News Ticker

Sigmund Fraud: The Father of Modern Psychoanalysis and Neurotic Charlatan


The progenitor of much of the modern thinking about the mental condition was put forth by a neurotic, strange, feminine Jewish man of the lowest order, Sigmund Schlomo Freud (1856-1939). What follows is, in part, a condensation of a treatment of this charlatan from David McCalden’s treatise “Exiles From History.”

From an early age, Freud’s personal neurotic dysfunctions manifested themselves in unusual behavior patterns and in psychosomatic ailments — particularly those affecting the mouth, the genitals and the anus. At the age of 7, problem child Siggie walked into his parents’ bedroom and deliberately urinated on the floor. He fainted often. He suffered lifelong indigestion, often with constipation in an irritable spastic colon. He suffered severe phobias about riding in trains, about death and about visiting Rome. More often than not, he was chronically depressed and bad-tempered.

His fear of death obsessed him, and he would spend much of his time trying to figure out when he would die by using a friend’s numerology theories. He often recounted the death of his younger brother, Julius, who had died in childhood. He was unable to separate his emotions.

Freud enrolled at the University of Vienna in 1873, where it took him three years longer than normal to complete his medical studies. His doctoral dissertation, “On the Spinal Cord of Lower Fishes,” focused on studies of the testicles of eels.

Freud did not take to the medical profession out of a passion to help other people. At 70 years of age, Freud wrote retrospectively on his youth and later years of professional life:

“I did not feel any particular preference for the position and activity of the physician in these youthful years, but not later. Rather, I was moved by a kind of curiosity, which concerned itself more with human conditions than with natural objects.”

The psychoanalyst Sandor Ferenczi reports a statement by Freud from 1932 that referred to patients as “rabble” and “only good for money-earning and studying.”

From 1884 onward, Freud was in effect a snake-oil salesman. He then began experimenting with cocaine, using it on himself and on his fiancée, Martha Bernays (1861-1951). He called cocaine his “magic carpet” and eventually thrust it on all, including his sisters, friends, patients, colleagues — everyone.

He told his fiancée it made him a “big wild man” and it would “make her strong and give her cheeks a red color.” Martin L. Gross, author of “The Psychological Society,” writes, “No one has yet evaluated the hallucinatory effects of cocaine on Freud’s mind during the formative years of psychoanalysis.”

Freud’s friend Ernst von Fleischl-Marxov (1846-1891) had become a despairing addict after Freud had prescribed cocaine as medicine for a painful hand tumor. There is no doubt that the addiction brought about this early death.

Michel Onfray, an author who wrote a comprehensive and critical monograph on Freud in 2010, documented deaths from his gross misdiagnosis (for example, a 14-year-old with a tumor as having hysteria) and quack treatments.

Freud went to Paris, to study under the French neurologist Jean Martin Charcot. Charcot was interested in the study of hysteria, which at that time was thought to be an affliction caused by an irritation of the womb (hence its name). Charcot believed that hypnotism was the answer to such personality dysfunctions.

A modern commentator on Freud’s work, Henry F. Ellenberger, recently showed in “The Discovery of the Unconscious” that many of Freud’s “original” ideas, such as hypnosis, were in fact lifted and plagiarized from Charcot and other colleagues.

Another of Freud’s plagiarized ideas was that of his colleague Josef Brewer (1842-1925). Brewer believed that the answer to female hysteria was catharsis: The patient would be healed by talking to her calmly and helping her “talk through” her hallucinations and fears. Freud and Brewer collaborated on a book, “Studies in Hysteria” published in 1895, which described treatment in detail.

One of the most important cases described in the book was that of “Anna O,” who later turned out to be Bertha Pappenheim. She went on to become a prominent social worker and proponent of women’s liberation in Austria. Pappenheim suffered from sexual hallucinations, and it may well be that it was this particular case that led Freud to develop his next theory — an only semi-original one: Psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy was a potpourri of techniques lifted from previous colleagues, laced with a heavy dose of sexual fixations, most of them exclusively Jewish in nature.

Originally, Freud would have his patients lie down on a couch and ask them leading questions in order to discover the root cause of their anxieties. Later, he would allow them to offer their “free flow” of ideas without interruption from him. Soon using a charade of the scientific method, Freud began to surmise that most of his patients’ problems were sexual in nature.

Freud also pursued a quack notion — put forth by his homosexual lover, Dr. Wilhelm Fliess, an eye and nose doctor — that sexual dysfunctions were caused by “disturbances in the mucous membranes of the nose.” Freud twice allowed Fliess to operate on his nose for “nasal infections” as an experiment.

Freud continued to be plagued by bad health, which included migraines, nightmares, heart trouble and eventually mouth cancer. Toward the end of his life, he suffered a severe operation of the jaw, resulting in his upper palate being artificially replaced.

Then Freud turned to the interpretation of his personal dreams. Throughout his career, he had a Freudian tendency to focus on himself and his own bizarre thoughts. He would then project condition onto others.

One dream he claimed to have experienced was where two bird men laid his mother on the bed. He theorized that this represented his boyhood desire to kill his father and have sex with his mother. Freud then insisted that such dream symbolism was “typical” in the broader population and labelled the phenomenon the Oedipus Complex after a famous Greek fable.

Eventually, Freud patched together his crackpot dream analysis into a full-fledged theory, which was published as “The Interpretation of Dreams.” His theory held that dreams are always “wishful thinking” — even though the “wishes” might be subconscious and might manifest themselves in the dream in quite different symbolic form. Most “wishful thinking,” he argued, was sexual in nature. Freud puts forth that people are inherently bisexual.

From the get go, Freud began to develop the almost inevitable Jewish characteristic of a fear of “anti-Semitism.” He adopted as his boyhood heroes Hannibal (who he imagined to be a Semitic hero, who fought against the era’s traditional “anti-Semites,” the Romans) and Oliver Cromwell (whom he identified with the emancipation movement).

Freud alluded to a dysfunction from which he himself suffered: a phenomenon he called his “Rome neurosis”. It seems that for many years Freud had been unable to visit Rome, even though he had been to Italy many times. In his book, he described how he often dreamed of conquering Rome, just like his hero Hannibal had tried to do. He offered the following explanation:

“To my youthful mind, Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organization of the Catholic church … Thus the wish to go to Rome had become in my dream life a cloak and symbol for a number of other passionate wishes. Their realization was to be pursued with all the perseverance and single mindedness of the Carthaginian.”

In his startlingly candid article “Group Fantasies and Jewish Radicalism” published in the Fall 1978 issue of The Journal of Psychohistory, Stanley Rothman suggests:

“There is little question but that a good deal of the impetus for the discovery of psychoanalysis came from Freud’s general hostility toward Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism.”

Freud next turned his crackpot theories to human sexuality with the 1905 publication of “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality.” He argued that humans go through different stages of sexual development. First, the oral stage in which infants derive pleasure from suckling at their mother’s breast. Next comes the anal stage, where pleasure focuses on bowel movements. Third is the phallic stage, when the erogenous zone switches to the genitals. At the age of 5 or 6, children enter into the age of their Oedipus complex, when they lust for their mother and seek to destroy their father, their love rival.

Freud’s first “diagnosis” of this complex was with a 5-year-old boy in 1909. He felt that the boy was afraid of horses (penis symbols) because he really feared his father. He feared the horses would bite off his own little penis (fear of castration by his father).

Freud obviously experienced Oedipal lust, a disturbance that non-Freudians, such as child psychiatrist Dr. Stellar Chess of New York University, believe affects only a small number of children. He then suffered the delusion that his abnormality was normal and universal.

In his next book, “Totem and Taboo (1913),” the delusional Freud argued that sexual customs were based in primitive society’s behavior patterns and not on biological instinct. Where the primitive patterns came from, he didn’t say.

His therapy practice developed over these years, and he gradually evolved different rules of approach. He determined that neurosis could only be cured by encouraging its transference into something more immediate. The treatment of the “second” neurosis would automatically bring about the cure of the underlying neuroses. The only exceptions, he said, were those neuroses that were narcissistic and, therefore, psychotic and untreatable. Even severe depression is narcissistic, he argued, because it is a form of hatred against others that becomes misdirected against oneself on account of the social taboo on open displays of hatred against “loved ones.”

Eventually, Freud concluded that “the aim of all life is death” — a death cult aim to arrive at a condition that is totally devoid of all tensions, stresses and strains.

When the National Socialist regime took over in Germany (1933) and in Austria (1938), Freud received his comeuppance. His books were declared heretical and were publicly burned. Freud was attacked by the National Socialists as the founder of Jewish hypo-criticalism, a creed that humiliates man as being an appendage to his sexual organs.

Since his death in 1939, a chorus of analysts have chimed in on Freud. Dr. Harold M. Voth, a Freudian psychiatrist at the Menninger Foundation, wrote,

“I think that Sigmund Freud had sexual conflicts within himself which he did not resolve. His belief in constitutional bisexuality, for example, was an excuse for certain personal traits.”

When Freud’s biographer, Ernest Jones, first met him in 1908, he observed, “I dimly sensed some slight feminine aspect in his manner and movements.” Modern critics suggest that present-day Freudians are influenced by Freud’s “feminine, passive feelings” so much that they “regard masculine assertiveness and aggression as a neurotic manifestation.”

The widely-published Jewish author Martin L. Gross and the aforementioned Voth wrap it all up:

“Dr. Voth is convinced that Freud displayed ‘a considerable degree of femininity’ in his personality, a trait that has colored the entire profession by making what he calls the ‘neurotically troubled’ Dr. Freud a model.

“Those driving needs have infiltrated the psyche of millions of individuals as well, remaking much of our personalities in his image. By offering his catalog of foibles as the symbols of normality, Freud achieved immortality. He has successfully projected his personality and his style of thought onto much of humanity, especially the impressionable American psyche. We have all — some wittingly, others unwittingly —become the children of Sigmund.

“Hostility was penned up inside this almost shy, somewhat feminine man, like a caged feline. His was an angry soul which hated even when it loved, a trait which he has passed down to us as ambivalence.

“He perpetually read unconscious hostility into his cases, including that of Dora, the Wolf Man and the Rat Man. He did this even over the reasonable objections of his patients, who said they felt no such hostilities.

“Although the impact of Freud’s personality has been broad, it has not generally been beneficent. The portrait that emerges is one of a man driven by the furies of hostility and envy, weighed down by depression, death wishes, phobias and severe debilitating neuroses. He was professionally distorted by his extreme surreptitiousness and gullibility — the antithesis of a man of science. Freud the man is more the unhappy philosopher than the intrepid researcher who society thought would unlock the key to our confused behavior.”

Freud told his colleague Karl Abraham that “too many of us are Jews. I don’t want Psychoanalysis to become a Jewish national affair.”

However, psychoanalysis is so much grounded in metropolitan Jewish life that Gross reports 11 central states which do not have a single psychoanalyst. One Manhattan office building houses more psychoanalysts than seven states combined. The two major analytic capitals are almost 3,000 miles apart: Manhattan and Los Angeles.” Curing a patient is commonly called bringing him to be a “mensch.”

Dr. Jerome Frank of the Johns-Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore suggests that the therapy industry may be self-perpetuating and self-serving:

“The greater the number of treatment facilities and the more widely they are known, the larger the number of persons seeking their services. Psychotherapy is the only form of treatment which, to some extent, appears to create the illness it treats.”

The Israeli philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz went even further and held that Freud psychoanalysis was “primarily a Jewish money-making scheme”  and that’s a “bad sign for (us) Jews.” He went on to say that psychoanalysis was “entirely in the hands of the Jews” and has “brought unspeakable suffering to millions of people.”

As a footnote, in our research into this skulduggery, and in all fairness, we’ve found that — at least at one time — some of the more reasoned voices countering Freud were in fact Jewish. We also note that their dissenting voices are just as suppressed and hidden from view by the heavy-handed gatekeepers.

Jeffrey Masson (Jewish) was Projects Director of the Freud Archives, with full access to Freud’s correspondence and other unpublished papers. He made finds that turned him against Freud. Masson said that Freud covered up child abuse as an issue. Masson claimed that Freud lacked the guts to confront the reality (and ubiquity) of sexual abuse. He was kicked out of psychoanalytic societies for his views.

The “work” of Sigmund Freud was spun into more twisted-mind offshoots and side alleyways. It influenced the Frankfurt School and neo-Freudians that was personified by Herbert Marcuse, who repackaged the crackpottery into a stream-of-consciousness book entitled “Eros and Civilization.” Marcuse argued that the old roster of Protestant-capitalist ethical vines — productivity, achievement, responsibility, respect for one’s fellow men, masculinity, inner strength and integrity — were conformist and, therefore, repressive under the inverted Freudian model.

  • 1

16 Comments on Sigmund Fraud: The Father of Modern Psychoanalysis and Neurotic Charlatan

  1. I always found Freud’s views to be disturbing and unsettling. This is not how humans are wired! The cures for our negative thinking and actions are found in the bible and words of our Heavenly Father Jesus Christ. His words literally tell us how to handle any circumstance and behaviors. Trying to solve this in any other way will bring sub par results. They have intertwined Freud’s studies into the study of human emotions so tightly that it is unavoidable in this field. Letting people believe these theories is a sin against God and his perfect creation.

    • Well said. I would give zero credence to anyone who puts Freud and Jesus Christ in the same bracket. They don’t know what they are talking about.

      Jesus Christ is the insurmountable stumbling block for the Jews, but for Europe, he was the impregnable fortress that united Europe and protected her against Jewish chicanery, sedition, immorality and insurrection for more than 1000 years until Freud’s hero, the traitor, revolutionary, and Jewish debt-slave, Oliver Cromwell, allowed the Jews back into England. It has been disaster ever since. [All of Europe, and most of the world, is now a Jewish debt-slave.]

      Which is why the Jewish “holy” book the Talmud says that Jesus Christ is in hell, covered in boiling excrement and semen. THAT is what they think of him.

      The Jewish religion is pure filth, and has NO connection to Christianity. Anyone who says otherwise (including uninformed idiots who call themselves “Christians”) is ignorant of history and has never bothered to read the Talmud.

      • Freud was indeed a moron, but all religion is crap. Under various disguises, but still crap. Shekel, dear, if u think Xtianity “rules”, it means u never read the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Or u did and ure just another brainwashed sheeple.

        • romanianalien- you said “all religion is crap”…
          Usually if one speaks in absolute terms, they’re wrong. Many organisms, down to insect level at least, naturally arrange themselves into hierarchies. This shows that organisms naturally aspire to a higher ideal, i.e. worker bees serve the queen, and humans do the same thing. That function is “built” into us. So then the question becomes what higher ideal would be best to follow? Well if one follows their own self interests as their highest ideal, it doesn’t work out well most of the time. Psychopaths love doing that, and it fucks up the whole world, if you’ve been paying attention. If one follows their tribal identity as their highest ideal, it’s not much better. Arranging into tribal identities leaves mankind organizing itself at a level barely higher than the animal kingdom, basically the native tribal level. With man’s significant cognitive ability, one could think man could do better. Actually we know man can do better, because we have. Which brings the religious ideals into focus. But you have to unpack those individually, and they’re not all the same- some religions are in actuality self worship systems, some tribal worship systems, others still polytheistic/ lower demigod level worship, and one is the true higher power worship, in my opinion. That’s my opinion because I believe in The Almighty, I’m not a polytheist, and I understand the pitfalls of self and tribal worship. So all religions are not created equal. One can even intuit the efficacy of a religion by the success and advancement of the cultures that they create. Another way one can evaluate a religion is by asking oneself “does this religion contain universal truths that I know to be true? Conversely, does it contain obvious deception?”
          P.S.- Don’t insult people if possible, attacking someone else’s person is a tactic used by people with weak arguments.

          • Hi Sparrow,
            When you say, “The Almighty”, who or what do you mean?
            It must be seen and rejected as Jewish mind control at its most basic. It exists to confuse and disarm Gentiles and in its extreme forms to protect Jews. If it weren’t for Christianity and its passive, surrender-based nature, the Jews would not be around today to cause us so much trouble and expense and international bloodshed. The teachings of Jesus, whom the Jews pretend to hate, have kept the Jews alive and well.

            “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses”
            (Deuteronomy 34:10)
            Yahweh, a being of simple and bloody tastes

            “One night while Moses was in camp, Jehovah was about to kill him.
            But Zipporah [his wife] circumcised her son with a flint knife … So Yahweh did not harm Moses.
            Zipporah said, ‘You are a bridegroom of blood’.”
            – Exodus 4.24-26.

            NUMBERS 31:13-18:
            (13) Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.
            (14) But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains who had returned from the battle.
            (15) “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.
            (16) “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people.
            (17) So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man.
            ( 18 ) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

            “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46 If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”…
            John 5:45 47

            For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
            Matthew 5:18


            Judaism is morally bankrupt; it has nothing to offer us but out-dated plagiarized myths, about some angry judgmental god that is remarkably exactly like the Jews themselves. The anthropocentric supremacist myths of the Jews should have little appeal to a person of high consciousness; such exclusionistic ideas are an anathema to any decent human being. The idea that you need salvation from a Jew should go against ever cell in your being, if not you need to examine what great fault lies within yourself.

    • Nothing exists without the creator God – both Jew and Gentile were created by God from Adam and Eve not a muddy pool .
      Do you honestly think that blind chance changed a cow’s or whatever’s DNA into a whale or an ape into a human – this is pure fantasy .
      Can you give us your mechanism for one “kind” like a bear breeding into a porpoise as Darwin thought – but he at least had an excuse through ignorance of cellular complexity and DNA.

      Time is not a mechanism – no amount of time with monkeys and typewriters would even produce one paragraph of a Shakespeare play
      let alone a 3 billion DNA code and RNA code at the same time – plus
      an operating cell wall etc etc . Your schoolbooks are drivel .

      Natural selection does not change the species at all as most biologists
      admit . There are no transnationals alive or dead when there should be trillions if Darwin’s crazy hypothesis were true.

      “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God.
      I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

      (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

      • Yo Charlie,

        Foreword — Daat Emet
        For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot; see there). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men'” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
        In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

        “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”

        That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

        For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:

        1. Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).

        2. A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.

        3. A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.

        4. The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.

        5. A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.

        6. The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.

        7. One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.

        8. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.

        9. One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.

        10. A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).

        11. One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.

        12. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
        13. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbor” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
        14. One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”

        15. Gentiles are likened to animals.

        16. If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
        17. The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
        18. One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
        19. An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
        20. Their members are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
        21. Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

        R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article: “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
        On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
        In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article, “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written: “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.

        Tzfi’a 3
        Rabbi David Bar Chaim
        Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

  2. I much recommend the French book by Catherine Meyer: “Le Livre Noir de la Psychanalysee, Vivre, Penser et aller Mieux sans Freud”, les arènes, Paris, 2005.

  3. You mention stream of consciousness. A much feted and reviewed novel The Lodger by Louisa Treger s couple of years ago is about Dorothy Richardson who was a lover of Wells and credited with inventing stream of consciousness in literature. I won’t go into my own research with Treger which involves a children’s charity (her son’s blog show who you’re dealing with). I haven’t read the book but no doubt fascinating insight into the mind of a dark mother.

  4. “the aim of all life is death”
    This concept is popular because it removes personal responsibility from the equation. Hell if you really thought this was true and had a sense of personal responsibility, you can reduce that further and blow your head off right away. I wouldn’t say that’s a optimal “aim” to have in life. Not only is this saying obviously naturally false, it’s linguistically a lie as well. To aim is to direct a course to a specified object or goal. Death happens to all humans, we don’t have to aim for it. Pretty silly really, he should’ve been laughed out of his already dubious profession.

    • And that quote from Jerome Frank mirrors what one of my Jewish professors told me in a conversation about psychology promoting mental illness….I asked her if the business of psychiatry was to keep people mentally ill…her reply was “Yep!”

      It was then I decided NOT to become a psychologist…but I still got my BA in Psychology anyway. That way, I can defend myself against idiots who throw psychology in my face.

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: