Refuting Freud.

Vic Biorseth, Thursday, October 06, 2011
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

(This Refuting Freud page is another third-column gathering of linked articles treating a particular subject. Again, the scientific method was never applied to another universally accepted theory. Look to the articles linked to in the right hand column of this webpage for the details.)

We saw, in Refuting Darwin, how general acceptance of Darwinian Theory moved Western man from theistic (and therefore theistically moral) belief in the direction of atheistic (and therefore amoral) belief. The observable results have been negative for society.

We saw, in Refuting Marx, how general indoctrination of Marxian theory moved Western man from natural free markets and natural individual liberty in the direction of planned economies and controlled societies.

In this page, Refuting Freud, we see how general acceptance of Freudian theory moved Western man from recognition of sexual norms and a sense of chastity and sexual decency in the direction of sexual license, acceptance of perversion and total “sexual liberation.” Further, Freudian theory moves us to the opposite of the recognition of sin and associated guilt, to “losing inhibitions” and “feeling good” about ourselves, no matter what we do.

Of the three greatest frauds of Western thought, Darwin, Freud and Marx, it is difficult to say which of the three has done the most damage to Western man’s sense of morality – his ability to tell simple right from wrong. I submit that a fixed sense of morality is the foundation of what we all know as simple common sense. When a common social sense of morality declines, society itself begins an inexorable drift into nonsense.

1. Darwinism – while it may not have been Darwin’s intent – moves man away from belief in God and thus toward an open, random orientation.
2. Freudianism moves man away from “guilt” and “inhibitions” to a self-centered sense of well being and self-esteem. This necessarily means opposition to the religious ideas of sin, vice vs. virtue, etc.
3. Marxism – and it was indeed Marx’s intent – moves man away from actual liberty and toward actual total subservience to a new ruler, or death.

I have held from the beginning that Darwinism and Freudianism “feed” Marxism; they are preparatory ideologies that set the stage for man’s dissatisfaction with everything around him, and soften him to the idea of revolution against the status quo. Whenever man moves, or is moved, to the center of creation, man seeks to make creation “perfect.” Perfection is not of this world, but the next; however, modern man – sophisticated, enlightened and atheist – does not believe in the next world. To him, this world is all there is, and it is his assumed responsibility to make it perfect; to remake it in a new image.

This is, of course, nonsense.

Yet today we see highly educated and supposedly intelligent men actually seeking to legislate or regulate the weather and the climate, with lots of world-wide popular support for that effort. What can I say? What more needs to be said? This is not stewardship; this is very near insanity.

Freud’s wild theories involving the sub-conscious mind, repressed memory and deep psycho-analysis are, of course, not substantiated, not proven, not tested and not even observed. As you can see from the very first article linked to in the right hand column of this webpage, it is quite impossible to even observe all of these phenomena, let alone test them or prove them. It’s all cooked up out of thin air. Freud might just as well have been wearing a turban and gazing into a crystal ball.

Yet today you probably cannot throw a rock without hitting a celebrity, a high ranking official, a friend, acquaintance or fellow worker who has not undergone Freudian psycho-analysis, raves on and on about it, and is convinced that everyone ought to undergo psycho-analysis, because you learn so very much about yourself that you didn’t know. They have learned and can spout all the psycho-babble terminology and jargon, and they feel uplifted, and released from their former selves. Again, what can I say?

Freud was a drug abuser who was increasingly obsessed with topics sexual. He sexually abused his own clients on the psycho-analytical couch. He proved that he could induce in his “patients” solid memories of events that he knew had never occurred. He actually recorded this malpractice himself.

The term psycho-therapy involves getting your conscious mind in touch with its subconscious counterpart by digging to expose repressed memories to the light of day and make the conscious mind aware of them. See?

Freud is the most quoted and best known name in psychiatry and Freudian theory is the most accepted in the field today. Jung, and Jungian theory, comes in second. Carl Jung was a disciple of Freud, and they corresponded for years. Jung, too, sexually exploited his patients. Jung was a Gnostic, a weird spiritualist, who thought he could “channel” hidden mysteries from another Gnostic from circa 120 AD. Original Freudian theory involved the sub-conscious mind; Jung expanded on that, with full knowledge and encouragement from Freud, into the theory of the collective sub-conscious. In this theory, the “mind” is not constrained by the physical boundaries of the brain, but is just sort of floating around in space. Thus, it is possible to detect and work with a collection of these ephemeral subconscious minds, all at the same time. See?

The many subconscious minds that are floating around us at any point in time include those of the long dead, which is how Jung got in contact with his ancient Gnostic “mind” from circa 120 AD, and that revealed ancient hidden mysteries to him alone. See?

Remember, though, that what all psycho-analysts work with is the sub-conscious mind, whether individual or collective; that means it’s the mind that you (or anyone else) are not consciously aware of. See?

This is the absolute crap that the famous and popular Meyers Briggs Personality Test is based on. Jung took Freudianism into the realm of psycho-kinetics and magic tricks, and both Freud and Jung delved deeply into hypnosis, and into dream analysis, again, probably because they didn’t know how to properly deal with any conscious mind.

Then, of course, we had the input of Alfred Charles Kinsey to update Freudianism with the invention of sexology. (Yeah, now we have sexologists to tell us how to live, find happiness and be healthy.) This guy was a twisted sexual pervert, a pedophile and a complete fraud. His “science” was so bad that Freudianism should be renamed Fraudianism. I invite you to read the articles linked to in the right hand column to read the details. Kinsey had one, big, giant long-lasting group sex party at Indiana University and called it scientific research. This “research” actually involved sexual abuse of little children, including even infants. All of the “researchers,” including Kinsey, were actual, active participants in the many and wildly varied sexual activities being “studied.” That’s the way they do science at Indiana University.

Freudian theory today is one of the darlings of upper academia. Freudian theory, like Darwinian theory, and like Marxian theory, is championed all over the world by thundering herds of TTRSTF who populate the ranks of medicine, especially psychological medicine. In the academic world, whole programs are designed around it; you can get advanced degrees in it, and you can be taught by thundering herds of TTRSPTF. It enjoys seemingly unanimous support in the news media, of all things, and if you look for them, whether in print or electronic media, you will find many examples of TTRSJTF actually practicing psycho-therapy while reporting the news.

I’m not kidding. Watch and see. Any time any “traumatic” event happens, you will see a TV journalist approaching a potentially traumatized child or other victim who witnessed the traumatic event, pausing, with a super-serious, oh so concerned facial expression, furrowing the brow, and asking, very slowly,

How do you feel about that?

All of that should make us wonder how the pilgrims, or the founders, or the pioneers, or the civil-warriors, etc., ever managed to survive to any ripe old age in the absence of psycho-therapy and the psycho-analyst’s couch. You would think that anyone who witnessed a family member being scalped, and who then didn’t get immediate psycho-therapy, would soon have been anxious to move to banana city to search for coconuts with which to build windmills.

Darwinian theory contributed mightily to the devolution of science into what Hayek called Scientism. Freudian theory contributed mightily to making men into wimps, and to promoting free sex, and sexual immorality in all its many, many forms. Marxian theory, fraudulent in itself, was able to capitalize on both the frauds born of Darwinian-fed scientism, and the fundamental immorality born of Freudianism.

How do you feel about yourself? is the question Freudianism asks of you. Not what kind of person you actually are, but how you feel about yourself. That comes first. Self comes first. Freudianism says that that comes before even what anyone or everyone else thinks about you. You have become an island.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA), steeped in Freudianism, “cured” homosexuality by simply removing it from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in which it had been long listed as a Sociopathic Personality Disorder. It was removed from this classification because it was now deemed to be problematic only if the homosexual “felt” it was problematic. If the homosexual wasn’t troubled by his homosexuality, then, there was no disorder. See? The APA had cured homosexuality! Drinks and cigars all around.

Now they want to do the same thing with pedophilia. If the sexual child predator doesn’t feel that he has a problem, then, he doesn’t really have a problem. See? Who cares what any victim or any parent of any victim might think about it; the important thing is how the patient feels about himself. See?

What can I say? Freudianism is nuts.

See the article links in the right hand column of this page.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Thu Oct 06 15:12:58 2011
From: Patz
Email: patz13@live.com
Location: Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Comment:

I really liked all three of your exposes on Marx, Darwin and Freud. I have some friends, who refute Freud as a nut, but still persist in believing in Psychology, and even worse, Psychiatry and Psychiatric drugs. I have not been able to convince even these educated sincerely Catholic mothers that Psychiatry, and especially the drugs, are a hoax. will you please write about this? Thanks, and God bless you.

Patz

Date: Thu Oct 06 20:29:15 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Patz:

First, refer to the Reference Material link found at the bottom of this and every other webpage in this site. There you will find valid sources that refute Freud, and sources of quite valid psychological study.

I cannot and do not condemn psychology or psychiatry, except in as much as some practitioners might be infected with Freudian theory. Psychology and Psychiatry are perfectly valid areas of study, medicine and treatment. Sigmund Freud is recognized as the father of psycho-analysis and psycho-therapy, which is, in my opinion, a complete fraud.

The problem is, as you can see from the recent actions of the APA, the name Freud has become the most quoted name in psychiatry and psychology, fields in which he should be condemned rather than lionized. Freud claimed, falsely, to be successfully treating neuroses and psychoses, and that would make him a practicing psychiatrist. Most psych-majors have been taught that Freud was some kind of genius.

It is important to note that there are mental illnesses that do indeed require treatment with drugs. For instance, the condition that used to be called manic depression, and is today called bipolar, is apparently caused by some chemical imbalance and is treated quite successfully with drugs. If one of these patients goes off of the drugs, or takes them incorrectly, there might be serious mental ramifications. But once the correct dosage is established, and maintained, most often the patient experiences no symptoms at all and lives a quite normal life. I think the same thing may be said about some kinds of depression. I am no expert, but I know that there are cases of schizophrenia that are successfully treated with drugs.

Do not encourage anyone on medication to go off of it. There is such a thing as a real live psychiatrist who knows what he is doing and who treats mental illnesses without applying any Freudian tricks.

Look at the References – particularly Confessions of St. Augustine; Arise From Darkness by Groeschel; Spiritual Passages by Groeschel – for the better side of human psychology.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sun Feb 19 03:28:23 2012
From: elfe
Email: elfege@elfege.com
Location: New York
Comment:

Refutability is the FIRST criteria of scientificity. A proposition can be scientific only when refutable. God exists is not a refutable proposition, neither "God created" men. Why do you need to oppose science to faith? Is not science essentially made by people of good faith? Scientists are wrong to pretend that science can allow them to answer the question of god's existence. And believers are wrong to think that science is about irrefutably. Only belief is irrefutable.

Science is just about finding what we don't know yet and where we can look further. Its materialism and mechanistic methodology is not meant to be atheist, but just to find out about what we could look further.

I really don't understand why you need to oppose belief to religion. Perhaps because some scientists take their theories for new religions, and for that they are wrong. But, please, stop taking one thing for another! Don't do the same mistake than those who being scientists think they have the right to shut they others up when they step into a field that is not theirs.

Just think about it : a science is a science because it can be tested through refutation. Darwinism is just a theory that until now resisted to all tests and offers a system of systematization that helps us to go further in the observation of nature, using one of the tools that God himself gave us and that is called Science.

You would not blame a Soccer player for being atheist because he is a soccer player, but just because he is an atheist. Science does never give any good reason to any one to justify atheism. Atheism is just a choice that we can make being a scientist or a plumber. Those who pretend to be atheist because of their so called knowledge, are just ignorant about this very knowledge itself since it does never allow them to make such theological conclusion. The atheist is also a believer, a negative believer, indeed, but still a believer.

Regards, E.L.

Date: Sun Feb 19 09:11:20 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

E. L.:

Some of your terminology is new to me; I am assuming that your use of irrefutability refers to Popper’s Rule of Falsifiability. I hope you don’t mind, but I had to add some white space to your submission and break it into smaller paragraphs to better understand what you’re saying here.

Regarding Natural Science, it was developed by the Catholic Church, all of the early practitioners were Catholic, and most of them were also ordained clerics. In its early beginnings, there was only one science, called Philosophy, or the study of Truth. Natural Science split off from Philosophy, leaving Theological Science behind. It was Natural Science, not Theological Science, that drew increasingly farther away from Philosophy and grew increasingly separate from Theological Science. We talked about this at length in the Modernist Heresy page, the Enlightenment and Scientism page and other pages on this site.

I would like to not separate science and faith, but to bring them back together again. Many prelates have spoken of this under the title of Faith and Reason. But Natural Science, predominantly, is adamantly opposed to this idea. Universities all over America and all over the world seek to increase the separation, even to the point of defining who is a scientist, and believers need not apply for any teaching or scientific credentials. That’s just the way it is.

” Darwinism is just a theory that until now resisted to all tests and offers a system of systematization that helps us to go further in the observation of nature, using one of the tools that God himself gave us and that is called Science.”

I talked about the existence of God argument in the Faith Versus Atheism page. Once upon a time there was no question; then, it became a hot topic; today, unfortunately, it is little thought of at all by vast segments of the population.

And we are all poorer for it.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.