France has figured out how to guarantee a political party victory! Relentlessly attack the opposing parties leader, charge her with the crime of racism when she posts images of ISIS beheading people, concoct a malfeasance charge that could land her in jail, black all her campaign funding right before an election and the piece de resistance – order her to get a psyche evaluation! The premise for the psyche? She is Islamaphobic because of her rhetoric regarding immigration.
Marin Le Pen stands to disappear into the bowels of a psyche ward where release is not an option. Where she could be detained and confined for an indeterminent period of time as psychiatrists evaluate her mental stability.
This horror means that a person’s stance on politics is grounds for a mental psychiatric pronouncement. This is not a ‘threat’ this has been ordered by a judge.
We saw the same threat made against Trump by online Liberal Psychiatrists who claimed they could evaluate him without knowing him, but by observing him on television. Not only did the statements disappear, but the profession was made a mockery by this wholly unprofessional unethical pronouncement.
Has the psychiatric industry gone bonkers?
According to psychiatry.org, a mental illness is likely if: a person has a change in appetite, a person’s sleep habits change, a person’s mood changes, problems thinking, increased sensitivity, apathy, feeling disconnected, illogical thinking, and the all encompassing – unusual behavior.
And you don’t have to experience all of these feelings – just one or two and you may have a mental illness.
I imagine all these behaviors could be applied to nearly every politician, if not every living person on the planet at some point, including the psychiatrists. But despite an ethic’s violation, this methodology was attempted against Trump in 2017. Led by psychologist, John Gartner, his Twitter account reflects his own psychotic fixation with everything anti-Donald Trump.
How did Gartner and others defy Section 7 of the American Psychiatric Association principles of ethics? They claimed they were not members of that organization and thus not bound by ethics, instead they copped another organization as their grantor, The American Psychological Association. This association has no ethics clause. And so their members are free to make any derogatory statement they please without consideration. The current President of APA is Jessica Henderson Daniel, a vocal opponent of Trump and Trump policies. As a black woman, her particular passion is empowering young black girls. And while they have an upcoming conference titled, “Civility”, it would appear that their members feel that civil response is one sided – everyone else needs to exercise this norm – unless of course they are discussing – Trump.
APA’s CEO, Arthur Evans Jr., has also ingratiated himself in the Trump administration’s appointment process by denouncing Gina Haspel as Trump’s pick for head of the CIA. A black man, he was recognized by the Obama administration for his ‘endeavors’.
In 1964, the same tactic was attempted to bring down Barry Goldwater when a magazine, Fact, sought to make psychological statements about his mental health claiming he was unfit for office. The editors included Ralph Ginzburg whose claim to fame was publishing magazines with erotica that ultimately resulted in his conviction by the federal government for violation of obscenity laws. The other editor, Warren Boroson claimed that the infamous article was actually written by an Israeli, David Bar-Illan. Goldwater sued and the resulting suit triggered the ethics policy of Section 7 for the American Psychiatric Association. Both Editors were decidedly – Liberal Democrats.
In 2006, Duke University published an article claiming that 49% of all US Presidents suffered from mental health issues. Obviously Duke is not a member of the ethics standard given they could not possibly have interviewed any president. But it is a catch-all commentary that begs – who wasn’t?
Still, the power play remains. But in this case it isn’t the power play of politicians, it is the god-like self view among some members of the psychiatric and psychology fields who feel they can make an analysis without ever seeing the individual. And in fact, analyze the psyche of a dead person. To what end? Power. Self greatness. Self promotion. Celebrity status.
In the case of Marin Le Pen, it has taken the unprecedented evolution of politicizing opinion as a mental illness…
Their power is very real. Imagine a psychiatrist arbitrarily making a determination regarding your mental health because you wrote a post on Facebook that they thought was illogical which leads to your incarceration into an institution?