Guest post by Robert A. Gorkin, PhD, MD, JD
As far back as 2017, leaders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) decided it was imperative that the profession should take a stand on climate change. The APA then formally issued a position statement entitled “Mental Health and Climate Change” which endorsed the reality of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and committed the organization to “support and collaborate with patients, communities, and other health care organizations engaged in efforts to mitigate the adverse health and mental health effects of climate change.” (Claire Zilber, M.D., Psychiatrists’ Role in Addressing Ecological Grief, Psychiatric News, Vol. 54, No. 24, Dec. 20, 2019, (7,15 at 7.)) https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.12b20
The APA also maintains a “Climate Change and Mental Health Connections” feature on its website with such topics as the “effect of climate disasters on mental health, promotion of resilience in the face of climate-related disasters,” as well the assertion that climate disasters will lead to “increased social instability and reduced community cohesion, which in turn may lead to more aggression and crime.” (Id.)
In November 2019, an “action-packed” APA Assembly meeting in Washington, D.C., “approved an action paper asking the APA to sign the ‘U.S. Call to Action on Climate, Health, and Equity [: A Policy Action Agenda].’” (Mark Moran, Assembly Seeks APA Sign-On To Climate Statement, Takes Other Actions, Psychiatric News, supra at 16). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.12b17
The “Call to Action” is a document drafted in part–and promoted by—“Physicians For Social Responsibility,” an organization that describes itself as the “U.S. Affiliate Of International Physicians For The Prevention Of Nuclear War”; which has now expanded its original focus of concern to include warnings of global catastrophic climate change. (https://www.psr.org)
The “Call to Action” begins with the statement that, “Climate change is one of the greatest threats to health America has ever faced—it is a true public health emergency.” (https://www.psr.org/blog/resource/u-s-call-to-action-on-climate-health-and-equity-a-policy-action-agenda/) (emphasis in the original). It goes on to state, “[t] he health, safety and wellbeing of millions of people in the U.S. have already been harmed by human-caused climate change, and health risks in the future are dire without urgent action to fight climate change.” (Id.)
Furthermore:
“Climate change is the ‘greatest public health challenge of the 21st century.’ Extreme heat, powerful storms and floods, year-round wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related events have already caused thousands of deaths and displaced tens of thousands of people in the U.S. from their homes, with significant personal loss and mental health impacts especially for first responders and children. Air pollution, whose primary driver—fossil fuel combustion—is also the primary driver of climate change, causes hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. annually. Mosquito and tick-borne diseases are spreading to new communities. The agricultural, food, and water systems we depend on for our survival are under threat. Without an urgent and effective response, these harms will greatly increase.” (Id.) (emphasis in the original.)
At the November meeting, the members of the APA Assembly felt that this issue was of “‘sufficient urgency’ that it [should] be referred directly to the Board of Trustees for approval and enactment.” (Moran, supra.)
James Fleming, M.D., one of the sponsors of the Action Paper, supported the proposal by arguing (ad verecundiam) that the, “American College of Emergency Physicians has also signed the document. ‘I think it’s safe to say the emergency physicians wouldn’t sign onto something like this if they didn’t think it was a true emergency’” (Id.)
The Psychiatric News did not report whether there was any debate in the Assembly as to the actual merits of these claims, nor was there any mention of a discussion of as to what extent members of the American College of Emergency Physicians—let alone the APA Assembly attendees, themselves—have the requisite competence, education, and have spent the effort to judiciously study both sides of the issue to render truly informed judgment.
In the same edition of Psychiatric News, Claire Zilber, M.D.—who writes the “Ethics Corner” feature—starts her column by stating:
“Sometimes a matter of personal ethics is so strong that it must find its way into professional ethics as well. This is the case with climate change and the threat it poses to humanity and biodiversity. Both the institutions of our profession and individual psychiatrists must play a vital role in the response to global climate change.” (Zilber, supra at 7.)
And, even though the “APA has taken a clear position . . . institutional policy is not enough.” (Id.) So what does the good doctor recommend?
Among other things, psychiatrists need to “recognize ecological grief when it arises in the treatment setting.” (Id.) (emphasis added.) Zilber goes on to preemptively agonize about an imagined future:
“Watching depictions of the melting of polar ice or the desertification of vast swaths of once-fertile land may generate a sense of despair or helplessness. Closer to home we may be sad when we miss butterflies and bees that used to visit the garden, suffer loss because our favorite hiking spot has succumbed to wildfire, or feel anxious that our local beach will be eroded by the next superstorm.” (Id.)
Furthermore, although all humanity is vulnerable to a “personal sense of loss,” economic inequities adversely impact the “elderly, poor, and homeless [who are] at greatest risk of heat-related deaths.” (Id.) Zilber fails to discuss the data showing that cold-related deaths far exceed those attributed to heat. (See,e.g., https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/02/which-is-responsible-for-more-u-s-deaths-excessive-heat-or-excessive-cold/)
She goes on to argue oddly that “trailer homes are most at risk in tornadoes,” and trailer homes are “found in parts of the country with the highest incidence of tornadoes.” (Id.) The suppressed logic here is apparently that the demographics of those people “condemned” to trailer home ownership provide even more evidence for climate disaster economic inequity. Not to be left out are the citizens of the “Bahamas, the Philippines, and Haiti [who] suffer the most after hurricanes because their structures and infrastructure are more vulnerable [than those] of wealthier countries.” (Id.)
And what argument would be complete without the obligatory, self-flagellatory mea culpa of “environmental racism” as witnessed by oil pipelines being “routed through Native lands,” and “Black, Latino, and Native communities bearing a disproportionate burden of exposure to toxic waste sites, poorly managed sewage treatment plants, and water containing lead and arsenic.” (Id.) Zilber is still not finished with her indictment of our collective guilt for environmental racism. She concludes by elaborating ex nihilo, and de novo creates a new, even more malignant, and inheritable species of eco-racist generated psychopathology: “Indeed, Native populations may have inherited ecological grief, because they have been experiencing the loss of home and habitat for many generations.” (Id.)
Not to worry, our good psychiatrist has an answer:
“If a patient expresses something that sounds like ecological grief, it may be helpful to use that term. Having names for feelings increases empathy and adaptation. Supporting patients as they articulate the further injustices experienced by their particular communities may help them feel heard and respected. There is likely an epidemic of ecological grief in the world right now, yet without the language to discuss and study it we are less able to intervene in a helpful way.
Psychiatrists know that talking about a loss helps a person to process and overcome it, to move from despair to self-efficacy. We are in a unique position to help our patients and the public name the pain that comes up so frequently these days in response to manifestations of climate change and environmental degradation.” (Id. at 15.)
It is a shame when a professional organization gets hijacked (by presumably well-meaning individuals) to take extraordinary positions on subjects that are manifestly well outside of its arena of competence. I have seen no evidence in these reports or on the APA website of any (let alone substantive) debate. Not only as to the validity of the underlying science, the inherent problems with climate models, natural variability, etc.; but even more fundamentally, there is no acknowledgement of the concept of weather as distinct from climate. Nor is there any consideration of the potential benefits of more temperate conditions on health, nature, biodiversity, agriculture, and economics, not to mention the potential and well-documented adverse environmental and economic consequences of the solutions proposed by CAGW activists.
Most unfortunately for Dr. Zilber and her like-minded comrades, her emotional endorsement of ecological guilt and other climate-related pathologies only serves to create, validate, and legitimize new mental disorders that have no basis in reality–this in a profession that has a sorry record of past iatrogenic abuses.
Dr. Zilber appeals to Section 7 of the Principles of Medical Ethics, which states, “A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and betterment of public health.” (Id. at 7.)
I would suggest Primum non nocere (first do no harm) is the far better ethical guide.
As for the APA and its leadership, it is all well and good to advocate for taking care of the psychological sequelae of disasters—including the meteorological. But going beyond this by adding the imprimatur of the profession—no matter how well-intentioned—by taking one side of an issue that is demonstrably well beyond the sphere of the usual education, licensed arena of occupational competence, and scope of practice for psychiatry, significantly diminishes the integrity of the profession.
The solution; a modest proposal:
I suggest, rather than engaging in a self-imposed lobotomy, the APA should have a real debate. Rather than potentially following in the footsteps of Trofim Lysenko, the APA should welcome a Devil’s advocate. Perhaps suspending premature judgment but “Be Prepared” is, in fact, the best of all possible worlds.
Finally, it would be hard to find a better precept to guide the APA in its deliberations than Immanuel Kant’s descriptive credo for the Age of Enlightment: Sapere Aude! (dare to know, or more loosely, dare to think for yourself!).
I found engineering challenging so took the easiest electives available. This resulted in my acquiring 27 semester hours in psychology through undergrad and graduate school. I must say that most of my professors had very unusual personalities, to say the least. High levels of intelligence were not readily apparent nor were they physically very well formed. One theory is that those who are born with mental gifts also are many times born with physical gifts. Neither were very apparent in my experience with those in the psychological field of endeavor. Interesting that similar broad generalities are many times applied very high IQ individuals in terms of personality and physical characteristics.
How about calling this “Climate schizophrenia”?
Of course the idea of the APA throwing out polemics on “manmade global warming” is preposterous.
Here is how we have gotten to this point. Social Justice in the Professions: A Play in Three Acts.
[Cliff’s Notes: textbook Marxism, then Frankfurt School “Action Research,” then “March Through the Leadership of the Institutions.]
Act 1. Hegel was a philosopher of great import, in the topics of epistemology, ethics, and the human condition/the nature of social man. He was active circa 1800-1830. He arrived at his very well-known concept, called the “Hegelian Dialectic.” This is supposedly THE mechanism by which society progresses, or evolves. In this process, you have the “thesis,” an idea, and an “antithesis,” its rival or counter idea. Example might be “industry is good because it creates jobs and wealth,” “industry is bad because it creates pollution and fits people in dehumanizing jobs.” When a pair of opposed ideas are debated and explored enough, by humans, as humans are wont, humans eventually arrive at the “synthesis:” “We can favor industry, but we must manage pollution and the exploitation of workers.” So, the “Hegelian Dialectic” is “thesis, antithesis, synthesis.”
This model can be used to explore social change, and is useful. But as the saying goes, “all models are wrong, but some are useful.”
Marx was an admirer of Hegel. Big Time. Marx learned economics. Marx noted social history across time. Marx noted major phases og history, such as us humans moving from being hunter-gatherers to being dominated by a strong king leader and eveyone being a subject, to feudalism, and to capitalism. Marx perceived all of the misery and injustice in the world as being a byproduct of capitalism. Specifically, we are all in a dialectic, with the “haves” the owners of the means of production and the “have-nots” the workers who actually do the labor that produces the wealth. The ruling class takes the opportunity to define “virtue,” or “moral behavior,” to their favor – they can because they own the society/ culture – newspapers, religion, etc. So, our “values” happen to favor the Owner class, and disfavor the workers. Values like: “work hard / don’t be lazy,” “don’t steal,” “respect your elders,” and “don’t complain.”
Most all of us would recognize those values as good. To Marx, we have been brainwashed to old these beliefs because our overlords want us to, so they can hold power over us and get us to support them by our very beliefs.
Marx believed that all society ills were from the oppression: owners of means of production over workers. And, our society is filled with a panoply of off-shoot, affiliated oppression dialectics: men over women, whites over Blacks, etc., etc., everywhere you look.
Marx decided that his ideasa were MAJOR poly-sci insights. However, besides the goal of being an academic, he decided that “philosophy” should be not just to understand such rules of society, but to – here is the big deal to understanding the APA – to improve society.
So, rather than publishing and getting tenure, Marx had the goal of making workers of the world aware of their oppression so that we would all push society to the NEXT phase – after hunter-gatherer, then Strong MAn King, then Feudalism, then Capitalism, to – to what? To Communism: a “synthesis of the “thesis” of “capitalism” and “oppressions of capitalism.”
Everyone would be both an owner and a worker. [How this works in reality we will eventually find out when Communism is “correctly” instituted.”]
Marx saw this dialectic as purely economic. A following wave of adherents arrived at a more expanded idea: “cultural hegemony.” This term was coined by Gramsci, a Marxist, in early 1800s. This term means that we are not oppresssed just economically, but by a loose cabal of oppressive class institutions who control our society’s institutions, and so control what we value and belief, and so control us. And, make us think this control is desirable and good. Hence, we all trot off to work every morning happy to devote most of our waking hours to labor or recovering from labor, or heading off to Church on Sunday morning to learn how this life is virtuous and desirable. You go to school as a child, and learn these values, and say the Pledge of Allegiance evey morning, and so get inculcated. [I hope in this writing you see where ALL of these social phenomena arise: disrepect for the flag, for religion, ewc.]
Soon after, other Marxists, the Frankfurt School, began scholarly thinking and promotion of these ideas in ways that included and permeated many aspects of society / culture.
One of these guys was Kurt Lewin, a very prominent social theorist / sociologist. We now may have progressed in sociology to where he is not mentioned in textbooks much, but he was in there in my generation. Lewin developed a concept called “Action Research.”
[NB: All of these concepts, schools, and people are in Wikipedia pretty much EXACTLY as I am describing.]
Lewin declared that we scholars and researchers should not just do research to understand humanity, society, psychology, social work, medicine, journalism, media, communications, etc., to understand, but we should study these topics with the goal of producing ideas for how to “change” them – IOW: the leading things to investigate are the various oppressions, and how to rectify them.
It is not enough to study a “health disparity,” or “media messaging,” or “persuasion,” or how people’s political opinions are formed and also changed, but researchers MUST be in the trenches righting wrongs. To Lewin, by the idea of Action Research, scholarly activity is practically merely an avenue for social activism.
Do you see where we are going with this?
The ideas of Lewin and the Frankfurt School advance greatly. Frankfurt School was the “Institute for Social Research. If you go look at your alma mater, MOST of us went to college or grad school where there was an “Institute for Social Research, or an “Institute for Social Science Research.” Frankfurt School moved from Frankfurt to Columbia University circa 1935 to flee Hilter / Nazism.
Most of our ISRs and ISSRs popped up soon after the Columbia ISR – by like-minded people sharing academic ideas.
March through the Institutions.
This is a Gramsci idea. The ISR / Frankfurt School followers, all based on Marxism, via the Action Research idea, decided they really could change society by getting themselves, and / or teir ideas, integrated into the many social institutions – into the bones of the Cultural Hegemony.
Historically, you can see the principles and ethics codes and research agenda of MANY fields change in this movement.
Many of us are in a discipline or a profession. Our organization’s codes or principles have morphed IN THIS TIME FRAME, due to Marxism / Frankfurt School / Long March Through the Institutions. They morphed from “promote the field for the benefit of mankind” to “improve society / change society / I’m Batman / Jesus Complex.” Many of our statements of principles or purpose or ethics now include thinly veiled wording for “free the oppressed,” fight oppression.”
So, today, students in a Journalism bachelor’s degree are NOT guided to determine what is newsworthy and then accurately report the news; their goal is to expose oppression via their journalism activity.
The current Am Psychiatric Assoc has a code of ethics, with nine over-arching principles. Here are two of them:
“Section 7
A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.”
“Section 9
A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.”
Nat Assoc of Social Workers have six ethical principles. Here is one of the six:
” Ethical Principle: Social workers challenge social injustice.
Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment,discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people. ”
American Psychological Assiation ethics code has 5 principles. Here are 2 of them:
Principle D: Justice
Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists. Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of their competence, and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices.
Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity
Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices.
The American Nursing Assoication has nine ethincal principles. Ninth is:
“The profession of nursing, collectively through its professional organizations, must articulate nursing values, maintain the integrity of the profession, and integrate principles of social justice into nursing and health policy.”
So, they cannot just be nurses; they have to be active in social policy to affect social justice.
The Point:
Hegel inspired Marx, who has promoted an overly simple view of the world: all conflict boils down to “opressors” and “oppressed.” Via Frankfurt School ideas / “Action Research,” academia is a spearhead for getting these “oppression” ideas out there, “consciousness raising” / being “woke,” and everyone is supposed to be engaged in a battle to fight oppression.
Sounds great. But the long game is Communist Revolution: move us from the current phase of history, Capitalism, to the next, Communism, by which the “thesis and antithesis” of oppressors / oppressed is resolved in a synthesis where workers own the means of production.
This is where the American Psychiatric Association gets the moral imperative to lecture us all on what we need to think, and do.
Yes, they are way out of their lane. Yes, they are making themselves irrelevant.
Supplementing the “Leaders of the Organization” point:
Most of us are members in groups, but often fail to be involved in leadership. how many of us attend the local Homeowner’s Association meetings?
So it is in professions. There is a small handful with great involvement, some who follow issues and events, and the great mass who carry on with little awareness of what the profession leadership is saying or doing.
So, it is not really too difficult for Marxists-minded advocates in any profession to gain power in leadership. Just show up is the main challenge!
Here is a great example. Generally, physicians were not supportive of Obamacare. But the leadership was. Ezekiel Emmanuel, brother or Rahm Emmanuel, etc. The leadership qua the Leadership voted to endorse the Obamacare bill – this endorsement technically was the “leadership” of the AMA, NOT the “AMA.” This could not have gotten approved by that process to have endorsement be on behalf of entire AMA.
So, the leaders – subtle distinction – voted to have the leadership endorse Obamacare. This set off a big shipstorm in the AMA. This was covered in the media and other places, such as in “Health Affairs,” a leading public health / medicine journal – see link below.
The point is: the Marxists promote social justice warriorism / action research ethos, and these activists so inspired, whether aware of the Marxist roots or not, get involved in the leadership of many many organizations to right the wrongs of society, rather than to just practice their profession in a principled manner. All that is needed to guide the profession is a hand on the rudder of the profession: education and leadership.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20101130.008103/full/
This a well written short history of the last two hundred years of social evolution. In evolution theory, we can have dangerous mutations. Marxism and the rest are, and need to become extinct.
This essay could be submitted to various media with the following adjustments(imho).
Start Here:
Social Justice in the Professions: A Play in Three Acts.
The rest as written.
Excellent post, TLD.
Boom.
Great post.
An irony not lost on me is a leftist seeking privilege/superiority or advantage over others by virtue signalling.
Faith in a science leads to particular difficulty for scientists in other fields to recognize when science goes wrong.
After all, early climate science was so evidentially poor that the non-science “precautionary principle” was embraced. “The possibly is so bad that something must be done!”
Over the years, even when evidence showed climate was not in immediate crisis, the professional societies’ egos would not allow them to admit the truth. And the personal financial incentives to keep the story moving along was / is significant.
It seems that the trusting societies are still serving in their professional self-interest–to avoid embarrassment and loss of financial and power interests.
Of course, there is the other factor of trusting societies–they are individually and collectively so smart–that anyone else is dumb.
“Faith in a science leads to particular difficulty ” . . . that faith is a religious term. Paradoxically, science is now the font of irrationaism.
After reading what they propose, I have Ivory Tower Grief.
“Climate change is the ‘greatest public health challenge of the 21st century.’
Ah. Greater than Covid-19, then….
Silly Geezer.
Didn’t you know COVID-19 certainly, somehow, made COVID-19 a much harder to deal with epidemic.
Time Magazine has already declared it so:
“The Wuhan Coronavirus, Climate Change, and Future Epidemics”
https://time.com/5779156/wuhan-coronavirus-climate-change/
Silly Geezer.
Didn’t you know climate change certainly, somehow, made COVID-19 a much harder to deal with epidemic.
Time Magazine has already declared it so:
“The Wuhan Coronavirus, Climate Change, and Future Epidemics”
https://time.com/5779156/wuhan-coronavirus-climate-change/
So – they’re nuts?
That’s about right, psychiatry induced insanity.
Physician heal thyself!
https://youtu.be/Uiry1_k1Zog
Keep throwing the virgins down the volcano, I know it has been tried before without any success, but this time it will work…honest….really, dress them in Ike purple first just to be sure of their efficacy. Let’s satisfy those Earth gods, you know it makes sense.
Just so you know, this talking to trees has been going on for a while, it didn’t work back then either.
Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn8YubD01sk
The story is not that innocent. To the opposite indeed.
For unclear reasons, psychiatry is assumed being a medical profession.
Back then, when young lads often took-off for non-return missions in the hope to free us from nazism, several medical doctors attempted to scientifically prove race superiority and consequently justify the dispatching of “untermenschen”.
Often forgotten by the young generations, we still have stigmates to remember.
the new modern mental outlook (save the earth) ,should be applied
to drinking (alcohol) and smoking (ciggies)..
both destroy the environment..
As MD’s they need to take their own Rx, meds they hand out like candy at a Carnival Parade to their patients to support Big Pharma’s kick-backs they receive: a steady dose of name-brand Xanax or Valium, and/or other branded anti-anxiety, anti-depressants.
The APA behavior reminds me of glaziers surreptitiously breaking windows, to boost the local economy. Create the crisis in order to acquire new business.
As they say;
It takes one to know one…
and that comes way before one treating one…
cheers
My daughter has serious health problems, and is now pregnant with monozygotic twins. I am very impressed with the high risk obstetrician I have never met, because she comes back from each appointment comforted and secure. He seems to be able to focus her away from the many real complications toward normality. This is the opposite of the psychiatric approach, which is to focus on the grief and fears, and is much more constructive.
I believe that the increasing rates of PTSD are partly due to the practice of having people go over and over something bad that happened – ‘talking through the trauma’ over and over. Contrast this with the old method: When I was a teenager, I was in a motorcycle accident in which a child died bleeding in my arms on the way to the hospital. When I got home, Mum dosed me with hot milk and a whacking dose of a barbiturate. I woke next day without the fear and grief and got on with life.
There is a stream in psychology now which is taking a similar approach to PTSD, having the patient recall the trauma and administering a memory blocking drug to prevent restorage of the memory. It is based on the fact that every time something is recalled, it is subject to modification and is restored in the new form. This is also the theoretical underpinning of the work showing how the memory of a crime witness can be modified by leading questions.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-018-5086-2
>>>She goes on to argue oddly that “trailer homes are most at risk in tornadoes,” and trailer homes are “found in parts of the country with the highest incidence of tornadoes.”<<<
Everyone knows that tornadoes are drawn to trailer parks by an as yet undiscovered force.
History informs that all tyrannies come to hold descent as a form of insanity, and the so “insane” in need of various “treatments.”
Zip the Lip; problem solved.
Perhaps they mean that climate change anxiety is one of the greatest threats to health America has ever faced.
After all, as psychiatrists they would be highly attuned to the following aspects of human behavior:
– people who are mentally burdened with self-loathing develop a deep resentment towards society and, out of a desire for revenge, will gravitate to leftist politics because they regard it as being harmful to society and therefore a way of taking revenge against society for their self-perceived grievances. They are driven by exactly the same pathology that makes the common vandal want to destroy things of value to others;
– people who, to put it politely, respond to simple messages are prone to developing obsessions, despite their beliefs being demonstrably flawed. Obsessive gambling is another trait of such individuals. No amount of evidence to the contrary will lead to their resolving their obsessions. One reason is that they are seeking the positive outcomes that they cannot create in other aspects of their lives. As the new Sir Humphrey said of global warming: ‘It’s easier to solve imaginary problems than real ones.’ Self-anxiety also plays a significant role in their behavior. First, it acts as a ‘release mechanism’ for their self-anxiety. As a subconscious self-preservation mechanism, their mind turns their anxiety outwards against ‘things’ in society rather than allowing it to fester internally and become self-destructive. Second, it serves to validate their belief that they are a victim, that there are ‘evil’ forces in society that act against their having successful outcomes in life. Blaming other for one’s own failures makes it easier to live with oneself;
– given that the preservation of, or preferably the elevation of, one’s self-esteem is the motive force behind all human social behavior, the temptation to adopt seeming virtuous causes is overwhelming. Let’s give this a label and a definition. ‘Mental mast–bation’: the primate need to elevate one’s social status by creating the illusion in one’s own mind, and in the mind of others, that one possesses socially superior qualities.
– that people high on the psychopathy scale will readily adopt any cause that they see as self-enriching, for example by picking up some form of government handout or subsidy.
From the article: “Most unfortunately for Dr. Zilber and her like-minded comrades, her emotional endorsement of ecological guilt and other climate-related pathologies only serves to create, validate, and legitimize new mental disorders that have no basis in reality”
Dr. Zilber and here like-minded comrades are delusional and they are the ones in need of psychiatric help. A delusional person is the last person to know he is delusional, Dr. Zilber. Think about that.
Any one who goes to see a psychiatrist should have his head examined 😊
The good doctors should instead focus on helping all the traumatized school children who have been propagandized by the climate fearmongering to the point where they think the planet is doomed and they will all die.
Throughout the course of human history, when confronted with seemingly insurmountable odds, you either embraced the challenge, adapted and moved on or sat in the corner, cried”whoa is me” and died.
Or in layman’s terms, “Suck it up buttercup”.
The demonization of carbon dioxide is the means to control all humanity & all energy. JFK warned us nearly 60 years ago and they’ve since infiltrated all the organs of world power like a virulent malignancy..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs
April 27, 1961
FULL SPEECH: The President & The Press
relevant excerpt at 5:17 :
“For we are opposed around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections; on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published; it’s mistakes are buried, not headlined; its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”
Carbon 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons
Only truth shall make us free.