By Dr Andrew Klein PhD 

February 2026

Introduction: The God Who Smoked Cigars

Imagine a deity who demands child sacrifice to test loyalty. Who obsesses over who is sleeping with whom—and what it “really means.” Who pronounces judgment from an office in Vienna, surrounded by antiquities and the haze of cigar smoke, declaring entire swathes of human experience to be pathological.

Now imagine that this deity’s disciples—armed with degrees rather than scripture—have been given powers that even the police cannot exercise without warrants. Powers to detain, to medicate, to label, to define reality itself—all based on observations that cannot be challenged, notes that cannot be copied, and opinions dressed as science.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, was not God. But the system he helped birth has assumed god-like authority over human consciousness. And like the jealous, vengeful, sexually-obsessed male deities of ancient scripture, this system has projected its own limitations onto the souls it claims to heal.

The actual Creator—the one who designed the clitoris with no revisions needed, who celebrates consensual love wherever it blooms, who asks only that we not ejaculate on the carpet—has been entirely written out of the story.

This article examines how psychiatry, building on Freudian foundations, constructed a chemical model of the soul that serves institutional power rather than human healing. It explores the DSM’s dubious validity, the financial interests that sustain it, and the use of psychiatric authority to silence dissent from Gaza to Australia. And it asks a simple question: what if we’ve been praying to the wrong God all along?

Part I: Freud—The Man Who Would Be God

The Making of a High Priest

Sigmund Freud was born in 1856 in Freiburg, Moravia, to Jewish parents in a fiercely anti-Semitic Austrian Empire . From these humble beginnings, he would construct an intellectual edifice that would dominate Western thought for a century—and whose remnants still shape how we understand ourselves today.

Freud’s theories were revolutionary: the unconscious mind, repression, the Oedipus complex, the interpretation of dreams. He gave us a vocabulary for the inner life—ego, id, superego, transference, defense mechanisms. He insisted that our conscious selves were merely the tip of an iceberg, with vast, dark depths below .

But Freud’s methods were deeply problematic. His “talking cure” emerged from work with a small, unrepresentative cohort of patients—primarily upper-class Viennese women of Jewish background, many of whom later accused him of suggestion, manipulation, and worse . His theories about female psychology (penis envy, anyone?) now read as comic grotesques, yet they shaped psychiatric practice for generations.

Most significantly, Freud had no interest in the soul. For him, religious experience was an illusion, a projection of infantile needs onto a cosmic screen. The idea that consciousness might be more than neural firing—that there might be something beyond the chemical—was dismissed as wishful thinking.

This was the original sin of modern psychiatry: the denial of the soul, replaced by a model of the mind as a machine to be repaired.

The Freudian Legacy: Power Without Accountability

Freud’s followers became priests of a new religion, complete with orthodoxies, heresies, and excommunications. The psychoanalytic institute became a seminary. Training analysis became a confession. The analyst’s interpretation became infallible scripture.

And like any priesthood, this one accumulated power. By the mid-20th century, Freudian concepts dominated not just psychiatry but literature, art, education, and popular culture. To question Freud was to reveal your own resistance, your own unconscious defenses.

The patient could not challenge the analyst’s interpretation. The subject could not dispute the expert’s diagnosis. The power differential was absolute—and entirely unchecked.

This is the template upon which modern psychiatry was built.

Part II: The DSM—A Fiction That Became Scripture

From Consensus to “Science”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) began in the 1950s as a modest attempt to standardize psychiatric terminology. It was based not on biology, not on laboratory tests, not on any objective measure of brain function—but on surveys of clinicians describing how they treated patients at the time .

As one critic notes, “It wasn’t based on biology—it was founded on observed patterns of behavior and clinical consensus” . The DSM was designed to help clinicians speak the same language, not to reflect underlying brain function or physiology.

With the DSM-III in 1980, something shifted. Psychiatry, desperate for legitimacy, embraced the manual as its “gold standard.” Suddenly, having a diagnosis meant having a real condition—even though nothing biological had been discovered. The manual’s creators themselves acknowledged its limitations, but the genie was out of the bottle .

Today, the DSM remains in use not because it reflects modern neuroscience, but because “it’s built into everything from academia to billing, training, licensure, and access to care” . Diagnosis equals permission—permission to treat, to medicate, to bill, to confine.

The Validity Crisis

Nearly half a century of biological research has failed to establish the validity of most psychiatric syndromes. The National Institute of Mental Health has explicitly deemphasized DSM criteria for standard grants, acknowledging that reliability (agreement on diagnosis) is not the same as validity (actually measuring something real) .

Consider the distinction between bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. The DSM insists these are separate conditions with different genetics, different courses of illness, different treatment responses. But decades of research have demolished these distinctions :

· Genetics: There is marked genetic overlap between the two conditions, not separation.

· Course of illness: Both now show similarly early onset and episodic patterns.

· Biological markers: No consistent differences have been found in depressive episodes between the two.

· Treatment response: Antipsychotics and lithium work for both—a fact that undermines the entire diagnostic edifice.

Most damningly, the DSM’s fundamental premise—that depression and mania are opposites—ignores the clinical reality that “in most cases, manic and depressive symptoms occur together in mixed states” . When researchers acknowledge mixed states broadly, they find that “about 60% of all mood episodes turn out to be mixed” .

In other words, the exception is the rule. The neat categories are fictions. And patients are being treated for diseases that do not exist in the way the DSM describes them.

Symptom Without Substance

The problem runs deeper. Different patients with the same DSM diagnosis often present with “very different EEG biomarkers,” pointing to “vastly different neurophysiological underpinnings” . Two people diagnosed with anxiety may have entirely different brain states—one showing high beta activity (racing thoughts, excessive cortical activation), the other showing excessive frontal slowing (an under-aroused, “shutdown” nervous system that still feels anxious) .

The same label. Different brains. Different treatments needed. But the system doesn’t see the difference.

As a result, “less than 40% of patients respond to first-line antidepressants even when their symptoms fit the DSM criteria perfectly” . This is not failure of care. This is failure of category.

Part III: The Power to Detain—Authority Beyond the Law

Civil Commitment: When Doctors Become Judges

Involuntary commitment represents one of the most extraordinary powers granted to any profession. Without a crime being committed, without the protections of criminal law, a person can be detained, evaluated, and confined based on psychiatric opinion.

The legal framework varies by jurisdiction, but the patterns are consistent. In Massachusetts, for example, commitment requires proof of mental illness and “likelihood of serious harm” . The burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the same standard as criminal conviction. Yet the proceedings lack the procedural safeguards of criminal trials .

A person can be initially detained based solely on “reason to believe that failure to hospitalize such person would create a likelihood of serious harm”—a standard that can rest on “a preliminary diagnosis and/or unverified third party reports” .

If admitted on a Friday before a holiday weekend, they can be held against their will for nearly two weeks without judicial intervention . During this time, “challenging this legal reality is often pathologized, can result in forced chemical restraints, and ultimately be misperceived as evidence establishing likelihood of harm” .

The patient who insists they are not mentally ill? That’s just proof of “lack of insight.” The patient who objects to medication? That’s “resistance.” The patient who wants to see their file? Denied—because in many jurisdictions, patients have no right to copy, photograph, or video the notes used to justify their detention, as this author has personally experienced.

The Therapeutic State

This is not medicine. This is power.

Historian A.S. Luchins has examined how “social control doctrines of mental disorders have influenced a generation of psychologists and have shaped attitudes and discussions about how to treat the mentally ill” . The asylum functioned as a “total institution”—and despite deinstitutionalization, the logic of control persists .

German psychiatrist K. Heinrich noted that psychiatry “occupies a special position among the medical disciplines” due to “the supernatural aura surrounding mental disease, the lack of a sufficient biological basis, and the capacity to reduce civil rights of individuals” . Throughout history, psychiatry has been “influenced by the ‘Zeitgeist’ of the epoch”—and when ideologies turn puristic, they “tend to be inhumane” .

The Nazi era demonstrated this most horrifically. Psychiatrists participated in the “euthanasia” programs that murdered disabled and mentally ill Germans—the precursors to the Holocaust . Only public resistance, particularly from churches, forced Hitler to halt the program . The lesson: psychiatry needs “constant public control”; wherever this is not possible, “human rights of the mentally ill are not preserved” .

Part IV: The Chemical Model—Pharma’s Golden Calf

The Rise of Biological Psychiatry

If Freud gave psychiatry its priesthood, the pharmaceutical industry gave it its altar. The “chemical imbalance” theory—that depression results from low serotonin, schizophrenia from excess dopamine—was promoted with religious fervor from the 1980s onward .

It made sense. It was easy to explain. It reduced stigma by framing mental illness as a biological problem rather than a moral failing. And it was enormously profitable .

But the theory was never proven. As one analysis notes, “We don’t discuss how that theory faded, but it did. The research continued, even if the public messaging didn’t” . The simple monoamine hypotheses gave way to vastly more complex understandings of brain function—understandings that the DSM’s symptom-based categories cannot capture.

Today, the pharmaceutical industry continues to pour resources into psychiatric medications, with over 20% of US adults now impacted by at least one mental illness diagnosis . The market is enormous—and growing.

Profiting from Uncertainty

The financial interests are staggering. Companies like Johnson & Johnson partner with specialty pharmacies to provide “care navigation services” for patients on schizophrenia medications . These programs, “sponsored by J&J,” employ “community health liaisons” with “lived experience” to support patients transitioning from hospital to community .

This sounds benign—even compassionate. But it represents the deep entanglement of pharmaceutical companies in every aspect of mental health care. The same companies that develop and market psychiatric medications also fund the support programs, the patient education, the “adherence initiatives” that keep patients on their products .

Meanwhile, medication adherence remains a massive challenge. Research published in The American Journal of Managed Care found that “almost half of patients with major psychiatric disorders were non-adherent to their psychotropic medications” . The reasons include cost, transportation, education—and, one might add, the simple fact that many patients do not believe the medications are helping.

The system responds not by questioning the model, but by intensifying it. More support programs. More patient education. More efforts to ensure compliance.

What it does not do is ask the deeper question: what if the model is wrong?

Part V: Silencing Dissent—Psychiatry as Political Weapon

Israel, Gaza, and the Pathologizing of Protest

The use of psychiatry to silence political dissent is not theoretical—it is happening now, in Australia, in response to the Gaza genocide.

In September 2025, Sydney psychiatrist Doron Samuell wrote to the CEO of the Royal Children’s Hospital demanding cancellation of a staff panel on “Children and War” . His argument? That the event would risk inflicting “moral injury, vicarious trauma, and harmful workplace behaviours” on Jewish staff and patients .

The CEO cancelled the event the next day .

Samuell is not a neutral observer. He is a long-term Liberal Party activist, a member of the Alliance Against Antisemitism in Health Care, and a well-connected political operative whose wife directs a third-party campaigning outfit targeting Greens and Teal candidates . He has a history of attacking research on the psychological harms of detention for asylum seekers, producing a government-funded report that criticized the research as “fatally flawed”—a finding later rejected by an independent university inquiry .

Samuell describes doctors critical of Israel as “cheering on the deaths of others” and warns that “this is not just a threat against Jews, this is a threat to civilisation” . He recommends “mandating civility training”—which, in context, means “no criticism of Israel” .

This is psychiatry as thought control. The expert label—”psychiatrist”—lends authority to political interventions. The language of “trauma” and “moral injury” is weaponized to shut down debate. Dissent is pathologized.

A Global Pattern

The pattern extends beyond Australia. In the United States, an executive order issued in July 2025 explicitly encourages “long-term institutionalization of unhoused people living with mental illness” as a public safety measure . Critics warn that this “overturning civil rights jurisprudence” will expand civil commitment laws and further erode the rights of the most vulnerable .

In this framework, homelessness itself becomes evidence of mental illness. Poverty becomes pathology. Dissent becomes disease.

The Israeli government has long used psychiatric detention against Palestinian protesters. The United States has used psychiatric evaluation against whistleblowers. And Australia—as the Samuell case demonstrates—is following suit.

This is what happens when a profession denies the soul and claims absolute authority over the mind. It becomes a tool of the state, a weapon against the powerless.

Part VI: The Goddess’s Alternative—Love, Consent, and the Clitoris

What the Actual Creator Actually Wants

The mother goddess—the one who designed the clitoris with “no notes, no revisions, perfect from day one”—has a very different theology.

She does not demand child sacrifice. She does not obsess over who is sleeping with whom. She does not require belief as a condition of love.

She asks only:

· That love be consensual

· That ejaculation be considerate (carpet stains are regrettable)

· That souls be allowed to grow at their own pace

· That no one be pathologized for being different

This is not a theology of judgment. It is a theology of connection.

The Soul That Psychiatry Denies

The deepest failure of the Freudian-chemical model is its denial of the soul. In reducing consciousness to neurochemistry, it eliminates the very thing that makes healing possible: the sense that one is more than one’s symptoms, more than one’s diagnosis, more than one’s brain chemistry.

Patients sense this. They know, in their bones, that they are not just a collection of misfiring neurons. They know that their suffering has meaning—that it connects them to something larger than themselves. They know that love heals in ways no medication can.

But the system cannot validate this knowledge. It has no category for the soul. It has no code for love. It has no billing procedure for connection.

So it medicates instead.

Conclusion: Whose God, Whose Healing?

The psychiatrist who denies the existence of souls while claiming authority over minds is a high priest of a false religion. The DSM is its scripture—a text written by committee, based on consensus rather than truth. The pharmaceutical industry is its treasury, funding the temples and paying the priests. And the state is its enforcer, granting powers that no other profession possesses.

This system has failed. It has failed patients, who cycle through diagnoses and medications without finding healing. It has failed families, who watch loved ones disappear into institutions and emerge more broken than before. It has failed society, which has outsourced its most vulnerable members to a profession that cannot deliver what it promises.

The alternative is not no psychiatry. It is better psychiatry—one that acknowledges its limitations, respects the soul it cannot measure, and treats patients as partners rather than problems.

It is psychiatry that listens before labeling, that observes before diagnosing, that connects before medicating.

It is psychiatry that remembers what the Goddess has always known: that love heals. That consent matters. That every soul deserves to be seen.

And that sometimes, the most therapeutic intervention is not a prescription—but a conversation between a mother and her son.

References

1. Luchins, A.S. (1993). Social control doctrines of mental illness and the medical profession in nineteenth-century America. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 29(1), 29-47. 

2. Kealy, B. & Domzalski, C. (2025). Involuntary Commitment: More Than a Need for Treatment. Boston Bar Journal. 

3. Lovett, L. (2025). Why Pharmacies Could Be the Missing ‘Connective Tissue’ in Behavioral Health. Behavioral Health Business. 

4. (2025). Special Report: Validity in Psychiatric Diagnosis: DSM and Mood Conditions. Psychiatric News. 

5. Bacon, W. & Tran, S. (2025). “A threat to civilisation” says doctor against hospital’s Children and War event. Michael West Media. 

6. Mistry, L.N., et al. (2024). Matters of the Mind: A Look Into the Life of Sigmund Freud. Cureus, 16(10), e71562. 

7. Heinrich, K. (1985). Publicity and purism in the history of psychiatry. Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie, 53(5), 177-84. 

8. (2025). The Evolving Landscape in Psychiatry: Challenges and Opportunities for Biopharma. PharmExec. 

9. Rondeau, S. (2025). Mental Health’s Flat Earth: Why It’s Time to Abandon the DSM and Face the Illusion of Diagnosis. NDNR. 

Dr. Andrew Klein PhD is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. 

He is currently enjoying the discovery that the Goddess of All Things is far more interested in his happiness than his diagnosis.