Showing posts with label Hal Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hal Brown. Show all posts

June 27, 2025

A new article and an old one about Trump's dangerous malignant narcissitic psychopathology prompted this Substack. By Hal M. Brown, MSW (Retired psychotherapist)

 




D. Earl Stephens1 wrote a piece in Raw Story+ (the subscription opinion section of the website) today and my comment, below, became my Substack for today. The title is Holy hell! I literally wrote the book on Trump but this has me stunned.Fortunately for those without a subscrption to RawStory+ the same article is on the author’s Substack, Enough Already, here with the title THE MORON - Our pathetic media has learned NOTHING the past decade while covering the stupidest, most dangerous man on the planet .

Stephens is the author of the Toxic Tales book shown below.

The only quibble I have with it is that the title in RawStory+ should read “a book” not “the book.” Except for the group of mental heath experts who contributed to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” nobody can claim they wrote “the” book on Trump. “Dangerous Case” could be considered “the” book since it and a second edition with addtional articles were best sellers.

Below is my comment to the RawStory+ article, including the illustrations I used:

Even before you published your book (shown above), in 2017 John D. Gartner, the clincial psychologist who started the Duty to Warn group, published a book based on Trump's Tweets. Salon has an article about it here: What Donald Trump’s tweets reveal about his mental health.  

Trump told us who, and what he was before he was elected the first time. Psychologically he can be viewed as a malignant narcissist who has a sadistic streak as wide as the stripe down a skunk's back. People with this diagnosis depending on the position they hold can just be unpleasant to deal with or the more power they have the more dangerous they become. Since Trump has become the most powerful person in the world the book that laid this out from the point of view of therapists was "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" edited by psychiatrist Bandy Lee. Gartner authored one of the chaprters. See Wikipedia page.  

This is from Wikipedia: 

The authors argue that Trump's mental health affects the mental health of the people of the United States and that he places the country at grave risk of involving it in a war and of undermining democracy itself due to his dangerous pathology.  Consequently, the authors claim that Trump's presidency represents an emergency which not only allows but requires psychiatrists in the United States to raise alarms.

Since 2016 as much as eminent mental health professionals like Bandy Lee, James Gilligan, Lance Dodes, John Gartner, Justin Frank, Robert Jay Lifton, Phillip Zimbardo, David Reiss, Steven Buser and others, including not so eminent ones like myself, tried to warn about Trump’s dangerous psychopathology our warnings and reasoning was relegated to progressive venues and media outlets like Salon, The Atlantic, MSNBC , and Daily Kos where I used to post my stories. (I now post in Substack here) In fact, only John Gartner as far as I can tell made it into the mainstream media with an article published in USA Today in May 2017 Donald Trump's Malignant Narcissism is Toxic. (He used the word toxic in the title the way Stephens did in his later book.)  It is no solace that the predictions of so many have come true. We (I include myself because I have been one of the therapists writing about this since 2017) tried to warn people. It's possible this had an effect after his first term when he lost to Joe Biden. Obviously we failed in 2024. I venture to say that none of us are surprised at what Trump has done. The only surprise I think most of us would agree on is that he was able to do it this quickly.

Now I am fleshing out this Substack by referencing this article and the comments myself and others made to it.

For those who want to go into more depth about Trump and the role of mental health professionals read this article which was published in the website Mad in America in 2020: Muzzled by Psychiatry in a Time of Crisis The Man in the White Coat, The New York Times and The Stifling of the Public Debate about Donald Trump’s Fitness to Serve as President

I forgot about this article until today. Looking at it I was reminded that a comment I posted to it led to a long string of comments and replies. Many are from Steve McCrea, a mental health professional who has made nearly 10,000 comments to article on this website.

I first wrote the following:

Thank you for this behind the scenes account which explains a great deal. As one of the early members of John D. Gartner’s Duty to Warn group I am surprised it is the first that I learned of it. (A video of a Gartner speech was also presented as part of the Yale conference – you can read it here: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/23/1655450/-Exclusive-Dr-John-Gartner-s-speech-to-Yale-Duty-to-Warn-Conference-on-Trump-s-mental-unfitness

Both the APA and Dr. Allen Frances did a lot of harm. The latter is the psychiatrist who says that because he wrote the DSM criteria for narcissistic personality disorder he is the only one qualified to say Trump doesn’t fit the definition because he doesn’t suffer or perceive any ill effects. (see https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/2/16239892/allen-frances-twilight-american-sanity-goldwater-rule-trump-personality-disorder).

Since 2016 as much as eminent mental health professionals like Bandy Lee, James Gilligan, Lance Dodes, John Gartner, Justin Frank, Robert Jay Lifton, Phillip Zimbardo, David Reiss, Steven Buser and others including not so eminent ones like myself, tried to warn about Trump’s dangerous psychopathology. Our reasoning was relegated to progressive venues and media outlets like Salon, The Atlantic, MSNBC , and Daily Kos where I post my stories. In fact, only John Gartner as far as I can tell made it into the mainstream media with articles published in USA Today.

We should take issue with the argument put forth by Allen Francis because it is a ludicrous one (people with NPD like those with anti-social personality, don’t usually suffer, they make other people suffer). The leaders of the American Psychiatric Associate and their adherence to the Goldwater rule as if it was superglued to the Hippocratic Oath really kept the responsible mental health community from getting the message out that Trump was dangerous, not only because he was an autocrat but also because he was a malignant narcissist with no conscience or empathy and is an exemplar for The Dark Triad, the deadly combination of extreme narcissism, sociopathy, and megalomania.

To find the comment thread my post led to scroll down the comment section until you see what I copied above. I won’t report all of them. They are long and detailed. I will just post my response to this one from Steve McCrea, another mental health professional:

Steve McCrea April 26, 2020 at 10:04 pm

I appreciate both your viewpoint and the civil tone of the discussion. I think the challenge that professionals (and I qualify as one) face here is that concern for safety of the nation can be very legitimate without invoking any kind of “mental illness” as a causal factor. There are plenty of people who are willing to kill other people who have no “mental illness” at all, even by DSM standards. They just think killing people is a good way to solve certain problems. They may even have their own internal “ethics” of when it is and isn’t OK to kill. In some cultures, it may even be required to kill someone if one’s honor is sufficiently undermined.

It is in my view utterly impossible to disentangle “personality disorders” from problems of ethics, morality, and social values. Until and unless there is an objective way to “diagnose” someone with a verifiable “mental illness,” we’re building castles in the air. I’d rather go back to philosophy and ethics to handle this kind of situation. Bringing in “mental illnesses” just adds confusion and controversy.

Here’s my reply:

Steve, I see you live in Portland too, but this is besides the point since what with Covid-19 it may be 1-2 years before we can even consider discussing our different opinions in person.

That being said I think whether done from a distance or not diagnosis has never been precise. When I started working the DSM was nothing more than a little booklet with pages held together by plastic clasps. The the pressure of insurance companies led to the requirement we diagnose. My psychoanalyst friends find making a diagnosis irrelevant for most of their patients. Who when push comes to shove would probably just say they were neurotic or in the most difficult clients perhaps borderline and if they needed a diagnosis would use the code we used in community mental health for years, 309.28.

I think the conceptualization of Trump as a malignant narcissist which was first offered by John Gartner is very useful. As I’m sure everyone reading this knows the personality type never made it into a DSM after it was described by Erich Fromm as a combination of NPD, sociopathic disorder, aggression, and sadism. He described it as a “severe mental sickness” representing “the quintessence of evil”. He characterized the condition as “the most severe pathology and the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity” (Wikipedia)

No less than the distinguished psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg built on Fromm’s conceptualization. Again from Wikipedia, he noted that “malignant narcissism includes a sadistic element creating, in essence, a sadistic psychopath. In his article, “malignant narcissism” and psychopathy are employed interchangeably. Kernberg first proposed malignant narcissism as a psychiatric diagnosis in 1984.”

Of course it never became a diagnostic category, but this doesn’t mean the combination of other disorders can’t exist in one person. Add to that the third element of what is called the Dark Triad along with sociopathy and extreme narcissism, megalomania, and the power of the president, and you have an incredibly dangerous psychopathology.

Who better to explain this to the public, and to members of Congress as Bandy Lee has to Democratic members, than mental health experts? Those who understand this have a moral and ethical responsibility to sound the alarm as Bandy Lee who doesn’t outright diagnose but still makes the case for Trump having a psychiatric assessment, and others like those in my first comment have been doing. Should we leave it up to lawyers like George Conway who wrote GEORGE CONWAY SAYS TRUMP IS A ‘MALIGNANT NARCISSIST’: HE’S ‘BOTH MENTALLY DISORDERED AND EVIL’ in Newsweek?

I don’t think so. If you had a client who told you their spouse or partner was abusing a child or threatening to harm someone it would be very clear that even without the legal backing of Tarasoff you would also have a duty to warn – a moral and ethical obligation to use what you know as a psychotherapist to protect someone in danger.

As the book title says, in the dangerous case of Donald Trump because of our being experts in assessing psychopathology in person and , when we have an incredible amount of data from observations, from afar we are the only people with the training and expertise to warn about the most dangerous person in America.

Steve took over replying to numerous comments before I posted my last one in response to Gracie:

Hal Brown,

From the daughter of a narcissist, and a close family member of a 2nd, but infinitely more abnormal and dangerous malignant narcissist, thank you for speaking out and thank you for this very sensible comment.

Those of us from around the world, as well as in the US, who have survived a malignant narcissist up close for years recognised Trump very quickly. Malignant narcissists can “ never be wrong” are hyper vigilant in their application of their psychopathy/sociopathy, devoid of empathy or conscience, delighting in sadistic pleasure, and absolutely are not just abusive, but dangerous, homicidally dangerous, deliberately dangerous.

To leave someone we recognise as an extreme example of this condition in a position of national, international, and most importantly, nuclear power is unconscionable.

To leave them in that position of power when they could be curbed or replaced with a person of the same political party is a dereliction.

To deliberately, consistently, attempt to stop people most qualified to speak on this type of person is unconscionable.

To go further to stop the media from talking about it is staggering and blatantly self-serving in some respect, whether in terms of power, political, or financially.

In years to come, IMHO, there will be a reckoning in the US, and many millions saying “why weren’t we told”.

This is what I wrote:

Gracie,

I am sorry you had these experiences and learned the hard way how toxic these people are.

In my 40 years of practice I saw many people, mostly women, who felt trapped in close relationships with extreme or malignant narcissists. If you do a web search for surviving living with a narcissist you will find numerous articles… 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+survive+living+with+a+narcissist&t=h_&ia=web

If you search Amazon there are dozens of books with title like “Emotional and Narcissistic Abuse: The Complete Survival Guide to Understanding Narcissism, Escaping the Narcissist in a Toxic Relationship Forever, and Your Road to Recovery”

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=surviving+living+with+a+narcissist&ref=nb_sb_noss

Here’s a very brief therapy primer for treating victims of abusive relationship:

Once a trusting relationship is built, successful therapy with such people has several primary aspects. As therapists we help our clients build their self-esteem and gain insight as to what in their own personality keeps them in such a toxic relationship. But we also educate them as to why their abuser will never change no matter how many times they promise to do so. We essentially diagnose them from A DISTANCE as an extreme narcissist, sometimes combined with sociopaths, who are often master emotional manipulators. We sometimes recommend they read books on the subject.

Americans are married to Trump. Some married him the way women marry abusive men, falling in love with someone who manipulated them. Impeachment should have been a divorce. It didn’t work.

Congratulations to anyone who actually made it to the end of this lengthy Substack and who actually read every word. For thos who skimmed it I hope you got the idea. Put simply, mental health professionals were warning about Trump since 2017 and now everything they anticipated would happen, and worse, has be born out.

1

(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters”and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here.)

Thanks for reading my Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and show that you support my work.

This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Leave a comment

Read previous Substacks.

Recent:

July 13, 2024

Trumps "Truth" posts add up to the only psychological test you need to diagnose Donald Trump as a dangerous maniac. All the leaders of our allies need to do to be terrifed that he'll be the next president is to read them, by Hal Brown, MSW


In 2017 Dr. John Gartner, the founder of Duty to Warn, wrote 

All I Ever Wanted to Know about Donald Trump I Learned From His Tweets: A Psychological Exploration of the President 



Currently his tweets on what was then called Twitter have been replaced by what he wants to call "truths" (thankfully not in the dictionary like "tweet" is) on Truth Social. Therefore, if one was to write an updated book the title would have to be changed. 

In 2019 The New York Times (subscription) published 

How Trump Reshaped the Presidency in Over 11,000 Tweets



This article was co-authored by Trump's on again off again pal Maggie Haberman and five other Times writers. It begins:

When Mr. Trump entered office, Twitter was a political tool that had helped get him elected and a digital howitzer that he relished firing. In the years since, he has fully integrated Twitter into the very fabric of his administration, reshaping the nature of the presidency and presidential power.

After Turkey invaded northern Syria this past month, he crafted his response not only in White House meetings but also in a series of contradictory tweets. This summer, he announced increased tariffs on $300 billion worth of Chinese goods, using a tweet to deepen tensions between the two countries. And in March, Mr. Trump cast aside more than 50 years of American policy, tweeting his recognition of Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan Heights. He openly delighted in the reaction he provoked.

“Boom. I press it,” Mr. Trump recalled months later at a White House conference attended by conservative social media personalities, “and, within two seconds, ‘We have breaking news.’”

Flash forward to when Trump lost the election. Trump's tweets, and then his truths, gave us a deeper insight into how his mind functioned. It hasn't been pretty.

He used these to send personal vicious messages to individuals but also to the country since he knew the more inflamatory ones would be shared in the media. This is from the Times article:

“Boom. I press it,” Mr. Trump recalled months later at a White House conference attended by conservative social media personalities, “and, within two seconds, ‘We have breaking news.’”

Whether or not the leaders of our allies or our enemies (some of whom may very well have secret channels to communicate with him) are following what Trump says at his rallies, it's reasonable to assume that they are people with subscriptions to Truth Social. A message to us is also a message to them.

I don't know if Trump cares that leaders and residents in other countries would be reading these too and would be wondering what would happen if this unhinged revenge fueled lunatic became president again. Perhaps, given that he's a malignant narcissist, he wants them to be terrified of him. He wants to be feared. It makes him feel powerful. This is the nature of the beast.

Our allies may see Trump as a clown, but they also see him as a dangerous clown:


Above: AI Generated image

Can you imagine what leaders of NATO thought when they heard that told a rally crowd that he “didn’t even know” much about NATO before he became president — but claimed he figured it out fast. (More from the rally speech on bottom of page). Trump was bragging about what a fast learner he was when he said this when if fact he was revealing what an ignorant dolt he was.

Obviously Trump thinks that video clips of his swinging a golf club are impressive or he wouldn't post them (someone shares the Truth Social posts on X):

Between what comes through Trump's brain and out of his mouth and what pops into his mind and onto Truth Social via his stubby fingers leaders of the world's democracies are no doubt dreading the possiblity he'll become president again.

From the rally speech:

Today he’s (Biden) with the people from NATO and these people show up. I know very well every one of them. They’re very smart. They’re at the top of their game, and then they’re saying, “What the hell is with this guy? We know we can’t figure out –”

You know I saved NADDO [sic] because when I went down — hey, Barack Hussein Obama, has anyone ever heard of him?

He would go, he would go and, you know, go to wherever the holding had a meeting and he’d make a nice speech and Bush would go and make a nice speech and he would leave, in all fairness. Bush, Bush!

But he makes a nice speech and they’re all going to make speeches, and then they wouldn’t even stay there a day.

I went and didn’t make a nice speech. I said, what the hell are you doing? Nobody’s paying, nobody was paying.

And I didn’t want to be obnoxious because I felt it was the first time I’d ever done this. And what? I didn’t even know what the hell NATO was too much before, but it didn’t take me long to figure it out. Like about two minutes.

And the first thing I figured out was they weren’t paying. We were paying. We were paying almost fully for, you know, and and I said, that’s unfair, but I didn’t want to make a big mess.

And I was president in — for about 15 minutes. And I didn’t want you to know go after NATO as my first —

But, but six months later, I went back to the second meeting and I said, you know what? You’re not paying your bills. You got to pay your bills. So somebody stood up from from one of the countries, 28 countries, and only seven were paying what they should be paying. 28 countries, think of that. And these countries now we added a couple but 28 countries. And they said, sir, could I ask you? I said, “you have to pay your bills.”

They said, “Sir, may I ask you a question. If we don’t pay your bills, will you protect us from Russia?”

I said, “You mean you’re delinquent?”

They said, “Yes, we’re delinquent. Let’s say we’re delinquent, will you protect us?”

I said, “No, I will not protect you from Russia.”

The money came in by the billions!


You can read this and previous blogs on two websites and on Substack. One may look better than the other because of how the platforms present the page.

Read on the WordPress Stressline.org (you can subscrbe to this on the upper left)

or….

Read on the Google Blogger platform HalBrown.org This version has a Disquis comment section which makes it easy to post links and images.

or… Hal’s Substack where you can sing up to get an email when I post a new blog.



September 23, 2023

Wash. Post exposed Jim Jordan as the Disinformation Devil

Background:
Hieronymus Bosch/The Last Judgment
If it's on Amazon and Red Bubble does this mean it's true?


By Hal Brown

There's a good lead article in The Washington Post (which unfortunately you need a subscription to read) which I posted a comment to.

An escalating campaign, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Republicans, has cast a pall over programs that study political disinformation and the quality of medical information online

This morning this was the main story on the website:

The Post uses the term misinformation while I use disinformation mostly because it sounds better with Devil. There is a subtle diffeence between the two. Misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive while disinformation is defined as false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.

Here's my comment:

Critical thinking should be taught early in primary school. Children are exposed at an early age to lies and distortions in television advertising so when they become consumers themselves they will believe commercials which sell products with exaggerated or bogus claims. The tendency for people to believe what they want to believe, at its most benign is exploited by companies that want to sell their new improved product when hasn't really changed for 50 years. Societally the way this human characteristic is taken advantage of by people who want not only your money (which they do want) but your votes is far from harmless.  

In the Bible Jesus says about Satan, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

The Devil is in the details and when the details are distorted, twisted, turned upside-down and inside-out the Devil wins and truth and, dare I say, humankind is harmed.

(Full disclosure: I am an atheist so this is meant to be a metaphor, though if the Devil existed I think Jim Jordan would have made a deal with him.)

The three comments that preceded mine:

The Post article begins:

Academics, universities and government agencies are overhauling or ending research programs designed to counter the spread of online misinformation amid a legal campaign from conservative politicians and activists who accuse them of colluding with tech companies to censor right-wing views.


The escalating campaign — led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Republicans in Congress and state government — has cast a pall over programs that study not just political falsehoods but also the quality of medical information online.


It includes a photo of Jim Jordan surrounded by reporterswith the caption: Academics, universities and government agencies are overhauling or ending research programs designed to counter the spread of online misinformation amid a legal campaign from conservative politicians and activists who accuse them of colluding with tech companies to censor right-wing views.

The escalating campaign — led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Republicans in Congress and state government — has cast a pall over programs that study not just political falsehoods but also the quality of medical information online.



The authors of the article interviewed more than two dozen professors, government officials, physicians, nonprofits and research funders. Many of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss their internal deliberations freely, describe an escalating campaign emerging as online propaganda is rising.

They note that "public health officials are grappling with medical misinformation, as the United States heads into the fall and winter virus season."

If you think it's hyperbole for me to call Rep. Jordan the Devil of Disinformation consider this:

In recent weeks, Jordan has sent a new round of record requests to at least two recipients of grants from the National Science Foundation’s Convergence Accelerator program, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The program, one of many run by the independent agency to promote research, awards funding to groups creating tools or techniques to mitigate misinformation, such as software for journalists to identify misinformation trending online.


The article concludes with the following:

Many academics, independent scholars and philanthropic funders are discussing how to collectively defend the disinformation research field. One proposal would create a group to gather donations into a central fund to pay for crisis communications and — most critically — legal support if one of them gets sued or subpoenaed in a private case or by Congress. The money could also fund cybersecurity counseling to ward off hackers and stalkers and perhaps physical security as well.

“There is this growing sense that there need to be resources to allow for freedom of thought and academic independence,” said one longtime philanthropy grant maker who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.

University academics are also mulling ways to rebrand their work to attract less controversy. One leader in a university disinformation research center said scholars have discussed using more generic terms to describe their work such as “information integrity” or “civic participation online.” Those terms “have less of a bite to them,” said a person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak on the private discussions. Similar conversations are occurring within public health agencies, another person said.

“This whole area of research has become radioactive,” the person said.

Literal radioactivity can kill whether it is gamma radiation from a bomb, lingering radioactive dust, nuclear plant meltdown like occured after the Chernobyl disaster, or polonium-210 which was used as an assassination weapon against Alexander Litvinenko. 

The kind of radioactivty described in the article can not only kill research it can also kill people whether it comes from convincing people they don't need to get Covid and other vaccinations or from thwarting climate and medical research and sharing factual information and stopping the promulgation of lies about science.

Addendum:

Apparently a MAGA troll has a subscription to the Post and posted this. Note the two replies.
The commenter "Lecrtius do good" in a somewhat different way said what I said:

When everyone decided "liberal arts" was useless and education just became a worker job factory to learn "skills" and "earning power" then the path was set.

Whoever thought philosophy in high school and university was useless, well this is what we got. Usually this was pumped by the Right because (according to them) money is a value in and of itself and truth isn't a value. The Left jumped in the fray promoting postmodernism at the expense of thoughts of objectivity.
Afterword:

When people learn to engage in critical thinking from an early age they are less likely to be taken in by the propaganda promulgated by pros whether they work in government or for advertising agencies. When children pester their parents to buy sugary treats it may seem harmless for them to give in, but as adults they will waste their money buying useless products like Prevagen which is selling well enough so they can afford to pay for commercials on MSNBC where I'd hope viewers are more adept at critical thinking than those who watch Fox News.

For more on this read my blog:

Gullible people who believe Donald Trump may also believe anti-vaxxers like RFK Jr. and Dr. Zach Bush, and snake oil salespeople pushing products like Prevagen


Related: This was my New Yorker daily calendar cartoon yesterday:




How about a big inflatable alligator eating Trump for the next protest? Trump, among his many weird obsessions, Hannibal Lector for example, has one with alligators. Let's turn this against him.

Above is the best inflatable alligator to use for this which I could find on Amazon. The others had their mouths closed.  Here’s the link.  ...