Jung > freud
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
11 comments:
8
6 days ago
8 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+8Score on mirror
)
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
He ignored most of his patients, jews, were molested for one?
> other than the fact he was a ✡️.
You are mistaken if you think that being a kike is all it takes to be disliked here. It's vice versa: You see reprehensible behavior, and THEN you identify the entity as a jew. At some point you will by default assume reprehensible behaviors from jews, and indeed being mistrustful is a core of it. And it's not like there are good jews where the only opposition is baseless bigotry. I can't name you a singular good jew.
From [here](https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/sigmund-freud-fake-charlatan-liar/):
> which Freud relentlessly pursued by championing one faddish quack remedy after another, backing away when justified criticism made his position untenable, covering his tracks with misleading or even completely false claims about what he’d been up to, then bustling on to the next gold mine.
> In 1884, for instance, in the giddy throes of a fondness for cocaine that Freud would indulge on and off for some 15 years, he had the marvelous idea of treating a brilliant young scientist, Ernst Fleischl von Marxow, for a mild morphine addiction (resulting from surgery) by putting the patient on cocaine. Instead, Fleischl became hugely addicted to both morphine and cocaine — sleepless nights, strung-out dozy days — and wasted away into a scarecrow while Freud, writing about the patient under a pseudonym, bragged in a paper about the tremendous success of his experiment.
> the speech was so devoid of clinical standards that a senior scientist, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, said, “It sounds like a scientific fairy tale” — Freud later revealed in a letter to Fliess that he hadn’t cured even one person.
> If Sigmund Freud had a genius for anything, it was for chutzpah. That, and public relations.
This appears to be the standard for jewish "scientists." Absolutely incompetent and lying incessantly. The jew has ZERO issues with lying and deceiving at all times.
> A huge slice of Freud’s work is simply plagiarism.
This also applies to Einstein btw. The oh-so smartest guy in history? A jewish media fabrication. The jews wanted to conjure up the smartest jew to spite Germany. It was just piece of shit flung against Germany, just +1 lie.
You are mistaken if you think that being a kike is all it takes to be disliked here. It's vice versa: You see reprehensible behavior, and THEN you identify the entity as a jew. At some point you will by default assume reprehensible behaviors from jews, and indeed being mistrustful is a core of it. And it's not like there are good jews where the only opposition is baseless bigotry. I can't name you a singular good jew.
From [here](https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/sigmund-freud-fake-charlatan-liar/):
> which Freud relentlessly pursued by championing one faddish quack remedy after another, backing away when justified criticism made his position untenable, covering his tracks with misleading or even completely false claims about what he’d been up to, then bustling on to the next gold mine.
> In 1884, for instance, in the giddy throes of a fondness for cocaine that Freud would indulge on and off for some 15 years, he had the marvelous idea of treating a brilliant young scientist, Ernst Fleischl von Marxow, for a mild morphine addiction (resulting from surgery) by putting the patient on cocaine. Instead, Fleischl became hugely addicted to both morphine and cocaine — sleepless nights, strung-out dozy days — and wasted away into a scarecrow while Freud, writing about the patient under a pseudonym, bragged in a paper about the tremendous success of his experiment.
> the speech was so devoid of clinical standards that a senior scientist, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, said, “It sounds like a scientific fairy tale” — Freud later revealed in a letter to Fliess that he hadn’t cured even one person.
> If Sigmund Freud had a genius for anything, it was for chutzpah. That, and public relations.
This appears to be the standard for jewish "scientists." Absolutely incompetent and lying incessantly. The jew has ZERO issues with lying and deceiving at all times.
> A huge slice of Freud’s work is simply plagiarism.
This also applies to Einstein btw. The oh-so smartest guy in history? A jewish media fabrication. The jews wanted to conjure up the smartest jew to spite Germany. It was just piece of shit flung against Germany, just +1 lie.
You should use yandex.com to search for "dissident" things like this. You won't find Google giving you anything useful about jews ever.
>I can't name you a singular good jew.
Bobby Fischer, Emil Maurice, and Nicholas Donin?
Granted, none of those followed the religion, and all of them lived a long time ago and no "good ones" have come to take their place.
>In 1884, for instance, in the giddy throes of a fondness for cocaine that Freud would indulge on and off for some 15 years, he had the marvelous idea of treating a brilliant young scientist, Ernst Fleischl von Marxow, for a mild morphine addiction (resulting from surgery) by putting the patient on cocaine. Instead, Fleischl became hugely addicted to both morphine and cocaine — sleepless nights, strung-out dozy days — and wasted away into a scarecrow while Freud, writing about the patient under a pseudonym, bragged in a paper about the tremendous success of his experiment.
>the speech was so devoid of clinical standards that a senior scientist, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, said, “It sounds like a scientific fairy tale” — Freud later revealed in a letter to Fliess that he hadn’t cured even one person.
Damn, that is more like what I was looking for. What a fraud!
Bobby Fischer, Emil Maurice, and Nicholas Donin?
Granted, none of those followed the religion, and all of them lived a long time ago and no "good ones" have come to take their place.
>In 1884, for instance, in the giddy throes of a fondness for cocaine that Freud would indulge on and off for some 15 years, he had the marvelous idea of treating a brilliant young scientist, Ernst Fleischl von Marxow, for a mild morphine addiction (resulting from surgery) by putting the patient on cocaine. Instead, Fleischl became hugely addicted to both morphine and cocaine — sleepless nights, strung-out dozy days — and wasted away into a scarecrow while Freud, writing about the patient under a pseudonym, bragged in a paper about the tremendous success of his experiment.
>the speech was so devoid of clinical standards that a senior scientist, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, said, “It sounds like a scientific fairy tale” — Freud later revealed in a letter to Fliess that he hadn’t cured even one person.
Damn, that is more like what I was looking for. What a fraud!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeR8m1aGtnI
It's kinda a meme but here's some of the deranged shit that Freud did.
It's kinda a meme but here's some of the deranged shit that Freud did.
That's pretty icky.
I have a few things to say on his "benis envy" thing:
1. Technically, in the present day, there are gender clowns who, despite being born female, wish to become male.
2. HOWEVER: Those females only do that because ✡️ lied to them about "male privilege", ergo, those gender clowns do not exist because of an innate thing, like Freud said.
3. Not only is it not an innate thing, but female gender clowns who wish to be a male are not a majority by any means, even though Freud argued it was all of them.
4. If anything, the reverse of "benis envy" is the truth. Male gender clowns wishing to become female are a lot more common than the reverse version of gender clowns.
5. HOWEVER, the reverse of "benis envy" only exists because females are worshipped in today's society and males have been told to go die. It is not a natural thing that happens at age 4, like Freud argued in his theory.
6. Even then, the vast majority of males are NOT gender clowns who wish to become female, and Freud said all women supposedly have the envy.
7. If Freuds theory was meant to be about why youngsters have sex, he is looking too deep. They do it because the teenage brain is impulsive, underdeveloped, and sex feels good to them. They are not doing it because they "want their dads benis" or whatever Freud happened to be snorting that particular day.
So there you have it, a rebuttal for Freud.
I have a few things to say on his "benis envy" thing:
1. Technically, in the present day, there are gender clowns who, despite being born female, wish to become male.
2. HOWEVER: Those females only do that because ✡️ lied to them about "male privilege", ergo, those gender clowns do not exist because of an innate thing, like Freud said.
3. Not only is it not an innate thing, but female gender clowns who wish to be a male are not a majority by any means, even though Freud argued it was all of them.
4. If anything, the reverse of "benis envy" is the truth. Male gender clowns wishing to become female are a lot more common than the reverse version of gender clowns.
5. HOWEVER, the reverse of "benis envy" only exists because females are worshipped in today's society and males have been told to go die. It is not a natural thing that happens at age 4, like Freud argued in his theory.
6. Even then, the vast majority of males are NOT gender clowns who wish to become female, and Freud said all women supposedly have the envy.
7. If Freuds theory was meant to be about why youngsters have sex, he is looking too deep. They do it because the teenage brain is impulsive, underdeveloped, and sex feels good to them. They are not doing it because they "want their dads benis" or whatever Freud happened to be snorting that particular day.
So there you have it, a rebuttal for Freud.
He was wrong on almost everything except a few philosophical, meta-psychological assumptions, and thus set back understanding of the human mind.
Consider the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of psychological and psychiatric paradigms are products of yiddish thought: Freud's psychoanalysis, from which practically every subsequent paradigm is derived; Adler's Individual Psychology; Rank's Will Therapy; Frankl's Logotherapy; Perls' Gestalt Therapy; Berne's Transactional Analysis; Rosen's Direct Analysis; Kohut's Self Psychology; Ellis' REBT; Beck's Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; and, more recently, Schwartz's Internal Family Systems.
The non-yiddish paradigms, such as those of Davanloo, Jung, and Rogers, are by contrast relatively few, and, in their being deeply influenced by the aforementioned yiddish paradigms, are by and large still yiddish in their content.
In conclusion, understanding of the human mind remains primitive and full of falsehoods, having been immensely warped by the yids, of whom no one was more successful than Freud. I assure you that if Freud had never existed and no other yid took his place, understanding of the mind would be greatly enhanced today.
Consider the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of psychological and psychiatric paradigms are products of yiddish thought: Freud's psychoanalysis, from which practically every subsequent paradigm is derived; Adler's Individual Psychology; Rank's Will Therapy; Frankl's Logotherapy; Perls' Gestalt Therapy; Berne's Transactional Analysis; Rosen's Direct Analysis; Kohut's Self Psychology; Ellis' REBT; Beck's Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; and, more recently, Schwartz's Internal Family Systems.
The non-yiddish paradigms, such as those of Davanloo, Jung, and Rogers, are by contrast relatively few, and, in their being deeply influenced by the aforementioned yiddish paradigms, are by and large still yiddish in their content.
In conclusion, understanding of the human mind remains primitive and full of falsehoods, having been immensely warped by the yids, of whom no one was more successful than Freud. I assure you that if Freud had never existed and no other yid took his place, understanding of the mind would be greatly enhanced today.
Toast message