Well put.

The important takeaway from this is that modern clinical/counseling psychology doesn't attempt to study what is healthy and influence culture accordingly. Instead, it attempts to use post-hoc rationalizations to enforce a popular and completely unscientific (in the sense of being generated by no objective research) definition of what acceptable behaviour is.

There is no qualitative difference between the modern christian cherrypicking a "bible" (which was already cherrypicked by the council of Nicaea) to generate post-hoc rationalizations for white western European tradconism, and a "psychologist" citing a DSM made of post-hoc rationalizations for globalist homogenized left-wing humanism.

In either case, the respective philosophy began not with "here are the facts, what course of action do they imply?", but with "here is the desired course of action, what facts can we find to support it?". (Which is what I mean by "post-hoc rationalization" in this context.

Example: in the DSM 2, homosexuality is called out as a "paraphilia", hence a type of mental disorder to be treated and dealt with as a mental health issue. However, in the DSM 4, it's not. It's considered a perfectly normal, sane, and healthy lifestyle and not called out at all.

Now, whether you think homosexual is a sickness or not isn't the point here. The point is that psychology, as practiced, collectively had an idea, that idea changed 180 degrees, and that change was not driven by any objective research, but rather by a change in popular opinion.

That which changes based on popular opinion, rather than objective investigation, is not a science.