Philosophers of science have indicted key concepts of Freud’s psychoanalysis such as “free association,” “repression,” and “resistance” as circular and fatally flawed by confirmation bias. Historians have tracked down the actual patients whose treatment served Freud as evidence for his theories and have sought to place Freud and his theories in the historical and cultural context of his time. Crews—to his own surprise—became well known as a major, if not the major, critic of Freud in the public eye because of a series of articles he published in the New York Review of Books in the 1990s. For Crews is that now all too rare and rapidly disappearing creature—the public intellectual—who is able to explain and make accessible an otherwise unwieldy amount of erudite scholarship in clear, elegant, and jargon-free prose. Defenders of Freud have sought to discredit him as a “Freud basher,” thereby continuing the (not so honorable) tradition that Freud began of questioning the motives of a skeptic and attributing it to “resistance” instead of answering his objections.

This is precisely one of the reasons that in previous books Crews has said that psychoanalysis is not only pseudoscience (as most philosophers of science agree, though for different reasons), but “the queen of pseudosciences,” because it is the only one that incorporates within its theory an explanation of why some people refuse to believe it, i.e. “unconscious resistance” which needs to be explained by Freud’s own ideas and methods—a most brilliant and masterful way of disarming criticism.

The article makes no mention of jews even though Freud’s fraud (and thus its attributes) sprang from the pseudoscience of anti-“anti-semitism”. In Freud’s case this indirect jewing was, and still is, quite deliberately disguised as something else.

Crews takes his clue from the fact that Freud saw himself (and other family members, especially one of his sisters) as suffering from an hysteria exactly like those of his patients, and that what he represented as his empirically based “science of psychoanalysis” were actually his own—real or imagined—childhood sexual experiences. Crews’s exposition of what in Freud’s biography led him to his theories makes for interesting reading indeed. In the end, Crews demonstrates that Wilhelm Fliess, who at their last actual meeting in 1900 accused Freud of merely reading the contents of his own mind into that of his patients, was right. What this means is psychoanalysis is based on a case of one—Freud himself. That is, Freud took himself as representative of all people in all times and in all cultures—surely a supremely grandiose, narcissistic—and preposterous—idea.

The neurotic degenerate inbred lying jew cries out in pain as he tells you everybody else is crazy.

Welcome to the New Eidolon!

Our writer pool has excellent diversity of race, age, gender, professional status, and sexuality. We work hard to keep it that way. But we’ve been accused of not being “ideologically diverse.” This charge is a common one, but I think it is misguided, in addition to being morally bankrupt. Making ideological diversity a primary objective is fundamentally incompatible with fighting against racism, sexism, and other forms of structural oppression, and we choose to prioritize the latter.

But Eidolon isn’t going to publish articles arguing that identity politics are ruining Classics. I don’t feel any obligation to represent that view here. I don’t believe that political neutrality is either achievable or desirable. Classics as a discipline has deep roots in fascism and reactionary politics and white supremacy, and those ideologies exert a powerful gravitational pull on the discipline’s practitioners. If we want to fight those forces, we need to actively work against them.

Donna Zuckerberg is the Editor-in-Chief of Eidolon. She received her PhD in Classics from Princeton, and her writing has appeared in Jezebel, The Establishment, and Avidly. Her book Not All Dead White Men, a study of the reception of Classics in Red Pill communities, is under contract with Harvard University Press.

The lame critique Zucc is giving the finger to comes from alt-jews who refuse to notice that the cultural marxism she’s promoting is entirely a jew construct, and that it is explicitly anti-White. Quillette is a platform for this false opposition, a hive of latter-day Lawrence Austers.

And his unWILLingness to clearly state that the Jew qua Jew is the archetype anti-white (S)upremacist.

the Weathermen, “and their leftist peers have carried out the Gramscian “long march” through American society and have shaped much of the country to their image.”

In fact Jews adopted and sponsored venal or vulnerable but certainly manipulable Whites like Ayers and Clinton from the left, as well as stooges on the right like William Buckley or Donald Trump, and promoted them all as models for White-race denialism / Jew-race subservience.

Only such un-White Whites are permitted by Jews any power or influence. It has nothing at all to do with right or left inanities! It is all about Jews.

MacDonald has been influenced lately to push rightism as solution to the phantom leftist problem. But it’s quite clear that Jewish particularism is protected within even the altright subculture by ‘goys’ like Taylor, Spencer and Brimelow, on behalf of Jews generally, and under the direct influence of specific Jews like Gottfried, Hart and Weissberg, just as it was in the countercultural left of the 1960s.

Resurrecting the right is not a good White strategy. Perhaps Trump’s betrayals as they become more and more overt will help TOO and others regain focus on simple pro-Whiteness? But I fear there’s a subterranean army of influencers determined not to allow that.

Ted Gold was a Jewish member of Weatherman, the Communist terror group of the late 1960s and 70s, which was a radical spin-off from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Gold is best known for perishing in the dramatic explosion in the New York townhouse caused by Weatherman’s ignorance of how to build a powerful bomb that explodes when desired and not before. His real importance, however, lies not in his spectacular demise, but rather in his frank public call for a communist dictatorship in this country, run by a revolutionary committee from the Third World. Consistent with the thesis that Jews place a high value on group interests, Gold worked unwaveringly within a mainstream Jewish subculture against Whites and White power, the enemy whose destruction many Jews thought would advance their own influence and power.

Ted Gold and the Jews of Weatherman, Part 2:

Another gentile, Bill Ayers, in his pretentious and often mendacious memoir, gives this odd reaction to his immersion in Marx coupled with the unjust expulsion of a Jewish friend from school:

I didn’t want to be a goy. I drew a Star of David and the word Jew on my forearm . . . recolored it for weeks and kept it hidden under my jacket. In Kerry’s honor, and for Marx as well, I invented another identity, part rootless, wandering scholar, part brilliant if ill-tempered Moor—I imagined myself a Jew.27

Conclusion

Weatherman was a movement led almost wholly by Jews, concerned deeply with Jewish themes, and straining fanatically towards a potentially genocidal communist dictatorship in which they could hold untrammeled power over the Whites of America.

That genocidal potential is now realized.