Freudian attachment theory

I have been tryihg to understand how the field of psychology got into such a morally depraved state. The 20th century history is explained partly by the vast influence and idolization of Sigmund Freud.

Brian Boyd writes this essay about Vladimir Nabokov:

Famously, Nabokov could not resist deriding Freud. And for good reason: Freud’s ideas were enormously influential, especially in Nabokov’s American years, but his claims were hollow. Nobel laureate Peter Medawar, perhaps the greatest of science essayists, declared in his book Pluto’s Republic, in terms akin to Nabokov’s, that Freudianism was “the most stupendous intellectual confidence trick of the twentieth century.” Nabokov saw the intellectual vacuity of Freudian theory and its pervasiveness in the popular and the professional imagination. He thought it corrupted intellectual standards, infringed on personal freedom, undermined the ethics of personal responsibility, destroyed literary sensitivity, and distorted the real nature of childhood attachment to parents –- the last of which has been amply confirmed by modern developmental psychology.

Freud was indeed a quack and nearly everything he said was bogus. His meager alleged successes were faked. He was exposed as a scientific fraud in his lifetime, and no educated person could take him seriously.

My concern here is with Jewish and other psychologists and judges who use bogus attachment theory and other prejudices to take kids away from good parents.

Freud is described as a "secular Jew". That means that he was not religious in the usual sense of the word, but his Jewish identity was very important to him, and his Jewishness and his personal neuroses informed his teachings more than any scientific considerations did. Furthermore, Freud's fame and high reputation were almost entirely due to promotion from other Jews. The whole development of Freudian psychoanalysis was based on Jewish beliefs of superiority over non-Jews. See Chapter 4: Jewish Involvement in the Psychoanalytic Movement for details.

A psychology professor explains:

The central importance of child-parent attach-ment in Freud's theory of personality is perhaps best captured in his characterization of the infant-mother relationship as ~ without parallel, established unal-terably for a lifetime as the first and strongest love object and as the prototype of all later love relation-ships" (Freud, 1940/1949, p.188). This prototype not only forms the matrix on which subsequent personal-ity development builds, according to Freud, but also provides the motivational core of a great deal of be-havior throughout the lifespan. Moreover, the con-flicts and defenses rooted in early attachment rela-tionships continue to assert themselves throughout life in the form of various prosocial and antisocial behavior patterns. ...

The success of Freud's model in the empirical arena, however, was extremely limited. Not only was child-parent attachment poorly understood at the time, but the mechanisms of identification proposed by Freud to explain its influence on development proved inherently resistant to empirical scrutiny.

The phrase "resistant to empirical scrutiny" is an academic euphemism for pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Jewish Ideas Daily writes that Freud's psychoanalysis was a Jewish science:

Sigmund Freud, Anna's father, was unmistakably a fin-de-siècle Viennese Jew —- an ironic intellectual outsider in love with wit and literary interpretation, committed both to the liberating power of science and to the social norms of the bourgeoisie. But as for Judaism, he famously regarded it, like all organized religions, as one of the problems his insights were meant to neutralize and dissolve. At first, he saw religion as a neurosis-like expression of unresolved conflicts between instinctual drives and society-ordained values. His later view, famously expressed in Moses and Monotheism (1939), was that religion is an illusion, the projection onto the universe of an omnipotent and guilt-inducing father.

When Palo Alto psychologist Ken Perlmutter testified in family court in my case, he claimed to have some expertise in attachment theory. He was unable to explain what it had to do with my case, so I did not pay much attention to it. In retrospect, it was about like saying that he has expertise in the Jewish Talmud.