Sigmund Freud, the Impulse Terrorist, the God-Eater
Damning critique of Freud's ego-driven psychology stemming from his alleged pedophilia, providing rationale for "impulse terrorism" and amorality embraced by followers.
FREUD
The hIGH pRIEST
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Deuteronomy 6:5
The Soulless Mind
Born May 6, 1856, Freiberg, Moravia, Austrian Empire [now Příbor, Czech Republic]—died September 23, 1939, London, England
Sigmund Freud is perhaps the most influential person I’m writing about. He’s the founder of psychiatry, psychology, neurology, and probably half a dozen other fields I’m unaware of. He was a writer, an academic writer, a teacher, and a speaker. His students, such as Carl Jung and his daughter, Anne Freud, were famous. At the end of his life, he spent his last fifteen months in exile from his Austrian homeland because of Hitler and his anti-semitism.
As a young man, I was so enamored by Freud that I visited his offices in Vienna. I minored in Psychology, and many of Freud’s views shaped my worldview. Even today, many see Freud as a congenial philosopher, a father of psychology, and the master of dreams.
As a young man, I disagreed with his conclusions about Christianity being like a childhood fancy. He had held, in Moses and Monotheism, that the proto-Jewish men who had killed their father and tried to atone for their sins by creating a Father-God. Though I dismissed his views on religion, I foolishly felt his psychology had value--many of his ideas were foundational to my career in Special Education and working with those who had Autism.
Freud’s Disagreeable Temperament
My recent research into Freud as a man, not the romantic concept of him in Academic circles around the world, revealed someone abusive, vindictive, and vengeful. I firmly believe that theology, our first principle, determines how we behave. While good theology won’t cure every disease, it does tend to soften at least the ravages of anger, abusiveness, and aggression. His behavior toward those he should have cherished started to reveal the vileness of his other beliefs.
He ostracized his most famous student, Carl Jung, for disagreeing with his concepts about the unconscious mind. He did more than shun him, though, and actively attempted to hurt or destroy Jung’s career. He did this to other people. In his research of Anna O., his most important client, he discovered someone had sexually abused her as a child--this led to Freud’s diagnosis of hysteria. He then developed for psychology a system of sexual progression of a child.
Freud’s Psychosexual Stages is an Instruction Manual
My psychology professors at a Christian college divorced the diagnosis from its sexual origins. Still, the five psychosexual stages of oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital describe at what stage a child is receptive to certain types of sexual activity. In other words, when a child is still an infant, the child can be sexually active through oral sex. Freud is not describing how a child experiences sex as much as he is explaining how an adult can sexually abuse a child and at what ages a child can accept a male’s penis into their body.
When I learned this from other sources, I lost all respect for Freud, the clinician--Freud had a mysterious, romantic air about him in academia and pop culture. He does not deserve it. When I realized that psychologists in the academy try to bury this knowledge, I found my respect for the world of psychology destroyed. I started to question his other achievements in psychology even deeper.
Even more disturbing is the evidence of abuse seen in his daughter when she was a teenager. She, like Anna O., his patient, experienced many of the signs of sexual trauma as a teenager and suffered from hysteria. It seems evident he used his own daughter to develop his theories for how to abuse a child sexually.
My college professors hadn’t told me this. I’ve always struggled with why some counselors and psychologists seem to promote pedophilia or other sexual behaviors as normal and acceptable as a path toward healing—and not healing for the victim in many cases, but healing for the abuser.
After this realization about Freud, I could see why psychology attracted followers such as Michel Foucault, who argued even more openly for the acceptance of pedophilia. In my mind, Freud opened the door to a return to ancient practices of sexual abuse of minors through slavery, prostitution, education, and mentoring. These advocates read Freud’s works and were coming to the correct conclusion--children were to be sexualized. I missed it because my Christian professors had been using a baptized version of psychology, which does lead to the same problems as it does in the secular world.
Subconscious Triumphs over Religion
I’m trying to say that psychology’s roots are rotten and that there is no saving the tree of psychology from it. The corruption of its root system goes deeper when Freud talks to us about the subconscious and religion.
Freud’s crowning achievement was replacing the concept of the soul, a religious and immaterial idea in theology, with the irreligious and material subconscious.
This new subconscious drove our minds into madness and even caused illnesses in our bodies. Because Freud was a devoted atheist, he couldn’t accept the ancient human concept of the soul that existed in the immaterial world, tying us to a world we couldn’t see but just as real. By conquering the soul and turning it into something crass, he placed the final crown onto the head of the new theology.
Religion was now a neurosis of the physical body that could be cured. For Freud, there was nothing in the soul that couldn’t be explained better by the subconscious. Whatever sense of morality the soul provides us is just the mind misinterpreting the world around it and creating psychological crises that could only be treated through his new “Talking Therapy.” He made the disease, and then he created the cure. You no longer needed a priest--you needed a psychoanalysis.
Talking therapy allows the person seeking the service of a trained psychologist to speak through their problems—problems based on grief, trauma, or fears. This list is not exhaustive; when it works, it works as well as confessions to a priest or a good friend. The value of this type of therapy is the desire to get better and to improve.
The therapist’s job is to listen and allow the client to vent and say those things out loud that we all buried to avoid facing them. Like a priest or friend, a good therapist can disinfect the nightmares and help you laugh at them.
However, this therapeutic benefit only works when the therapist acts like a priest, pastor, or friend. Therapy also never works when you resist it, just like you may resist the excellent advice of a priest, pastor, or friend. I argue that the above successful therapy is not what Freud envisioned.
Instead, he saw a world where the educated held sway--doling out the benefit of their knowledge, experience, and research to the patient. There was no equality between the patient and the psychologist. The psychologist was God, and the patient was moldable, pliable, and malleable. The therapist is, whether a doctor or counselor, godlike. For Freud, the therapists had answers to all your problems, and they would feed your Ego or impulsive desires. They will tell you that your sexual desires are what you need to free so they do not develop into neurosis. Your strange fetish isn’t something to hide but something to feed into because there can be a healthy (moral) way to feed into it. If Freud is right, though, and there is no God, there is no need to use the word healthy. There is no true sense of health, but only what you desire.
Psychology isn’t the newest branch of the medical profession of the mind but rather the subversion of a holy order that God charged spiritual leaders with nurturing, developing, and disciplining souls so that God’s virtues would positively impact the body.
Toxic Therapy Blames the Father
Freud doesn’t give us a way to deal with mental illnesses, but rather a way to increase the severity of mental illnesses. While talking therapy can help, especially if administered by therapists and doctors who practice self-control and believe we all answer to God, its real purpose isn’t to have a therapeutic effect but to help those who have demons to compromise with their demons.
Freud ushered away demon possession and sin eating at our minds; Freud taught us that sin and possessions were merely primitive ways of describing an entirely material process. Almost all religious expression resulted from the human mind attempting to make sense of the material world.
Rather than a spiritual world that intersected our own and interfered with our own, Freud held our neurosis was based on a deep-seated fear of the Father. He writes, “Where, in this connection, does religion come in? Totemism [primitive religion], with its worship of a father substitute, by the totem feast, the institution of remembrance festivals and of laws the breaking of which is punished by death–this totemism, I conclude, may be regarded mankind, and it illustrates the close connection existing from the very beginning of time between social institutions and moral obligations.” In this argument, Freud says that what we experience as morality comes first from our worship of the Father. In earlier passages from Moses and Monotheism, we kill our father and then, in guilt, worship our father.
After we have done this, we build social institutions like the church and government to tell us what is moral. Before church and government existed, we didn’t know enough to know what was moral or immoral. In fact, the concepts of morality and immorality are just inventions, not even very useful inventions, because they interfere with our natural impulses.
For Freud, there is no Morality.
Morality suppresses who we are and what we are meant to be. For example, if I have an impulse to have sex with a person outside of marriage, then the only reason I don’t is I have succumbed to shame from a false morality. I obey it because of my fear of social institutions. However, this causes a problem in my mind. It’s unhealthy for me to deny myself sex with this woman outside of marriage. We learn from psychology that to deny desires is to deny ourselves. It is more important that I am my authentic self--I must have sex with her because my desires are more important than morality and more important than any social institutions or people who are tied to that false morality. My wife and children are not my concern--only who I truly am.
While I chose adultery as an example, we see this logic with transgender issues. My authentic self is not what I am physically. I must be gay, lesbian, asexual, ecosexual, pansexual, bisexual, trans, or a million other things.
All I need to do is throw off the false morality, and then I’ll be free to have sex with this [fill in the blank]. If my wife complains that I have sex with another [fill in the blank], she does so because of her loyalty to a false morality that suppresses her and is trying to suppress me. I cannot allow her to commit to a lie to keep me from the sex I deserve with [fill in the blank].
Talking therapy, as Freud designed it, is meant to throw off the shackles of institutions and morality. It has yet to succeed because far too many good people of faith and reason have become therapists and psychiatrists. They realized his arguments were faulty, but most didn’t understand why they were erroneous.
Many psychologists and therapists had the same experience I had at college. Their professors told them that the discovery of the subconscious meant a deeper understanding of the mind. Finally, we would be able to provide actual treatment to people suffering from mental health disorders. We could step away from all the primitive nonsense we have seen from primitive religious people.
Yet, that wasn’t Freud’s end goal. He wants you to understand that the origin of religion is infantile. He makes claims in the deep recesses of human history and provides no evidence. He thinks his allegations will stand because, to him, they are self-evident and masquerade as a well-reasoned argument.
Humanity will evolve past the need for religion.
As he builds up the history of religion, he writes, “The next step forward from totemism is the humanizing of the worshiped being. Human gods, whose origin in the totem is not veiled, take the place previously filled by animals. Either the god is still represented by an animal or at least he bears the countenance of an animal; the totem may become the inseparable companion of the god, or, again, the myth makes the god vanquish just that animal which was nothing but his predecessor. At one period–it is hard to say when–great mother deities appeared, probably before the male gods, and they were worshiped besides the latter for a long time to come. During that time a great social revolution had taken place. Matriarchy was followed by a restitution of the patriarchal order.” Each totem or image we see, which had first been an animal, is replaced by a human being as we develop. We worshipped animals. Then, we worshipped humans. We called animals God, so we called humans God. Ta-da. Religion is bunk.
Freud thinks that the principles of evolution govern religion. You can see the logic here. Evolution must have played a role since religion seemed to grow more complex as humans developed. Religion mirrors our development, right up to the point we can toss it out like we have tossed out our morality. However, Freud gives no evidence or examples for his illogical argument.
To be fair to ancient religions, we have no evidence that they were less complex than modern religions like Daoism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. These ancient religions may have been more complex.
Freud Replaces Religion with Weak Men
He has somehow decided that because the religions only left behind totems and no written descriptions, the religions were less complex. It’s a funny conceit. Only the evolved ape of Europe is wise enough to look at his religion and throw it off. It’s conceited and quite arrogant.
He continues his extensive and exhaustive history of religion and its development, but only he is smart enough to have discovered it through his mind. “The new fathers, it is true, never succeeded to the omnipotence of the primeval fathers. There were too many of them, and they lived in larger communities than the original horde had been; they had to get on with one another and were restricted by social institutions. Probably the mother deities were developed when the matriarchy was being limited, in order to compensate the dethroned mothers. The male gods appear at first as sons by the side of the features of the father.” He wants us to be sympathetic to the matriarchy, and it’s subtle. Discussing how the Father replaces the Mother, we wonder if there was an injustice.
He wants us to wonder why the male gods and their patriarchy replaced the matriarchy. Since there was an earlier replacement, we can supersede religion altogether. If matriarchy is false, then patriarchy is false. He wants us to move onto a new mode of living without any religion.
Of course, this is because of his disdain for Judaism and Christianity, both centered around a male and father God. While God does not have a gender as a Spiritual being, he reveals his nature as male. Freud wants you to know that the father gods brought about social institutions, but again, he makes arguments with no proof.
We don’t know enough about the ancient world to make these guesses—at least not in the type of detail we have about your lunch, where you shop, and where you will go tomorrow based on your habits. If Freud is correct, the few existing matriarchal societies must have been terrible anarchies.
Consider the weakness of a matriarchal society. Matriarchal societies wouldn’t encourage men to demonstrate strength. Societies with strong men are more successful than societies with weak men. We have to have social orders where respectable and good men create social order. Not only do we need men to be physically strong, we need them to be morally good. Men running wild would be the worst kind of society. Good strong men create safe societies where women can live without fear of rape and violence.
The irony is that a world without morality, like the one Freud helped usher in, is flooded with wicked and weak men—men who use their power to take what they want. These men are cruel because they indulge in every impulse and feeble because they lack self-control and discipline.
Freud is the High Priest of these types of men who prey on others, seek their impulses (including abusing their daughters), and are too weak to say no to anyone, especially themselves. A society ruled by weak men is constantly at war. You can only have peace when you have a man with power but the discipline to use it to defend rather than destroy. When he controls his impulses, a good man denies himself for the future of his children and wife. A strong and good man creates a healthy patriarchy where women and children flourish.
Many of the complaints about toxic masculinity are related more to the men who live in our patriarchy but are still worshiping the mother goddesses of the ancient world.
Christians are Cannibals
In this following claim, he wants to shame us with the resemblance between Christianity and the practices of cannibalism. “Thus more than one author has been struck by the close resemblance between the rite of Christian Communion–where the believer symbolically incorporates the blood and flesh of his God–and the totem feast, whose inner meaning it reproduces.” To answer, I will lean into C.S. Lewis.
Jesus, his death, and his resurrection is symbolized in communion or the Eucharist. Christ, commanding us to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, is seen as literal, for Catholics, to symbolic, for many protestants.
Freud knows there is a distinction between denominations that disagree, but let’s assume the Catholics are right about bread and wine becoming flesh and blood. Catholics believe it requires the blood sacrifice to wipe away human sin. God ordained this practice back in the Garden of Eden.
If Catholics are correct, God is taking a taboo act, as he often does, and is turning it into something Holy and sacred. Only God’s flesh can bring salvation, and only God’s blood can cleanse our sins. Freud doesn't try to answer any of the other questions about the Eucharist or its purpose but tries to disgust his reader and call it cannibalism. Yet, he doesn't try to show how the Lord's Supper is similar to actual cannibalism--as in there is no murder of Christ every time someone goes to mass. He's trying to shame Christianity, but his argument is a red herring--not fit for consumption by even real cannibals.
Despite the attempts by Satan to corrupt the faith, he fails. While the accusation of cannibalism misses the point, Freud accidentally recognizes the sacredness of the human body and the human soul. He acknowledges that consuming human flesh is abhorrent--it changes the person somehow.
In Christ, we have this ritual perfected without sin. Where Satan turns religious rituals into a taboo of the sacred, Christ turns the taboo into the Holy. Lewis recognized this when he said, “He is not the soul of Nature nor of any part of Nature. He inhabits eternity: He dwells in the high and holy place: heaven is His throne, not His vehicle, earth is His footstool, not his vesture.” While Freud wants to embarrass Christianity in the same way Satan tries to corrupt the sacred flesh and blood of man, Christ comes and takes what should be forbidden, eating flesh and drinking wine, and makes it Holy. Essentially, the ritual is so Holy that even Baptists like myself cannot get away from the religious awe we experience in perhaps the least ritualized version of the Eucharist--what we humbly title The Lord’s Supper.
In the Eucharist, we see the perfect example of Freud’s anti-materialism of the body. Christians affirm how sacred humans are and also establish how mundane we are simultaneously. Freud can only see the mundane, and he has no value or respect for flesh or blood. He ties his morality to how mundane we appear to be—everyone besides him is just matter, dust, and impulses.
Freud’s Satanic Mass
Freud cuts us up on his altar, splatters our blood, and chews us with as much relish as someone who is starving eats his first meal in months. When he can't find the sacred in us, he decides it can't exist. He never examines if the reason he can't see the Holy might be a fault in him.
We are nothing to Freud. His world is built around the ego, driven by narcissism, madness, and impulse terrorism. He solves the problems of the mind through a system where the therapist heals you after many long and expensive sessions when the priest would have done it for free since tithe is not compulsory.
Look at the world around us created by his psychology. Not all the fault is his—many of his disciples have gone further than he did. He is their High Priest, their unholy Wicked Man.
Thank you. I kinda hate Freaky Freud. 😇 His nephew, Edward Bernays is the father of propaganda. Unholy family line.
Absolutely. Freud destroyed our last link to God and replaced it with the worst type of monster—our inner self.