ethics

Cultivate Attention and Discernment (5)

La Clairvoyance (1936) (“Perspicacity”) By René Magritte 1936.

“Sound judgement, with discernment is the best of seers.”

— Euripides


Reading time: 15-17 mins

So far, we’ve looked at healing the past so that we have a firm foundation upon which to build, such as choosing constructive, positive emotions. To be able to take the first steps, we must have enough self-respect and at least some measure of self-control to take responsibility for our own development. That means choosing this as a central aim parallel or including, a process of objectives, without self-deception or short-cuts. We must simplify our daily routines and scale back our ambitions so that undue complexity doesn’t enter in prematurely. Economising our energy permits progress to that end. If we never have enough mental, emotional and physical energy available then our aim will remain in the realm of fantasy – the very source of the drain itself. Non-identification, positive detachment and proper attention help us simplify and return to what is essential. To be aware of the mammalian brain and its addictive habits we can choose to cultivate attention. When we know what to look for, we can begin to recognise the emotional, intellectual and physical patterns which keep our creative potential trapped. We might then be able to discern the true nature of ourselves and our relationship to others.

So, what is “discernment” exactly? From the Latin words ‘dis’ (apart) and ‘cernere’ (to separate), it’s a skill that we develop in order to comprehend what is vague or obscure. This applies to a person, situation or an abstract idea. It is the art of seeing which includes the realm of the five senses and by extension, the possibility of accessing different modes of perception using the marriage of intuition and reason. And we do this by shunning self-orientated, subjective impressions and by striving to obtain an objective view of life as possible.

If we can comprehend something and reach clarity then we can exercise sound judgement and the further ability to discriminate between what is true or false. Discrimination – the noticing of any part, quality, impression, detail or difference in comparison to another object, person or situation – is the essential partner to discernment. Without constant discrimination between what is negative and positive, good or evil, gaining useful insights from a holistic view cannot be attained.

Careful discrimination weighs up and compares, discernment permits initial recognition of impressions received. We are then able to exercise judgement and reach a conclusion of the overall picture, coordinated by the will of attention. As Scottish theologian Sinclair B. Ferguson states: “True discernment means not only distinguishing [discriminating] the right from the wrong; it means distinguishing the primary from the secondary, the essential from the indifferent, and the permanent from the transient. And, yes, it means distinguishing between the good and the better, and even between the better and the best.” And this means learning that the “devil” is often in the details because lies to ourselves and lies in the outer world are frequently sandwiched between the sweet and seemingly well-intentioned. Or, as British Baptist Preacher Charles Spurgeon once cautioned: “Discernment is not a matter of telling the difference between right and wrong; rather it is telling the difference between right and almost right.” Which is why ancient philosophical traditions emphasize the subtleties inherent in developing such skills.

“Almost right” is still wrong. And that can be a big deal when your life depends on it.

(more…)

World State Policies VII: Planned Parenthood, UNESCO and “New-Genics”

“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola


planned-parenthoodDuring the 1930s as Rockefeller funding was supporting research into molecular biology for new ways to implement social control, another pseudo-scientific outfit sprang up from the mind of one Margaret Sanger. Ms. Sanger favoured “The elimination of ‘human weeds,’ for the ‘cessation of charity’ because it prolonged the lives of the unfit, for the segregation of ‘morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,’ and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races.’” And this gentle parent’s views were to be the inspiration for “Planned Parenthood.” [1]

Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which in 1942, became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America formerly created ten years later in 1952 at a conference in Bombay, India. She is widely regarded as the founder of the modern birth control movement and a tireless activist for women’s rights, helping to put a stop to the practice of back-alley abortions that claimed so many lives.

Her drive to promote birth control was perhaps due in part, to her mother who suffered greatly in her 18 pregnancies and later died of tuberculosis. However, despite Sanger’s obvious positive intentions she was for all intents and purposes a full-blown authoritarian who was a big fan of the Nazis. She also had a strange blend of occult/theosophical and collectivist beliefs which led her to harbour increasingly extremist views, where the extermination of those she deemed less pure than her Caucasian, white, spiritually advanced self was eminently acceptable. Her engineering of the human race to a spiritual and genetic perfection was merely another form of Social Darwinism with a feminist bent. She felt the reason for the spiritual and biological demise of her brethren was due to contamination by “unfit” genes and as such, her mission was to rid the world of such undesirables.

In the 1930’s, while Sanger praised Adolf Hitler’s Racial purity program and the Aryan dream of a snow-white New World Order, she commissioned the aforementioned Nazi eugenicist Ernst Rudin to be an advisory member of her organization. Nine years later Sanger began work on saving the world from the copulating practices of the black man whom she believed to be an “inferior race.” The “Negro project,” was a program designed to vastly reduce or indoctrinate under the pretext of religious instruction.

She declared:

“The masses of Negroes … particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit …” […]

“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” ” [2]

And from her biography:

“The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” Quite simply, in Sanger’s view quoted in Birth Control Review, December 1920: “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” And in summarising an address to New History Society, in April 1932, the object for the Population Congress would be: “… to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” ” [3]

Some choice.

In a 1985, Planned Parenthood annual report board members claimed that they were: “Proud of our past, and planning for our future.” [4]

msanger1

        Margaret Sanger

The eugenic imperative lent further energy to the World State in waiting and the intelligentsia ran around doing what they could to create networks of grand visionaries that would carry the flame into the future. Collectivism and the New Social Order lay on the foundations of gradualism, after all. They knew that persons would have to be carefully selected through the generations so that organisations would adhere to the original plan. Margaret Sanger had joined the Socialist Party and was eventually well connected with the Fabian Elite including: H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Arbuthnot Lane, and Norman Haire. It was through these “relationships” that she was able to finally meet Havelock Ellis, author of the Psychology of Sex and with whom she had an affair.

In 1922 she wrote the book The Pivot of Civilization in which she laid bare her love of Malthusian and eugenic principles. In 1925, she was in full spate and penned a rant that would have given Pol Pot a run for his money, stating: “We can all vote, even the mentally arrested. And so it is no surprise to find that the moron’s vote is as good as the vote of the genius. The outlook is not a cheerful one.” She continued her rant claiming: “The dullard, the gawk, the numbskull, the simpleton, the weakling, and the scatterbrain are amongst us in overshadowing numbers–intermarrying, breeding, inordinately prolific, literally threatening to overwhelm the world with their useless and terrifying get.” [5] Let’s keep in mind that Frederick Jaffe the head of Planned Parenthood research in 1969 floated several proposals in a memo which seemed to continue the above sentiments which included “compulsory sterilization for those who have already had two children” as well as “compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies,” federal entitlement “payments to encourage abortion,” and “tax penalties” for existing large families. [6]

With friends like Fred who needs families?

According to the Planned Parenthood Federation website at http://www.plannedparenthood.org today, Margaret Sanger’s reasons for building her birth control empire have been airbrushed away. She was: “… one of the movement’s great heroes,” where her: “… early efforts remain the hallmark of Planned Parenthood’s mission: providing contraception and other health services to women and men; funding research on birth control and educating specialists and the public about the results; advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

But is this advice based on good science or ideology?

Planned Parenthood (PP) as the largest provider and promoter of abortion and “… the largest provider of sex education in America,” has expanded from its humble beginnings into a multi-billion-dollar international conglomerate with centres in 50 states; national headquarters in New York, a legislative centre in Washington and programs and activities in 134 nations on every continent. [7]They have over 922 clinics in almost every major metropolitan area in the United States while their international centres can be found in London, Nairobi, Bangkok, and New Dehli. [8] 

PP lobbies for abortions within the second trimester and associate resistance to this policy from pro-life extremists who wish to be rid of all abortions: “… abortion after the first trimester remains a necessary option for some women. Unfortunately, anti-choice zealots seek to limit access to abortion through, among other means, laws imposing a fixed date for fetal viability and bans that would outlaw safe, medically appropriate abortions in the second trimester. The hidden agenda of these zealots is to make all abortions illegal.” [9]

Just as the answer does not lie with anti-abortionists, it does beg the question whether PP are also there for humanitarian reasons given its history. In her book Woman and the New Race, Sanger observed: “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it,” and we can see by the slick marketing and multi-million dollar yearly profits nothing much has changed except the lure of the dollar sign. [10]From 2000 – 2010 there was a steady rise in the number of abortions PP undertook increasing from 197,070 to 329,445 by the end of the decade with the dispensing of 131,638 to 1,461,816 Morning After pills. [11]Planned Parenthood Federation of America classified as a non-profit organisation revealed in its 2008 report that income generated from their yearly abortion drives netted a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers pay for around $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That is a sizable chunk of Planned Parenthood’s projected profits. [12]

Upon visiting their websites today, it’s almost as if the subject of abortion is celebrated. Email alerts! Get Involved! Job opportunities! Providing access to reproductive health care so that women they can “control their bodies and their futures.”

Or rather than appealing to a feminist perception of emancipation, is it that those behind Planned Parenthood can control their bodies and their futures?

Rather than eugenics, depopulation and enforced abortion being a thing of the past perhaps it has been pushed under the carpet of highly paid advertising campaigns, pretty colours and a whole lot of profit.  Women must have the freedom to do as they will with their own bodies, yet when this support becomes a corporation with cash as the bottom line and eugenics at its historical roots, more questions need to be asked.

As to whether Planned Parenthood are fulfilling a useful role in today’s world based on a natural evolution of society then we would have to say “no” because society has been wholly manipulated by the very same people who have set up these institutions. Is it habituation to abortion and so-called sexual liberation or merely the right to choose? The question is not that it does not offer women more “reproductive choice” but for what is the core reason such education is being promoted? What does such an international ideal serve? If you want to make a population less loving, more sexualised and narcissistic and thus more malleable, the gross result may be more babies in the short term but with large-scale abortion clinics on standby as branches of a larger corporatist ethos who will they look to for further inspiration?

All roads lead to the Rockefeller ideal of China as the Pathocratic template of the future.

Alan Guttmacher, who took on a ten year presidency of PP provides an example of this ubiquitous China-think. He stated: “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, determining when and how it should be employed,” reminding us that: “… the means presently available are compulsory sterilization and abortion.” He then enlightened an already open-mouthed journalist that this Planned Parenthood’s values of compassion, love, health and women’s rights may have to be jettisoned for coercion and force that might be especially needed “… in areas where the pressure is the greatest, possibly in India and China.” [13]

In 1984, PP had written in support of China’s brutal one-child per couple policy, where sterilisation and forced abortions are mandatory [14] and were quite excited about such a possibility arriving in the United States (keer-ching! $$$$) which is why they battled to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) which had already committed $100 million to this Chinese program. [15] Twenty-six years later we hear from another ex-Planned Parenthood director Norman Fleishman writing to President Obama about the recent decision to force insurance companies to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortion: “Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.” [16]

Now it seems, Planned Parenthood has come out fighting and is actively against this line – at least on their website. We can now read: “Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) opposes coercive and inhumane reproductive policies and practices, including China’s one-child policy and the illegal practices of forced abortion and coerce birth control reported in some localities. We believe in reproductive self-determination and we advocate for public policies that guarantee these rights and ensure access to safe and legal services.” [17]

Whether this is just good PR and represents more than just indignant-soon-to-be-leaving directors of PP remains to be seen. But large-scale profits from equally large-scale abortion will doubtless continue. However, if you want to see the truly abhorrent face of Planned Parenthood then we need look no further than the recent secret recording of Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, discussing the side business in fetal parts. Let’s include a few choice quotes from the video:

“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.

“The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part. …

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex. …

“So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.” [18]

Mirroring illegal partial-birth abortions and taking full advantage of their equally partial government funding there speaks the voice of greed and science conjoined. You don’t need any more obvious evidence to abort babies for profit. As the Free thought project reports:

According to 42 U.S. Code § 289g–2:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

The legal issues were seemingly addressed during the conversation when Nucatola says, “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now.”

Lila Rose, Live Action President responded to the disturbing video:

This investigation by the Center for Medical Progress reveals the unimaginable horror that is Planned Parenthood. The exploitation of human life, the cover-up, and the black market profiteering by America’s largest abortion chain is not only egregious and heartbreaking, but exposes how the abortion giant is corrupt to the core

— from the CEO, Cecile Richards, down to the local clinic. [19] 

Watch the video HERE.

***

What is certain, China’s one-child policy has been a disaster for women with the equivalent of the entire female population of the United States missing. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men she places the source of the problem squarely on the one-child policy which has its roots in the population control advocacy in the West. It has exponentially increased the number of men and turned the remaining women into commodities, adding to the already significant increase in global sex-trafficking. Not only that but: “Between 1992 and 2004 China’s crime rate nearly doubled. In India from 2003 to 2007 rape cases surged over 30 percent and abductions by over 50 percent prompting the government to unveil female-only trains.” [20]The conclusion is that while China’s population police themselves in this regard, as Hvistendahl reminds us: “In a world in which women are unnaturally scarce, the right to abort will be the least of our worries.” [21]  Thankfully, this led China to rethink its policy in 2009 with Shanghai as the template for a two child policy. The Telegraph reported: “Experts predicted earlier this week that there will be zero growth in China’s population of 1.3 billion people by 2030.” [22]

The one child policy was so appealing to Western elites due to the similar short-sighted and misplaced view of how nature operates which is non-linear, self-organising and adaptive. Which is why a recent study commissioned by the BBC in September 2012 discovered that: “… China’s fertility would have declined at a similar rate without the one-child policy and would continue to decline even if the policy was discarded.” [23]

fertility_rate976x314

How did the one-child policy affect population levels? | Ageing China: Changes and challenges”

One of the key proposals in this post for the reader to consider is that the institutions and well-known organisations of today – though inhabited by honest, sincere and selfless individuals – are nonetheless steered by ideologies and strategies (and market-led greed) from the top which have not changed for many decades. While social engineering carries on at one level, another tier maybe involved in the imposition of a world philosophy and culture that ostensibly seems a wonderful thing. An example of this can be found from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

Evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley, elder brother of author Aldous Huxley was a giant in the humanist and eugenics movements. He held several important posts including the Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935-42), first president of the British Humanist Association (1963), Vice-President (1937-44) and President of the British Eugenics Society (1959-62). He was also co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Huxley was also the recipient of several awards aligned to his areas of interest including UNESCO’s Kalinga Prize (1953) (as did Bertrand Russell); the Darwin Medal of the Royal Society (1956), and the Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population (1959).

As the first director of the organisation Sir Julian Sorell Huxley wrote a paper entitled “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy” published in 1946. In the paper he shared his vision for the future of the international organisation and what he hoped it would achieve. Huxley believed its philosophy should be “… based on a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background” or a grand design of World Evolutionary Humanism.

From ‘UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy’ he states:

It is essential for Unesco to adopt an evolutionary approach. If it does not do so, its philosophy will be a false one, its humanism at best partial, at worst misleading…. in the last few decades it has been possible to develop an extended or general theory of evolution which can provide the necessary intellectual scaffolding for modern humanism. It not only shows us man’s place in nature and his relations to the rest of the phenomenal universe, not only gives us a description of the various types of evolution and the various trends and directions within them, but allows us to distinguish desirable and undesirable trends […]

Objectively speaking, the new method consists of cumulative tradition, which forms the basis of that social heredity by means of which human societies change and develop. But the new method also has a subjective aspect of great importance. Cumulative tradition, like all other distinctively human activities, is largely based on conscious processes – on knowledge, on purpose, on conscious feeling, and on conscious choice. Thus the struggle for existence that underlies natural selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness.

Evolution in the human sector consists mainly of changes in the form of society; in tools and machines, in new ways of utilising the old innate potentialities, instead of in the nature of these potentialities, as in the biological sector. […] Nor does it mean that man’s innate mental powers could not be improved. They certainly were improved (presumably be [sic] natural selection) in the earliest stages of his career, […] and they could certainly be improved further by deliberate eugenic measures, if we consciously set ourselves to improve them. Meanwhile, however, it is in social organisation, in machines, and in ideas that human evolution is mostly made manifest.” [24] [Emphasis mine]

So, an almost word for word reiteration of Bertrand Russell’s “scientific dictatorship” was also being developed by Huxley where it is assumed that natural selection, a social struggle and the eugenic improvement of humans are part of UNESCO’s mission. They also happen to be key words in both collectivist, humanist and atheist thinking where human beings are not only devoid of the consciousness as he mentions but must be developed along the lines of a faulty machine.

jhuxley

Sir Julian Sorrell Huxley

It is the arrogant imposition of dogma within a soon to be highly influential institution that belies a certain confidence that he is surrounded by those who think the same. And for an educational, scientific and cultural organisation to be founded on eugenics to then speak of equality and emancipation … This goes only so far before doubts set in as to the authenticity of its participants but not the artfulness of its propaganda. Yet he qualifies his exuberant idealism: “… with equality of opportunity [which] must be amended to read ‘equality of opportunity within the limits of aptitude.’ Which means opportunity – but only for those who come up to scratch.

He further informs us:

“… it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” [25]

As with most of these people, they know that most normal individuals see the manipulation of the human psychology and physiology based on class and race superiority as naturally abhorrent, so Huxley is really saying that acceptance of radical eugenics policies is not yet possible so let’s introduce it along the lines of gradualism so that “greatest care” may furnish the “unthinkable.”

What is radical eugenics if it is not coercive altering of the human mind and body under certain Elitist beliefs?
To promote what Huxley calls an “adjustment” to these eugenic ideals, he calls for “a great deal of education of the general public” resting upon the fallacy that evolutionary biology is the only means by which we can measure the progress of humanity, or as he states: “…judging the rightness or wrongness of our aims and activities.” For this peculiar brand of reductive determinism to play out, according to Huxley there should be an extension of: “… personal ethical judgements and responsibilities to many collective and apparently impersonal actions” and further “… to undertake a considerable socialisation of ethics.”

What the director is advocating is an ethics of the “scientific technique” whereby rights of the individual are submerged into a World Evolutionary State of Government. Progress for Huxley is a narrow pathway indeed:

… the more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress: several separate or competing or even mutually hostile pools of tradition cannot possibly be so efficient as a single pool common to all mankind. And secondly, that the best and only certain way of securing this will be through political unification. As history shows, unifying ideas can exert an effect across national boundaries. But, as history makes equally evident, that effect is a partial one and never wholly offsets the opportunities for conflict provided by the existence of separate sovereign political units.

The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it – education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means for avoiding war. However, world political unity is, unfortunately, a remote ideal, and in any case does not fall within the field of UNESCO’s competence. This does not mean that UNESCO cannot do a great deal towards promoting peace and security. Specifically, in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarise all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization. But, more generally, it can do a great deal to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built. [26]

By using the biological metaphor of a the struggling human gene “pool,” Huxley introduces the real “moral” task of UNESCO which is not the promotion of education, culture and science but the engineering of collectivist dogma which requires the dissolution of sovereign states for a (humanist) world government. The avoidance of war is the caveat that is wheeled in for justification for such a program, but it remains disingenuous as it is ignorant.

Obviously wishing to get all the juicy morsels of propaganda into the paper for posterity, Huxley believes that such “unification in the things of the mind is not only also necessary but can pave the way for other types of unification.” A global religion, global army, global economy and global government will finally lead to “full world unity” but not until that pesky global mind has been unified no doubt under the arch-deacons of the “scientific technique” and their instruments of coercion. For Huxley, the administering of education is merely another tool to facilitate that end by “improving the technique of education…” and to “…help in the speedy and satisfactory realisation of this process,” with “… special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society.” [27] In order to make sure that the uneducated and developing nations are fully indoctrinated into an homogenised slush upon wish the World State will float; a fundamental education must evolve that has been paired down enough for the inclusion of a “common scale of values.” And on what basis might those be formed? Huxley has the answer: “One other item which Unesco should put on its programme as soon as possible is the study of the application of psycho-analysis and other schools of “deep” psychology to education. […] This would mean an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself.”

It was only a matter of time before the fusion of the scientific technique, Freud and the discredited psychoanalysis popped up as it usually usually does at some point in Elite initiatives, so why not as the education fundamentals of UNESCO?

Julian Huxley’s position as chairman of the Eugenics society (1959-62) comes through vividly in his recommendations for the use of media and public relations as tools of propaganda and a “mass creed” for the greater good. He even manages a little doffing of the hat to Lenin:

“Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to ‘overcome the resistance of millions’ to desirable change. Using drama to reveal reality and art as the method by which, in Sir Stephen Tallent’s words, ‘truth becomes impressive and living principle of action,’ and aiming to produce that concerted effort which … needs a background of faith and a sense of destiny. This must be a mass philosophy, a mass creed, and it can never be achieved without the use of the media of mass communication. Unesco, in the press of its detailed work, must never forget this enormous fact. [Emphasis mine]

And what is this “mass creed”? World evolutionary Darwinism twined with a World State. The actual inspiration for Huxley’s turn of phrase was probably inspired by the work of Charles Galton Darwin ex-eugenics society president who wrote about the importance of “creeds” in shaping human perceptions in his book The Next Million Years (1952):

The detailed march of history will depend a great deal on the creeds held by the various branches of the human race. It cannot be presumed with any confidence that purely superstitious creeds will always be rejected by civilized communities, in view of the extraordinary credulity shown even now by many reputedly educated people. It is true that there may not be many at the present time, whose actions are guided by an inspection of the entrails of a sacrificial bull, but the progress has not been very great, for there are still many believers in palmistry and astrology. It is to be expected then that in the future, as in the past, there will be superstitions which will notably affect the course of history, and some of them, such as ancestor-worship, will have direct effects on the development of the human species. But superstitious creeds will hardly be held by the highly intelligent, and it is precisely the creed of these that matters. Is it possible that there should arise a eugenic creed, which – perhaps working through what I have called the method of unconscious selection – should concern itself with the improvement of the inherent nature of man, instead of resting content with merely giving him good but impermanent acquired characters?  [28] [Emphasis mine]

The UNESCO humanism and eugenics perception of the mind and body has now morphed into futurism, care of the transhumanists a large proportion of whom carry the same ideological torch.

Ethical constraints are vital as advances in human genetics advance towards an obvious array of medical benefits and when the direction and ideology is still firmly in the grip of Wall St. and the same “philanthropic” families. Edwin Black makes the important point that a “‘newgenics’ has risen again to persecute and discriminate on the basis of blood ancestry. Insurance companies, employers and others want to exclude those deemed to be insurance risks and even socially unacceptable and legislators complain that this will create a new ‘genetic ghetto.’” [29]

dnaspiralThere are plenty of individuals that believe they are Gods in the making and have the right to tinker with the human genome in order to enhance humanity’s genetic profile and eradicate “imperfections.” The film Welcome to Gatacca was a thought-provoking study of the long-term future of eugenics that slipped towards a definitely dystopic scenario. There is no doubt that we are already easing down a slippery slope of eugenics care of technocratic science. Designer babies are not a pipe-dream. Some clinics are already offering the chance to alter the genes of your future child.

Professor Julian Savulescu of Oxford University and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, sees the genetic engineering of “ethical” babies as a moral obligation and genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just “responsible parenting.” Screening in and screening out certain genes begins the process of designing our babies and our future societies. If we are considering the psychopath as the primary cause of the ills of our societies is it not logical that we should eradicate the possibility of psychopaths even entering the world? Savulescu, like so many other academics considers such a move in strictly altruistic terms in that “rational design” will deliver more intelligent and less violent people for the future. He believes it is just a natural extension of the process which presently screens for conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome and various forms of cancer.

He explains his view with persuasive logic:

“Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting? … So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.

Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.” [30]

Unlike the forced system of eugenics, the professor believes the system he envisages would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children. “Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.”

Is it not correct that the influences of the psychopath and the almost unimaginable havoc they create on this earth, means that we should make sure that if there is a screening process then it must be implemented for the psychopath genes alone? After all, these people are like cancer cells within the host of an organism and death is the only result. Is it not our duty to turn the corner and release us all from the burden of history?

There are many problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, even though idea of exclusively criminal genes has rightly been consigned to the bin, the notion that there may be heritable genes determining psychopathy has proved more convincing, not least least through the advances in epigenetics. [31] We are still at an early stage in finding cast iron proof however, due to a number of complex factors. The implications of the genetic component to psychopathy are vital to work through but there is still considerable disagreement between psychologists as to how to approach this problem. It is also true that genes alone do not determine behaviour in normal individuals, yet in the psychopath the genetic component may be the defining factor. However, surrounding the notion of genetic tinkering of the human genome, where do we draw the line? Discrimination on the basis of physical traits will also follow the already well-defined divide between wealthy families and their offspring who receive genetic enhancement, inevitably leading to a new breed of genetically enhanced humans or “Post Humans” as the transhumanists prefer; a form of genetic aristocracy that will have implications in terms of unfair advantage and gender bias that would descend upon almost every field of human endeavour. This unfair advantage already exists but it would be taken to a whole new level that would likely form a breakaway civilisation – if it hasn’t happened already.

The point to remember here is that while we are still inside the world of the psychopath, the chances of achieving an equitable and ethical balance of voluntary and informed choices remains slim. Knowledge of the science of psychopathy needs to become water-tight so that there can be no question of just how powerfully invasive their presence is in the world today. Once we have this widespread understanding decisions as to how we screen and insulate society against the psychopath will take on new and more creative solutions. Meantime, eugenics in the hands of conscience-less individuals represents a very real threat for any hope of equality in the life of the human race. Indeed, it is probable that we have been living under such a nightmare scenario for sometime, where the screening out of normal people in favour of psychopathic dominance has advanced to a considerable degree.

See also: The Feds Are Investigating Allegations That Planned Parenthood Has Been Selling Baby Body Parts For Profit

 


Notes

[1] Killer Angel: A Short Biography of Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger By George Grant, Cumberland House Publishing; Revised edition, 2001 | ISBN-10: 1581821506
[2] Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon.
[3] pp. 374-375; Chapter 30, Now Is the Time for Converse
[4] Planned Parenthood of Houston, Annual Report, 1985.
[5] Margaret Sanger, International Aspects of Birth Control: The International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (New York: American Birth Control League, 1925).
[6] Examples of proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, a Planned Parenthood memo written by Frederick Jaffe (Planned Parenthood head of research), 1969.
[7] http://www.plannedparenthood.org
[8] http://www.plannedparenthood.org annual report 2010.
[9] Planned Parenthood Federation of American, Abortions Facts, Abortion After the First Trimester in the United States | http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_abortion_1st_tri_2010-09.pdf.
[10] Women and the New Race by Margaret Sanger
[11] Planned Parenthood annual report 2008 http://www.lifeissues.org
[12] Ibid.
[13] 6. Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D., Ideology Compels Fervid PPFA Abortion Advocacy, National Right to Life News (March 28, 1985), p. 5.
[14] The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 1984 cited in Chapter 64: of Planned Parenthood: The World ‘s Premier Anti-Life Organization, Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League | http://www.ewtn.com/
[15] ‘New Battle Looms Over U.S. Aid for U.N. Agency Supporting Coerced Abortion’, By Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life News (May 1, 1986), p. 1.
[16] ‘The Laborer in the Vineyard’By George Neumayr, The American Spectator, August 25 2011.
[17] ‘Planned Parenthood Statement in Support of Chen Guangcheng Denounces Coercive Reproductive Health Policies in China’May5 2012.
[18]BREAKING: ‘Planned Parenthood Busted on Hidden Camera Trying to Sell Aborted Baby Parts’ By Matt Agorist on July 14, 2015.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl’s PublicAffairs; 1 edition (7 Jun 2011).
[21] Ibid.
[22] ‘China begins lifting strict one-child policy’ By Malcolm Moore 24 Jul 2009,The Telegraph.
[23] ‘UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy By Julian Huxley Preparatory Commission of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’ 1946. / (p.21)
[24] ‘Ageing China: Changes and challenges’ BBC News, 20 September 2012.
[25] Ibid.
[26] op. cit. UNESCO (p.13)
[27] Ibid. (p.60)
[28] The Next Million Years By Charles Galton Darwin. Interestingly, the googledocs.online PDF version has decided to expunge this passage from the book. How many times has this kind of censorship of history happened I wonder?
[29] op. cit. Black
[30] ‘The Maverick: ‘It’s Our Duty to Have Designer Babies’’ September Issue, Reader’s Digest, August 21 2012.31
[31]‘The Psycho Gene’ By Philip Hunter, Nature, EMBO reports, January 22, 2010. | http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n9/full/embor2010122.html

The Sex Establishment V: “Normaphiliacs” and Freudian Slips

“This condition had no name, under the pen of Freud it would become the Oedipus complex and create a universal pathology for the sole purpose that he could be less alone [with his creation].” […] Here is the key to the Freudian epistemology: the extrapolation of a universal theory from a personal adventure.”

– Michel Onfray, Le crépuscule d’une idole – l’affabulation freudienne (Twilight of the Idol – The Freudian Fable) 


In the 21st century we have the results of various social engineering programmes made manifest. Alfred Kinsey managed to contribute to the gradual detachment of sex from love, and the fragmentation of family and community cohesion by placing the sexual act at top of the pleasure pyramid as an end in itself. As we saw in the previous post, the pathologising and mainstreaming of minority orientation and encouragement of greater and more extreme forms of unlimited sexual expression produced the prevalence of promiscuity and body-centric values which then became a dominant part of culture. This went beyond mere tolerance and acceptance of different forms of sexual identity and preference. It has led to acts of perversion as cool, anonymous sex as normal and sacred union based on love as old fashioned and silly.

That is not to say that we must all toe the line of heterosexual sex or that there is a right or wrong way to express ones sexuality. The key issue here is being true to yourself and whether or not sexuality and sex has been engineered in a certain direction and if it has benefited societies. If that is so, as I believe, then the choices presented to us as we are growing up are not choices at all, but a product of perception management. Are we getting closer to a greater understanding of not just our sexuality, but our place in the world or are we experiencing one expression of an endemic pathology that is tainting our sexual and emotional selves under cover of “normality”?

Are we roaming further and further away from our innate human potential while believing the opposite?

By delving into the reality of psychopathy within our socio-political institutions we might be able to find the answer.


  nrm_1415950011-fifty-shades-second-trailer

Screen shot from the film ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ (2013) based on the book of the same name which involves a young woman’s exploration into sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism (BDSM). The book became a global best seller with 90 million sold worldwide by 2013.

Professor Amy Bonomi chairperson and professor in Michigan State University’s Department of Human Development and Family Studies conducted extensive studies which show that young adult women who read “Fifty Shades of Grey” are more likely than nonreaders to exhibit unhealthy behaviours. These include: eating disorders, binge drinking, having verbally abusive partners and a predeliction for multiple sexual partners. In other words, when films and books glorify and thereby normalise a narcissistic and/or psychopathic perception of reality, we can hardly be surprised that young people begin to exhibit stress and personality deformations. Or as Miriam Grossman M.D. observed: “There’s nothing grey about Fifty Shades of Grey. It’s all black.” 


The sexual revolution was in large part a triumph of emotional immaturity and anonymous sex with women and men reflecting a caricature of their gender roles: literal objects to use and consume as a true reflection of our consumer society. Sure, there was also genuine examples of a mystical liberation through sex to which our pagan ancestors connected. There is no doubt that nature and the body was synonymous with a spark of ecstasy, a way to commune with God which developed into the cults of Dionysus and Bacchus and other body-centric, sensual rituals. The body as a bio-chemical conduit for achieving altered states can give that mystical “high” in the same way that drugs can bypass the brain filters and introduce to dimensions beyond the five senses – even if for a moment. Sometimes that’s enough to initiate dramatic change. But it is a short cut to a spiritual union that usually requires years of self development and inner work. Which is why drugs and sex magick tend to backfire. So, too the fire of sexual revolution which liberated more than just blocked emotions and neuroses. Could it be that the pendulum was allowed to swing much to far in the other direction?

As discussed, rather than feminism increasing the freedom of women’s rights in the West, under the elite-sponsored role of sexual emancipation it may have led to less rights for women and less happiness. The sexual freedom that women have rightly struggled for has proved poisonous where the modern woman is either trying to emulate the model of the alpha male in the corporate world or being caught between the false liberation of sexual promiscuity. In between those two poles lies confusion and doubt for women exemplified in the rise in narcissism.

This Kinseyian form of pseudo-scientific justification for abuse seems to be alive and well in the form of the American Psychiatric Association and the psychoanalysis tradition. Back in 2003, The American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debated whether “Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses.” Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco’s Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented a paper entitled, “DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal.” They argued that people whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden, or religiously prescribed should not, for those reasons, be labelled mentally ill. These included exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism which are to be viewed as simply another form of sexual expression. They were also calling for paedophilia to be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Further, that all of us “normophilics” should allow paraphilias the freedom to be who they are and to remove the label of a mental illness forthwith. Though in the minority, a significant number of members agreed.

Another speaker at the same conference exclaimed: “Any sexual interest can be healthy and life-enhancing…” and “…that society should not discriminate against adults who are attracted to children…” noting that “many beloved authors and public figures throughout history have been high-functioning individuals who could actually be classified as paedophiles.” [1] This debate has continued to the present day.

Firstly, the emphasis is not to ostracise and place a judgment upon those of differing sexual preferences but to assist and heal if these extremes exhibit pathology that is negative to both the individual and the persons who do not harbour the same sexual preference. Healing the self by practicing bondage sado-masochism (BDSM) in the privacy of your own home is fine. Propagandising such a fetish and/or accepting predatory behaviour and sexual confusion as a template for society isn’t the way forward either. A sexual interest can indeed be “Healthy and life enhancing,” depending on which lens we have decided to view reality. Our focus can be tinkered with in order that it may flow in a direction not of our choosing, yet, we follow it by rote all the same.

51lec-Zn-jL-horz

Mainstreaming pathology: You can buy yourself a Black Padded PU Leather Hood “Gimp Mask” for Sensory Deprivation Bondage or be lead round the house on a lead if you so wish.

BDSM_collar_backBDSM dog collar (wikipedia)

It is not a case of whether or not society should be free to choose how to heal and release what we perceive to be natural sexual expressions, but to explore why it is that those sexual preferences have arisen in the first place and if the various factors involved are indeed natural rather than carefully conditioned.

Ethics and values appear to be shifting in favour of a voting consensus that removes mental disorders without any safety net concerning rehabilitation and treatment, which begs the question: from what basis are these disorders or genetic predispositions decreed normal? What appears to be happening here is a spin that suggests that if it is defined as ill or pathological it is outdated and anti-progressive. If it can all be seen as just another deviancy and thus normalised we can all go home and stop being so retrogressive. If it is not an illness but one symptom among many drawn from narcissism or psychopathy, then we have clear and present implications for the safety of our nation’s health, especially children. The legitimisation of psychopathology via the Sex Establishment is joining forces with the politicisation of values that is reshaping our culture.

Paedophilia has qualities that align itself not only towards pathological narcissism but elements of psychopathy. It is interesting that there are a growing number of “scientists” of the behaviourist and psychoanalysis schools that advocate a redefinition of paedophilia rather than a redefinition of causes which could direct resources towards the treatment and prevention of child abuse. This includes learning every possible method of pulling the wool over the eyes of the authorities be it psychiatrist, policeman or lawyer, making the whole question of science, law and sexual freedom an increasingly difficult equation to solve. For to do so, means that we must see the distortion and deformation of sexuality and the sexual predators that personify such a malaise. We must see this through entirely new eyes and as a web of relations intimately connected with psychopaths in power.

Paedophilia and related pathologies may well be a symptom of biological, environmental, and traumatic abuse. It may also be a choice. What is conspicuous by its absence in the above appeals for paedophile rights are the rights of children for whom we must, by virtue of our roles as guardians and protectors, take a positive discrimination in these matters regarding their welfare and safety. People with “sexually unusual” interests, said Charles Moser and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz “may in fact be quite happy and well-adjusted,” which is entirely beside the point. The paedophile’s victims may not be quite so happy and well-adjusted after he has molested them. It is these kinds of remarks that feed into the mainstreaming” of pathologies under the guise of normality which may progressively alter the landscape of mass sexuality and under specific directives – then we have a problem, a problem that is not even the fault of those exhibiting sexual pathologies or otherwise.

We can regard all kinds of pathology and child trauma masquerading as healthy and well-adjusted living. This is not about making judgements about what is right or wrong in our sexuality but rather to question where we draw the line in favour of sexual expression that enriches society rather than infects it; where sexual boundaries are being pushed towards more and more extremes, rather than augmenting social relations.

Is the line between “healthy” and “damaged” becoming blurred here?

It is a contradiction that behind closed doors a select minority of paraphilics and a larger proportion of humanity seek to indulge their fantasies towards violence, fetishism, paedophilia, ritualistic sex and child molestation which may be indicative of a suppressed and learned behaviour caused by inverted and unresolved suffering. Meantime, an entirely different face is presented to the world at large. Genetics may play a significant role whereby traumas are imported down the generational line and impose “bombshells” on the next generation if no other role models exist. Yet what this means for society is the set up between the guardians of over-protection and the guardians of over-liberalisation with the resulting chaos created between the two, where opportunities for creative solutions are forever denied.

Noted luminaries were paedophiles or had paedophilic tendencies. There is certainly an historical basis in fact that much of the Establishment or “high functioning” individuals could be classed as paedophiles and/or child rapists. The nature of government, secret societies, occult fraternities, and religious institutions that offer protection of power and status as a class-based tradition may also offer a sanctuary for such people.

Is there a link that those with deviant sexual expressions gravitate towards that which can offer them cover?

This quote from The American Psychiatric Association sums up this conversive thinking in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: “302.71 Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder’: ‘The essential feature of this so-called condition is a deficiency or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity (Criterion A). There is little motivation to seek stimuli and diminished frustration when deprived of the opportunity for sexual expression. The individual usually does not initiate sexual activity or may only engage in it reluctantly when it is initiated by the partner.” [2]

This illustrates the point and might be drawn directly from Kinseyian sexology. If you do not have sexual fantasies, a desire for sexual activity, little motivation to seek stimuli and little frustration when an opportunity for sexual expression comes your way, or even – horror of horrors – you have minimal interest in sex, then you are abnormal. You have a disorder. Notice too, that the idea of love being a factor in this purely mechanical equation is of little importance. If clinically, the activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology “unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning,” then what is known as zoophilia *can be considered no more functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. Even having sex with a deer can be considered fine and dandy in our paralogical reality as one Wisconsin man’s attorney claimed in his client’s defence that the:‘crimes against sexual morality’ statute prohibits sex with animals, but fails to mention carcasses … “The statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass.” Getting this man off is not the issue but the social and developmental factors governing his desire to see a carcass as sexually fulfilling is obviously the real point of contention. [3]  Paralogical and paramoralistic arguments are employed to suggest that it is perfectly normal for human beings to use animals for sex – be it dog, horse or the neighbour’s parakeet – should the desire be strong enough.

These are extreme examples. Nonetheless, what does this mean for more down-to-earth issues of sexuality? The fusing of definitions of acceptable and pathological become habitual and thus the propensity for normalisation. The manual’s criterion for mental illness appears to be getting both ever more flexible and increasingly restrictive. With a suitably biased psychiatrist, the manual can be used as a way to give undue credence to almost any abnormality or disorder depending on the required outcome. As a tool for removing subversive persons for example, a method to which psychiatry has long since lent itself. For instance, there is still no diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any of the other three hundred so-called mental disorders listed in the current edition. A cursory look at the manual gives the impression that American psychiatry is sometimes a mix of culturally biased, reactive, class-driven moral judgements of what it considers to be abnormal behaviour.

Freud

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud believed that any and all symptoms of perceived dysfunction or neuroses could be sourced from repressed memories, irrevocably tied to a repressed sexuality. Although Freud offered intellectual insights into our understanding of human sexuality, the final analysis reveals that his psychoanalysis was an indication of his own neurosis and sexual abuse which he was busy burying under a grandiose schema of rationalisation.

While casting out any possibility of incest as predatory, he rejected the body in favour of an acute form of biological asceticism; a kind of clinical denial that strangely lent itself to the exact kind of religious conservatism that he was trying to avoid. It may be true that his victims’ pleas for understanding were merely absorbed into his own fragmented, mechanical view of sexuality by turning them all into variations on the theme of Oedipus. His rejection of incest as abusive or traumatic fit perfectly with future psychiatry and Kinseyian programming.  Proven cases of recovered memories were simply ignored. Repressed and false memories can exist but the battle between both is currently being expressed through their respective extremes with money and psychopathy as the deciding factor.

Freud’s simplistic associations have allowed pathocratic principles to burrow deeper into human consciousness and to drop our crumbling defences against the psychopath still further.  Author George K. Simon, Jr., writes in his cautionary book: In Sheep’s Clothing: “The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud’s observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.” Simon further suggests: “We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or “run” too much.” [4]

The whole basis upon which Freudian psychoanalytical movement rests is the wholly subjective notion that all psychological illness is rooted in repressed sexual impulses, unconscious incestuous fantasies, the spectre of death and the fear of castration, the latter of which appears to have their roots in the genital mutilation (circumcision) of the Old Testament.  Freudian psychoanalysis has given credence to the myth that girls secretly want to have sex with their fathers for example, which is crude, simplistic and on a par with the generalizations we can find in the Kinsey reports. In fact, if the denial of whatever sexual impulse is at work – whether depraved or perverted – then the basis for finding perversion distasteful must necessarily lie in one’s own unconscious desire for perverse practices. This is a both an intensely paralogical, materialist and nihilistic view of life that has no room for multiple psychotherapeutic dimensions of healing.

The psychoanalytical movement made claims that there’s was a new science when in fact it was nothing more than pseudo-science that developed a cult following. As Bob Altemeyer a Canadian professor of Psychology astutely sums up:  “One gets nowhere with a theory that can ‘predict’ whatever happened, after it happens. Having an answer for everything may make one a great used car salesman, but it rings the death knell for a theory in science. In science, the best explanations are nailed-down-testable.” [5]

814894886Freud: Father of the Cult of Psychoanalysis

While undoubtedly breaking new ground in tapping the unconscious fears that lie within the human psyche, these successes paled in comparison to the fear and loathing of both sexuality and the feminine that Freud seemed to set in motion. Freud’s own neuroses as well as the broader fears of the Jewish culture were injected into this new “science.”

Psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley illustrated the cult of psychoanalysis in this way:

Today celebrated psychiatric authors “plainly demonstrate” by methods widely proclaimed as scientific that the chief reason human beings came in time to wear clothing lies in the ever-present influence of a “castration fear” of which they all remain unconscious. Not for protection against the weather, primarily, we are told, or for purposes of adornment, did primitive men and women first don bearskin coats or grass skirts. According to high authority, the real motivation lies deeper, in a universal but unconscious terror felt by each male that a jealous father will amputate his penis. Concealing his genital organs with apparel offers him, it is claimed, a slight measure of protection from this inescapable anxiety. The female (unconsciously), believing herself already dismembered as a punishment for (unconscious) incestuous aims, hastens to cover her mutilation and veil her shame.

Much of the reasoning and investigation classed as dynamic depends upon verbal constructs which can be readily manipulated by the accepted rules to furnish a bogus proof for virtually any assumption the human imagination might contrive. […]From the standpoint of modern operational logic, a theory must be expressed in such a way that it may be proved. This is surely the case with the Freudian theory. On the other hand, from the standpoint of modern methodology, the evidence or experiment which is designed to prove the theory must he one which could have a possible negative outcome and so disprove the theory. At the present time, many of the concepts of psychoanalysis are undoubtedly developed in such a way that only proof and not disproof is possible …[6]

And it is this “bogus proof” and extreme subjectivity that gave the perfect cover for psychoanalysis to gain dominance in psychology, psychiatry and culture. It lent itself not only to misuse but acted as a gateway for any and all interpretations. Disagreements with Freud’s and his associates’ interpretations were summarily dismissed as products of “resistance.”  This was a word used by Freud to illustrate the reluctance patients showed in speaking of painful or humiliating experiences during the process of analysis. He believed this resistance: “… often utilized the mechanism of repression to remove or to withhold from consciousness impulses or memories which the patient found it particularly unpleasant to accept and admit as his own.” [7] Therefore, when the medical psychology community did not accept these chief concepts Freud put this down to the theory of resistance thereby placing constructive criticism into a box he could padlock at will.

In the early part of the twentieth until the post war period, psychoanalysis firmly stamped its mark on the subconscious of the West. Although the diversity of psychology, psychotherapy and alternative medicine has diluted Freud’s power the legacy of his influence lives on as it did most strongly in the 1950s.  As Cleckley outlines:

If a psychiatrist cannot accept as adequate the evidence Freud offers for his claim that at age four this patient was intensely motivated by a specific desire for his father to practice sodomy upon him, and was restrained in these inclinations by a fear of castration, he must be prepared to defend himself against the argument that similar (unconscious) desires and fears are determining factors in the dissident opinion. So, too, the critic who cannot accept the popular concept of universal bisexuality lays himself open to suspicions that an unrecognized homosexual tendency within himself, probably one of more than ordinary magnitude, is playing an important part in his alleged failure to accept evidence and react to it normally. [8]

Dr. Cleckley highlights the fact that Freud’s cherished beliefs do not necessarily equate with rigorous science. Politics and religion are bastions of such authoritarian, fear-based thinking that imposes the same fundamentalist beliefs upon others. Psychoanalysis is no different, which is why it has fallen out of favour in more recent times. The idea that those who disagree with the methods of the Freudian approach are somehow expressing resistance and respond: “…with unconscious longings to emulate the very thing being criticised is obviously a ridiculous simplification. The idea that the roots of all neuroses are from the repression of the procreative, biological sex impulse is equally fallacious.”

Perhaps the most revealing legacy of psychoanalysis is offered from author and consultant on abusive men and family issues, Lundy Bancroft.  He wrote about Freud’s discovery at the turn of the 19th Century, of just how many of his female patients revealed instances of incest by their fathers and brothers. Early in his career Freud came to the conclusion that child sexual abuse was a key issue in emotional illness in adult women which resulted in his famous paper: “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” He reminds us it was at this juncture that Freud, so keen to be accepted by his peers found himself ridiculed and rejected for proposing such a thing. How could it possibly be that pillars of society with unimpeacable reputations could be perpetrators of incest? It was unthinkable. The results of this shock to Freud’s intellectual pride and the consequences for the future of psychology were enormous:

Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology. According to this theory any young girl actually desires sexual contact with her father, because she wants to compete with her mother to be the most special person in his life. Freud used this construct to conclude that the episodes of incestuous abuse his clients had revealed to him had never taken place; they were simply fantasies of events the women had wished for when they were children and that the women had come to believe were real. This construct started a hundred-year history in the mental health field of blaming victims for the abuse perpetrated on them and outright discrediting of women’s and children’s reports of mistreatment by men. Once abuse was denied in this way, the stage was set for some psychologists to take the view that any violent or sexually exploitative behaviors that couldn’t be denied—because they were simply too obvious—should be considered mutually caused. Psychological literature is thus full of descriptions of young children who “seduce” adults into sexual encounters and of women whose “provocative” behavior causes men to become violent or sexually assaultive toward them.”

Bancroft is under no illusions that the cultural influence of psychoanalysis remains strong and offers an anecdote from his experience to illustrate the point:

A psychologist who is currently one of the most influential professionals nationally in the field of custody disputes writes that women provoke men’s violence by “resisting their control” or by “attempting to leave.” She promotes the Oedipus complex theory, including the claim that girls wish for sexual contact with their fathers. In her writing she makes the observation that young girls are often involved in “mutually seductive” relationships with their violent fathers, and it is on the basis of such “research” that some courts have set their protocols. The Freudian legacy thus remains strong.”

We shortly discover just how strong this belief really is as we look further into the various expressions of abuse presently rising to surface within society.

 


* Zoophilia (from the Greek Zoon, “animal”, and Philia, “friendship or love”) is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Such individuals are called zoophiles. See Appendix 3 for further paraphilias.

Notes

[1] “Should These Conditions Be Normalized?” American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses By Linda Ames Nicolosi, http://www.narth.com/
[2] American Psychiatric Association’s DMH  (p. 496)
[3] ‘Sex With Dead Deer Not Illegal – Lawyer Argues’ The Register, November 11, 2006.
[4] In Sheep’s Clothing – Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People by George K. Simon, Jr. PhD. Published by AJ Christopher & Co. 2000.
[5] p.54.The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, 2006 by Bob Altemeyer
[6] op. cit. Cleckley (p.112)
[7] Ibid. (p.117)
[8] Ibid. (p.118 / p.99-100)
“Freud’s long report published under the title From the History of an Infantile Neurosis can, I believe, be taken as a typical example of this work. In it a dream recalled by the twenty-six-year-old patient as having occurred when he was four years of age is confidently interpreted. The chief conclusions reached about this patient appear to be based fundamentally on this interpretation. Freud reports the entire dream as follows:
‘I dreamt that it was night and that I was lying in my bed. (My bed stood with its foot towards the window; in front of the window there was a row of old walnut trees. I know it was winter when I had the dream, and night-time.) Suddenly the window opened of its own accord, and I was terrified to see that some white wolves were sitting on the big walnut tree in front of the window. There were six or seven of them. The wolves were quite white, and looked more like Foxes or sheep-dogs, for they had big tails like foxes and they had their ears pricked like dogs when they are attending to something. In a great terror, evidently of being eaten up by the wolves, I screamed and woke up…
’The only piece of action in the dream was the opening of the window; for the waives sat quite still and without any movement on the branches of the tree, to the right and left of the trunk, and looked at me. It seemed as though they had riveted their whole attention upon me,Freud draws from this dream a number of conclusions by interpreting its various items symbolically. From its association with a few fairy tales familiar to the patient in childhood and with some not particularly extraordinary early memories he devises an astonishing explanation of the patient’s illness. Freud confidently states that the dream reveals in considerable detail an experience the patient was subjected to approximately two and a half years earlier, when he was eighteen months old.
Fragment after fragment of the dream is used by Freud to derive proof that the infant at that time saw his parents while they were having sexual intercourse.He is quite confident that the dream reveals that the parents had intercourse three times in succession while the infant observed them and also that the a tergo position was chosen for their activities. He maintains also that the patient, at eighteen months of age, was so affected by this scene that he had a bowel movement as a pretext to make an outcry and interrupt the parents in their still enthusiastic love-making. In this interpretation the number of the wolves, which the patient recalled as being six or seven, is regarded as an effect of the dreamer’s unconscious processes to disguise what he had really seen—that is to say, the two parents.
The fact that the dream scene is quite stationary and the wolves make no movement is accepted as evidence (by reversal) for vigorous coital activity by the amorous couple.The appearance of keen attention noticeable in the dream-wolves who stood in the tree, according to Freud, indicates an intense and absorbing interest on the part of the infant in what he was watching. The fact that the four-year-old boy experienced fear of the wolves in his dream is said by Freud to represent a terror experienced earlier by the infant at the sight of his mother’s external genital organs when seen as an infant of eighteen months.
The interpreter assumes without question that this alleged sight contributed to the belief that the mother had been mutilated sexually. From these points Freud reaches the confident conclusion that when the boy at four years of age had the dream he was suffering from a profound dread of castration by his father. The fact that the wolves who appeared in the dream are remembered as having particularly long tails is considered sound evidence of an opposite state (taillessness) and hence a substantial confirmation of this disquieting dread.
This preoccupation is said by Freud to have been the chief deterrent to this four-year-old boy’s dominating impulse, assumed to be a specific and strong yearning for his father to carry out upon him sexual relations per anum. In the entire report no item of objective evidence is offered to support these conclusions. Freud appears, however, to be completely convinced that all this is correct and adequately established. In fact, he insists that his whole study of this case must be ‘all a piece of nonsense from start to finish, or everything took place just as I have described it above.’

[9] Bancroft, Lundy; Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men published by Berkley Books (2003) (kindle edition)