Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
Vic Biorseth, Thursday, October 06, 2011
(This Refuting Freud page is another third-column gathering of linked articles treating a particular subject. Again, the scientific method was never applied to another universally accepted theory. Look to the articles linked to in the right hand column of this webpage for the details.)
We saw, in Refuting Darwin, how general acceptance of Darwinian Theory moved Western man from theistic (and therefore theistically moral) belief in the direction of atheistic (and therefore amoral) belief. The observable results have been negative for society.
We saw, in Refuting Marx, how general indoctrination of Marxian theory moved Western man from natural free markets and natural individual liberty in the direction of planned economies and controlled societies.
(In this page, Refuting Freud, we see how general acceptance of Freudian theory moved Western man from recognition of sexual norms and a sense of chastity and sexual decency in the direction of sexual license, acceptance of perversion and total “sexual liberation.” Further, Freudian theory moves us to the opposite of the recognition of sin and associated guilt, to “losing inhibitions” and “feeling good” about ourselves, no matter what we do.
Of the three greatest frauds of Western thought, Darwin, Freud and Marx, it is difficult to say which of the three has done the most damage to Western man’s sense of morality – his ability to tell simple right from wrong. I submit that a fixed sense of morality is the foundation of what we all know as simple common sense. When a common social sense of morality declines, society itself begins an inexorable drift into nonsense.
I have held from the beginning that Darwinism and Freudianism “feed” Marxism; they are preparatory ideologies that set the stage for man’s dissatisfaction with everything around him, and soften him to the idea of revolution against the status quo. Whenever man moves, or is moved, to the center of creation, man seeks to make creation “perfect.” Perfection is not of this world, but the next; however, modern man – sophisticated, enlightened and atheist – does not believe in the next world. To him, this world is all there is, and it is his assumed responsibility to make it perfect; to remake it in a new image.
This is, of course, nonsense.
Yet today we see highly educated and supposedly intelligent men actually seeking to legislate or regulate the weather and the climate, with lots of world-wide popular support for that effort. What can I say? What more needs to be said? This is not stewardship; this is very near insanity.
Freud’s wild theories involving the sub-conscious mind, repressed memory and deep psycho-analysis are, of course, not substantiated, not proven, not tested and not even observed. As you can see from the very first article linked to in the right hand column of this webpage, it is quite impossible to even observe all of these phenomena, let alone test them or prove them. It’s all cooked up out of thin air. Freud might just as well have been wearing a turban and gazing into a crystal ball.
Yet today you probably cannot throw a rock without hitting a celebrity, a high ranking official, a friend, acquaintance or fellow worker who has not undergone Freudian psycho-analysis, raves on and on about it, and is convinced that everyone ought to undergo psycho-analysis, because you learn so very much about yourself that you didn’t know. They have learned and can spout all the psycho-babble terminology and jargon, and they feel uplifted, and released from their former selves. Again, what can I say?
Freud was a drug abuser who was increasingly obsessed with topics sexual. He sexually abused his own clients on the psycho-analytical couch. He proved that he could induce in his “patients” solid memories of events that he knew had never occurred. He actually recorded this malpractice himself.
The term psycho-therapy involves getting your conscious mind in touch with its subconscious counterpart by digging to expose repressed memories to the light of day and make the conscious mind aware of them. See?
Freud is the most quoted and best known name in psychiatry and Freudian theory is the most accepted in the field today. Jung, and Jungian theory, comes in second. Carl Jung was a disciple of Freud, and they corresponded for years. Jung, too, sexually exploited his patients. Jung was a Gnostic, a weird spiritualist, who thought he could “channel” hidden mysteries from another Gnostic from circa 120 AD. Original Freudian theory involved the sub-conscious mind; Jung expanded on that, with full knowledge and encouragement from Freud, into the theory of the collective sub-conscious. In this theory, the “mind” is not constrained by the physical boundaries of the brain, but is just sort of floating around in space. Thus, it is possible to detect and work with a collection of these ephemeral subconscious minds, all at the same time. See?
The many subconscious minds that are floating around us at any point in time include those of the long dead, which is how Jung got in contact with his ancient Gnostic “mind” from circa 120 AD, and that revealed ancient hidden mysteries to him alone. See?
Remember, though, that what all psycho-analysts work with is the sub-conscious mind, whether individual or collective; that means it’s the mind that you (or anyone else) are not consciously aware of. See?
This is the absolute crap that the famous and popular Meyers Briggs Personality Test is based on. Jung took Freudianism into the realm of psycho-kinetics and magic tricks, and both Freud and Jung delved deeply into hypnosis, and into dream analysis, again, probably because they didn’t know how to properly deal with any conscious mind.
Then, of course, we had the input of Alfred Charles Kinsey to update Freudianism with the invention of sexology. (Yeah, now we have sexologists to tell us how to live, find happiness and be healthy.) This guy was a twisted sexual pervert, a pedophile and a complete fraud. His “science” was so bad that Freudianism should be renamed Fraudianism. I invite you to read the articles linked to in the right hand column to read the details. Kinsey had one, big, giant long-lasting group sex party at Indiana University and called it scientific research. This “research” actually involved sexual abuse of little children, including even infants. All of the “researchers,” including Kinsey, were actual, active participants in the many and wildly varied sexual activities being “studied.” That’s the way they do science at Indiana University.
Freudian theory today is one of the darlings of upper academia. Freudian theory, like Darwinian theory, and like Marxian theory, is championed all over the world by thundering herds of TTRSTF4 who populate the ranks of medicine, especially psychological medicine. In the academic world, whole programs are designed around it; you can get advanced degrees in it, and you can be taught by thundering herds of TTRSPTF5 . It enjoys seemingly unanimous support in the news media, of all things, and if you look for them, whether in print or electronic media, you will find many examples of TTRSJTF6 actually practicing psycho-therapy while reporting the news.
(I’m not kidding. Watch and see. Any time any “traumatic” event happens, you will see a TV journalist approaching a potentially traumatized child or other victim who witnessed the traumatic event, pausing, with a super-serious, oh so concerned facial expression, furrowing the brow, and asking, slowly, very slowly,
How do you feel about that?
before passing the microphone.) The unspoken, but universally understood psycho-analytical “fact” at play here says that, when any bad thing happens, if the victim or witness doesn’t immediately address it and speak of it and emote about it, why then, it might become a repressed memory from which some future horrible psychosis might erupt. See?
All of that should make us wonder how the pilgrims, or the founders, or the pioneers, or the civil-warriors, etc., ever managed to survive to any ripe old age in the absence of psycho-therapy and the psycho-analyst’s couch. You would think that anyone who witnessed a family member being scalped, and who then didn’t get immediate psycho-therapy, would soon have been anxious to move to banana city to search for coconuts with which to build windmills.
Darwinian theory contributed mightily to the devolution of science into what Hayek called Scientism. Freudian theory contributed mightily to making men into wimps, and to promoting free sex, and sexual immorality in all its many, many forms. Marxian theory, fraudulent in itself, was able to capitalize on both the frauds born of Darwinian-fed scientism, and the fundamental immorality born of Freudianism.
How do you feel about yourself? is the question Freudianism asks of you. Not what kind of person you actually are, but how you feel about yourself. That comes first. Self comes first. Freudianism says that that comes before even what anyone or everyone else thinks about you. You have become an island.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA), steeped in Freudianism, “cured” homosexuality by simply removing it from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in which it had been long listed as a Sociopathic Personality Disorder. It was removed from this classification because it was now deemed to be problematic only if the homosexual “felt” it was problematic. If the homosexual wasn’t troubled by his homosexuality, then, there was no disorder. See? The APA had cured homosexuality! Drinks and cigars all around.
Now they want to do the same thing with pedophilia. If the sexual child predator doesn’t feel that he has a problem, then, he doesn’t really have a problem. See? Who cares what any victim or any parent of any victim might think about it; the important thing is how the patient feels about himself. See?
What can I say? Freudianism is nuts.
See the article links in the right hand column of this page.
Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" the mouse over a link, without clicking, to just to see the related Acronym appear.)
Return to Latest News page
Return to HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Thu Oct 06 15:12:58 2011
Location: Omaha, Nebraska, USA
I really liked all three of your exposes on Marx, Darwin and Freud. I have some friends, who refute Freud as a nut, but still persist in believing in Psychology, and even worse, Psychiatry and Psychiatric drugs. I have not been able to convince even these educated sincerely Catholic mothers that Psychiatry, and especially the drugs, are a hoax. will you please write about this? Thanks, and God bless you. Patz
Date: Thu Oct 06 20:29:15 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
First, refer to the Reference Material link found at the bottom of this and every other webpage in this site. There you will find valid sources that refute Freud, and sources of quite valid psychological study.
I cannot and do not condemn psychology or psychiatry, except in as much as some practitioners might be infected with Freudian theory. Psychology and Psychiatry are perfectly valid areas of study, medicine and treatment. Sigmund Freud is recognized as the father of psycho-analysis and psycho-therapy, which is, in my opinion, a complete fraud.
The problem is, as you can see from the recent actions of the APA, the name Freud has become the most quoted name in psychiatry and psychology, fields in which he should be condemned rather than lionized. Freud claimed, falsely, to be successfully treating neuroses and psychoses, and that would make him a practicing psychiatrist. Most psych-majors have been taught that Freud was some kind of genius.
It is important to note that there are mental illnesses that do indeed require treatment with drugs. For instance, the condition that used to be called manic depression, and is today called bipolar, is apparently caused by some chemical imbalance and is treated quite successfully with drugs. If one of these patients goes off of the drugs, or takes them incorrectly, there might be serious mental ramifications. But once the correct dosage is established, and maintained, most often the patient experiences no symptoms at all and lives a quite normal life. I think the same thing may be said about some kinds of depression. I am no expert, but I know that there are cases of schizophrenia that are successfully treated with drugs.
Do not encourage anyone on medication to go off of it. There is such a thing as a real live psychiatrist who knows what he is doing and who treats mental illnesses without applying any Freudian tricks.
Look at the References – particularly Confessions of St. Augustine; Arise From Darkness by Groeschel; Spiritual Passages by Groeschel – for the better side of human psychology.
Date: Sun Feb 19 03:28:23 2012
Location: New York
Refutability is the FIRST criteria of scientificity. A proposition can be scientific only when refutable. God exists is not a refutable proposition, neither "God created" men. Why do you need to oppose science to faith? Is not science essentially made by people of good faith? Scientists are wrong to pretend that science can allow them to answer the question of god's existence. And believers are wrong to think that science is about irrefutably. Only belief is irrefutable.
Science is just about finding what we don't know yet and where we can look further. Its materialism and mechanistic methodology is not meant to be atheist, but just to find out about what we could look further.
I really don't understand why you need to oppose belief to religion. Perhaps because some scientists take their theories for new religions, and for that they are wrong. But, please, stop taking one thing for another! Don't do the same mistake than those who being scientists think they have the right to shut they others up when they step into a field that is not theirs.
Just think about it : a science is a science because it can be tested through refutation. Darwinism is just a theory that until now resisted to all tests and offers a system of systematization that helps us to go further in the observation of nature, using one of the tools that God himself gave us and that is called Science.
You would not blame a Soccer player for being atheist because he is a soccer player, but just because he is an atheist. Science does never give any good reason to any one to justify atheism. Atheism is just a choice that we can make being a scientist or a plumber. Those who pretend to be atheist because of their so called knowledge, are just ignorant about this very knowledge itself since it does never allow them to make such theological conclusion. The atheist is also a believer, a negative believer, indeed, but still a believer.
Date: Sun Feb 19 09:11:20 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Some of your terminology is new to me; I am assuming that your use of irrefutability refers to Popper’s Rule of Falsifiability. I hope you don’t mind, but I had to add some white space to your submission and break it into smaller paragraphs to better understand what you’re saying here.
Regarding Natural Science, it was developed by the Catholic Church, all of the early practitioners were Catholic, and most of them were also ordained clerics. In its early beginnings, there was only one science, called Philosophy, or the study of Truth. Natural Science split off from Philosophy, leaving Theological Science behind. It was Natural Science, not Theological Science, that drew increasingly farther away from Philosophy and grew increasingly separate from Theological Science. We talked about this at length in the Modernist Heresy page, the Enlightenment and Scientism page and other pages on this site.
I would like to not separate science and faith, but to bring them back together again. Many prelates have spoken of this under the title of Faith and Reason. But Natural Science, predominantly, is adamantly opposed to this idea. Universities all over America and all over the world seek to increase the separation, even to the point of defining who is a scientist, and believers need not apply for any teaching or scientific credentials. That’s just the way it is.
” Darwinism is just a theory that until now resisted to all tests and offers a system of systematization that helps us to go further in the observation of nature, using one of the tools that God himself gave us and that is called Science.”I think what you’re saying in that quote is that Darwinism at some point in the past was subjected to scientific testing, and that is simply not true. The theory describes how species came to be and continue to come to be. Yet no event of natural speciation has ever been so much as observed, let alone submitted for peer review or duplicated. If no speciation even has ever been observed in all of human history, then it may not be said that it offers a “systematization” that helps us to further the observation of nature. Or of anything. Any further science built upon Darwin’s theory is built upon a house of cards.
I talked about the existence of God argument in the Faith Versus Atheism page. Once upon a time there was no question; then, it became a hot topic; today, unfortunately, it is little thought of at all by vast segments of the population.
And we are all poorer for it.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Updated this page to the new BB 2.0 - SBI! 3.0 release, and/or to make better use of the new reusable code feature.
LOVE this new release!
Dec 07 23:27:09 2012
Physiological symptoms of sleep paralysis are the same with those of syncope. Thus, sleep paralysis is caused by syncope. For experts in cardiovascular diseases, sleep paralysis or syncope is a common symptoms of cardiovascular disease【1】.
For a long time, due to the ignorance of physiological knowledge of syncope , ischemie cerebrale , slow beat, fast beat and so on, psychological illusion in people’s sleep generated by such physical symptoms i.e. the nightmare really has puzzled the psychologists, therefore they put forward a wide range of wrong even absurd views on the nightmares, which both have no scientific basis, and could not be confirmed, even more were not self-consistent.
For example, a medical expert Debacke drew the correct conclusion that the anxiety-dream resulted from ischemie cerebrale according to the physiological symptoms of the anxiety-dream of a boy of thirteen. Freud called such view was a " medical mythology" in the book of Dream Psychology. Most important,the experiment confirmed the idea.
For example, a place in country , there is a "haunted" bed which makes people have sleep paralysis or syncope every night, and it is this fact that the pillow in the bed is too high will reduce cerebral blood flow.
Date: Fri Jan 11 07:13:45 2013
Whatever font you use is impossible to work with here. It does not properly line-wrap, and it causes your lines to "bleed" over into the right and left columns of the webpage. I pasted it into a couple of simple text editors and back again, and that does not solve the problem. You need a better word processor for your submissions; sorry to not put your submission up here yet. You can redo it and resend it any time.
Date: Tue Jan 15 22:48:42 2013
One without flying experience in the daytime would dream of flying
Date: Tue Jan 15 22:51:22 2013
For instance, students dreaming the examination before the pre-examination, is caused by the things about examination. The sense of urgent urination would give rise to the dream of looking for the toilet. In a cold night, thin quilt would cause one to dream the clothes are socked by water and thus make him/her feel cold. Similarly, the nightmares are mainly caused by several palpitation feelings such as the heart hanging in the air, heart dropping and seemingly being chased. The flying dream arises from the palpitation feeling that the heart hangs in the air
Date: Mon Sep 22 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and nothing else.
The Purpose for this grouping of links is to provide a repository for articles exposing the fraud of Psycho-Therapy, Freudian Theory, Jungian Theory and Kinsian “Sexology.”
The Freudianism Pages
Another example of "scientific" and supposedly "empirical" scientific evaluation of ephemeral things - subconscious minds, repressed memories - enjoying popular consensus among fools. With physical evidence, peer-review and independent verification quite impossible, it must be recognized as a mere ideology, silly superstition or false religion.
Refuting Freud and all his works: psychoanalysis; repressed memory; sexology. Refuting Freud is so easy we have to wonder how he was ever accepted. Is man getting dumber over time?
Refuting the Repressed Memory Syndrome scientistic theory of Freudianism. If Freudianism’s Repressed Memory Syndrome is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Definition of Freudianism: The psychoanalytical thought and practice of Freud. This definition of Freudianism addresses Sigmund Freud's turn of psychological focus from the intellect to the unconscious or subconscious mind.
Freudianism aka Psychoanalysis: Introduction to Freud, Dope and Sexual Fixation. Freudianism, through flawed reasoning, changed the focus of psychology from intellect, cognition and thought, to the unconscious, the sub-conscious and the hidden.
On Evil and Nonsense: Look closely at Nonsense, and find Evil at its root. Evil and Nonsense: deny evil and you deny right vs. wrong; which is to deny common sense, which is to invoke nonsense.
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the