Freudianism

Freud, Dope, and Sexual Fixation

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Freudianism Presents a Classic Example of the Practice of Scientism.

First of all, consider for a moment the nature of the human mind. What, exactly, is it? We are not talking about the physical human brain, but what the brain theoretically does, or causes, or perhaps houses. The mind is not material; it is ephemeral. It poses the objectivity problem of being able to be examined only by another ephemeral mind. Which makes any study of a human mind, whether done by itself or by any other ephemeral human mind, a purely subjective activity. A thought (or a memory, or an emotion, etc.) is "thought to be" accomplished by certain chemical/electrical synapse firings of energy between different nerve cells, which might occur in single or limited events, cluster events, or storms of such events. Although we can physically examine a nerve cell, or even the energy in a synapse firing, we cannot physically detect, let alone physically examine, any thought (or memory, or emotion, etc.) in any human mind.

Of course, so far, we are talking about a conscious human mind. Freudianism pretends to be able to delve into and fully describe to others concrete knowledge regarding the unconscious human mind. Which, one would think, should raise more than a few eyebrows.

Before Freud, psychology concerned itself with observable and measurable patterns in conscious mental activities, such as memory, discernment, problem solving, cognition, education level, thought patterns, emotional patterns, physical coordination, and so forth. All of these things can be tested.

After Freud, much of psychology concerns itself with purely unconscious phenomena that cannot be observed, cannot be measured and cannot be tested. Ever. By anyone. The unconscious / sub-conscious mind cannot even be detected with any level of certainty.

Nevertheless, Freudianism hit the world much like Darwinism did: like a bombshell. Like Darwinism, it went completely against the grain of thought in a particular field at the time. The Thinking Catholic Strategic Center treats it as it treats Darwinism, which is to say, critically, but without offering an alternative approach, other than the long recognized approach that existed before Freud. Here is a brief Definition Of Freudianism that will give you a rough idea of the new approach supplied by Freud.

The most quoted name today in psychology, psychiatry, psycho-analysis and psycho-therapy, and in the celebrity psycho-babble circles of Freudianism is, of course, Freud; the second most quoted name is Jung, and the third is Kinsey. All contributed to modern Freudianism. And all will be treated herein, but first, we need to address Freud and the beginnings of Freudianism.

Note that not only Freudianism but all of psychology comes under the heading of metaphysics, because none of it is "of the world", material, or empirically testable. When studying the mind, while using the mind, it is quite impossible to be strictly objective or apply any empirical science or anything other than subjective thought to it. Keep also in mind the (usually) vastly under-estimated "power of suggestion" that is at work in varying degrees in all minds. Some of us are particularly susceptible to hypnosis, some not; some can "fool" a lie detector, some cannot; some can be "cured" of some ailment by acupuncture (or even shamanism,) some cannot. It is my contention that "suggestion," on both sides of the psychoanalytical encounter, has a great deal to do with the perceived results. With these thoughts in mind, let us examine the man behind the new radical theory underpinning Freudianism.

Freud, the man

To understand the man, all one has to do is read what he wrote. Sigmund Freud was a real sicko who was obsessed with all topics sexual. Sex drives everything, sex makes the world go around, any sexual need not satisfied will ultimately manifest itself in some deep psychological eccentricity or neurosis or emotional disorder or psychosis. Freud saw self-control as a mental illness, and he viewed all human nature as explainable strictly in terms of sexuality and emotions. He called religion the universal obsessional neurosis and a mass delusion; he saw free will as yet another delusion, and he viewed the family as a negative, authoritarian institution full of incestuous cross currents.

He actually believed that the overwhelming majority of the population of the planet was in need of treatment, because they believed in God, or in gods, or in spirits of some kind. Which, of course, should have put Freudianism at odds with Freud's early disciple, Jung, who was deep into various weird spiritualities, including alchemy, Gnosticism, astrology and other nonsense, but apparently Freud and Jung got along fine.

Freud thought that every negative attribute of any person was due to some repressed memory of something horrible, usually of a sexual nature, that had happened to that person. In seeking to help people remember theoretically “repressed” events, he discovered that people could easily be made to remember things that had never even occurred; he did not miss this conclusion; he carefully recorded it, and the ramifications of this psychological quirk remain with us today. (In fact, he once semi-retracted the theory as dangerous after proving that people could be made to remember events that did not occur; but repressed memory “therapy” lives on, indeed it thrives in Freudianism.) The very idea of all bad things stemming from past traumatic sexual events repressed in memory, the foundational idea of Freudianism, was ridiculous on it’s face, and the ability to convince people it was true was and is quite dangerous. It forms the very foundation of Freudianism.

The fact that someone suffers from depression, minor or otherwise, temporary or otherwise, or is afflicted with any addictive disease, or is simply in a bad mood or having a bad day, provides no evidence whatsoever that the person was once abused, for instance. But that’s not what is being taught and practiced by modern social scientists, thanks to Freudianism. To this very day psycho-analysts, many psychotherapists and "para-therapists,” with wildly variable and even no licenses or credentials are using various forms of suggestion even including hypnosis to create and induce and inculcate in minds solid memories of non-existent events, thereby often destroying relationships, lives and families, and even sending innocent people to prison for things that didn’t even occur.

Like most theories that are sometimes or partially true, or that contain some germ of truth, the very idea of incidents of repressed memory of ugly incidents being not odd, not rare, but quite commonplace, has gained near universal acceptance throughout our society, to the point where it is an idea that is virtually ingrained in most of us. Freudianism is as solidly entrenched in our social fabric as is Darwinism.

If you’ve been in a war, or a fire, or an earthquake, or a robbery, why, you need therapy man, or something terrible will come of it one day. Freudianism says so. Within the first 30 seconds of any disaster we are always treated to the first media polls, which always show the vast majority of “us” recommending that any children witnessing or otherwise affected by the disaster or even just seeing it on TV receive therapy at once.

(Polls, public opinion, now equal truth. Pay close attention and you will see that evidence is disregarded as the pollsters ask the public how it feels about the subject; you will find that this holds true for any topic deemed worthy of a media poll, and rare is the topic not deemed worthy of one.)

Which is good for the local therapy business, but which also must make us wonder, in head shaking awe, how mankind ever managed to get through all of the wars and famines and plagues and disasters that occurred throughout history before the birth of Freudianism and this idiotic theory.

Freudianism is a fraud, and Freud was just another habitual doper who hopelessly confused drug induced euphoria with brilliance, and who thought that snorting even more cocaine up his nose would make him even more brilliant. Freud himself describes in detail the lengths he went to in order to get female patients to describe in increasingly lurid detail events of childhood sexual abuse which he and he alone had “reconstructed” from analyzing their “symptoms.” He coached and coaxed and even bullied them into “remembering” these events, and he carefully documented his own malpractice even as he practiced it. Just like Darwinism; Freudianism says, leap to your conclusion first, then rationalize it and wrap it up in a very pretty and all inclusive theory that explains many things to many people, promote it well, and there will be no solid empirical evidence required. Delivery is everything.

He was a quack.

He was very sexually over-imaginative, had no interest in truth, delved deeply into the invisible in preference to the visible, avoided solid evidence and probably saw himself as some sort of Messiah, and as the founder of a new religion, despite his denial and renouncing of religion. In flatly opposing mainstream religion and the associated morality as causative of the “problems” he was “treating” he contributed enormously to our current, predominant set of New World Order values that serve as a secular replacement for monotheistic morals in popular culture.

The Gospel According to Freud

Freudianism says that, guilt and shame are destructive, the very idea of sin is destructive, all natural desires must be fully and completely satisfied, there is nothing wrong with satiating lust, even gluttonous lust needs full satiation. (Religiosity is an illness in need of treatment.) Any modern Surgeon General can tell you that, although you may have to search a while to find a priest, minister or rabbi who will agree.

The general secular view today is that sex is so, well, natural, that we all ought to be able to experience it just as often as it pleases us to do so. All that’s naturally required is for secular science to work harder to remove all those pesky natural physical consequences, like venereal disease, pregnancy and so forth. And all that’s socially required is for secular society to work harder to remove all those pesky natural social consequences, like divorce, bastard children, social stigma, lynching, and so forth.

Sex, in the secular, natural world of Darwinism and Freudianism, is supposed to be fun, without hang ups, inhibitions or responsibilities. It would be unnatural to assign any spiritual or procreative or moral attachments to sex. See? In a perfectly secular world, marriage, or any other sacrament, or any other thing or tradition held to be sacred, must cease to exist in the interest of uninhibited naturalness.

Once we master nature and all natural consequences, of course.

In so establishing his screwy theories so solidly, Freud contributed mightily to today’s levels of mental and emotional distress and dysfunction. Mental illness does exist. But probably ninety percent of all non-institutionalized “mental” patients or people in therapy or undergoing psychoanalysis do not have mental problems at all, but rather, moral problems, or problems attendant to a lack of a proper sense of direction and self purpose. Decent morality, proper direction and the very purpose for your very being are foundational principles that cannot be supplied by Freudianism, or by anything secular.

The Secularism of Freudianism

Freudianism, like Darwinism and Marxism, walks in lockstep with and is absolutely dependant upon Secularism.

Secularism is absolutely not neutral, and this is a very important point; spawned by modernism, secularism opposes monotheism in general and Christianity in particular, and with it the related Bible-based morality that has become the most common moral standard of the world, and the only rules or purpose or direction secularism can supply is to satisfy lust, and to increase lust, and to continue satisfying it, and to become completely uninhibited, and purely nature and pleasure-oriented. And maybe that you are here for the trees, and therefore you must oppose lumbermen and wood carvers and carpenters and builders and people who live in houses. Or that you are here for the whales, and therefore you must oppose Japanese sailors and Russian sailors and Eskimos, and markets and companies and consumers of whale products. Not because trees or whales are sacred - nothing at all is sacred to the secularist, who is by definition at least a part time atheist and therefore does not recognize, or must suppress, the very idea of sacredness itself - but because something absolutely must take the place of God and His laws and His morality or we all become purposeless, directionless and randomly oriented people. The most clearly definitive difference between secularism and monotheism is the difference between selfism and selflessness, and Freudianism is purely selfist.

This is all lunacy, of course, but nevertheless, Freud became another hero for secularists, whose overwhelming influence on formal education increased and now continues unabated. Freudianism first orients the new devotee in the direction of fundamental immorality, then removes his rudder and his compass, and then gives him a little push out into the random currents and winds of life. Experts who profess and promote and teach Freudianism come in two predominant flavors: those who are not smart enough or perceptive enough to recognize the damage they are doing, and those who are evil enough to desire to do it. The best evidence of the shear stupidity and even lunacy of the “social sciences” comes from the official, ordained keepers of social science wisdom themselves. Modern psychology and psychiatry are (or overwhelmingly appear to be) hopelessly infected by Freudianism.

The American Psychiatric Association

The American Psychiatric Association, or APA, for instance, and their creation and periodic revision of their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) used to qualify or disqualify sexual perversions. The 1952 DSM classified homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance. In 1968, DSM II re-categorized it as a sexual “deviation.” In 1973, DSM III declared that homosexuality was only considered a problem when the homosexual was bothered by it, or considered it to be a problem, which is to say, it was only a disorder if the disordered person felt it was a disorder.

Subsequent versions of the DSM manual do not mention homosexuality at all; homosexuality has been officially cured by APA redefinition. The members probably all congratulated each other, shook hands and drank a toast. The 1994 revision of the manual, DSM IV, tells practitioners that pedophilia, meaning sexual child molesting, is not a disorder unless it bothers, not the victim, not the parents of the victim, not potential future victims, not society, but the perpetrator.

It is not sufficient for actual acts of sexual child molestation or fantasizing about sexual child molestation to be considered to “cause clinically significant distress or impairment or social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.” In other words, it’s not a real personal or social problem unless it bothers the pervert; if he isn’t bothered by it, he’s healthy. See? This is Freudianism today.

Even sadomasochism is no longer considered a disorder. How an abnormal person feels about what he is is more important than what he actually is; there is no more abnormal, unless the abnormal one feels bad about being abnormal. The American Psychiatric Association, collectively, is nuts. The proper, full, unabbreviated term may be Nutsie-Cuckoo; while I’m pretty sure that’s not a good technical term, every one of us regular people know exactly what it means, which is, that the judgment of the APA cannot be trusted even with very simple, unimportant things; their thinking is clouded and their judgment is therefore always suspect.

Freudianism Vs Objective Truth

Subjective Truth comes from within man, describing what we sense or feel or believe to be true. Objective Truth comes from outside of man, describing a form of truth that is completely independent of the mind of man. No matter what, how or even if we think about it, it remains Objective Truth.

To cut to the core of the question here, and although all good secularists will hate this, there is such a thing as right and wrong, it is discernible and knowable by everyone, and it may, for the purposes of this discussion, be called “truth.” It is an Objective Truth, obvious to every one of us, that it is wrong to hurt people or take advantage of people or sexually abuse people, and it is even more particularly wrong when the victim is under age, immature, impressionable or otherwise disadvantaged in some way. Psychiatry, infected by Freudianism, does everything in its power to destroy that truth, but the truth of it will not change.

We all seek freedom, but any freedom not based upon truth is, eventually, slavery. Freudian psychiatry seeks to free us from all inhibitions and leave us “free” to do whatever we damn well please, but the only true freedom is the one that is tempered by the wisdom required to know right from wrong, and to live and act in accordance with that very simple wisdom. In liberaldom’s incessant search for new “rights” and ridiculous levels of tolerance we bulldoze right over right and wrong and redefine truth to be something vague, something variable, something less. Many of these new “rights” are actually evasions of responsibility for actions, and amelioration or elimination of consequences for personal choices.

The ramifications of elite acceptance and embracing of Freudianism has repercussions reaching deep into culture. Freudianism strongly reinforces Darwinism and the aims of non-neutral secularism to work against ancient moral norms. The Orwellian Newspeak terminology is diabolically devious. “Personal Choice” sounds nicer than mothers killing children, for instance. “My Body” distracts us and leads us to think that only one body is involved. “My rights” are important, particularly if we don’t think too much about how they might touch someone else’s rights.

The freedom that these Freudianism - infected “social sciences” promote is not freedom but license; licentious behavior leads to slavery, not freedom. Freedom of choice means, in reality, being relieved of the consequences of immoral actions. We cannot be free of responsibility; we cannot be free of consequences; when there is no self control anywhere, there is no freedom anywhere. Truth is the forge, freedom is the hammer, and responsibility is the anvil with which character is formed. Well formed character deals properly with life. My rights end where yours begin.

Freudian Excused Behavior

No matter how many new rights we invent, Alan Keyes tells us, repeating an old truth that needs periodic repeating, that we, individually and collectively, never have any right to do what is morally wrong. Our personal behavior must always be personally controlled. Keyes beautifully illustrated the idiocy of redefining perversions and immoralities into “orientations” in the opening chapters of his book, Our Character, Our Future. If a “life style” of active sodomy is merely an “alternative orientation,” then why does modern liberaldom so insensitively discriminate against other alternative orientations, such as adulterous ones, or murderous ones, or bombing ones, or bank robbing ones, or arsonist ones; it ain’t my fault, man, I just happen to be oriented thataway.

The recent social and legal redefinition of homosexuality as a disadvantaged minority is equally ludicrous, and was equally well illustrated. Mr. Keyes happens to have been born black. Last night when he went to bed, he was still black; this morning when he got up, lo and behold, he remained black; I predict that next week, he will still be black. He cannot do anything about that, and he knows it. He has absolutely no control over that situation; all he can do is live with his black “handicap,” take personal charge of his life and get on with the business of living it; he cannot, and probably would not, change the skin God gave him.

Which is not quite the same situation as those excused by Freudianism, meaning those with “orientations” leaning towards homosexuality, or infidelity, or un-chastity, or drunkenness, or addiction, or crime, or sin, all of which have some element of personal choice and self control very heavily associated with them. Individual Christians have infinitely variable sizes and varieties of crosses to bear through this life as they try, hopefully, to walk in The Way, and ultimate judgment may involve less the variety or size of the individual cross than how well it was carried, or, how it might have been dropped and left behind.

Whether through ignorance or design, the elite of the field of psychoanalysis (Freudianism) will still claim, with a straight face, that what they are doing is science, and that Freud is the father of this “science.”

Freudianism Vs Nature

An amusing side note involves the petty squabble between the “soft” science of Sociology and the “hard” science of Biology regarding man and his nature. (Remember, just as biology today is infected with Darwinism, social science today is infected with Freudianism.)

Hard science uses solid terms like sex, male, female, and soft science, leaning to feminism-inclusiveness-correctness, prefers purposely vague terms like gender; the one documents and recognizes physical and hormonal differences between sexes causing vast differences in size, strength, temperament, aggressiveness and so forth, and the other insists that all gender differences are purely institutional and caused by social and environmental phenomena.

The one recognizes procreation and bonding as natural purposes for sex, the other prefers not to discuss the topic of any physical “purpose” for sex. Interesting. Nature and biology and “blind watchmakers” may make a sex, but only a society may make a gender. See?

Both viewpoints are flawed; one has adopted a blind watchmaker as a sort of sacred icon, the other has adopted supreme, perfect, worldly existence or utopian society as a sort of sacred icon, both are based solely upon proprietary piles of facts and on differing interpretations of common piles of facts, both are intolerant of any other information or viewpoints, both lack wisdom and objectivity.

Both are Pharisaic; both are quite certain; both are closed-minded. Only biology has arguments based upon observable, repeatable empirical evidence, but even biology, or much of modern biology, is founded upon Darwinian dogma that has no existing empirical evidence to support it, and indeed operates in the conspicuous presence of very heavy evidence against it and no evidence for it.

If objectivity is dead in the soft sciences, it is severely wounded in the hard sciences. But truth may still be found by the objective searcher. And it may be found even despite the typical, predictable secular American journalistic proclamations that, STNSEACPB that there is any question regarding any of the "proven" theories of Freudianism.

Question any Freudian theories and the quick reaction of the SLIMC, the rest of Show-Biz, academia, the psycho-babble spouting celebrity-elite, most all of TTRSTF from the fields of psychology and psychiatry, and this is what you may expect: SNRTACBT that Freud's theories are not absolutely scientific.

Jungian Gnosticism and Mysticism

Where Freud's main hang-ups involved sex, the really screwy hang-ups of his early disciple, Carl Gustav Jung, involved mysticism and Gnostic "secret knowledge" waiting for centuries to be re-discovered by him. Jung delved deeply into alchemy and ancient Gnosticism and astrology. All his life, while learning, practicing and adding to Freudianism, he religiously studied the writings of the Gnostics and the medieval alchemists, taking from these ancient writings the "personalities" that would become his "Archetypes."

How did this get added into and affect Freudianism? Jung's life's work was to reconcile a specific supra-personal archetype - such as, the archaic wisdom of the Gnostics symbolically called "Sophia" - with the life of the individual currently under treatment. See? Jung saw the Freudian subconscious as the path to this possible reconciliation of the individual and this extra-personal "consciousness." Are you still with me?

The Gnostic Jung even wrote his own Gnostic text, titled Seven Sermons to the Dead, the authorship of which he claimed to have been spiritually "channeled" through him by Basilides. Basilides was a Gnostic from circa 120 AD or so, who was written about by Ireneaus of Lyons in his work titled "Against Heresies."

Apparently Freud had no problem with any of this, and it is evident that they spoke and wrote to each other about it. Jung also brought into Freudianism the notion of the "collective unconscious." Some "non-mystical" apologists for Jung describe this as the part of the subconscious that has been formed by culture, myth, legend, tradition and so forth. But Jung himself described his work in this area as delving into the "mysteries stored in the collective unconscious." He "discovered" universal similarities that crossed cultural and traditional and religious boundaries, and from them he developed the Gnostic symbolic themes that comprise "the archetypes of the collective unconscious." Multiple collective unconsciousness' that are sort of floating around out there. If you've ever had to take one of those stupid "Meyers-Briggs" personality tests, this is the absolute crap that those personality types are based on.

He also wrote about having discovered the hidden meaning behind coincidence. Jung also pushed what he called psycho-kinetics - the ability to do physical work via purely mental thought. This is the "field" from which "psychics" and other tricksters, magicians and showmen like Uri Geller do such magic tricks as bending spoons by thinking about them.

Right.

Both Freud and Jung emphasized the importance of dream analysis, as usual, avoiding even looking at actual conscious thought patterns and behaviors.

That's Freudianism. Unconscious, subconscious, collective subconscious, extra-personal archetypes, repressed (not recognized) memory, dream analysis, psycho-kinetics, . . .

What can I say?

Anyone who buys into any of this crap has to be an absolute idiot.

Kinsey and Sexology

You ain't seen nothing yet

A major Freudian sexology report, which should perhaps be called The Freudian Sexology Report, the 1948 first volume of the Kinsey report, titled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male clearly illustrates the twisted mentality common to the practitioners of the soft sciences. Chapter five, Early Sexual Growth and Activity openly documents Pedophilia - sexual child abuse - practiced in the name of “scientific” research at the University of Indiana.

Over three hundred children were sexually abused in this “scientific study.” It tells of “orgasms” in infants being induced, recorded, and timed, by trained “researchers.” Table 34 gives examples of multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males, some only five months old. Table 31 chronicled attempts to bring to orgasm two month old infants.

All of this Kinsey crap was publicly accepted, to rave reviews. This so-called “study” was and is the sole source of “scientific” research showing that which we all seem somehow to already know with some certainty, thanks to our secular education, that little children are very sexual beings. Even though there is no other evidence for such an absolutely stupid conjecture.

If the government, the medical profession, academia, the local police, the local district attorney and the media cared one whit for the well being of society in general and for little children in particular, they would have asked a few questions about this very carefully self documented story of sexual child abuse. Like, who did the two-month olds? Who’s children were these, and why did their parents submit them to this open sexual abuse? For money? Are the children still alive, or were they killed and disposed of, as is so typical in child sexual abuse cases? Are the little bodies buried on the campus, or elsewhere? Where did Kinsey recruit his "trained researchers"? San Quentin?

The modern heirs of Freudianism and Freudian sexology are little different from Freud; they flatly oppose God and morality. That is their real business. And the promotion of the ongoing sexual revolution. This “report” is the foundation stone for the whacko popular Pedophiles today who run web pages and speak publicly and publish periodicals about how little children are capable of “loving relationships.” What they mean is that little children are capable of being victimized, and traumatized, twisted and warped. Psychoanalysis, born of Freudianism, was and is absolutely obsessed with sex. If you know of any redeeming qualities anywhere in it, show me.

As it turns out, Kinsey didn’t have to go to San Quentin to recruit Pedophiles for his “scientific research.”

He was one.

And, so far as his scientific research team goes, the old cliché involving birds of a feather applies. Kinsey recorded his own perversions, and those of his fellow “scientists” on film and in a diary. He had himself filmed while masturbating, to record his favorite, sick, demented masturbating techniques. Masochism loomed large among his many personal perversions. His wife was filmed committing adultery with other “scientists.” All sorts of group gropes were recorded, including Kinsey himself with female and male researchers, singly and in groups. At the publication of his report, all of secular America hailed him as some sort of great genius. In truth, he was little more than a filthy minded, masochistic, adulterous lech, a flaming faggot, and a victimizing pedophile.

Little different than his fellows. This “research” is the original source of the common, flagrant lie that upwards of ten percent of the population is homosexual. He made it up. Most likely, ten percent or better of his fellow “researchers” were homosexual, which might be a good percentage when measured solely among the truly licentious and promiscuous. He died, quite predictably, of complications stemming from a raging pelvic infection caused by his stupid, sick, masochistic masturbation. He was undone in this world and the next by his own free will choices, which inevitably led to his demented and ultimately fatal obsession with worldly pleasure. A good modern parental warning against masturbation might involve the words, if you don’t stop it you’ll end up like Dr. Kinsey.

He actually proved, on camera, before lots of “researcher” witnesses, how he could masturbate from a non-erect state to full orgasm in five seconds flat. Picture that. There he stands, non-erect penis in hand, before multiple "researchers" in white coats, holding clipboards and stopwatches. Ready, set, go – and the countdown from 5 to 0 and – yep, there he goes, he really did it.

That’s the way they do science at the University of Indiana.

No paper, no report, no research has gained wider secular acceptance and accolades, and nothing in the field is more broadly quoted than Kinsey’s report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which might be even more widely recognized as the Kinsey Report. It is said that no “scientific” work has been more widely read and discussed since Darwin’s The Origin Of Species.

It figures.

So that was the state of secular science in the 20th century America. Kinsey and all of his associate jerk-offs and perverts passed themselves off as scientists, and their “work” as real science, and, solely because even the least secular among the secularists loved the message and the sermon, they bought it all, hook, line and sinker. Proving again that secularism requires proof of nothing. All that secularism ever requires is some form, any form, of justification for itself. If any Freudian sexologist was sicker than Freud himself, it would have to have been Kinsey.

Alternatives to Freudianism

I say again: Freudianism is a complete fraud and a potentially very harmful waste of your time and money.

Freud, Jung and Kinsey, all, had illicit sexual liaisons with their own clients. If these are the "fathers" of the quasi-religion of Freudianism, what do you expect out of any of their current disciples?

The overwhelming majority of us never need any contact with any psychiatrist. Nobody on Earth has any need whatsoever of anything remotely similar to psychoanalysis. Very serious mental illness requires very serious treatment, including even institutional treatment. Imbalances or mild maladies can be handled by proper prescription of psychiatric drugs for the specific purpose. Probably the biggest percentages of those currently undergoing costly analysis really need nothing more than a sense of purpose and direction and guidance, something that would be more properly supplied by their priest, minister or rabbi.

Despite what Freudianism says, proper, normal, social inhibitions are good, not bad. Guilt is not an illness, but a symptom, and for normal people, the cure is not to be found on any analytical couch. For the adult who has grown up with a properly formed conscience, when they do something they know is wrong, then they expect to feel properly guilty. Freudianism seeks to eliminate the sense of right and wrong, and it thereby debases culture and makes us more worldly and animalistic. Freudianism seeks to replace our ethos with something else, something foreign, something other than the ethos of Western Culture.

They do not name it, but I do; I call it the ethos of BMDFP and the disciples of Freudianism.

Some good reading on the subject:

Spiritual Passages: The Psychology of Spiritual Development "For Those Who Seek"; Benedict J. Groeschel, The Crossroad Publishing Company.

What's Wrong With Freud? Rudolf Allers, MD, Ph.D; Roman Catholic Books

Psychological Seduction, The Failure of Modern Psychology; William K. Kilpatrick; Roger A. McCaffrey Publishing

Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, Judith a. Reisman, Ph.D; Institute for Media Education, Inc.

Victims of Memory, Sex Abuse accusations and Shattered Lives; Mark Pendergrast; Upper Access, Inc.

Reference Material

Return to HOME PAGE

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

Date: Thu Mar 12 13:03:32 2009
From: Hafiz
Email: cr_sean@yahoo.com
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Comment:

A lengthy read for an article but worth every second I put into it.

Thanks and God bless you and yours!

Date: Thu Mar 12 17:19:33 Year
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Hafiz:

Thank you. Hopefully some little bit of all of this stuff might inspire some thought and positive change in unknown quarters.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Fri May 15 14:01:46 2009
From: JDPennywise
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Well, thank The Lord that hell-fire will rain down on Judgement Day and cleanse this Earth of all the Freudian Filthy Pigs, Baboons, and Mongrel Dogs...

Date: Thu May 28 01:51:28 2009
From: DR. Kinsey Jr
Email: kinsey@hotmai.com
Location: Indiana/MA
Comment:

you suck

Date: Sat May 30 06:54:13 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Dr. Kinsey Jr.:

Although publishing your brilliant counter-argument violates my own rules for posting on this site, I thought the world might be interested in your engrossing take on the subject.

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.