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” — an 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.
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.