The following primarily comes from Chapter 4 of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique – Jewish Involvement in the Psychoanalytic Movement.
Cultural Subversion Through Sex
Jewish organizations like the AJ Congress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. (MacDonald, 148)
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) is considered the father of psychoanalysis and is certainly among the most recognized names in the social sciences. He was born in the Austrian empire in what is now the Czech Republic. Freud grew up in an upper class Jewish family and was strongly attracted to Zionism. In one letter he even described himself as a “fanatical Jew” and believed that Jews were superior to Gentiles in terms of manners, intellect, morality, and family life.
[Freud] was convinced that it was in the very nature of psychoanalytic doctrine to appear shocking and subversive. On board ship to America he did not feel that he was bringing that country a new panacea. With his typically dry wit he told his traveling companions, ‘We are bringing them the plague.’” Freud like many Jewish intellectuals believed that it was their duty and mission to lead the world on a moral mission to cure society of it’s ills. (MacDonald, 106)
The field of psychoanalysis, which was founded by Freud, has been a mission of Gentile subversion through sex. In Freud’s upside down world good was bad and bad was good. The goals of psychoanalysis has been to thoroughly debunk traditional Gentile values and culture. Traditional moral values such as strong child-parents relations, high investment parenting, and delay of sex until marriage were derided as psychopathic behaviors while promiscuity, having children out of wedlock, single parenting, and general immorality were considered normal and healthy. Freud considered sexual morality as pathological and something to be destroyed. He propagated the idea that aggression in humans was a result of sexual suppression and that by overcoming this “suppression”, man can be led to an era of universal love and peace. During the first half of the 20th century Freud was frequently referred to as the father of sexual liberation and came under heavy criticisms from conservatives and the religious right.
(A) small, active minority can set the spiral of silence in motion. They become spokespeople to confuse and disorient the majority, make their own ideology mainstream, and ultimately start peddling what used to be bad as something good. – Gabrielle Kuby in The Global Sexual Revolution
Just as with multiculturalism and mass immigration, the goals of psychoanalysis has been that of breaking apart solidarity by inciting rebelliousness in children, eradicating religion, encouraging instant gratification, and fostering “radical” individualism. Though Freud, like many prominent Jews, advocated multiculturalism for the gentiles, they at the same time were against assimilation and mixed marriages for the Jewish people. None of Freud’s children married a gentile and none converted to Christianity.
Attack on the Church
Freud believed that the church got in the way of “rational” living. His attitude towards the Church is illustrated in Moses and Monotheism published in 1939:
(Anti-Semitism) is said to result from the fact that many Christians have become Christians only recently as the result of forced conversion from even more barbarically polytheistic folk religions than Christianity itself is. Because of the violence of their forced conversions, these barbarians “have not yet overcome their grudge against the new religion which was forced upon them, and they have projected it on to the source from which Christianity came to them [i.e., the Jews]”
Freud’s theory of anti-Semitism in Moses and Monotheism (Freud 1939, 114-117) contains several assertions that anti-Semitism is fundamentally a pathological gentile reaction to Jewish ethical superiority. (MacDonald, 117)
Rothman and Isenberg (1974) convincingly argued that Freud viewed Interpretation of Dreams as a victory against the Catholic Church and that he saw Totem and Taboo as a successful attempt to analyze the Christian religion in terms of defense mechanisms and primitive drives. Regarding Totem and Taboo, Freud told a colleague that it would “serve to make a sharp division between us and all Aryan religiosity.” (MacDonald, 115)
Finding Sex Everywhere
Freud had the obsession of finding sex everywhere and attempted to argue that the emotions of parental affection and love was an unhealthy desire. He equated those feelings with sexual desires being denied. Freud even goes as far as equating high sexual morality among Gentiles as anti-semitic behavior:
Within this perspective, anti-Semitism results from the denial of sexuality, and the role of the Jewish mission of psychoanalysis was to end anti-Semitism by freeing humanity of its sexual repressions. (MacDonald, 113)
Through his twisted logic, neoconservative Jew, Norman Podheretz, stated that the road to Auschwitz would result if Westerners stopped accepting mass immigration. Wilhelm Reich propagated the same for those wanting to “repress” sexuality. “For (Wilhelm) Reich, the character armor that results ultimately from repressing sexual orgasms begins in civil discourse and ends at Auschwitz.” (MacDonald, 142)
In the Theory of the Oedipal complex, Freud advanced the idea that children are sexually attracted to their opposite sex parents, such as sons having fantasies about their mothers or daughters having fantasies of their fathers. However, incestuous relations seldom happen in the real world of human and animal behavior because those types of activities would eventually destroy the species through the introduction of genetic defects in offsprings. The theory also promoted the idea of sons desiring to kill their fathers, with the consequences being children without important father figures.
War on Gentiles
This conflation between sexual desire and love is also apparent in many of Freud’s psychoanalytic successors, including Norman O. Brown, Wilhelm Reich, and Herbert Marcuse. The common thread of these writings is that if society could somehow rid itself of sexual repressions, human relations could be based on love and affection. This is an extremely naive and socially destructive viewpoint, given the current research in the field. Psychoanalytic assertions to the contrary were never any more than speculations in the service of waging a war on gentile culture. (MacDonald, 123)
The deferring of gratification actually has a powerful evolutionary basis and has helped make the achievements of mankind possible. Responsibility, discipline, careful planning, and the delay of gratification are essential elements of human development. The goals of Jewish led movements in social sciences has been to condition Gentiles into being “subservient slaves”. Interestingly, the promotion of debauchery has mainly affected the lower class of people while the upper class has been relatively immune to it. The upper class and those with high IQ’s, which Jews mainly belong to, have been little affected.
(The War on Gentiles is) a war that has resulted in a society increasingly split between a disproportionately Jewish “cognitive elite” and a growing mass of individuals who are intellectually incompetent, irresponsible as parents, prone to requiring public assistance, and prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse. (MacDonald, 151) Studies have also found that Caucasians with poor parent-child relations have lower ethnocentricism scores than those with tight relations, exactly the results that was to be expected.
In The Function of the Orgasm: Sex-Economic Problems of Biological Energy, Wilhelm Reich (1961, 206-207; italics in text), a Jew, wrote, “the forces which had been kept in check for so long by the superficial veneer of good breeding and artificial self-control now borne by the very multitudes that were striving for freedom, broke through into action: In concentration camps, in the persecution of the Jews… In Fascism, the psychic mass disease revealed itself in an undisguised form.”
The apex of the association between Marxism and psychoanalysis came in the 1920s in the Soviet Union, where all the top psychoanalysts were Bolsheviks, Trotsky supporters, and among the most powerful political figures in the country. (Trotsky himself was an ardent enthusiast of psychoanalysis.) This group organized a government-sponsored State Psychoanalytical Institute and developed a program of “pedology” aimed at producing the “new Soviet man” on the basis of psychoanalytic principles applied to the education of children. The program, which encouraged sexual precocity in children, was put into practice in state-run schools. (MacDonald, 114)
The Jewish Domination of the Psychoanalytic Movement
History made psychoanalysis a “Jewish science.” It continued to be attacked as such. It was destroyed in Germany, Italy, and Austria and exiled to the four winds, as such. It continues even now to be perceived as such by enemies and friends alike. Of course there are by now distinguished analysts who are not Jews… But the vanguard of the movement over the last fifty years has remained predominantly Jewish as it was from the beginning. (Yerushalmi 1991, 98)
In 1906 all 17 members of the (psychoanalysis) movement were Jewish, and they strongly identified as Jews (Klein 1981). In a 1971 study, Henry, Sims and Spray found that 62.1 percent of their sample of American psychoanalysts identified themselves as having a Jewish cultural affinity, compared with only 16.7 percent indicating a Protestant affinity and 2.6 percent a Catholic affinity. An additional 18.6 percent indicated no cultural affinity, a percentage considerably higher than the other categories of mental health professional and suggesting that the percentage of psychoanalysts with a Jewish background was even higher than 62 percent (MacDonald, 106).
Freud’s estrangement from gentiles also involved positive views of Judaism and negative views of gentile culture, the latter viewed as something to be conquered in the interest of leading humanity to a higher moral level and ending anti-Semitism. Freud had a sense of “Jewish moral superiority to the injustices of an intolerant, inhumane—indeed, anti-Semitic—society.” (Klein 1981, 86)
Freud often made Gentiles highly visible in the movement, so that the disproportionately high numbers of Jews in the movement would not be as salient, especially if the goal was to subvert gentile culture and create a pacified population. Gentile colleagues who worked under Freud, some for many years, however often complained about their subservient status within the organizations.
No Scientific Basis For Psychoanalysis
The development of consensual theories consistent with observable reality but without any scientific content is a hallmark of twentieth-century Jewish intellectual movements. (MacDonald, 123)
Psychoanalysis is regarded as a pseudo science with little scientific basis. MacDonald argues that the teachings of social “sciences” over the past century are not real sciences but Judaized political movements made to resemble science. Real science demands independence and objectivity with no attachments to ideology or strong authoritative “father” figures. Real science demands that previous theories and ideas be modified or abandoned when new data comes along to challenge it. Oddly, Freud’s works such as Studies of Hysteria and The Interpretation of Dreams are over a 100 years old, yet are still treated as standard references in the field of social sciences:
The continued use of Freud’s texts in instruction and the continuing references to Freud’s work are simply not conceivable in a real science. In this regard, although Darwin is venerated for his scientific work as the founder of the modern science of evolutionary biology, studies in evolutionary biology only infrequently refer to Darwin’s writings because the field has moved so far beyond his work. On the Origin of Species and Darwin’s other works are important texts in the history of science, but they are not used for current instruction. Moreover, central features of Darwin’s account, such as his views on inheritance, have been completely rejected by modern workers. With Freud, however, there is continuing fealty to the master, at least within an important subset of the movement. (MacDonald, 130)
What passes today for Freud bashing is simply the long-postponed exposure of Freudian ideas to the same standards of noncontradiction, clarity, testability, cogency, and parsimonious explanatory power that prevail in empirical discourse at large. Step by step, we are learning that Freud has been the most overrated figure in the entire history of science and medicine— one who wrought immense harm through the propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses, and fruitless lines of inquiry. Still the legend dies hard, and those who challenge it continue to be greeted like rabid dogs. (Crews et al. 1995, 298-299)
Whereas real science is individualistic at its core, psychoanalysis in all its manifestations is fundamentally a set of cohesive, authoritarian groups centered around a charismatic leader. (MacDonald, 132)
The workings of the (Psychoanalytic) Committee have been extensively documented by Grosskurth (1991, 15; italics in text) who notes that “By insisting the Committee must be absolutely secret, Freud enshrined the principle of confidentiality. The various psychoanalytic societies that emerged from the Committee were like Communist cells, in which the members vowed eternal obedience to their leader. Psychoanalysis became institutionalized by the founding of journals and the training of candidates; in short an extraordinarily effective political entity.” (MacDonald, 128)
There were repeated admonitions for the Committee to present a “united front” against all opposition, for “maintaining control over the whole organization,” for “keeping the troops in line,” and for “reporting to the commander” (Grosskurth 1991, 97). This is not the workings of a scientific organization, but rather of an authoritarian religious-political and quasi-military movement—something resembling the Spanish Inquisition or Stalinism far more than anything resembling what we usually think of as science. (MacDonald, 128)
The continued life of these notions within the psychoanalytic community testifies to the vitality of psychoanalysis as a political movement. The continued self-imposed separation of psychoanalysis from the mainstream science of developmental psychology, as indicated by separate organizations, separate journals, and a largely non-overlapping membership, is a further indication that the fundamental structure of psychoanalysis as a closed intellectual movement continues into the present era. Indeed, the self-segregation of psychoanalysis conforms well to the traditional structure of Judaism vis-à-vis gentile society: There is the development of parallel universes of discourse on human psychology—two incompatible worldviews quite analogous to the differences in religious discourse that have separated Jews from their gentile neighbors over the ages. (MacDonald, 124)
In the world of science, controversy leads to experimentation and rational argumentation. In the world of psychoanalysis, it leads to expulsion of the nonorthodox and to splendid isolation from scientific psychology. (MacDonald, 130)
Despite the paper thin arguments put out by Freud and the lack of scientific evidence, he continues to be treated with cult-like status among his peers.
Conclusion
Psychoanalysis, like many movements that are Jewish-dominated, is that of intentional Gentile cultural debasement. As part of a group evolutionary strategy, while Jews themselves engage in high-investment parenting and group cohesion, they have been engaged in promoting the opposite for Gentiles. It represents yet another battle in the Jew vs Gentile war that has been ongoing since at least biblical times.
