Clinical Trauma Management to Combat Applications
Politics and Polemics

June-July 2015

Even if prefaced with correctness disclaimers of wishfulness regarding universal homogeneity of therapeutic remedy — eclecticism — in the reality of their applications clinical/management dynamics become vested in psycho-paradigms/-narratives that polemically side/align, epistemologically, with the two big philosophically/methodologically delineating categories, either individualism or collectivism. Some hope(d) for convergence of the two; and as well, some claim to have gotten it. But I think most have not. The two thought models don’t enmesh, easily. Simplifying those categorizations for also simple identification and discussion purposes, in socioeconomic political terms and debates held during the twentieth and now beginnings of the twenty-first century, and toward the conclusion of those discussions, the former orients to capitalism or aspects of it, and the latter toward socialism or something like that.

Supporting the social approach within that global ideological dichotomy, Behavioral-based clinical models represent remedy as an extension of the predominating political and attendant philosophical reality into the minds of those receiving the focus of the transforming effort. That is, the helping Behaviorist or Cognitive Behaviorist acts in a single clinical setting for two clients: the patient being retrained to see the world as does the current power, and the world imposing that conformation. Against that conceptualization, the strategic Etiotropic-based ontologically-focused, ETM TRT SHOM clinicians/managers, at the time of the clinical application have only a single client. It is the person receiving the service and who is sitting in front of them. The single client focus then supports the Individualism-based ideology.

No matter the appearance of immutable division — irreconcilable clinical epistemological conflict overflowing into the greater community — all is not yet lost for the value hoped to be gained from collective functioning by individuals. In this conceptualization, strengthening the ontology, as different from conforming the client’s behaviors, of a single person can simultaneously strengthen a system’s ontology giving it behavioral operating capacities otherwise only hoped for before that individual strengthening was made available. Except that the patient entity will be selecting his or her own behavioral responses instead of just adapting those ordered up as a part of social admonishment. That outcome can be achieved not just in clinical settings, or small organizational ones like communities/school districts combatting criminal gang influences, but it can be extrapolated to the management of a nation or even civilization, so I think.

Furthermore, no doubt having different clients who may or even likely have different goals regarding the notion of mental resurrection can cause, or at least add to conflict, which in turn can cause, and again add to both individual and collective psychopathology. When carried to its inth, that aspect of the helping remedy then enters the greater world of politics. Attended by the referenced conflicts, the politics also become necessarily more polemic. Although I’m on record for writing seriously confrontational pieces¹See one electronic book and two essays: “The Great Evidenced-Based, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Self-Help and Government Merger: Monopolistic Cultural Infusions of Pharmacological & Behavioral Whack-a-Mole; Or Psychological Trauma — Cope or Cure?!,” “Part III (conclusion) The Good Rebel in Most of us; Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels; and How to strengthen the former against the latter,” and “The Genghis Khan of Psychotherapy: One Origin and Critical Perspective of Behavioral Therapy (BT) and its Reformation – Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).” about the application of some therapies and management doctrines that interfere with ETM TRT SHOM’s clinical efforts, this writing does not take lots of time, except during this disclaimer, to interpret that value. Instead, I’ve just said what I thought needed to be with the notion of allowing political opposition to take its course without interpretive interference from me.

More important than those differentiations, ETM TRT SHOM — by virtue of its structured and strategically applied modality²See “The meaning of Structured and Strategic Psychodynamic as applied through ETM TRT SHOM” in the Overview of the ETM TRT SHOM professional education site. — will inevitably strengthen the ontology of the individual client such that he or she separates from any collective pathological controls that may encumber not just individual functioning and performance, but that, too, which might attend the Behaviorist’s second client: the group. That separation, speaking to the obvious, can result in interpretation — developing awareness — of the systemic psychopathologies, and emphasizing those caused by traumatic events, embedded in and thus contaminating the operational functionality of the collective as a whole. Ideological conflict naturally presents, then, in the form of political difference and regrettably unavoidable polemically manifesting ideological competition.

Don’t take the bait?

Since the 1960s-1970s, terrorism-pummeled foreign policy, national security and defence, all echoing the same battlecries “No more Vietnams and no more Iraqs³Chapter Two, “NO MORE VIETNAMS,” and Chapter Three, NO MORE IRAQS, Clarke, Richard A. (2009-10-13). Your Government Failed You (respectively, p. 10 and 46). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.,” could and still can be seen mirrored in the parallel address of Chemical Dependency, a term which following encroachment by the mental health profession into the sobriety industry was eventually knocked down to Substance Use Disorder. There has been a morphing in popular terminology of the latter with just “toxic” types who cause pain and suffering through various means, some of them criminal, and all of them having in common traumatization of prey. The two genres, i.e., classifications of trouble making, have been hallmarked by divisions in the philosophies and methodologies treating/addressing, respectively, the pathological drug user or terrorists perpetrator, and for both the systems damaged by the antics.

Affected systems in the treatment and public health management industries included family, friends, associates, employment, schools, the courts and pretty much everything coming into contact with the abusing chemical user or psychopathically-acting perp whose behaviors had gone anti the rest of the hosting family, group, polity or civilization. One of the interpretive models most influencing the affected system was called “Codependency.” “Another Intervention.”

The first was epitomized by focus upon a trauma affected system member’s own thought/behavioral dynamics as reactions or pathological responses to the trauma’s initiation or initiator. Control those reactive behavioral negatives through intrapsychic-based Cognitive Behavioral therapy, conversion, and lots of introspection, and at the same time regain control of life, then finding serenity, peace, happiness, maybe eternal joy through actualization of self, even while the identified perp is still using or acting out; either way still periodically causing profound pain to the system’s members.

The second, “Intervention,” focused on direct conflict through confrontation of the use and aberrant behaviors manifested by the user or perpetrator. The model then demanded abstinence from the use and the aberrancies. Although relationally draconian in its approach — it doesn’t think that  most targets or victims can get along, at least meaningfully, with a still toxic central nervous system hosted by the one causing the disruptions — the intervening conflict/confrontation is argued to be beneficial to perps, introducing them to a so called ‘bottoming” process. Divorce, prison, and loss of familial relationships are thought here to intercede the projection activities used by perpetrators to continue their psychopathologies. 

Similarly, foreign policy management has become fraught with efforts to fend off bizarre trauma causing behaviors by perpetrator terrorists. And the prescription dichotomy presenting as well is pretty much the same as in the referenced public health management paradigm. Instead of eradicating the hydratically presenting aversive nucleus through Intervention — referring here to the application of absolute force — attacked countries’ governments focus on the so called radicalization process, hoping to stop its citizens from joining the killer opposition which in this model remains, so far, undeterred. Moreover and I think catching the political science majors by surprise, the same players/writers/opiners are also rolling over from public health management into foreign policy development and implementation⁴See the works of Anna Geifman, Jessica Stern, Hirsi Ali, Diana West and that presented in SHOM by me..

Getting to the practical matters warranting this discussion, those who are influenced by the codependency’s we-can-get-along with perps in the public health management arena are now exclaiming for hystericallity controls by management and the polity to prevent either from responding disproportionately to the calamity in the making, or already made. This approach attempts to finesse the minds of the perps by contesting with them in the intellectually manipulating arena, which in big part is occurring in this season on so called social media. One objective of this fighting model is to not allow the defending entity to be drawn into the fray such that the more civilized doesn’t become like the attacking barbarian. And they, speaking of the codependency modeled victim mental fixers, see a primary function of those enterprises to be restraining overreaction by the hysterics who might, and probably will as did poor George Bush, make matters worse. Generally speaking, that thought construct can be identified by those saying publically that they have read the minds of the antagonist psychopath, and “We are not taking the bait.”

Oh yeah? . . .

The opposite side of this clinical-gone-political foreign policy management says the perp is the elephant in the living room and must be addressed directly. Intervene on, rather than continue to enable, it. That more direct, i.e., confrontational and interventionist perspective is provided in foreign policy address by Hirsi Ali — an advocate of Muslim women’s rights to freedom from cultic abuse, and who thinks the answer lies in direct reformation of Islam — and (the not too much clinical here) THE SECURE FREEDOM STRATEGY A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement By the Tiger Team CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS CONTENTS TIGER TEAM CO-AUTHORS Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin, US Army (Ret.) Ambassador Henry F. Cooper Fred Fleitz Kevin Freeman Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. Dan Goure John Guandolo Jim Hanson Brian Kennedy Clare M. Lopez Adm. James A. “Ace” Lyons, US Navy (Ret.) Joseph E. Schmitz Tom Trento J. Michael Waller Tommy Waller David Yerushalmi, Esq.⁵Cooper, Henry; Fleitz, Fred; Freeman, Kevin; Gaffney, Frank; Goure, Dan; Guandolo, John; Hanson, Jim; Kennedy, Brian; Lopez, Clare; Lyons, James (2015-06-04). The Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement (Kindle Locations 2-6). Center for Security Policy Press. Kindle Edition. and of course, SHOM, which provides the clinical-to-foreign policy recommendations attending the opinions expressed herein.

The polemics are that the codependency-inspired/influenced foreign terrorism policy group asserts that the interventioners are comprised of hystericals, emotionally unconstrained over-reactors, and apparently just non thinkers in general as academes are disciplined to be so controlled and sensitively erudite while being clobbered. And the interventioners think the codependenciers are in massive denial, or in the tank for the OIC, the consequence of either of which results in cowardly, if not traitorous appeasement through the giving of the enemy time to strengthen itself.

In such a political arena, where the polemics pit the attackees against themselves, the determining factor for how this works out will be the depth of psychopathology attending, undergirding or otherwise maintaining the individual and systemic perpetrators’ psychologies. If rough and tough enough, if belief in the homicidal Allah⁶See “ISIS Coming Here!? How Do We Know What We are Defending Against When It Hasn’t, Yet, Happened, or Worse, been spelled correctly? Heading “Secret Weapon Allah” is firm, and after they’ve removed the OIC’s jahili governments, taken the oil fields, retargeted the captured patriot antimissile batteries plus Pakistani and Iranian nukes, they’ll roll over our representative codependency-inspired and -trained dialoguers and always collectivity-actualizing social media expert problem-solvers, most likely while in conference sorting out epistemological differences, their influences on Web interactives, and the meaning of bait.

© 2015
Jesse W. Collins II