Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 25th, 2010 #1
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default Oedipus Complex: did Freud get it wrong?

Basic overview of the "
Oedipus_complex Oedipus_complex
". (all little boys want to kill their dads and marry their mums, and all little girls have penis envy.)

In classical theory, individuals who are fixated at the oedipal level are "mother-fixated" or "father-fixated", and reveal this by choosing sexual partners who are discernible surrogates for their parent(s).

But isn't it more likely that in a traditional nuclear family (with mentally stable parents) a child will have a happy upbringing filled with good memories, and in adulthood, want to recreate that for their own children? Isn't it more likely that they look for someone like their opposite sex parent in order to have those parenting skills in their partner?

The animal kingdom tells us that females will choose strong, good providers, fastest runners, brightest feathers, whatever, and really, humans are just animals.

The father now becomes the figure of identification, as the child wants to keep his penis, but resigns from his attempts to take the mother, shifting his libidinal attention to new objects of desire.


I doubt this is a desire to be romantically involved with one's own mother since the majority of people have an inbuilt "eww" factor that would prevent this from happening. I think it's far more likely that the mother is the most prominent, if not only, female in a boy's early years and therefore she is the woman prominent in his dreams. How do you dream about other women when you don't know any?

Also, children are selfish. It's necessary for survival. They can't help it and good parents will teach them how to share and when it's appropriate to share. Could the obsession with the mother simply be a survival instinct? The mother is usually the food and cuddle provider and the source of warmth. Is the preferring the mother to the father simply survival?

also held that the unsuccessful resolution of the Oedipus complex could result in neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality.

In my uneducated opinion, neurosis is usually a learned behaviour, learned either by experiences or circumstances.

Freud appeared to get his whole Oedipus theory from a fable, a myth, written by Sophocles. Sophocles intended the moral of his story to be that you can't cheat fate. Oedipus was meant to kill his dad and marry his mother and so he did. He had no idea they were his parents - the lesson was obviously meant to be that if it's meant to happen, it will.

So did Freud get it completely wrong with his mother fixation complex?

An overview of Sophocles original fable.
 
Old March 25th, 2010 #2
Joe Owens
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Basic overview of the "Oedipus complex". (all little boys want to kill their dads and marry their mums, and all little girls have penis envy.)

In classical theory, individuals who are fixated at the oedipal level are "mother-fixated" or "father-fixated", and reveal this by choosing sexual partners who are discernible surrogates for their parent(s).

But isn't it more likely that in a traditional nuclear family (with mentally stable parents) a child will have a happy upbringing filled with good memories, and in adulthood, want to recreate that for their own children? Isn't it more likely that they look for someone like their opposite sex parent in order to have those parenting skills in their partner?

The animal kingdom tells us that females will choose strong, good providers, fastest runners, brightest feathers, whatever, and really, humans are just animals.

The father now becomes the figure of identification, as the child wants to keep his penis, but resigns from his attempts to take the mother, shifting his libidinal attention to new objects of desire.


I doubt this is a desire to be romantically involved with one's own mother since the majority of people have an inbuilt "eww" factor that would prevent this from happening. I think it's far more likely that the mother is the most prominent, if not only, female in a boy's early years and therefore she is the woman prominent in his dreams. How do you dream about other women when you don't know any?

Also, children are selfish. It's necessary for survival. They can't help it and good parents will teach them how to share and when it's appropriate to share. Could the obsession with the mother simply be a survival instinct? The mother is usually the food and cuddle provider and the source of warmth. Is the preferring the mother to the father simply survival?

also held that the unsuccessful resolution of the Oedipus complex could result in neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality.

In my uneducated opinion, neurosis is usually a learned behaviour, learned either by experiences or circumstances.

Freud appeared to get his whole Oedipus theory from a fable, a myth, written by Sophocles. Sophocles intended the moral of his story to be that you can't cheat fate. Oedipus was meant to kill his dad and marry his mother and so he did. He had no idea they were his parents - the lesson was obviously meant to be that if it's meant to happen, it will.

So did Freud get it completely wrong with his mother fixation complex?

An overview of Sophocles original fable.
Sigmund Freud no doubt knew it was a load of crap. It was meant for the GOYIM to swallow.
 
Old March 25th, 2010 #3
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Yes, I'm sure he knew it was wrong. Most of it doesn't even make sense. But many (expensive) psychiatrists and psychologists are still basing themselves on his work.
 
Old March 25th, 2010 #4
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Freud developed his theories with no reference to the Aryan population or education.He actually studied cerebal palsy at university.He developed his interest in neurology from his jewish antecedents and his synogogue studies.In the context of his own jewish peopleI would say he was spot on.
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old March 25th, 2010 #5
Vektor7
I Come in Peace....
 
Vektor7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Monrovia
Posts: 345
Default Id of the Yid

The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity by John Murray Cuddihy; Basic Books, 1974.
Reviewed by Hugh Lincoln

Decades before Kevin MacDonald embarked on his Jewish trilogy, a little-known sociology professor at New York City's Hunter College came to suspect that the Jewish intellectual movements of the 19th and 20th centuries weren't quite the marvels of universal application imagined by academia and later by wider society. Rather, they were elaborate coping mechanisms designed to de-racialize the social conflicts between Gentile Europe and newly emancipated Jewry. It was MacDonald who expanded "coping" to "destroying" in the context of Jewish-Gentile relations, but John Murray Cuddihy is to be credited for one of history's more thoroughgoing, if obscure, exposures of Jewish deception.

Cuddihy, who retired in 1998, is presumably not a racialist. He speaks more of "culture" than ethnicity or even race, and might even consider himself sympathetic to Jews. The book, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity, was published in 1974. It is spoken of in reverent tones by the writer who calls himself Yggdrasil and other learned White nationalists. But some racially conscious Whites confess that the book does not speak to them. Inaccessibly dense and academic, they say -- a sentiment with which I came to sympathize as I read the book. The Ordeal of Civility is not light reading. It is also difficult to find. But within the yellowed pages of my used copy, purchased over the Internet, I found a surprisingly damning analysis of Jewish motivations.

Cuddihy's thesis goes roughly as follows: Upon the granting of emancipation to the Jews of Europe*, their less-refined ways, developed over centuries within their tightly bound tribal lives, bumped rudely into the carefully cultivated behavioral codes of the larger Gentile communities of Europe. The closer Jews tried to get, the more intense the conflict became. The Jewish intellectual elite cringed when the ostjuden, or unassimilated Jews, made a spectacle of themselves in European civil society. Cuddihy cites the example of the Victorian-era social reformer Beatrice Potter, who found herself disgusted by the Jews of London's East End: "... the immigrant Jew, though possessed of many first-class virtues, is deficient in that highest and latest development of human sentiment -- social morality... He totally ignores all social obligations other than keeping the law of the land, the maintenance of his own family, and the charitable relief of coreligionists."

[*Prussian Jewry's Emancipation Edict, for instance, was granted on March 11, 1812.]

Jewish intellectuals were well aware that views such as Potter's prevailed. Their minds raced to concoct explanations for the conflict that steered clear of the most obvious one: race. Karl Marx described it as a class conflict rooted in economic maldistribution. Sigmund Freud described it as a medical malady rooted in suppressed natural urges. The "structuralism" of French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, propounded in the 1960s and 1970s, asserted that no one culture was better than any another, leaving open the possibility that, if anything, Western culture was loaded with hypocrisy and trivial etiquette while non-Western cultures were more admirably "natural."

The propounding of such ideas, Cuddihy says, sprang from Jewish "status humiliations of modernity," the "wound in the heart" suffered by their encounter with a larger and more refined Gentile society, an encounter that left them feeling inferior. "Structuralism, like Marxism, is an ideology of subcultural despair, an uneasy mélange of cognitive relativism and ethical absolutism," Cuddihy says. By Gentile "modernity," Cuddihy meant the separation of the private from the public that evolved as Gentile Europe moved from animal skin-wearing tribalism to civil societies with public institutions. The transition saw the development of new social rituals that would have been unnecessary in a close-knit society in which everyone was intimately acquainted with everyone else. Jews, not having undergone such changes, developed no such rituals.

As I imagine it, the Jewish intelligentsia were prompted into a "fight or flight" mental reaction. In application, it combined both fighting and 'flighting.' The fighting was the criticism of Gentiles for living their lives in ways that were, to us, completely natural. The 'flighting' was the deceptive aspect of that fighting: Jews did not confront Gentiles qua Gentiles. Rather, they sought alternate explanations that served to mollify their embarrassment at the behavior of their own people. From the introduction: "As we shall see, the ideology of the Jewish intellectual is frequently a projection onto the general, Gentile culture of a forbidden ethnic self-criticism. Shame for 'one's own kind' is universalized into anger at the ancestral enemy... 'Neither Jew nor Gentile is to be blamed for the tsursis (trouble) of the Diaspora: it is but a symptom of the capitalist exploitation (Marx) or a medical symptom of anxiety (Freud),'" Cuddihy says, echoing the hoped-for reception of the Jewish ideas. The analysis rings true. I am convinced (no, not by reference to Freud) that a primary motivator for the human thought process is the desire to "get comfortable" with any given situation, from the immediate and personal to larger social or political realities. Getting comfortable need not be mere self-adjustment -- it can also mean the alteration of the environment itself, like a prehistoric human smashing down grasses to make a bed. As I understand Cuddihy, Jews were doing both: creating ideologies that comforted them with reassurances of equality, and, if accepted by Gentiles, made for pliant enemies.

Cuddihy is short on vivid examples of the culture clash that so motivated (and was misunderstood by) the Jewish intelligentsia, but several emerge in his treatment of Freud. Consider Freud's reaction to privacy. Within the insulated Jewish community of the shtetl, or Jewish ghetto, "privacy" was seen as abnormal -- anyone desiring personal space must be hiding something and is suspect. It did not occur to Freud that Gentile culture, having developed into a larger society, may well have had good reasons for respecting the personal space of others. In the nineteenth century, Eastern European Jewry "mistakes privacy for secrecy." The ways in which European Gentiles institutionalized the need to be private in public, or the need for decorum, is "lost on the Jewish intelligentsia of the nineteenth century. To them, it appears as so much hypocrisy." Cuddihy quotes Philip Rieff's Freud: The Mind of the Moralist: "What is for Freud 'repression' psychologically understood, is 'secrecy' morally understood. Secrecy is the category moral illness, for it provides a hiding place for false motives."

In other words, Freud described as "sick" Gentile behavior that was, to us, healthy and necessary. But it was not out of mere misunderstanding that Freud came to his conclusions. Animosity toward Gentiles played no small part. Freud, laid out on Cuddihy's couch, recalls a childhood episode that burned into him a desire to "get even" with the exclusionary enemy. Freud's father, Jacob Freud, was walking down the sidewalk in Moravia and bumped into a Gentile. "Jew! Get off the pavement!" snarled the Gentile. The elder Freud's hat was knocked into the gutter. His reaction is not to leap to the Gentile's throat, but to calmly retrieve his hat from the gutter and continue on his way. Freud, as it happens, didn't witness any of this. The recounting by his father was enough. Is it possible that this episode created Freud's fantasy that by developing "psychoanalysis," he would become the Semitic conqueror of Gentile Europe? Like Hannibal astride his elephant, he would storm Rome and exact vengeance on the hated goyim.


Freud on Hannibal
When I finally came to realize the consequences of belonging to an alien race, and was forced by the anti-Semitic feeling among my classmates to take a definite stand, the figure of the Semitic commander assumed still greater proportions in my imagination. Hannibal and Rome symbolized, in my youthful eyes, the struggle between the tenacity of the Jews and the organization of the Catholic Church. The significance for our emotional life which the anti-Semitic movement has since assumed helped to fix the thoughts and impressions of those earlier days. Thus the desire to go to Rome has in my dream-life become the mask and symbol for a number of warmly cherished wishes, for whose realization one had to work with the tenacity and single-mindedness of the Punic general, though their fulfillment at times seemed as remote as Hannibal's life-long wish to enter Rome.

And now, for the first time, I happened upon the youthful experience which even today still expresses its power in all these emotions and dreams. I might have been ten or twelve years old when my father began to take me with him on his walks, and in his conversation to reveal his views on the things of this world. Thus it was that he once told me the following incident, in order to show me that I had been born into happier times than he: "When I was a young man, I was walking one Saturday along the street in the village where you were born; I was well-dressed, with a new fur cap on my head. Up comes a Christian, who knocks my cap into the mud, and shouts, 'Jew, get off the pavement!'" -- "And what did you do?" -- "I went into the street and picked up the cap," he calmly replied. That did not seem heroic on the part of the big, strong man who was leading me, a little fellow, by the hand. I contrasted this situation, which did not please me, with another, more in harmony with my sentiments -- the scene in which Hannibal's father, Hamilcar Barcas, made his son swear before the household altar to take vengeance on the Romans. Ever since then Hannibal has had a place in my phantasies.

It is no accident that "id" mimics "Yid." "In psychoanalysis, the 'id' is the functional equivalent of the 'Yid' in social intercourse," Cuddihy says. "The id, in other words, was a moral equalizer legitimating 'scientifically' social equality between Jew and Gentile in late nineteenth-century Europe." Cuddihy quotes a Howard Morley Sacher on "the unconscious desire of Jews, as social pariahs, to unmask the respectability of the European society which closed them out," adding that in Freud's case, it was the conscious desire of a conscious pariah. "There was no more effective way of doing this," Sacher is quoted as saying, "than by dredging up from the human psyche the sordid and infantile sexual aberrations that were frequently the sources of human behavior. Even Jews who were not psychiatrists must have taken pleasure in the fact of social equalization performed by Freud's 'new thinking.' The B'nai B'rith Lodge of Vienna, for example, delighted in listening to Freud air his theories."

Cuddihy's presentation ironically draws upon the same motivation exposition techniques employed by Freud. When Jews sneer that Gentiles are embarrassed by sex and need to be "unmasked," Cuddihy points out that what they're trying to do is strip all humanity to base commonalities in an effort to make their crude, uncivilized selves feel more acceptable, all the while rudely ignoring the evolved and genuine social need for Gentile conventions. The Gentile is left shamed and confused, convinced that he must "let it all hang out" if he is to achieve mental health. Freud is revealed as a clever Jew pleased with himself for having pulled the Gentile's pants down to point out to the assembled crowd that, like other mammals, this one's got genitalia. Cuddihy coolly returns the favor. Freud himself might have had some insight on this, as he was reported to have once wondered: am I an original scientist or just a dirty Jew?

What Freud sought by subversion, Marx sought by revolution. Jewish-Gentile conflict for Marx was seen not as a racial battle but as class struggle. In this respect, Marxism found a parallel with Zionism. "Jewish radicals analyzed anti-Semitism as incidental to the class struggle and expected it to disappear in the ruins of the capitalist system," Cuddihy quotes a Ben Halpern as saying. Cuddihy continues: "Zionists planned to heal at one stroke the wound to national self-esteem by leaving Europe -- and by leaving behind the invidious comparisons fatal to remaining there. Marxists planned to kill the 'Jewish question' by revolution, not emigration: at one stroke, all would be changed, changed utterly, as a species-humane community is born." History, of course, would not bear out anything "humane" resulting from Marxism, socialism or communism.

Toward the end of the book, Cuddihy offers a revealing account of the "Chicago Seven" trial, featuring a showdown between Jewish radical Abbie Hoffman and the assimilated Jewish judge, also named Hoffman. The exchanges ("You're a disgrace to the Jews, runt!" Abbie Hoffman yells at the judge. "You should have served Hitler better!") are seen by Cuddihy as revealing the very clashes Marx and Freud witnessed and sought to explain away.

Today, excluding college campuses, Marxism holds little sway. Freud's ideas find a few purist adherents, though many therapists have distanced themselves from his theories. But observe the damage done, and how Jews have deftly avoided blame for the misery caused. To the untutored, they are tough to spot, darting quickly from movement to movement under a cover of proclaimed universalism. For once an intellectual or political movement loses utility for Jews, they abandon it. I believe that the Jewish tendency so well described by Cuddihy finds its fiercest manifestation today in "neo-conservatism," a two-headed beast of race-denying social liberalism and pro-Israel warmongering. Jews in government and media line up to feed this beast, which serves them nicely at the dawn of the new century. It looks "conservative" and thus beats the charge that Jews are liberals, yet pushes simultaneously for the American multiculturalism that makes them comfortable in the U.S., and the Jewish exclusionism that makes them comfortable in Israel. If there is a deviation from Cuddihy's thesis, it is this: Neo-conservatism and other Jewish maneuvering is no "Jewish struggle" evocative of sympathy for a "Diaspora people." It is child's play for Jews. Jews no longer struggle with modernity, they define it. It is now White Americans who are strangers in a strange land. Life in deracinated America is the relevant struggle. It is our ordeal of incivility. Restoring racial sanity will require the emergence of a counterforce: our own intellectual elite, a group of racially conscious Whites disheartened enough by what they see happening to speak out, and inspired enough to lead the way out.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/yid.htm
__________________
THE HOLOCAUST™ - THE ONLY CARD YOU'LL EVER NEED
 
Old March 25th, 2010 #6
Joe Owens
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,920
Default

Sigmund Freud was an ENEMY of OUR People. He, like Marx, set out to destroy us.

Sigmund Freud: Jewish-Soviet Socio-Analysis

By Ned Hamblin, GSTX News Service

The very basis of Marxist Communism's focus on the 'healing' of society's illness through 'analysis' (dialectical analysis) is an outgrowth of the same vicious animism of 'healingness' seen in Sigmund Freud's 'healing' individuals through an 'analysis' of their previous life experiences to determine how the person 'got' to where he is today.

In Marxism, society's past needs to be repaired. In Freudianism, individual pasts need to be repaired. In both worlds, these Jewish thinkers believe that the 'Yahweh' or "Invisible God' both hide things necessary for human perfection from all men from the beginning of time and that only through 'extrication' of society (Marx) and of (unconscious mind) Freud could the reality of the forbidden fruit--Perfection--be achieved. Thus, both philosophers failed to extricate themselves from their own histories in forging their ideas. Instead of creating new sciences of economics and psychology, Marx and Freud simply produced excerpts of the Judeo World Views they grew up with, blending them with pseudo observations of history and biographies to produce a New Eden for their clients--e.g., for Marx, society; for Freud, the patient.

By twisting their Jewish religious learning and histories into new ways of thinking, Marx and Freud destroyed the underlying surface of Christianity into which the world had been evolving for centuries. Caught in the underlying conflict of Christian tolerant acceptance of foibles and the Judeo non-acceptance of deviation in all areas of life, both Marx and Freud committed the world to violent upheaval and dangerous hazards which proved to be too uncontrollable. The result was catastrophic.

During this time, the newspapers of the world as well as the film studios, magazines, radio news services, and publishing houses, continued to discuss world realities in terms of Judeo guilt complexes as Jews worldwide, through their tight monopolization, access to, and total control of presses, sought to extricate Christianity from the world and its peoples through the magic world of print. This Yahwehesque, hidden, control-freak reporting attempted to interpret what was happening to the collapsing Christian World, all of it in Jewish terms alone, in a world where Jews had become the hidden Yahweh God who looked out and controlled the little paeans who were their audiences and which they misused to place Jewish mind control upon these non-Jews of the world who were their continuous and daily victims. In having to read these highly selective and editorialized reports, the world fell under Jewish control. One of the interesting facts concerning these reports in newspapers in nations with few Jews is the large number of totally banal references to Jews, Zionism, Palestine, Communism, Freudianism, Psychiatry, Liberalism, Civil Rights, and all of the other Jewish philosophies unleashed against humanity by the Jews.

Thus, the Jews who were less than 2% of the world corrupted and utterly destroyed what the entireity which had been and will always be non-Jewish had produced. By 1998, Jews owned 90% of the world's communications and were continuing to monopolize ideas, historical interpretations, and access to politicians around the world. The world was theirs, and, even though Freud and Marx were discredited, their words had spun their web, confusing the non-Jews into forming parties dedicated to communist ideals of irresponsibility and healing through magical, highly expensive methods including taxation of approximately 50% of Americans to freely give their earnings to persons who either did not wish to work and pay taxes or who hovered next to the New Temple--Government--which performed in its new role as the controlling Jewish God, a powerful God surrounded by the Jews who controlled the mass media and lined the halls of Congress and the White House and the Supreme Court, casting a shadow far in excess of their rightful numbers would indicate might be a just representation, and making the world well using the legalized, Pharasaic tithes (taxes) given up unwillingly by the enslaved Goyim.

What Freud sought to bring to the surface in analysis, the news mongers placed back into the background, where the purveyors of Jewish ideals hid behind their paper pages, hiding their Jewish identities, and all the while scribbling their instructions to their new slaves. The perfect world was made perfect by perfecting the often told Jewish tale of woe, of persons needing the hard-earned money of the worker, and all, the while, the Jews were profiting by using the votes of Negroes, immigrants, Hispanics, and other non-Jews whom they herded together into anti-European voting blocks to launch and support communism under the party format of the Democrats which the Jews sought to control and always have, not for the benefit of Americans, but for the benefit of Jews--the communists, liberals, and Israelis.

This hidden unconscious mind of America is the Marxist subconscious of the modern American and European societies. The mind of these worlds are strictly created and controlled by Jews, and it is done cleanly and with ultimate, Yawehesque perfection
 
Old March 25th, 2010 #7
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
Freud developed his theories with no reference to the Aryan population or education.He actually studied cerebal palsy at university.He developed his interest in neurology from his jewish antecedents and his synogogue studies.In the context of his own jewish peopleI would say he was spot on.
Not sure I understand you. Do you mean all his psychobabble was based on his experience and knowledge of his fellow jews and he then attempted to transpose it onto the goy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vektor7 View Post
"When I was a young man, I was walking one Saturday along the street in the village where you were born; I was well-dressed, with a new fur cap on my head. Up comes a Christian, who knocks my cap into the mud, and shouts, 'Jew, get off the pavement!'" -- "And what did you do?" -- "I went into the street and picked up the cap," he calmly replied. That did not seem heroic on the part of the big, strong man who was leading me, a little fellow, by the hand. I contrasted this situation, which did not please me, with another, more in harmony with my sentiments -- the scene in which Hannibal's father, Hamilcar Barcas, made his son swear before the household altar to take vengeance on the Romans. Ever since then Hannibal has had a place in my phantasies.
Whole thing was an excellent read but this bit really stood out. He seems to have had extreme issues with parents and parenting. Thanks for posting that.
 
Old March 25th, 2010 #8
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Freud also believed that the libido developed in individuals by changing its object, a process codified by the concept of sublimation. He argued that humans are born "polymorphously perverse", meaning that any number of objects could be a source of pleasure. He further argued that, as humans develop, they become fixated on different and specific objects through their stages of development—first in the oral stage (exemplified by an infant's pleasure in nursing), then in the anal stage (exemplified by a toddler's pleasure in evacuating his or her bowels),

Source.


Anyone with half a brain will realise that the "pleasure" from nursing is actually relief at the cessation of hunger. Thumb/dummy sucking is widely held to be a source of comfort, not perverted pleasure. "Pleasure" at evacuating the bowels is obviously relief from pain and maybe initially a sense of pride at being "grown up" and using the toilet or potty like an adult.

The man was really obsessed with seeing sex and pleasure in everything.
 
Old March 25th, 2010 #9
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Not sure I understand you. Do you mean all his psychobabble was based on his experience and knowledge of his fellow jews and he then attempted to transpose it onto the goy?


That is what Freud himself claimed and recorded in his contemporaneous diaries.No one was more surprised than he to see his neurology "mainstreamed" as it were.He was 30 before he even opened a clinic and 36 before he even studied phsychoanalysis.It was'nt until well in his 40's before he actually published any of his theories.This is documented history.
The fact that his now mostly discredited work was promoted and he himself acclaimed is not in my opinion his fault as it were or the result of some perverted attempt on his part to skew neurological
studies and practices,more it was the credulity of "others"Including Aryans such as Carl Jung.Many contemporaries of Freud such as Hitler attached no credence to Freuds theories.Why we do or should I say why "the movement" does is beyond me.
Freudian theories fit the outlook on life of the jews and other primitives but thats no reason for us to accept them.

Those who do or who take issue on points of minutae and case study Versus life experience are playing the enemies game.In ignorance of course but by their blanket critique they expose the movement and themselves to ridicule.Before anyone excepts any publicly known man's philosophical ideas they should first study the man himself.
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #10
Charlie-Horse
Elusive Pimpernel
 
Charlie-Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Incognito
Posts: 5,170
Default

Quote:
all little boys want to kill their dads and marry their mums, and all little girls have penis envy
I wanted to kill 'em both, in fact, I thought that was why a shotgun commonly has two barrels. I threatened my dad with a gun when I was under ten years old, the reason I didn't shoot was that I knew fine well that he would get back up, the gun was only an air pistol. I think lesbians have penis envy but not normal girls.
__________________
The ugly Hun.
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #11
Joe Owens
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
That is what Freud himself claimed and recorded in his contemporaneous diaries.No one was more surprised than he to see his neurology "mainstreamed" as it were.He was 30 before he even opened a clinic and 36 before he even studied phsychoanalysis.It was'nt until well in his 40's before he actually published any of his theories.This is documented history.
The fact that his now mostly discredited work was promoted and he himself acclaimed is not in my opinion his fault as it were or the result of some perverted attempt on his part to skew neurological
studies and practices,more it was the credulity of "others"Including Aryans such as Carl Jung.Many contemporaries of Freud such as Hitler attached no credence to Freuds theories.Why we do or should I say why "the movement" does is beyond me.
Freudian theories fit the outlook on life of the jews and other primitives but thats no reason for us to accept them.

Those who do or who take issue on points of minutae and case study Versus life experience are playing the enemies game.In ignorance of course but by their blanket critique they expose the movement and themselves to ridicule.Before anyone excepts any publicly known man's philosophical ideas they should first study the man himself.
So you don't believe Freud set out to destroy us using his Psychoanalysis? Infact, when the NAZIS took power one of the first books they burnt was Freud’s, Civilisation and its Discontents.

Here are the CONSPIRATORS who used Marxism and Freudianism to destroy us. No Nationalist would believe otherwise, would they?

http://www.davidduke.com/general/how...down_3519.html
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #12
Mark Faust
Broadcaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,248
Blog Entries: 1
Default

There is a quote by Freud somewhere where he states quite plainly that he was trying to poison the minds of gentiles with his bullshit.
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #13
Joe Owens
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Faust View Post
There is a quote by Freud somewhere where he states quite plainly that he was trying to poison the minds of gentiles with his bullshit.
Yes, and it was well known he was anti - gentile.
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #14
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Owens View Post
So you don't believe Freud set out to destroy us using his Psychoanalysis? Infact, when the NAZIS took power one of the first books they burnt was Freud’s, Civilisation and its Discontents.

Here are the CONSPIRATORS who used Marxism and Freudianism to destroy us. No Nationalist would believe otherwise, would they?

http://www.davidduke.com/general/how...down_3519.html
I oppose the very existence of the likes of Freud on biological grounds.He is from a rival enemy race and in an ideal world such people would be dealt with by true patriots.
Freud the theory and Freud the actuality are two different things as I say study the bloke.I am not suggesting that the application of theories by jews and Aryans in Aryan societies is a good thing.His theories fit the jewish phsyche perfectly they are not applicable to Aryans.I have merely pointed out that Freud himself and if you check the contemporaneous conditions you will see that Freud had no notion of it being applicaple to Aryans.
His papers and books are subjective and of their time and place.Like Hitler and other contemporaries he spoke of "humanity" "mankind" and "humankind".Now everyone knows Hitler meant Aryans but you will be hard pressed to find him making a speech using that term I have certainly never seen one in which he does.By the same token freud was referring to jews that is his people as it were.He did not qualify his theories as being jew specific anymore than Hitler qualify his theories as Aryan specific.
Now I can toe the party line if you like and say freud and his subsequent followers are out to destroy the Aryan race with their application of freuds theories.Or as I suggest you do I can research and find out why this has come about.It is this sort of research rather than cut and paste and someone elses theory borrowed for effect that has led to many of freuds theories being discredited by medical neurologists and its allied therapists.These educated professionals some of whom are jews have if you like come to the same conclusion as "the movement",Though obviously their presentation of their critique is in very different terminology.
In my book jews are enemies whether they are roadsweepers or the father of phsychoanalysis.Freud as personified here and elsewhere is not specifically the threat it is the use of his theories in our societies that is the problem.The main component in that problem is not the adherence to it by self evident aliens but the adherence to it by self evident Aryans.
Like the wiggers at the other end of the spectrum of Aryan societies the chattering classes who adhere to Freud are the problem for "the movement".Along with Boaz these theories certainly lend themselves to creating jew friendly societies but this is the fault of the Aryans.For example the boys lobbing copies of freud onto the bonfires were not "freudian" nor is any true Aryan.Freud himself was amazed his work became "mainstreamed" and like anyone else in such a position he was not minded to qualify his references to "mankind" any more than Hitler was when his German specific references became expanded to encompass "mankind".
The enemy has a grip on terms such as "Humanity" "Mankind" "Humankind" and language and terminology are important weapons in the fight.Perhaps "the movement" needs to look at reclaiming such words and deploying them in our service.In my book to save "mankind" we need to remove all the rival races.Saying I am saving "mankind" looks a lot more legal than advocating extermination.
Finally I am an unashamed advocate of book burning though my fuel would not be limited to jew books and would include plenty of "movement literature".I have said before here if you read rubbish you write rubbish.If you cut and paste without bringing your own interpretation you are a flatliner.People need to understand that what we "know" is self evidently not a secret in the educated world in the rest of society.It may seem novel and new to us as it is not openly debated in the same terms in mainstream society.It is absurd as telling any A list Aryan actor in Hollywood that Hollywood is dominated by jewish interests or a city stockbroker that jews are heavily involved in financial speculation.
Lets face it none of us want to look absurd to the general public............or do we ?
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #15
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Faust View Post
There is a quote by Freud somewhere where he states quite plainly that he was trying to poison the minds of gentiles with his bullshit.
An urban myth a good one that I am quite happy to promote but you will not find a creditable reference.I can give you an exact anology.According to the jews and now even "the movement" the first British racialist movement was the British Brothers League.With this in mind several years ago I went in search of the source the book Britain for the British an original copy of which I own ( I overlooked it when decimating my library in 2000).It is turgid boring nonesense and contains nothing that "the movement" would understand as "nationalist" or "racialist".It is from the same schoool as the modern "They should speak English" school of thought.The nearest it comes to advocating saving Britain is that immigration laws should be applied just as mainstream political parties do nowadays.
Now we can perpetuate such urban myths if they make us feel better but understand they are not scholarship but opinion.
Better freud be opposed because he was of a rival alien race than because credulous rubes of our own kith and kin embraced his codification of jewish traits and called it science
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #16
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
The second foundation of the Freudian system is Freud’s “theory of repressed homosexuality”. Early in the course of his hypnotic treatment of patients, Freud had encountered a number of wealthy and dissolute
aristocrats who, wearying of the usual vices of drug addiction, gambling and alcoholism, had taken up the practice of sexual perversion. After “treating” a number of these perverts, whose real problem was not so much their “homosexuality” as their boredom and their ability to spend as much money as they wished to purchase partners for their perverted acts, Freud decided that “homosexual impulses” were universal among men. Why, then, did not most men engage in homosexual acts? Freud had a ready answer for this:
They “repressed” their homosexual impulses.

Now that he had created the problem, Freud had only to erect a “scientific” foundation for it. This proved to be a simple task for one of his racial duplicity and lack of morals. He appropriated the greatest figure of
Western culture, Leonardo da Vinci, to carry the banner of his new theory. Freud decided that Leonardo da Vinci must have been a homosexual. Da Vinci had once been brought before a court on a charge of homosexuality, and had been acquitted. No other evidence existed that he had been a homosexual, and it had been several centuries since anyone had been around who could testify about it one way or the other.
But Freud, the Jewish mountebank, found this important in order to denigrate da Vinci because he was a great non-Jewish artist.

After a notable lack of success in his efforts to find any basis for his theory that da Vinci had been a homosexual, Freud finally came upon a rather dubious recording of a faint childhood memory, in which Leonardo da Vinci wrote that a vulture came down to his cradle and struck him in the mouth with his tail.
Eureka! Freud had found what he had been looking for. He immediately interpreted this childhood memory, or dream, as an illustration of Leonardo’s “passive homosexuality”. Flimsy though this basis was, it became the cornerstone of Freud’s theory of universal repressed homosexuality among men. Unfortunately,as Freud’s disciples have desperately sought to conceal for many years, Thomas Szasz reveals that Freud’s entire theory was wrong because of his defective scholarship. He had based his theory on a
German text in which the translator had incorrectly translated Leonardo’s word for “toy kite” as a “vulture”.

The tail of a toy kite had dragged across Leonardo’s cradle and brushed him. Freud, relying upon the wrong translation of the kite as a vulture, devised a complicated sexual theory by which Leonardo’s memory of the bird’s tail touching his mouth had been the conscious fulfillment of his subconscious homosexual desires!

From a wrong understanding, Freud now erected a vast superstructure of Leonardo’s entire art and, subsequently, the art of the Western nations being created from his homosexual nature. In so doing, Freud
unleashed a terrible weapon against Western civilization. Single-handedly, he created the enormous problem of the “gay” communities which plague America today. By identifying the greatest artist of Western
culture as a homosexual, Freud gave an aura of respectability to a sexual deviation. By his claim that all men have “repressed” homosexual desires, he unleashed a torrent of sexual acts and a great blow against
established family life. Young men who not only are searching for a career but who also have doubts about their sexual identity have only to abandon themselves to Freud’s theories, and they can, simultaneously
release all their “sexual repressions”, thus avoiding the danger of terrible neuroses, but they can become great artists as well.


Only a Jew could have unleashed such a poisonous theory on the gentile community to further confuse and destroy it. Despite Freud’s theories, scientists today have begun to doubt that there really is such a thing as
a “homosexual impulse”. Instead, they lean to the finding that there are sexual impulses which, in the absence of a member of the opposite sex, tend to turn to a member of the same sex, as in prison, the army or private schools. Such a finding, of course, is devastating to the “gay” community, which has sought to turn perverse impulses into a modern religion.
We could be accused of oversimplification if we sought to condemn the entire “science” of psychotherapy because its two principal foundations, Freud’s theory of repressed homosexuality and the Oedipus complex,
have been shown to be little more than the products of his cocaine-stimulated imagination.

Found this whilst looking for the quote allegedly made that he set out purposely to poison gentile minds and found it interesting. Long article so I've just posted this bit.
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #17
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Found this whilst looking for the quote allegedly made that he set out purposely to poison gentile minds and found it interesting. Long article so I've just posted this bit.
While I am quite happy to believe anything about Freud and anyone of normal level intelligence cane define that from my postings.You can hardly bolster counter freudism with Eustace Mullins.Mullins is a great scholar but a sworn enemy of freudism and its applications like myself.As in my earlier posts freud the man is not personally responsible for the application of his theories on a universal scale.I can bring my opinion to it and get all emotional and subjective like the femmen here.So here it is based on the known facts.
Freud had a very enquirying analytical mind his continued studies in his own time even after graduation show this.People with such minds become interested in a myraid of different things in their own discipline and in others.It is the reason why the Imperial College of Science is next door to the Royal School of music.Renaisscance man as it were.From there Freud was particularly interested in the work of other jews making a living in public life.

I refuse to cut and paste so this has to be from memory.As I recall it was a shrink called Baurer who may or may not have been a jew who treated a woman no one else would take seriously.She became paralysed at certain times for no apparent reason and she was accused of faking it.This Baurer blighter treated her ( I don't know if she was Aryan or not or even hot ).He hypnotised her and it came about or was concluded that she became paralysised because her father died when she was young and she had never got over it.Anyhow this intrigued Freud (Perhaps to get his hands on vulnerable young birds i know not ) As he had similar inexplicable symptons he now became convinced (Rightly or wrongly) that this was because of outstanding issues he had with his dead father.
This all occurred when Freud was in his mid thirties and well established and on a good income.If you like he did'nt need to invent "freudism" and it is fair to say he had no ulterior motive for writing his findings and theories beyond scholarship.As we can see with our own side for example Pierce or Irving or Zundel.If University booking agents, publishers and mainly Aryan would be patients start offering and paying bundles of dough right left and centre for you to expand on your theories one is bound to accept.
Freud even did try to qualify his theories in that it was related to particular circumstances but then as now thats not what the market wanted to hear.
So in summation yes freud was a loathsome swine with reproachable personal tastes and habits.Yes he added spin and detail and bolt ons and add ons and where necessary caveats.But he was one man uberAryans like George Bernard Shaw, Ezra Pound and Betrand Russell were his unsolicited booster club.
If "the movement" want to fight his theories then they must do as Aryans and not as subject matter.That freudism is a jew thing not an Aryan thing and is such not applicable in any future society yet to be created.That those promoting and very few are still promoting freudist theory are charlatans and have no relevance to "the movement".
Freudism is to judaism what voodoo is to haitians
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #18
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Well, obviously Mullins is biased but that doesn't take much away from the quality of the information. Even if we accept that it's been exaggerated to allow for personal grudges, it's still a good overview of how Freud twisted something to make it fit his own pre-conceived theory - in this case a junior Da Vinci's dream/story - and then applied it forwards.

I'm still not convinced he didn't set up some of his theories as a way of - even if not to poison the gentile brain - then to swindle the gentiles by diagnosing them with all sorts of neuroses, which of course he could cure by his expensive talking-to therapy.

Last edited by Bev; March 26th, 2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason: grammar stupidity
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #19
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Well, obviously Mullins is biased but that doesn't take much away from the quality of the information. Even if we accept that it's been exaggerated to allow for personal grudges, it's still a good overview of how Freud twisted something to make it fit his own pre-conceived theory - in this case a junior Da Vinci's dream/story - and then applied it forwards.

I'm still not convinced he didn't set up some of his theories as a way of - even if not to poison the gentile brain - then to swindle the gentiles by diagnosing them with all sorts of neuroses, which of course he could cure by his expensive talking-to therapy.
Indeed but was Da Vinci an arse bandit ? Kite or Eagle childhood memory or not.It was quite unusual for court painters to be on charges of buggery.It was precisely because of the "confusion" that freud as Mullins notes went digging and found an "incident"Many artists and actors etc are for want of a better word "camp".Former UDA terror chief William Duddy was a female impersonator and drag artist but had a wife and children.
Now back to freud,lol as Mullins notes it is a theory there is no compulsion on Aryans to believe it.Closer examination of those that do attribute authority and scholarship to freuds work would be more worthwhile in my opinion

As to whether he exaggerated when dealing with credulous rubes I am sure he did.A couple of years ago there was a case in London where an Iranian millionaire sued his shrink who had convinced him to have a sex change !! He won the case.In fact critics and proponents of theories such as freud continually exaggerate the effects and results of freuds theories.Like the "nanny state" health professionals where every patient is a "diabetic" or whatever happens to be the flavour of the month or the drug companies product placement that particular month.

Most head problems can be solved by some peace and quiet,some sleep or a nice cup of tea.We saw the effects of such self help right here.To make opposition to freud a main plank for a political cultural war is absurd.As I have related and as can be verified adherence to freud is not now nor has it ever been universal in the world of Phsychiatry or sociology.One can make it an aspect of such a campaign but this is not the 20's or 30's it is a new century.Our opposition to alien influences must be contemporaneous and not outdated cut and paste old codswallop.
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old March 26th, 2010 #20
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
Indeed but was Da Vinci an arse bandit ? Kite or Eagle childhood memory or not.It was quite unusual for court painters to be on charges of buggery.It was precisely because of the "confusion" that freud as Mullins notes went digging and found an "incident"Many artists and actors etc are for want of a better word "camp".Former UDA terror chief William Duddy was a female impersonator and drag artist but had a wife and children.
Now back to freud,lol as Mullins notes it is a theory there is no compulsion on Aryans to believe it.Closer examination of those that do attribute authority and scholarship to freuds work would be more worthwhile in my opinion
Who knows which way Da Vinci swung? It's possible to make a guess from his paintings, the fact he never married and the fact he was't recorded as having any significant (long) relationships with females. But it would still only be a guess. I thought the piece on Da Vinci, although clearly biased, stood as a good indication of where his theory came from that most, if not all males, had repressed homosexual tendencies.



Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
Most head problems can be solved by some peace and quiet,some sleep or a nice cup of tea.We saw the effects of such self help right here.
I don't disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
To make opposition to freud a main plank for a political cultural war is absurd.As I have related and as can be verified adherence to freud is not now nor has it ever been universal in the world of Phsychiatry or sociology.One can make it an aspect of such a campaign but this is not the 20's or 30's it is a new century.Our opposition to alien influences must be contemporaneous and not outdated cut and paste old codswallop.
My interest in Freud isn't in what he said or disproving it, although I haven't been able to resist pointing out the obvious flaws. However stupid we, as aware gentiles, think his theories were, the fact remains he was a clever man. He has been widely quoted and so we have the luxury of being able to minutely examine his words and try and see his motivation. He is held up by modern jews as one of their great successes so it stands to reason that he and his motivations would be emulated. His motivation seemed to be to boil everything down to sex, perversions, paedophilia and bodily functions. When you look forward to today at modern media, his influence and thoughts are clear.

I'm not making it into any sort of foundation for a cultural war; I just fancied a change from all the usual "muslim did this" and "NF said that" threads.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 PM.
Page generated in 0.89739 seconds.