Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rbear

The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part 1&2

1 post in this topic

“Sexual morality — as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it — seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”                                                                                        Sigmund Freud, 1908.

“There will be other forms in addition to our classic marriage…We will experience a broader spectrum of socially accepted forms of sexual life.”                                                                                                           Volkmar Sigusch, 2015.

Volkmar Sigusch (1940- ) may not be a familiar name to TOO readers, but for those concerned about the modern assault on traditional attitudes to gender and sexuality it should be. You might have encountered the term ‘cisgender,’ a Sigusch creation that is rapidly gaining traction in common speech. For those unfamiliar with it, it has come to replace “normal” and even the more deviant-friendly term ‘heterosexual.’ Specifically, the term refers to those “who feel there is a match between their assigned sex and the gender they feel themselves to be. You are cisgender if your birth certificate says you’re male and you identify yourself as a man.” The goal behind inventing such a bizarre and convoluted label for that which is natural and healthy is, of course, to further dilute the identity of the present and coming generations, and convince us all that there is no “normal,” only different positions within an ever more colorful spectrum.

By undermining the meaning of what it is to be male and female, one undermines the healthy concept of the family. And when the healthy concept of the family possessed by a given group is undermined, that group is pushed ever closer to genocide via (using the United Nations lexicon) “deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and “imposing measures intended to prevent births.” The bumper crop of terms like ‘cisgender’, cooked up with alarming frequency by the “sexologists,” helps reduce marriage between a man and a woman and the raising of children within that union, to a mere “option” on a veritable menu of possible sexualities, gender identities, and family structures. In this brave new world there is no “normal” or “ideal” since all “models” are allegedly valid and equal.

This ideology, militant in both theory and execution, stands in opposition to the fact that healthy sexual relationships between males and females stand so far above the other “options” as to represent a gulf, rather than a spectrum, in human behavior. As F. Roger Devlin has so incisively pointed out, heterosexuality is “the natural life cycle of our species” (and all other species) while homosexuality is merely “a way for a few people with exotic tastes to achieve orgasm.” Any argument of equivalence must necessarily be preoccupied with endless abstractions, particularly abstractions surrounding the nature of romantic love, in order to push the debate away from this all-consuming biological fact.

In the same way that we witnessed the tremendous push for “marriage equality,” we have also witnessed the recent championing of those individuals who suffer from the unfortunate delusion that they have been born into the wrong body. While “transgenderism” is a severe mental illness by any definition of the term, the healthy and the normal are now lowered to the same level as these, and other, extremely dysfunctional people. Cultural relativism, once tactically deployed within the West in order to create an artificial parity between Western greatness and the meagre achievements of less advanced races and cultures, is now being deployedwithin our race and culture to create an artificial parity between the healthy, and the lifestyles of the degenerate and the insane. Much as in the promotion of degenerate art, the end result in both instances is the lowering of the healthy and the superior, and the raising up of the deformed, the sick, and the demented.

But who precisely is introducing these terms and ideas, and thus engineering dramatic change in Western society? In our attempt to answer this question, we might first return to Volkmar Sigusch. Sigusch, a German, is a self-described “sexologist,” physician and sociologist. As founder and co-editor of Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung (Journal for Sexual Research), and Director of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Science) at the Goethe University in Frankfurt from 1973 to 2006, Sigusch has been described by Der Spiegel as “one of the main thinkers behind the sexual revolution of the 1960s.” The reasons why the young would-be physician evolved into a cultural radical are quite easy to surmise. After fleeing East Germany, Sigusch studied medicine, psychology and philosophy at Frankfurt. I posit the argument that it was the latter discipline that truly shaped Sigusch and did most to determine his future work. I argue this because he studied philosophy under none other than Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, both of whom had by that date returned from the United States and re-established the notorious Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. Sigusch, a pioneer in the ongoing sexual revolution, is a Frankfurt School protégé.

The following analysis is concerned with the ongoing role of the Jewish-dominated “Culture of Critique” in advancing theories and trends designed to atomize our society. In particular it focusses on Jewish intellectual and political support for the sexually abnormal and explains it as an extension and product of the Frankfurt School’s view that “the unique role of Judaism in world history was to vindicate the concept of difference against the homogenizing forces thought to represent the essence of Western civilization. (My emphasis) ”[1] Kevin MacDonald has noted that the Frankfurt School categorized healthy Western norms, nationalisms, and close family relationships as an indication of psychiatric disorder. By contrast, in the last few decades of the nineteenth century Jewish intellectuals began championing Western society’s outcasts and non-conformers. Using these outcasts, Jewish intellectuals could fight a proxy war against Western homogeneity, and wage a clandestine campaign for the acceptance of pluralism.

cont

The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part Two

Albert Moll (1862–1939), who would go on to be “a great influence on Freud,”[1]came from a Polish Jewish merchant family and “belonged to the Jewish religious community.”[2] Typical of his ethno-religious group, Moll frequently utilized his position within the field of medical psychology to form an oppositional bloc against prevailing opinions in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century non-Jewish society. Indeed, large numbers of Jews tactically ambushed several medical disciplines during this period for precisely this reason. Historian Elena Macini writes that “Jews flooded medicine at this time not only for social standing, but also in an era that witnessed the efflorescence of race science, for the opportunity of self-representation. … The presence of Jews in the medical sector in general, and in race science in particular, allowed them to assert Jewish equality and very often moral superiority.”[3] With Berlin as the center of German medicine, and Jews comprising one third of doctors in the city,[4] the domination and re-orientation of entire disciplines was not only feasible but disturbingly easy.

A key aspect of advocating for Jewish equality and moral superiority was the Jewish advocacy of social, racial and religious pluralism. This position often came into conflict with non-Jewish efforts to promote Nationalism, particularly ethnically-based Nationalism, and corresponding efforts to confront social and cultural decay. A universal theme in Albert Moll’s works were arguments against German attempts to reckon with late Imperial and Weimar-era social and biological degeneration via eugenic programs. For example, in his Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften (1911) Moll expressed the hope that mooted plans for sterilization programs would “not be implemented and that our race-improvers do not get too much influence on our legislation.” When German science in the late 1920s became concerned with degeneration and decline, gravitating even further towards eugenics, Moll preceded Boas in rejecting the findings of behavior genetics, arguing that “the fact we find so many valuable people, despite the hereditary burden, is caused by regeneration in countless cases. …  We can hardly ever say something about the condition of offspring with any certainty at all.” Moll was therefore the quintessential Jewish physician: political and ethnic interests were never far from his dubious practice of medicine.

Also typical of Jewish intellectuals, Moll exhibited highly aggressive and assertive personality traits and had a flair for self-promotion. Although he began his career with a focus on hypnotism, Moll wasn’t long in utilizing these traits to gain professional closeness to sexology’s experts, particularly von Krafft-Ebing. He then masterfully orchestrated his own eclipse of von Krafft-Ebing to such an extent that Moll himself came to be considered, and largely remains considered, thepioneer of the field. However, Moll’s activity in sexology went far beyond stealing the limelight. From the beginning of his drift into sexology he adopted the same oppositional role that he occupied in relation to other German attempts to reckon with social decay. In particular, Moll worked tirelessly to persuade leading non-Jewish scholars like von Krafft-Ebing to reject the idea that sexual abnormality was the result of biological and psychological disorder. In his Freud: Biologist of the Mind, Frank J. Sulloway writes that “Krafft-Ebing’s decision around the turn of the century to separate the doctrine of degeneration from the theory of homosexuality was in response to the thinking of his younger and more critical colleague Moll.”[5]However, there is significant reason to doubt the validity of Krafft-Ebing’s personal change of perspective given that the most pertinent, later, editions of Psychopathia Sexualis that showcased this change were in fact edited by none other than Moll himself. Volkmar Sigusch even writes that Moll “completely overhauled the work.”

cont

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.