baser nature. (In fact, after the “culturednnazis” and pacifist terrorists of the 1960’s,nI suspect that reason and culture are thenfirst things to surrender to militarismnand egotism.)nI believe that besides investing innGod-consciousness instead of selfconsciousness,nconservatives support anmore “connaitre” kind of knowing asnopposed to the inlimte academization ofnsecular expertise. Perception of truth isnthus achieved via myth, art, met^hysics,nfaith, hope, hobby, taste, etc. This contrastsnsharply with the scientistic reductionismnof the psychoanalyst-socialist,nand leads to decentralized variety innhuman personality and vocation.nWhereas the gnostic Freudian can atnbest yield only a vaguely “realistic” man,nwhile the gnostic Marxist obliterates thendivision of labor for the sake of his “inevitable”nideal, the conservative oflfers anuniverse of “realisms” and destinies, anmultitude of satisfied individuals con­n… frotn Californianby Frank GoblenDr. Richard Peters (in his “Comment,”nMarch 1983 Chronicles of Culture)nwants us to believe that Sigmund Freud’sn”picture of man” is “congruent with thenideas of the framers of the Constitution.”nPeople on the political left, he pointsnout, especially Marxists, don’t like Freud’snideas or his psychoanalysis. While it maynbe true that Freud’s ideas are “fiirthernright” (closer to the Founding Fathers)nthan those of Marx, Pavlov, Skirmer, andnother behaviorists-environmentalists,nhis ideas are profoundly different firomnthose of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison,nWashington, and other influential Americannfounders.nThe late O. Hobart Mowrer, one ofnAmerica’s leading research psychologistsnand past president of the American PsychologicalnAssociation, said in 1966:nMr. Goble is president of Thomas JeffersonnResearch Center in Pasadenantent precisely because they stick to theirnfinite interests, indifferent to infinite selfassessment.nFinally, 1 should add that Dr. Peters isnbeing strategically incomplete when hensevers Freudian psychoanalysis fromnsupposedly “anticonsequence” and Utopianntherapies. Actually, the nature ofnthe more explicitly optimistic himianistnpsychotherapies, fi-om Maslow to est tonsexology, couldn’t be more Freudiannand consequence-oriented. That’s theirnproblem. They use “consequences” thensame way earlier therapists did: to masknan imperious reductionism of humanncharacter down to vacandy “informed,”nutilitarian animalism. The “self-fulfillment,”n”self-actualization” movementsnare natural children and grandchildrennof the original toxic, self-salvationalnmethodologies of psychotherapy, andnno well-intentioned amount of squirmingnby Dr. Peters can dissolve that fact,nor its consequences.n”For more than a decade now, it hasnbeen evident that something is seriouslynamiss in contemporary psychiatry andnclinical psychology. Under the sway ofnFreudian psychoanalysis, these disciplinesnhave not validated themselvesneither diagnostically or therapeutically.nTheir practitioners, as persons, have notnmanifested any exceptional grasp on thenvirtues and strengths they purportedlynhelp others to acquire. And the impactnof their philosophy of life and conceptionnof man in society as a whole hasnbeen subtly subversive.”nRichard LaPierre, Stanford sociologistnand author of The Freudian Ethicn(1959), referred to it as “the ethic that isnmost commonly advocated by the intellectualnleaders of the United States.” Thenresult of the Freudian ethic, he went onnto say, is “the idea that man cannot andnshould not be expected to be provident,nself-reliant, or venturesome, and that henmust and should be supported, protected,nsocially maintained.”nEdward R. Pinckney, M.D., formerneditor of the American Medical Journal,nnnhas written a scathing denunciation ofnFreudian theory in The Fallacy of Freudnand Psychoanalysis He states: “Sincenthe advent of that doctrine [psychoanalysis],nour culture and even our daily activitiesnhave been penetrated to the pointnwhere morality is not only outmoded,nimmorality is virtually licensed. There isnnot one single ‘scientific’ experiment onnrecord to support the doctrine thatnpsychoanalysis—^as defined by Freud asna form of treatment for mental illness—nhas, or can, cure anybody or any illness.nIn contrast, there is a wealth of documentedninformation to show that thenresults of psychoanalysis are not onlynunsuccessful, but what is even worse,nhave been harmful.”nI could cite many other similar commentsnby people thoroughly familiarnwith Freudian theory and practice, butnperhaps the best way to show that Freud’snthinking is not compatible with that ofnAmerica’s leading founders is to examinenthe statements of Freud himself. Freudnridiculed the Judeo-Christian ethic andnthe concepts of free will and rationalnman. Freud thought that most humannbehavior was the result of subconsciousndrives. Intelligence, he said, played an”minor part” in human affairs “as comparednwith the life of instincts.” Highernvalues such as freedom, justice, love,nand cooperation were not natural. “I donnot have a very high opinion of the bulknof mankind,” he wrote. “I feel that thenirrational forces in man’s nature are sonstrong, that the rational forces have littlenchance of success against it. A smallnminority may be able to live a life ofnreason, but most men are more comfortablenliving with their delusions and superstitionsnthan with the truth.” Of religionnFreud said, “I have already found a placenfor religion by putting it under the categorynof the neurosis of mankind.” And,n”the whole thing [religion] is so patendyninfantile, so incongruous with reality, itnis painfiil to think that the great majoritynof mortals will never be able to rise aboventhis view of life.”nDr. Freud made numerous modificationsnand additions to this theory, but hisn^ii^45nJuly 1983n