Freud a psychopath? Certainly!

[nature]

There is this french guy named Hervé Ryussen said the theme of incest is a recurring theme among jewish artists and intellectuals, most of the time suggested in an ambiguous way, strongly suggesting that incest was widespread in jewish familly. Freud clients were mostly ashkenazi jews. No wonder his clients displayed degrees of hysteria of cosmic proportions. Basically the whole oedipus complex was just Freud projecting theirs perversions on the whole of 'goyim' populations.

the video is in french unfortunately

I watched the video, it's . Here some passages:

- lots of people in the cinema, show biz etc, much more I imagined, are from jew families, and lived the incest, nearly all! He gives some examples.
- At the end (31.37) , there is a show in english, where a woman explains how, as a child, she had to sacrifice a baby, and it was considered normal, and conducted by her parents, even her mother !!
- at 7.50; He notes " the feminist movement was launched by jewish women who projected on european society their guilt instead of simply blaming their father and their mother."
- at 10.55: about E. Badinter (french richissime elite) 's book. He says (I translate in english)
" Elisabeth Badinter in her book l'un et l'autre [one and the oher] explains how this incest affair is something natural. She writes ' the erotic bond between the mother and her child is not limited to oral satisfactions. It's her who reveals the sensuality initiated to pleasure, teaches him to love his body. The good mother is naturally incestiuous and pedophile.' She supports 'the right to incest' and wants us to recognize ' that incest is not necessary a perversion neither a mental malady, but can sometimes be benefic' . "

 

[thorbiorn]

I think it's absolutely safe to say that Freud almost single-handedly screwed up the field of psychology and his pernicious influence on Western civilization can hardly be overstated. The sexual "liberation" of the 60ies, identity politics etc. are unthinkable without his influence IMO (a result of the unholy alliance between Freudianism and Marxism).

With respect to the process of this development, the theoretical combination of Freudianism and Marxism in the Frankfurt School, that formulated Critical Theory played a role:

To fill the omissions of 19th-century classical Marxism, which could not address 20th-century social problems, they applied the methods of antipositivist sociology, of psychoanalysis, and of existentialism.[3] The School’s sociologic works derived from syntheses of the thematically pertinent works of Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx, of Sigmund Freud and Max Weber, and of Georg Simmel and Georg Lukács.[4][5]

The latter was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher:
Critical theory - Wikipedia has

Frankfurt School critical theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.[2] Critical theory was established as a school of thought primarily by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm.

I wouldn't say there is nothing of value in Critical Theory, much depends on how a theory is interpreted and used. One use has been by the postmodenists:

Postmodern critical research is also characterized by the crisis of representation, which rejects the idea that a researcher's work is an "objective depiction of a stable other". Instead, many postmodern scholars have adopted "alternatives that encourage reflection about the 'politics and poetics' of their work. In these accounts, the embodied, collaborative, dialogic, and improvisational aspects of qualitative research are clarified".[16]

The term "critical theory" is often appropriated when an author works within sociological terms, yet attacks the social or human sciences (thus attempting to remain "outside" those frames of inquiry). Michel Foucault is one of these authors.[17]

Jean Baudrillard has also been described as a critical theorist to the extent that he was an unconventional and critical sociologist;[18] this appropriation is similarly casual, holding little or no relation to the Frankfurt School.[19]

Jürgen Habermas of The Frankfurt School is one of the key critics of postmodernism.[20]

Critical theory - Wikipedia
One could probably generate a concept map of the influences, although it is easy to end up with overgeneralizations and too few nuances. Risking that it could be begin with Freud + Marx +...+ > Critical Theory, (CT) (Modernist interpretation) >CT+ Michel Foucault>Postmodern Critical Theory.

 

[luc]

I wouldn't say there is nothing of value in Critical Theory, much depends on how a theory is interpreted and used. One use has been by the postmodenists:

Indeed, and one shouldn't make the mistake of coming up with too simple a story about the genesis of such ideas. For example, I think Steven Hicks falls into that trap in "Postmodernism explained" and lumps all thinkers who said anything that was used by some postmodernist together. His Ayn Rand-inspired philosophy strikes me as way too simplistic in its antagonism against anything "continental". Roger Scruton on the other hand does a great job IMO navigating all that (he even acknowledges the good points made by Sartre) and recognizing the great contribution of German philosophy (Kant, Hegel etc.) in acknowledging the importance of the mind and consciousness.

Anyway, a crucial intellectual underpinning of the 60ies revolution and the sexual liberation was the idea that we are forced by the patriarchy to "repress" our sexuality, therefore developing neurosis, and that the remedy is to tear down any societal restrictions and sexual taboos. A sort of class struggle of the sexually repressed against the evil bourgeois class.

 

[Maat]

There are also lots of non pathological ones. It's as always, the strengh of publicity (cf the story of the nude imperator), of a petty group leading the mass, like many examples today, in the medical field, in the social field, in arts. Also in science like the Darwin's theory.

When I was young and studied psychology at university, it was Freud, Freud, Freud, and... Freud ! I always had some problem with this, and it's only now (with all the knowledge gathered in between), that I understand why this "gut feeling", to put it that way.

 

[wmu9]

French speakers, does he mention Lacan (I'm sure he must). But does he mention Lacan's influence on American Humanities (ie killing it)? Thank you.

 

[Jones]

In her recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens mentions the following book on Freud - The Assault on Truth by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. Masson was the project director for Freud Archives and the book that contains letters and writings by Freud that were previously not published with the blessing of Anna Freud. Amazons blurb:

In 1896, Sigmund Freud presented his revolutionary “seduction theory,” arguing that acts of sexual abuse and violence inflicted on children are the direct cause of adult mental illness. Nine years later, Freud completely reversed his position, insisting that these sexual memories were actually fantasies that never happened. Why did Freud retract the seduction theory? And why has the psychoanalytic community gone to such lengths to conceal that retraction? In this landmark book, drawing on his unique access to formerly sealed and hidden papers, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson dares to uncover the truth about this critical turning point in Freud’s career and its enduring impact on the theory and practice of psychoanalysis. 



The Assault on Truth reveals a reality that neither Freud nor his followers could bear to face. Bracing in its honesty, gripping in its revelations, this is the book that prompted Masson’s break with the psychoanalytic community—and launched his subsequent brilliant career as an independent thinker and writer.

 

[Yas]

In her recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens mentions the following book on Freud - The Assault on Truth by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. Masson was the project director for Freud Archives and the book that contains letters and writings by Freud that were previously not published with the blessing of Anna Freud.

I'm halfway through it and it's a very interesting book. I think that, so far, the author tries to give Freud the benefit of the doubt, but what he exposes is indeed pretty disturbing in the sense that Freud really went against reality and proclaimed that all stories of childhood abuse were only fantasies made up by children and hysteric women.

What's so weird is that at the beginning Freud did publish a paper where he himself stated that the stories he was hearing from his patients were indeed true and that childhood abuse was in fact the main cause of mental illness. But then he went on a truly downward spiral, adopted the idea of childhood abuse as "childhood fantasies" and went against people who, inside the psychoanalytic movement, believed that perhaps what the patients were saying was true. And there were lots of "flying monkeys" around Freud who followed him in discrediting whoever dared to challenge his ideas. Even Anna Freud was upset about the fact that the author of this book decided to go this way and he was actually removed from his position and ostracized by the psychoanalytic movement when he presented his findings to them.

Reading these letters, Freud strikes me as a weak individual who wanted fame and the approval from men he admired. There's a story about a particular individual who seems rather psychopathic or schizoid and was very close to Freud and very influential in bringing him to believe in the "all is a childhood fantasy" idea. This story makes me wonder if Freud had some sort of homosexual relationship with this man. It seems to me that it could be the case that Freud himself wasn't an abuser but he was morally and psychologically weak which made him prefer to suppress the truth and believe in lies so that he could be accepted and become famous, rather than be brave and defend the truth and face the consequences.

Anna Freud herself told the author of the book that if it wasn't for this "change in perspective" Psychoanalysis wouldn't exist and Freud wouldn't have "discovered" all that followed, like the Oedipus complex. My thought is that, yes, that's exactly true. Psychoanalysis became so popular and widespread only because they chose to believe in lies, and those so-called "discoveries" that came afterwards were only possible because Freud decided to believe in fantasies himself and that opened him to fantasize even more and proclaim it all as "theory". But when Anna Freud tells it, she tells it as if defending the fact that Freud changed his mind, instead of realizing that the reason why this is the case is probably because powerful people wanted this narrative to be spread and believed because that would help them rationalize and even defend the abuse they were committing. And that's is the case with so many "thinkers" of all time which were promoted just because they portrayed views that were convenient for the predators in our reality.

It made me think about this nutjob Yuval Noah Harari, who perhaps by himself would be harmless and just a nutjob, but because he is being promoted by powerful people, his ideas get much more exposure than what they should and people then believe in the fantasies they created about him (e.g. "he is such a clever man with very interesting ideas", etc.).

Anyway, great book so far, horrifying at times, but very interesting.

 

[4d candidate]

I don't know if this is the right thread, but I'm wondering if one psychopath can cause such massive damage, how much more serious harm can others do to humanity? Freud's theories always seemed bizarre, detached from reality, and completely lost on me. I lacked the necessary knowledge, skills, and ability for in-depth analysis, but if the greatest psychoanalysts admired him, what could I, a mere human, do with it? Only his origins clarified many things for me, and this thread allowed me to process what I had long suspected, without any argument in hand. I thought I'd ask AI a question: tell me, what percentage of all Nobel Prizes awarded since the beginning of the 20th century, in all fields, went to Jews or people with at least one parent of Jewish descent. I received this answer:
Approximately one-fifth of all Nobel Prizes awarded since the beginning of the 20th century have gone to individuals of Jewish descent.

The exact percentage of Nobel Prize laureates who were Jewish or had at least one parent of Jewish origin is difficult to determine precisely. However, numerous analyses indicate that they represent a significant portion of all recipients. Different sources provide slightly different figures, but all confirm a disproportionately high representation of people of Jewish descent among Nobel laureates.

According to estimates, at least 20% of all individual Nobel Prize laureates have Jewish roots. This means that over 200 of the approximately 1,000 awarded individuals are of Jewish descent. Some sources report even higher numbers, reaching as high as 22% or one-quarter of all prizes.

An analysis of laureates in specific periods also shows a growing trend. In the first half of the 20th century, individuals of Jewish descent won 14% of the awards; in the second half of the 20th century, this percentage rose to 29%, and in the 21st century, it stands at 32% so far.

Total Number of Laureates

As of 2023, the Nobel Prize had been awarded 627 times to a total of 1012 people and organizations. There were 976 individual laureates. Current data for November 2024 indicates 987 individual laureates.

Polish Nobel Laureates with Jewish Roots

It is also worth noting that many Nobel Prize laureates who were born in Poland or had Polish roots were of Jewish descent. These include, among others, Tadeusz Reichstein, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Joseph Rotblat, Georges Charpak, and Roald Hoffmann.
So I asked AI to estimate as accurately as possible the number of Jews or people of Jewish descent with at least one Jewish parent on Earth in 2024, and that number is 18 million. Even if the underestimate is 100% and the number of Jews is twice as high, this represents approximately 0.44% of the planet's population, so it's likely somewhere between 0.22% and 0.44% of the total population.
In this context, it seems reasonable to conclude that we are dealing with a nation, or rather a genetically related religious/secular group, that are geniuses in every field and discipline. Since in the first half of the 20th century, as many as 14% of Jews received Nobel Prizes, and in the 21st century, 32% of all awards in all fields of science, this is still a remarkable achievement.
The average person can easily be fooled into thinking that this must truly be God's chosen people, and that's why they've been expelled from many countries over the centuries. Such a person is completely unaware of the powerful Zionist-Cabbalistic lobby operating behind the scenes, corrupting, intimidating, threatening, and who knows what else, to ensure, for example, that the Nobel Prize goes to "our people," regardless of whether they're a distinguished scientist or a common liar and con artist. The C's once said: ,,Remember that the Nobel Prize is also politically motivated”, and who controls world politics if not psychopaths? As the saying goes, false history is the mother of false politics, so in this context, any norms of psychopathy that this small group exceeds compared to the populations of other countries/nations can partially explain the corrupt, mendacious, and bizarre world around us, and psychopaths, especially British, American, and German ones, work hand in hand.