merely so many gatherings of imbeciles most of whom are there to profit from medical insurance fraud--in all rational probability albeit none can say not even the psychiatrists as their studies are of profiles, caricatures and no epistemology to say otherwise.
She opines on marketing research as it is clinical or like clinical--how psychologists weighed in on which commercial Trademarks sounded enough like or unlike, or more or less similar to others. She then launches into an explanation of the clinician as the direct product of the courts. This is to say the courts were no longer considering private practice or academic psychiatrists and were effectively employing their own "clinical" psychiatrists.
She writes, "In 1843, in England, Daniel M'Naghten, while attempting to assassinate the prime minister of England, accidentally shot and killed the prime minister's secretary. M'Naghten suffered from delusions and thought that killing the prime minister would eliminate the source of his oppression. He successfully pleaded an insanity defense, claiming he did not know right from wrong, a test that "had its origin in the 16th century England, where judges enunciated a test of criminal responsibility which was premised upon the knowledge of good or evil (Burke and Nixon 1994, p.10).
Its worth pointing out Common Law claims a reasonable standard and yet has a different definition of evil than Socrates who insisted ignorance was evil and explores the question with logic, such the reasonable standard would insist evil is in fact ignorance.
Common law, different from the Latin or Justinian Code is uniquely British and this standard Dr. Hagen points to is very much an irrational standard in British law as the grounds for what is today contemporary psychiatry. She doesn't point this out, nor does she consider how being ignorant of the difference between good and evil is evil, rationally speaking.
British law of this time also insisted a wife could not allege rape if she would allege it of her husband, that different races existed, etc. etc. for irrational calling itself rational with a robe and wig.
Dr. Hagen points out the evolution of mental healthcare from when it was first readily accepted in the 1960s compared to today. "Until the 1960s, in America, medical psychiatrists--not Ph.D. psychologists or any other kind of mental health professionals--had the exclusive right to provide expert "medical" testimony on the issue of insanity as a defense in a criminal trial, although judicial decisions in 1940 (People vs. Hawthorne) and in 1954 (Hidden v. Mutual Life Insurance Company) had permitted clinical psychologists with sufficient education and experience to testify as experts on mental disorders and their casual connections to criminal or tortious conduct. This changed in 1962 with the appeal of the landmark case of Jenkins v. United States."
She notes how today, anyone, social workers or pretty much anyone with an opinion on mental health can testify to competence of another person. She doesn't point out how before this increasing acceptance of psychiatry, competence was only decided by the judge in any trial.
She also comments on the logic of the change in jurisprudence is presumed logical inference instead of a straw man fallacy--that because electricians can testify as experts on what a shock would do to a body, a medical doctor or psychologist can testify to emotional and intellectual effects upon other people.
Without objectivity Hagen goes on to describe the incompetent Baby Boomers who avoided the Draft and going to Vietnam proving to be complete dilettantes obsessed with drug experimentation in the 60s had matured by the 80s as psychologists and psychiatrists testifying in courts and never does the legal community cry out Treason, never medical insurance fraud--it simply stops questioning what the psychologists say.
The courts accept the fallacy of different human races as scientific fact despite the scientific facts of biology proving otherwise and for centuries logic alone is enough to refute by the 1980s. They also surrender to the lunacy of gross military spending in peace time so as to provoke or force an arms race with the Soviet Union. No other world leader since Hitler did that until Reagan did.
The courts accept the fallacy of psychiatric experiments as if 10 people in a study are no different from any particular person who might be a witness, plaintiff or defendant in court. A study of 10 people none of whom are the person in question is considered more important than what any person would testify to as the courts become convinced of racist biology theory and the notion of equality such studies of third party people are more relevant than any known person's account of the facts.
The 1980s evidences the Baby Boomer generation is borderline mentally retarded or otherwise without objective morality, only amorality and sociopathy. Today the fifth iteration of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or psychiatric bible insists sociopathy is the natural condition for healthy people. This too is patently, on the surface and evidently false; yet society in the West has been totally emasculated by what I believe are plainly, openly, incestuous and autistic families--murderers, rapists, thieves, frauds and incompetents.
President Reagan and President Bush Sr. both, openly, use the CIA to start Wars and distribute narcotics in the USA. The arms race is literally fueled by a faux war on drugs beginning in the 1960s and lasting to this day. Even when such government activity directly produces 9/11 as such mercenary-proxy warfighting indeed made possible the funding, training and sociopathy the 9/11 attackers required to accomplish their mission, still America remains emasculated by autism spectrum morons: their own courts.
Dr. Hagen touches on none of that as she is want to exalt the establishment; yet be sarcastic-feminist niche which may also merely be women in the autism spectrum full of hatred and contempt for what they can not, won't allow themselves to understand: the reality is objective. Again, she publishes in 1997 so 9/11 hasn't happened; but still.
At page 57 Dr. Hagen has explained experimental psychiatry as clinical studies, effectively the studies she cites regard specific court cases where people who were not on trial nor subject to the proceedings of the trial were studied--compelled to participate for reasons of their own and not disclosed. Those studies are clinical for what few controls on their experiments they claim, so it is no exaggeration Dr. Hagen has defined experimental psychiatry as clinical studies and then insists clinical psychiatry is in juxtaposition to experimental psychiatry.
This is not a psychological operation on the part of Dr. Hagen, this is her total contempt for logic and reason. Like all psychiatrists she omits a rational critique and writes, simply states without citing nor explaining in her own words how what she says should be considered true instead of false: "Experimental psychological research of this type was and is carefully conducted according to strict principles of sound scientific methodology."
She omits all comparison of psychiatric methodology compared to the scientific methodology of the hard sciences. She frankly pretends people are objects like inanimate chemical compounds. The repeated experiments she refers to are merely so many gatherings of imbeciles most of whom are there to profit from medical insurance fraud--in all rational probability albeit none can say not even the psychiatrists as their studies are of profiles, caricatures and no epistemology to say otherwise.
She opines on marketing research as it is clinical or like clinical--how psychologists weighed in on which commercial Trademarks sounded enough like or unlike, or more or less similar to others. She then launches into an explanation of the clinician as the direct product of the courts. This is to say the courts were no longer considering private practice or academic psychiatrists and were effectively employing their own "clinical" psychiatrists.
She writes, "In 1843, in England, Daniel M'Naghten, while attempting to assassinate the prime minister of England, accidentally shot and killed the prime minister's secretary. M'Naghten suffered from delusions and thought that killing the prime minister would eliminate the source of his oppression. He successfully pleaded an insanity defense, claiming he did not know right from wrong, a test that "had its origin in the 16th century England, where judges enunciated a test of criminal responsibility which was premised upon the knowledge of good or evil (Burke and Nixon 1994, p.10).
Its worth pointing out Common Law claims a reasonable standard and yet has a different definition of evil than Socrates who insisted ignorance was evil and explores the question with logic, such the reasonable standard would insist evil is in fact ignorance.
Common law, different from the Latin or Justinian Code is uniquely British and this standard Dr. Hagen points to is very much an irrational standard in British law as the grounds for what is today contemporary psychiatry. She doesn't point this out, nor does she consider how being ignorant of the difference between good and evil is evil, rationally speaking.
British law of this time also insisted a wife could not allege rape if she would allege it of her husband, that different races existed, etc. etc. for irrational calling itself rational with a robe and wig.
Dr. Hagen points out the evolution of mental healthcare from when it was first readily accepted in the 1960s compared to today. "Until the 1960s, in America, medical psychiatrists--not Ph.D. psychologists or any other kind of mental health professionals--had the exclusive right to provide expert "medical" testimony on the issue of insanity as a defense in a criminal trial, although judicial decisions in 1940 (People vs. Hawthorne) and in 1954 (Hidden v. Mutual Life Insurance Company) had permitted clinical psychologists with sufficient education and experience to testify as experts on mental disorders and their casual connections to criminal or tortious conduct. This changed in 1962 with the appeal of the landmark case of Jenkins v. United States."
She notes how today, anyone, social workers or pretty much anyone with an opinion on mental health can testify to competence of another person. She doesn't point out how before this increasing acceptance of psychiatry, competence was only decided by the judge in any trial.
She also comments on the logic of the change in jurisprudence is presumed logical inference instead of a straw man fallacy--that because electricians can testify as experts on what a shock would do to a body, a medical doctor or psychologist can testify to emotional and intellectual effects upon other people.
Its maybe beneath her or very well could be above her academic station and only a philosopher would point out the logical fallacy in the comparison between hard sciences and zero science opinion from someone educated in the sciences.
~In Progress As I Break Between Physical Therapy Exercises I Have To Do To Recover From Assaults And Injuries Caused And Done To Me By Psychologists And The Mentally Retarded... it really is genetic mental retardation from the physical pollution of industry (the retardant) that is the source of evil in the USA and popular culture is against speaking evil, of evil as it is evil and in denial of itself...so very frustrating for me as a person but I'll overcome and finish this review without calling for War or Martial Law even though both are the typical and historical events that result from a generation as pure stupid as the baby boomers have proven to be...... Mental Healthcare is the professional moron-idiot, or mentally retarded person and will never benefit society despite all and continued funding it always and only makes society worse off by defrauding real cause and effect for human behavior... it has always been and will always be autism spectrum people engaged in profiling, objectifying people. Its always been and will be cult, even when it is embraced by government its still merely cult idiot-moron spectrum and the best an anti-intellectual can do for conversation....... writing this post is difficult as would be explaining to a religious fundamentalist what they are fundamentalist about (their religion, psychiatry) is in fact mentally retarded as are they for believing in that and different races of people or that gender approximates sexual orientation (psychology) when gender is physically obvious without orientation.......... the mental health crowd, Democratic Party, is lost to itself and a cult as are most Republicans and its exactly what the Klu Klux Klan has always been striving to become---a functional tyranny of incest rape families in the USA with mental health high priests in and for their state to reverse psychology so the sane are then branded slaves-insane...... Qanon is a group of people on narcotics and psychiatric drugs who manufacture narratives to explain what is really rape culture, or a culture where incest is not only legal but rapists and their spawn are protected as equals to those conceived without rape by a court of genetic mental retards, Wizards & Dragons..... I am not and never will be "totally in" with Biden or Trump and think both men fell short of my standard for manhood--that they would be sentient as in with empathy for the human condition. They are both like most of their generation, apparently lobotomized, living a dream like sleepwalkers would role play their race-character for the Nazi dungeon master and complete idiots, morons.~
Comments
Post a Comment