Freudianism- what is it? Why is it degenerate?

[NationalConservative]

Could someone please enlighten me on what the problems are about Freudianism because all I can grasp is that it is a psychology theory that holds that the child has a personal feelings for the mother or something

[Anthropos]

It's not any more degenerate than a host of other modern 'theories' or revisionisms. Sigmund Freud only came off as scandalous because he was more explicit than many other theorists. As for him being 'degenerate', he was more of a puritan, actually, almost never failing to take the opportunity to point out how important it is to stifle the 'incestuous' impulses that according to him were founded upon deeply human drives. But of course, one must not forget that Freud's theories also had a practical side to them, and that if something was really disturbing about his activities it should probably be sought there.

Much more degenerate than Freud as a psychologer was Carl Gustav Jung, in my opinion. Jung built on Freud, and the theoretical fundamentals are basically the same, but Jung issued a polemic against Freud and accused him of having 'mistaken Jewish psychology for universal psychology'. It's not at all clear to me what Jung based his accusation on even if I have myself read a text where the quoted formulation occured. But then again, Jung's writings lack structure and are also extremely boring. Whereas Freud had a sense of humour I was always disappointed to find in the end that Jung took himself very seriously.

As for what could be understood as degenerate, Freud only negated traditional data and replaced it with his own theories. Jung, on the other hand, perverted traditional data claiming that he had understood them better than anyone else. Also he did not even account for the changes that he made to them. I am pretty sure he was not aware of how wrong he was on many occasions, which is why he always claimed to know the 'true meaning' of traditional concepts. For example, he claimed to be an alchemist of sorts, and one who had developed a more advanced alchemy even, as if the old, authentic alchemists had been little more than foolish experimentalists.

Freud had a similar tendency to employ traditional terms especially from Christianity, and to give them a different interpretation, but that was not a new thing; the German idealists before him had already done that (and still they were not accused by Jung of being 'Jewish'). And whereas Freud did it with a sense of humour, as a funny way to denounce religion, Jung actually managed to pervert in many people the quest for something spiritual, since he was extremely laborious and extremely serious about it, to the point of even using his patients - the already mentally weak, that is - as experimental subjects! That is much much worse, in my opinion, even if I don't deny that there was something disturbing about Freud's 'psychoanalysis' already. There was certainly something 'experimental' also about Freud's practices, and the same can be said of contemporary therapy as well, but Freud at least did not make of himself a master, rabbi, sheyk or guru, but only an 'analyst'.

[The Ripper]

I recommend watching a documentary called "The Century of The Self", as it is related to the topic of Freudianism, psycho-analysis and its practical use in social engineering and advertising/P.R.


Freud at least did not make of himself a master, rabbi, sheyk or guru, but only an 'analyst'.


I'm a little unsure about this. I recall Freud being exactly that, an authorative "father figure" of an "intellectual movement", with plenty of loyal and active followers.

[Anthropos]

I'm a little unsure about this. I recall Freud being exactly that, an authorative "father figure" of an "intellectual movement", with plenty of loyal and active followers.

I suppose he may have become something like that to his followers, but in his writings he was much more humble than Jung. He was also outspokenly anti-religious, and in whatever extent to which he claimed to be a pioneer, it was as a rationalist and moderniser against religion. In Future of an Illusion (Die Zukunft einer Illusion, 1927) he said that we should make science for ordinary people what religion used to be to them, and that thus it would be possible to make them adopt the 'scientific outlook', something that would also lead them to behave quite differently. It is important to distinguish between a scientific method or ambition and that 'scientific outlook', because those who believe in the latter are as naive as the religious can be. In this respect therefore we can say that what Freud wanted came true, but he was merely an ideological influence and not the one to implement the reforms, even if he suggested that reforms should be made. He also admitted that it was a big experiment and that it involved a sacrifice of something, but in his view any loss would be worth it. From this one can scarcely say that he had a lot of respect for common people, but neither then did any other 'socialist' theorist and reformer in the same era have a lot of respect. A certain amount of honesty on Freud's part was however not failing.

Jung on the other hand lauded lore and religions and even made himself to be the most outstanding healer so far, and in that his was a most appalling hypocrisy. His theories are much more dangerous, because they lead people to see 'spirituality' where there is rather the opposite of that. Among other things, Jung claimed that the attitude of anyone who wants to know the spiritual realm must be one of passivity (and in this it seems that he was inspired by spiritism). In fact, he even claimed that when the individual opens up to the unconscious, which for him was the source of 'spirituality', he would always run the risk of becoming possessed. He admitted that one of the not too uncommon results of his 'therapy' was possession, but he always made it seem as if that possession would be a high point of 'spirituality', all the while admitting that the patient, in the event of such a possession, always became entirely dependent on the doctor.

[NationalConservative]

Right... I still do not find that this answers my question on how Freudianism has destroyed Western values.

[Psychonaut]

Right... I still do not find that this answers my question on how Freudianism has destroyed Western values.

If you're really interested, pick up a copy of Dr. Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critique-Evolutionary-Twentieth-Century-Intellectual/dp/0759672229). Pages 105-151 provide quite a bit of detail regarding the position you're inquiring about.

[Anthropos]

Right... I still do not find that this answers my question on how Freudianism has destroyed Western values.

Freud was on the contrary a proponent of (modern) Western values and one of those who thought that the West amounted to as much as the civilized world or the world of culture, which in his view were one and the same; he did not distinguish between 'culture' and 'civilization', and he regarded all civilizations other than the West as uncivilized.

[NationalConservative]

Freud was on the contrary a proponent of (modern) Western values and one of those who thought that the West amounted to as much as the civilized world or the world of culture, which in his view were one and the same; he did not distinguish between 'culture' and 'civilization', and he regarded all civilizations other than the West as uncivilized.

Then why do so many Nationalists hate him?

[Daos]

Then why do so many Nationalists hate him?

Watch The Century of The Self and you will understand...

[Anthropos]

Then why do so many Nationalists hate him?

Why don't you tell me instead? You are after all the NationalConservative. My guess is that many of them did not even read anything written by Freud and that they think that Jews messed everything up for them.

[Blood Trinity]

Why don't you tell me instead? You are after all the NationalConservative. My guess is that many of them did not even read anything written by Freud and that they think that Jews messed everything up for them.

It goes without saying that many will take just or truthful stances, but arrive at their conclusions by - and approach whatever is in question with - pure ignorance. But lets leave ignoramuses out of the picture. I think it is not overly controversial to see why, if offered the dichotomy between the two, Nationalists and Racialists (for articulated reasons or not) would gravitate more toward Jung than Freud. Much as I hate to simplify everything in such a dualistic manner, in general you could say the approach in analysis of human nature is dichotomous to begin with, as evidenced by the focus gravitating toward:

The collective, as opposed to the individual
The spiritual, as opposed to the material
The traditional, as opposed to the modern

I think from this perspective, it is not hard at all to see why Jung would appeal to Nationalists and Racialists and why a large fundamental contrast is present between the two.

(That said, its not relevant to me in this case if Freud's theories are the result of "Jewishness", nor would I deem it appropriate to go so far as to equate Jungian psychology with Racialism or other related views of course.)

[Tabiti]

Wrong thread, please delete that

[The Ripper]

Perhaps the biggest problem with Freudianism and psychoanalysis in general is the way it can be used to further political and cultural agendas. Because many of the thesis of freudianism are not scientifically provable and quite open to interpretation by the psychoanalyst, it can be used in such a manner, as it very often is.

[Blood Trinity]

Perhaps the biggest problem with Freudianism and psychoanalysis in general is the way it can be used to further political and cultural agendas. Because many of the thesis of freudianism are not scientifically provable and quite open to interpretation by the psychoanalyst, it can be used in such a manner, as it very often is.

A very good observation. Its important to be wary of this fact and not regard psychoanalysis as "just another science" where the same rules and consistency apply. It is not something where you, the lowly average joe, can corroborate the experimentation of the psychoanalytical elite, whom we are supposed to trust to make rational judgments on matters that are often beyond the realm of rationality to begin with and pertain to, ultimately, the health and hygiene of the human soul.

[Anthropos]

It goes without saying that many will take just or truthful stances, but arrive at their conclusions by - and approach whatever is in question with - pure ignorance. But lets leave ignoramuses out of the picture. I think it is not overly controversial to see why, if offered the dichotomy between the two, Nationalists and Racialists (for articulated reasons or not) would gravitate more toward Jung than Freud.

Besides mere taste that has nothing to do with intellectuality, I see no other reason than ignorance, actually. My guess is that many prefer Jung because he was German.


Much as I hate to simplify everything in such a dualistic manner, in general you could say the approach in analysis of human nature is dichotomous to begin with, as evidenced by the focus gravitating toward:

The collective, as opposed to the individual
The spiritual, as opposed to the material
The traditional, as opposed to the modern

It's your own business if you want to simplify a bit: it's okay. But without blaming you for that I will say a few things in response to your assessment of Jung.

Collective and individual

In short, they are on the same level. The collective even has a tendency to sink lower intellectually, by virtue of its inertia and by virtue of the fact that sentimentality easily takes over in it.

It is true that Jung had a greater appreciation for the collective, but that is not something that I see as a merit, and I will explain why; the matter is more complicated than what many people suspect. Jung had a petty bourgoise tendency to criticise society, always from a Liberal standpoint, but in the end he did not have any means of criticism, exactly because of the much lauded 'collectivism' of his. In the end analysis he did not have any appreciation for free will. Whatever the norms of a given society, Jung would always say that we cannot change them. It's as if he would not under any circumstances admit his weakness or any intellectual position in which, from the point of view of the political establishment, he would be 'wrong'.

The 'collective' is nothing but the sum of individuals. It is enough to point to what democracy has done to the world to illustrate how the 'collective' cannot govern a society. But there is more to say, because neither can totalitarian collectivism govern a society in a stable fashion. Collectivism is based on simplified solutions: it's a blunt tool that favours quantity over quality. Collectivistic systems seek the big solutions - one for all and all for one; it labours with an abstraction - the collective is an abstract, unreal thing - and therefore it cannot form the basis of a stable civilization.

Individual and collective are only opposites on the same level of reality, and in the greater scheme they are much the same, especially when realized as 'individualism' and 'collectivism' respectively. A stable civilization - n.b. I did not say 'system of government' this time - must be based on principles, and not on the will of this or that 'people' or 'individual'. It is the fault of democracy and other forms of collectivism alike to seek mass solutions. Principles, in order to really have any claim to that name, must stand above and beyond 'people' and 'individual' while capable at the same time of influencing both!

Spiritual and material

To begin with nothing spiritual can be based on the collective. But here again there is more to say, because Jung invariably falsified the spiritual traditions - whether Eastern or Western - that he came into contact with. He was a parasite on spirituality who borrowed terminology and some ideas only to twist and pervert them to fit his own methods and to bolster his own myth of himself as an eminent 'Doctor'; the High Priest of what in his view was the equivalent of clergy: the psycho-'spiritual' Doctors in their high quarters. Those views he expounded in a time when unprecedented authority was bestowed, by political leaders, upon those high quarters of 'psychiatry' in which he himself resided.

If you do not want to see that there is a very clear tendency of buffoonery in that, there is little I can do to convince you. The subject at hand is extensive, and this is not the place for a more thorough inquiry, but I wanted at least to point to some things that as far as Jung is concerned are very important.


I think from this perspective, it is not hard at all to see why Jung would appeal to Nationalists and Racialists and why a large fundamental contrast is present between the two.

Yes, that is clearly the way in which they often presented the case, but I'm not going to say that they are right, nor that Nationalist and Racialist points of view have any natural preponderance in matters that have been discussed so far. (They don't.) Neither do I agree with Freud.


(That said, its not relevant to me in this case if Freud's theories are the result of "Jewishness", nor would I deem it appropriate to go so far as to equate Jungian psychology with Racialism or other related views of course.)

Not going so far as to make him your Master, are you? :P Just kidding. :)

[Blood Trinity]

Besides mere taste that has nothing to do with intellectuality, I see no other reason than ignorance, actually. My guess is that many prefer Jung because he was German.

Possibly. And as with Nietzsche, the supposed "Nazi Connection" has been the subject of (unfortunate) controversy, even if some parallels could be argued. Not the brightest conclusion if you ask me on the part of some modern followers of the NS doctrine; I could go into further detail but for one the obviously famous friendship between Jung and Freud, this "Emanuel Goldstein" to many of the WP/NS movement, I'm sure.

As per your second point, I will leave whether his views on society and collectivism were 'good or bad' to you. My only intention was to point out why the tendency towards a Jungian paradigm exists within certain circles. As previously stated, I don't aim to pigeonhole Jung as the great Nationalist/Racialist, as it goes without saying there is great philosophical diversity among people who hold such views. Not even to mention that Jung is not exactly a fringe thinker, and I have no doubt many mainstream liberal types who take interest in Jung would never make any racial equations with his ideas, and consider any such affiliation revolting and utterly offensive. :rolleyes:


Individual and collective are only opposites on the same level of reality, and in the greater scheme they are much the same, especially when realized as 'individualism' and 'collectivism' respectively. A stable civilization - n.b. I did not say 'system of government' this time - must be based on principles, and not on the will of this or that 'people' or 'individual'. It is the fault of democracy and other forms of collectivism alike to seek mass solutions. Principles, in order to really have any claim to that name, must stand above and beyond 'people' and 'individual' while capable at the same time of influencing both!

As you pointed out, it might be an understatement to say that Jung didn't tend to emphasize free will in the modern sense. I think the same can be said for his ethno-cultural views; There is an archetypal character by which not only individuals can be defined if they connect with it, but entire peoples. This position is more deeply primordial than collectivism in the sense of some democratic process, here-and-now, and rather "collectivism" manifests itself in the context of the Spenglarian racial: A people united by vision and spirit.


To begin with nothing spiritual can be based on the collective. But here again there is more to say, because Jung invariably falsified the spiritual traditions - whether Eastern or Western - that he came into contact with. He was a parasite on spirituality who borrowed terminology and some ideas only to twist and pervert them to fit his own methods and to bolster his own myth of himself as an eminent 'Doctor'; the High Priest of what in his view was the equivalent of clergy: the psycho-'spiritual' Doctors in their high quarters. Those views he expounded in a time when unprecedented authority was bestowed, by political leaders, upon those high quarters of 'psychiatry' in which he himself resided.

You make him sound so pretentious. :p

Everyone draws their own conclusions, but I don't think it is a fair analysis to say he was attempting to twist anything around for his own ends. Jung was a scholar who traveled abroad, connecting the fundamental dots of the world's religions in an insightful manner.

You are correct in a sense - true mysticism has more to do with what is occurring within than without. I don't think this fact went unacknowledged by Jung, but he definitely noted the individual's ancestral memory and connection to the ethno-culture that surrounds them as part of their spiritual lineage and disposition.

[Anthropos]

As you pointed out, it might be an understatement to say that Jung didn't tend to emphasize free will in the modern sense.I meant free will in the traditional sense. I don't even know what you mean by 'modern sense' of free will because the traditional sense which is the same as the Christian one still holds valid in most instances where free will is being discussed.


I think the same can be said for his ethno-cultural views; There is an archetypal character by which not only individuals can be defined if they connect with it, but entire peoples. This position is more deeply primordial than collectivism in the sense of some democratic process, here-and-now, and rather "collectivism" manifests itself in the context of the Spenglarian racial: A people united by vision and spirit.Taken in the Spenglerian and Jungian sense that is something very modern, mind you.




You make him sound so pretentious. :p

Everyone draws their own conclusions, Which part do you think that I made up or concluded myself? Tell me! Which part are you contesting?


I don't think it is a fair analysis to say he was attempting to twist anything around for his own ends. Jung was a scholar who traveled abroad, connecting the fundamental dots of the world's religions in an insightful manner.There is the mixture of truth and falsity in it, as I have already explained in a previous post in this thread. But in the end analysis he did pervert the true meaning of traditional concepts, sometimes even giving them the opposite meaning compared to the traditional.


You are correct in a sense - true mysticism has more to do with what is occurring within than without.I couldn't subscribe to that as it's written. But then again, 'mysticism' is quite a vague term that has been used to various quite different ends, and there is no reason to argue exactly about which one is the right one in this case, I think.


I don't think this fact went unacknowledged by Jung, but he definitely noted the individual's ancestral memory and connection to the ethno-culture that surrounds them as part of their spiritual lineage and disposition.

I would say that he posited a theory of the kind, but don't ask me what he meant by 'Jewish psychology'. Freud also claimed that tribal 'memories' and things like that expressed themselves in modern human beings.

[Blood Trinity]

Er, in advance I'll admit that I should work on writing more coherently, it wouldn't be the first time one has laid this charge against me. :p


I meant free will in the traditional sense. I don't even know what you mean by 'modern sense' of free will because the traditional sense which is the same as the Christian one still holds valid in most instances where free will is being discussed.

I merely meant to point to what is in my eyes the apparent phenomenon of individuals believing themselves to be a complete end in themselves, an unlimited vector of will power without any sort of inherent organic disposition -- individuals who possess no sort of context whatsoever except what they create for themselves out of their own brilliance. A symptom of liberalism and the "me generation" I suppose.


Which part do you think that I made up or concluded myself? Tell me! Which part are you contesting?

There is the mixture of truth and falsity in it, as I have already explained in a previous post in this thread. But in the end analysis he did pervert the true meaning of traditional concepts, sometimes even giving them the opposite meaning compared to the traditional.

Oh don't worry, I did not intend to call you a liar.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because while I'd like to see some examples of what you mean you already pointed out that the subject is perhaps a bit vast for this discussion. Its bad enough this Freud thread has already turned into a Jung thread. Sorry, I take full responsibility. :D


I would say that he posited a theory of the kind, but don't ask me what he meant by 'Jewish psychology'. Freud also claimed that tribal 'memories' and things like that expressed themselves in modern human beings.

Again the "scale" of "Jewishness" of Freud's ideas is really not relevant to me personally, either. Perhaps someone more opinionated could deposit their thoughts on the matter into this thread, after all the initial inquiry was as to why Freudian psychology is a negative influence. I'm sure many have a great deal to say about that.

I don't dispute the latter about Freud. Its just a matter of the degree of such an emphasis and/or tendency.

[Anthropos]

Er, in advance I'll admit that I should work on writing more coherently, it wouldn't be the first time one has laid this charge against me. :p



I merely meant to point to what is in my eyes the apparent phenomenon of individuals believing themselves to be a complete end in themselves, an unlimited vector of will power without any sort of inherent organic disposition -- individuals who possess no sort of context whatsoever except what they create for themselves out of their own brilliance. A symptom of liberalism and the "me generation" I suppose.



Oh don't worry, I did not intend to call you a liar.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because while I'd like to see some examples of what you mean you already pointed out that the subject is perhaps a bit vast for this discussion. Its bad enough this Freud thread has already turned into a Jung thread. Sorry, I take full responsibility. :D



Again the "scale" of "Jewishness" of Freud's ideas is really not relevant to me personally, either. Perhaps someone more opinionated could deposit their thoughts on the matter into this thread, after all the initial inquiry was as to why Freudian psychology is a negative influence. I'm sure many have a great deal to say about that.

I don't dispute the latter about Freud. Its just a matter of the degree of such an emphasis and/or tendency.
For example, Jung inverted the traditional relationship between personality and individuality. Traditionally it is the personality that signifies the higher aspect, whereas the individuality signifies mostly what is entirely transient in the being. That inversion was done without him in any way accounting for having manipulated the traditional conception. It was also done in connection with outlining certain quite individualistic views. Jung was very much an individualist, something that is quite interesteing considering what I wrote above concerning the individual and the collective, because the whole of it runs counter to your argument to the effect that his collectivism was in opposition to individualism.

[Anthropos]

”There is certainly something more than a mere question of vocabulary in the fact, very significant in itself, that present psychology considers nothing but the ’subconscious’, and never the ’superconscious’, which ought logically to be its correlative; there is no doubt that this usage expresses the idea of an extension operating only in a downward direction, that is, toward the aspect of things that corresponds , both here in the human being and elsewhere in the cosmic environment, to the ’fissures’ through which the most ’malefic’ influences of the subtle world penetrate, influences having a character that can truthfully and literally be described as ’infernal’.”

René Guénon, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, transl. Lord Northbourne (Hillsdale NY: Sophia Perennis 2004), 228.
(Le Règne de la Quantité et les Signes des Temps, Editions Gallimard 1945.)

In a footnote placed at the end of that quote it says:

”It may be noted in this connection that Freud put at the head of his The Interpretation of Dreams the following very significant epigram: Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo (Virgil, Aeneid, vii, 312).”

Concerning the quote from the Aeneid, an online commentary gives it this translation:

"If I cannot bend the Higher Powers, I will move the Infernal Regions" (lit., "I will stir up Acheron (http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=3563&tocid=0&query=acheron&ct=). (http://www.dinersgrapevine.com/palisade/lordbromios/artemis/achero.htm)").

While also referring to this one, which was released in book form:

"If I cannot change the will of Heaven I shall release Hell" (Aeneid, VII, 312 [Trans. W.F. Jackson Knight]).

[Óttar]

Then why do so many Nationalists hate him?
Because he was a Jew. :coffee: