Category Archives: Wharton, Michael

We are all guilty! Dr Heinz Kiosk and a phoney would-be Dreyfus

Dr Heinz Kiosk: 'We are all guilty!'

Dr Heinz Kiosk: ‘We are all guilty!’ (drawing by ffolkes)

The case of Claude Eatherly

Readers will not need to be reminded that Dr Heinz Kiosk (see Michael Wharton’s ‘Peter Simple’ column in the London Daily Telegraph newspaper) holds a number of important posts, among them chief psychiatric adviser to the American Meringue, Éclair and Profiterole Authority. Dr Kiosk is the author of a large number of influential books and papers, including (with Dr Melisande Fischbein) the 200,000-word study Patterns of Chromatic and Behavioural Relations in a West Midlands Petrochemical Complex (1977, Viper & Bugloss).

The Veterans' Hospital, Waco: workplace of Dr Oleinick P. Constantine

The Veterans’ Hospital, Waco: it was here that Dr Oleinick P. Constantine first encountered, and came to treat, Major Claude Eatherly

Many people ask if there is a psychologist of Dr Kiosk’s stature in Canada or the USA. There is. It is Dr Oleinick P. Constantine (American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology certification 1949) of 2100 Washington Avenue, Waco, Texas.

Dr Kiosk’s mantra, it will be remembered, is

We are all guilty!

Dr Constantine, too, has been concerned with the matter of guilt and its labyrinthine complexities, taking a global approach to complement that of Dr Kiosk, with its characteristically Kioskan emphasis on total or panoptic guilt. Dalrymple writes (in one of a series of articles — on this and other subjects — exclusive to the Skeptical Doctor website) that Dr Constantine, who worked at the Veterans’ Hospital in Waco, was the unwitting originator of the myth of the

and his home at 2100 Washington Boulevard, Waco

The 1949 notification of Dr Oleinick P. Constantine’s certification by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and a view of his home at 2100 Washington Boulevard, Waco

guilt complex

of Major Claude Eatherly — a myth eventually exposed for the fraud it was by the journalist William Bradford Huie.

The story is as follows.

Eatherly was the pilot of a weather reconnaissance aëroplane that played a part in supporting the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima. Later he forged, if that is the word, a career as a counterfeiter. He engaged in armed robbery and was, as it happens, an adulterer and drunkard. He ran guns to Cuba,

whose capital he agreed to bomb — preparatory to a coup d’état — for a fee of $100,000. He and his associates were arrested before this could take place.

The correspondence between Günther Anders and Major Claude Eatherly in book form, and the book by exposing the fraud

Burning Conscience: The Case of the Hiroshima Pilot Claude Eatherly, told in his Letters to Günther Anders (1961), and the work that exposed the fraud, William Bradford Huie’s The Hiroshima Pilot (1964)

Dalrymple writes that thanks to an article in the notoriously unreliable magazine Newsweek,

a myth emerged and ran round the world: Major Eatherly had committed his crimes because of something his psychiatrist called a

guilt complex.

Eatherly had so bitterly repented bombing Hiroshima that he committed crimes in order to be caught and punished for his role in the killing of tens of thousands.

In other words, guilt about Hiroshima — Eatherly’s and ours — drove Eatherly to commit a miscellany of crimes. It was force majeure.

Fancying taking on the mantle of dreyfusard, Günther Anders, a German philosopher and anti-nuclear activist (and one of Hannah Arendt’s husbands — they divorced in 1937), wrote to Eatherly, and their correspondence was published in many languages. Eatherly became, says Dalrymple,

Screen Shot 2015-06-04 at 18.07.02a sainted figure, a martyr to the cause of world peace.

When Eatherly was arrested for his various crimes,

he often (and successfully) tried to get himself admitted to psychiatric hospital to avoid imprisonment. There is no evidence that he was ever mad or even highly disturbed; nevertheless, he was on one occasion given a great deal of insulin coma therapy.

He was

Dr Oleinick P. Constantine: relayed the theory of Major Eatherly's alleged 'guilt complex' to a court and thence to worldwide attention

Dr Oleinick P. Constantine-Kiosk: relayed the theory of Major Eatherly’s alleged ‘guilt complex’ to a court and thence to worldwide attention

an early recipient of chlorpromazine [a phenothiazine derivative with anti-emetic, tranquillising and sedative properties], given illogically in conjunction with methylphenidate [a sympathomimetic drug used as a central nervous system stimulant to treat lethargy and depression].

Dr Constantine

knew practically nothing of Eatherly’s previous history, and believed the highly selective, dramatised and exaggerated account that Eatherly gave him. It was he who relayed the theory of the

guilt complex

to a law court, from which it spread round the world.

Dr Constantine

was not Eatherly’s first psychiatrist.

The world

The Waco that Dr Oleinick P. Constantine knew

The Waco of Dr Oleinick P. Constantine

believed Dr Constantine’s theory because it wanted to do so; it paid no attention to the opinion of another psychiatrist who knew Eatherly much better than Constantine did and who wrote:

This patient has no moral feelings toward his wife or children, or toward any human being that he comes in contact with. He has no feeling or responsibility or moral obligation to an individual or group or to society as a whole.

We are all guilty!

Screen Shot 2015-06-04 at 08.15.17

Dalrymple consoles Toynbee

Screen Shot 2015-05-17 at 22.50.08The electoral defeat of Ed Miliband was doubtless a cruel blow, but at least Polly Toynbee, the eminent Hampstead writer and journalist, will not have to pay mansion tax in the near future, Dalrymple points out. No tanks on her lawns, yet.

Toynbee is very like Mrs Dutt-Pauker in the Daily Telegraph‘s ‘Peter Simple’ column (written by Michael Wharton and illustrated by ffolkes). The doubts Toynbee must now be entertaining about the future of the socialist movement she loves so well are likely to resemble those experienced by Mrs Dutt-Pauker when news came through of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Wharton’s column at the time read in part as follows:

Polly Toynbee: also owns a mansion in Tuscany

Polly Toynbee: in addition to the Hampstead mansion Marxmount, owns a country house in Sussex (Beria Garth) and a villa in Tuscany

Thousands of Hampstead liberal thinkers have suddenly discovered that the Soviet Union, whose little faults they have so long forgiven (‘after all, in spite of everything, it is a socialist country’), is in fact ruled by old-fashioned militaristic imperialists. Even at Marxmount, Mrs Dutt-Pauker’s fine white house whose tall drawing-room windows look out on the Heath, a chill of doubt runs through the handsome rooms. Fear breathes in the well-stocked Marxist bookshelves. The greatest of all Hampstead thinkers has seen a nightmare vision: there are tanks on her own broad, cedared lawns.

On the other hand, Dalrymple writes, it is possible that Toynbee would never have had to pay the mansion tax,

for the difficulties in implementing it would have been a convenient excuse for abandoning it.

We are all guilty! The economic Dr Heinz Kiosk

Dr Heinz Kiosk-KIng, psychologist and central banker

Dr Heinz Kiosk

We are all guilty in general, and we are all guilty for the 2007-08 financial crisis in particular

Dalrymple reports that according to Lord King, governor of the Bank of England at the time of the financial crisis,

no human agency, certainly not the last Labour government, was responsible.

To be sure, writes Dalrymple, the British Tories, then in opposition,

did not make clear to the public that vastly increased public expenditure on the basis of largely illusory economic growth was a very dangerous recipe that would lead before long to economic hardship. Its leadership was too concerned with the latest polls to take a principled stand on anything.

Mervyn King: exculpatory contortions

Mervyn King: exculpatory contortions

But, Dalrymple points out,

it cannot be that an opposition is equally responsible with a government in power for ten years for what happens in that government’s tenth or eleventh year.

‘We are all guilty!’ is the view also of Dr Heinz Kiosk, the scientist who is, among other things, chief psychiatric adviser to the Meringue, Éclair and Profiterole Authority. (See Michael Wharton’s ‘Peter Simple’ column in the London Daily Telegraph newspaper.)

Screen Shot 2015-05-04 at 07.51.49

Wharton

 

 

We are all guilty! The essential Dr Heinz Kiosk

Dr Heinz Kiosk: gimlet or X-ray intellect

Dr Heinz Kiosk: X-ray intellect

‘We are all guilty!’ is the cry of Dr Heinz Kiosk, perhaps the most important person of science of the last hundred years.

The great social psychologist is currently, among many other things, chief psychiatric adviser to the Meringue, Éclair and Profiterole Authority. (See Michael Wharton’s ‘Peter Simple’ column in the London Daily Telegraph newspaper.)

Fellow doctor and Kiosk exegete Theodore Dalrymple provides a concise summary of Kiosk doctrine:

  • Self-blame is salutary (as long as it is abstract and collective rather than individual)
  • It is incumbent on those of superior moral sensibility — the Brahmin caste of moral philosophy — to express self-blame on others’ behalf
  • People of superior moral sensibility are not like the mass, who see only appearances
  • People of superior moral sensibility make no hasty censorious judgments
  • People of superior moral sensibility suffer no vulgar prejudices
  • People of superior moral sensibility see through to the moral reality of things with a gimlet or X-ray intellect
  • The root cause of social dysfunction, or ‘evil’ as it is called by the ignorant and obscurantist, is always in us, the us in question being our biological, cultural, or political ancestors, but never me
  • When anything terrible happens, or rather is done, we are to blame for it, not the — merely apparent — perpetrators
  • We are responsible: I am not
  • We have done something to make them behave badly
  • If it were not for us the world would be a peaceful, happy place
  • We are ultimately responsible for all the ‘evil’ in the world
  • We are all guilty!
Wharton

Wharton

Deeply meaningful drivel

Screen Shot 2014-12-27 at 22.26.38

 

 

 

 

 

Dalrymple draws attention to the slogan ‘I would prefer not to’ on a T-shirt worn by Slavoj Žižek as the Slovenian charlatan-philosopher delivers what is, to put it most kindly, a rambling and daft speech on the subject of ‘freedom’. The T-shirt, writes Dalrymple, covers Žižek’s

capacious trunk, the bulk of which indicates that if he is opposed to the consumer society on ideological grounds he is nevertheless no ascetic.

The slogan sported by Žižek is of the same genre as the 1970s London railway-line graffito ‘Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere’, which Michael Wharton used as the title of one of his collections of ‘Peter Simple’ columns.

Screen Shot 2014-12-27 at 15.20.34Screen Shot 2014-12-27 at 15.23.54

 

 

If Žižek did not exist, says Dalrymple,

it would be necessary to invent him. He is deliciously, archetypally intellectual; he incarnates the satirist’s idea of what an intellectual should be. His Central European accent is perfect: it would be impossible to say anything in it that was superficial. He understands the workings of the universe so well that he has no time or energy left over to look other than a mess.

Modern England’s contribution to sacred architecture

The bishop as rendered by Michael ffolkes

Spacely-Trellis by ffolkes

The church-cum-kitchenette. Dr Spacely-Trellis, the go-ahead Bishop of Bevindon, as chronicled by Michael Wharton (‘Peter Simple’), would greatly have approved of this innovation.

We are all guilty!

Scan 1

Kiosk, by ffolkes

This was the cry of Dr Heinz Kiosk, the eminent social psychologist and chief psychiatric adviser to the Meringue, Éclair and Profiterole Authority, in Michael Wharton’s ‘Peter Simple’ column in the London Daily Telegraph newspaper. It is also the heading atop an article on the Western economic mess in which Dalrymple makes the point that

it is not only governments that have been improvident and have spent well beyond their means; millions, scores of millions, of perfectly ordinary people have done so as well. Our banks were no good, our government was no good, and we were no good.

Scan

Wharton