A Review: Kevin MacDonald: Psychoanalysis In Its Death Throes

December 18, 2008

A Review

Kevin MacDonald:

Psychoanalysis In Its Death Throes

by

R.E. Prindle

MacDonald, Kevin: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/paper-CrewsFreud.html

 

     This is a review or commentary of Kevin MacDonald’s paper of 1996: Freud’s Follies: Psychoanalysis As Religion, Cult And Political Movement.

     The paper has apparently been retitled here as Psychoanalysis In Its Death Throes: The Moral And Intellectual Legacy Of A Pseudoscience.

     I don’t know Kevin but I have had some correspondence with him over the internet so I hope he won’t find me presumptuous by referring to him as Kevin.  As a Professor at California State University At Long Beach Kevin MacDonald has a distinguished record adding to the luster of the faculty.

     His book Culture of Critique is a valuable addition to the literature.  Generally speaking I endorse all his conclusions in this paper  with the exception of his condemnation of psychoanalysis.  I do not believe the discipline to be a pseudo-science.  The problem is with Freud and not psychoanalysis.  The investigation of the mind was in its elementary stages at the time Freud entered the picture.  Indeed people had a horror at the very notion of almost any psychological concept and still do.  To my mind Freud’s most valuable contribution was the The Psychopathology Of Everyday Life.  Even the study of simple everyday psychologically revealing traits was derided.  The thought that a ‘Freudian slip’ could give away one’s inner thoughts was too horrifying to contemplate.

     But there it was in bold relief- the subconscious, or unconscious as Freud called it.  Freud neither invented nor discovered the unconscious as many people still believe.  The unconscious had been a topic of investigation for some time.  It was a mystery then, a mystery to most now, many people disbelieved the concept then, many still do.

     The trouble with Freud’s vision of the unconscious is that he believed it was inherently evil, uncontrollable and actually a separate entity of the mind but connected somehow.

     His error was pointed out to him at the time but as Kevin points out Freud had insulated his vision of psychoanalysis by making an Order of it.  He thus separated his thoughts from scientific criticism building a wall around them just as his Jews built a wall around Torah.  As Kevin points out:

     The apex of the authoritarian, anti-scientific institutional structure was the Secret Committee of hand-picked loyalsits sworn to uphold psychoanalytic orthodoxy, described by Phyllis Grosskurth in ‘The Secret Ring: Freud’s Inner Circle And The Politics of Pyschoanalysis.  By insisting the Committee must be absolutely secret, Freud enshrined the principle of confidentiality.  The various psychoanalytic societies that emerged from the Committee were like Communist cells, in which the members vowed eternal obedience to their leader.  Psycholanalysis became institutionalized by the founding of journals and the training of candidates; in short an extraordinarly effective political society.

     Thus Freud was able to separate his doctrine from scientific scrutiny while creating a terrific mystique about himself and his ‘science.’

     In fact while his doctrine was based on sound, for the state of learning at the time, factual research he fashioned the facts into a tool or weapon for a specific purpose for which any changes to the doctrine would weaken its effectiveness.  It was essential that it stay the same.

     As Kevin points out Freud was a politician first, researcher secondly and a scientist thirdly.  While more scientific outsiders were critical Freud’s fellow Jewish insiders picked up the ball and ran with it.

     Freud was a member of the International Order of B’nai B’rith.  He attended meetings regularly in Vienna while lecturing on psychological matters frequently.  Can it be a coincidence that the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith was created in the United States in 1913?  Does anyone believe that the subtle psychological methods weren’t worked out in Vienna?

     When the Frankfurt School Of Social Research was organized in Germany in 1923 incorporating Freudian psychology does anyone believe that was a coincidence?  The Marxists embraced a Freudian agenda.  You may be sure that Franz Boas applied Freudian doctrines to Anthropology.

     There was a good deal of natural reisistance to Freudian doctrines in Europe but the Nazi disaster played into Freudian hands completely.  After Hitler’s election in 1933 droves of Freudian analysts and the whole Frankfurt School fled Germany most choosing to settle in the United States in the cultural capitols of NYC and Hollywood.

     While psychoanalysis was all the rage through the fifties the reaction set in during the sixties.  There was much to disagree with in what was essentially an unchanging doctrine that was hostile to the non-Jewish world.  Freud’s reputation has gradually been demolished among the goyim since the sixties.  However this is irrelevant.  It doesn’t matter what the goyim think.  The tool, the wapon is in the hands of Freud’s fellow Jews where it has been and is being wielded effectively.

     So, while Kevin MacDonald’s critque and condemnation is accurate and effective among the goyim it is of no consquence to the effective application of the doctrine by Freud’s fellow Jews.  It’s like Machiavelli.  Just because you’re appalled by his doctrines doesn’t mean they don’t work and aren’t being used.

     One would do better to educate people to defend themselves against this pernicious doctrine than to merely condemn it.

     While I agree with Kevin’s analysis I do disagree with his condemnation of the effectiveness of a psychoanalytic approach.

     The key to Freud’s  misuse of psychological analysis is his description of the unconscious.  As a scientist it is diffiicult for me to believe that he actually perceived the unconscious in such a way.  I have to believe that his private understanding was quite different then his public description.  It is possible that his understanding is purely religious based on Kabbalah and Talmud and having nothing to do with science.  The notion that the unconscious exists independently of both mind and body is absurd on the face of it.

     One thing to bear in mind is that Freud was well informed on the subject of hypnosis.  He studied (for a couple months) under the Frenchman Jean-Martin Charcot who associated hypnotism quite correctly with hysteria.  Freud also visited Bernstein of the Nancy hypnotic school.  He must have had a reasonable understanding of hypnosis and its active agent, suggestion.

     When he says that he abandoned hypnosis for subliminal recall which he says he found just as effective he is betraying a profound knowledge of the relationship of the un- or subconscious mind and conscious actions.  He actually discovered that he no longer needed to put people into a trance to obtain the same results.  Contrary to his statement I’m sure he was very effective as a hypnotist.

     In point of fact in the interchange between the conscious and the unconscious he had discovered the true nature of the subconscious.  That is what the interior dialogue is- a discussion between the clear conscious mind and the fixated subconscious which distorts reality to conform with its mistaken understanding.

     Further, I would be surprised if Freud didn’t understand that fixation was merely hypnotic suggestion.  By suggestion I dont limit the notion of spoken suggestions by others but to suggestion by circumstances.  For instance if one is defeated at a game by another this may suggest a lack of manliness on one’s own part.  In retreating into a hypnoid state the suggestion of unmanliness may be translated into a fixation of emasculation that renders one effeminate in relation to other men.  This is done unawares to oneself but the fixation controls all future responses  unless exorcised.  It is possible that an exorcism may occur spontaneously in relation to another event later in life but otherwise the fixation has to be recognized and rectified by analysis.

     The inadequacy is a diminution of ego.  Such a diminution of ego always takes a response of a sexual nature.

     In fact, Freud’s work centers on hypnosis and suggestion, emasculation and sex.  He himself was severely emasculated and sexually repressed.  So there you have the core of Freudian psychology.  This understanding is then used to further the Jewish cause in the warfare with European ‘Christian’ society.  I exclude America because Freud was too European to extend his interest further.

     Freud then devised a plan to mass hypnotize, confuse and psychologically conquer Europe and by extension the West.  Running his special knowledge as an Order, as Kevin indicates, he was under no compunction to share his knowledge in a scientific manner.  In other words he sought to control his knowledge uninfluenced by outside contributions that would render his intent ineffective.  Even inside the Order as Kevin points out Freud strictly controlled psychoanalysis by the use of his Secret Committee and strict disciplining of what he considered deviant thought.

     Both facets were absolutely necessary if his plan of subversion was to work.  So far the plan has functioned perfectly.

     There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water however.

     Freud and Freud’s doctrine should be repudiated.

     Psychoanalysis however is a valid psychological approach.  However administration of it take great skill.  Once a correct understanding of suggestion and hypnosis is adopted as the basis of psychology and its relationship to fixation in  a subconscious having an active relationship with the conscious, fixations can be located and exorcised freeing the mind from compulsive behavior.

     The individual with a proper understanding can then be put on guard to prevent new fixations.  I think it may require a certain amount of intelligence.

     Freud’s system completely negates the role of intelligence and the conscious mind in favor of compulsive behavior.  Thus by emphasizing the individual’s ability to control both his conscious and subconscious minds he will be able to master his own will and act without interference from fixations.

     Those are the key factors.  While I second Kevin MacDonald in his analysis of Freud and Freudianism I affirm the scientific nature of psychoanalysis itself.  Just because Freud used his knowledge dishonestly doesn’t mean he wasn’t onto something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s