In this chapter, we highlight the role of psychiatry in defining and enforcing the boundaries of normalcy as informed by the needs of the ruling class of any society in which it is practiced, fundamentally critiquing any analysis of psychiatry that does not consider the field as a nationalist project. As education is not always formal or literal, we unpack how psychiatric legitimacy is created and enforced through two case studies that highlight psychiatric communication through public education efforts. While writings in political psychiatry acknowledge the field’s nationalistic role under authoritarian regimes, these writings tend to dismiss psychiatric practice within democracies as somehow non-political or not explicitly nationalistic. We articulate forms of political psychiatric practice in Iran and Canada to demonstrate psychiatry as nationalistically bound everywhere, disturbing any notion of the field as somehow neutral, objective, or apolitical in any of its cultural manifestations. We engage in maddening political psychiatry discourses by reframing psychiatry as always-already political, thus ushering critiques of the field as an explicitly nationalist project. In maddening psychiatry and mental health as framed through political psychiatry, we aim to untangle assumptions about the legitimacy of psychiatric diagnoses in democracies while carefully separating analyses of systemic applications of psychiatric concepts for the purpose of removing dissidents as practiced under some authoritarian regimes. Through our exercise of maddening, we offer a multiplicity: while all practices of psychiatry are always-already political and nationalistically bound, psychiatric applications used to remove and undermine political dissidence in organized ways demonstrate one form of coercive hegemonic power, with implications for populations living under both authoritarian regimes and democracies. Stated differently, while careful not to equate psychiatric coercion as it manifests under authoritarian regimes vs under democracies, we unearth underlying psychiatric practice as nationalistically bound and oriented in order to gesture towards the implications of psychiatric authority over defining the boundaries of social and behavioural normalcy everywhere that the field is practiced.