Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

A Stunning Validation by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: The Assault on Truth, The Origins of Psychoanalysis

with 15 comments

(Originally published 2/5/2013) A key issue in the courts includes sexual assault and violence towards women and children. This has also been a key issue with psychoanalysis. 

Below the introduction, most of the post is about the Stunning Validation, but I keep it current and relevant –because it is! — to the subject matter of this blog.  

Post title: A Stunning Validation by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: The Assault on Truth, The Origins of Psychoanalysis (w/ case-sensitive shortlink ending “-1k8” …about 10,000 words long)

The key, or leading edge, feature OF these courts includes therapeutic jurisprudence, attempting to resolve conflict through addition of behavioral health professionals, the fields in which Dr. Nicholas J. Cummings has dedicated much of his life to preserving the business and economic well-being of, to the point that a Wall Street Journal article reported, not too many years ago, that — doctors and hardcore professionals aside, among the top highest paying professional jobs, including the benefits and actual hours worked to earn the pay, were: judges, and (with a doctorate) psychologists:

Dr. Cummings is a visionary who, for half a century not only was able to foresee the future of professional psychology, but also helped create it. A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA) as well as its Divisions 12 (Clinical Psychology) and 29 (Psychotherapy), he formed a number of national organizations in response to trends. Since organized psychology resisted these inevitable changes, Dr. Cummings blazed the way, expecting others would follow.

He launched the professional school movement by founding the four campuses of the California School of Professional Psychology that established clinicians as full-fledged members of the faculty.

As chief of mental health for the Kaiser Permanente health system in the 1950s, he wrote and implemented the first prepaid psychotherapy contract in the era when psychotherapy was an exclusion rather than a covered benefit in health insurance.

He wrote what is known as the freedom-of-choice legislation that requires insurers to reimburse psychologists along with psychiatrists, and he conducted the medical cost offset research showing that psychological interventions save medical/surgical dollars.

Foreseeing the industrialization of healthcare, and particularly behavioral healthcare, he founded American Biodyne, the nation’s first and only psychology-driven managed behavioral health organization (MBHO), to be emulated so that the profession could own managed behavioral care before it fell into the hands of business interests. For two years he limited enrollment to 500,000 covered lives, but when the professions of psychology and psychiatry ignored the model, he took his foot off the brake, and the number of covered lives soared to 14.5 million in the next 5 years and to 25 million shortly thereafter.

Other organizations he founded included the National Academies of Practice (the 150 most distinguished practitioners in each of dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, pediatric medicine, psychology, social work, and veterinary medicine), the National Council of Professional Schools of Psychology (NCSPP), the San Joaquin County Psychological Association, and the American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association (AMBHA).

With others he co-founded the California Psychological Association, the San Francisco Bay Area Psychological Association, and the Council for the Advancement of the Psychological Professions and Sciences (CAPPS)

Cummings is also well-informed in his field, has been a psychoanalyst, and very likely knew of this other psychoanalyst’s, Mr. Masson’s, 1980s allegations of Anna Freud’s censorship of her father’s letters, which cast an entirely different light on what “The Etiology of Hysteria” is.

And it’s really time to read Masson’s statement of “The Assault on Truth, The Origins of Psychoanalysis .I feel it’s only fair to warn people which path they are going down. If they want to ignore the warnings, then it’s not my problem, other than when it’s draining attention and energies from more critical analyses — which this movement IS, and is probably intended to do.

 As soon as I saw the January 2012 advertisement (at the SF Center for Psychoanalysis) of an upcoming March 2012 “FREE TRAINING IN ARIZONA” I blogged it, OurBrokenFamily Court” isn’t. It ain’t “Ours” and it ain’t “Broken.” That phrase is a “tell.” I’ll tell you why…. [excerpt:]


Donner authored an excellent article {bold added} by the same title in Psychoanalytic Psychology. Contact him (HERE) to request a copy of “Tearing Children Apart: The Contribution of Narcissism, Envy and Perverse Modes of Thought to Child Custody Wars.” [see FN3 LGH, below]

Our broken family court system: Free training in Arizona

Another free training geared toward child custody evaluators is coming up March 16-17 [2012] in Phoenix, Arizona. Co-sponsored by the National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers and the Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Foundation, it features a cast of well-known experts, including:

More information and online registration is available HERE.

How much of this “Broken Courts” buzzwords (spoken by the people who have the answers, which naturally involves buying certain products, trainings, and consultations, by the same, on how to fix it) — is enough?

When is anyone (else) going to actually, literally, develop the habit of running background checks on charming, or wealthy strangers who approach them (or into whose strong, authoritative, and competent, OPEN ARMS someone is tempted to dash for sympathy and protection — or for money). Wasn’t that, ladies, part of what got you into an abusive relationship to start with? Handsome strangers, charming, eloquent and INTERESTED IN YOU?

I do this consistently. It’s been a great source of learning, enriched my understanding of this vital field, and moreover, helped me screen out the liars and dissemblers (those who don’t quite lie, literally, but systematically “forget” to reveal who they really are, and what is the agenda, which you get to find out later — after the situation is further compromised, you have less time, money and energy left, and in some cases, in which it’s just plain too late to extricate onesself – – or one’s kids). I will explain this further, separately.

FYI, I found the material on Freud’s Archives/Jeffrey M. M. while looking up the background of the Cummings Foundation and Nicholas Cummings.

One thing about investigating, looking things up: be prepared to have world view turned upside down (or the sense that something IS upside down, or backwards as presented in public confirmed). In this case, regardless of who this man was personally, at the point of insisting to publish about the Freud coverup, he was acting in the public interest.

Post-Published Note. First published Feb. 2013.

In Dec. 2013, realizing in ongoing conversations and further readings how central this topic is to the family and conciliation court systems, including possibly why we even have them to start with, I re-arranged, moving a major section to the top of the post. Therefore further introductory sections may seem out of sequence.

I think EVERYONE concerned with the courts, even though I know I primarily focus on the economic factors, should read this material. Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson was highly qualified, had access to the Freud archives, documents how censorship of his work after 1897 continued even up to the 1950s, when the letters were compiled (including by his daughter Anna), constituting “The Origins of Psychoanalysis.”

Quote First, Commentary below. Especially read if you’re considering signing up for psychoanalysis!

So who is that guy? Briefly,

Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is a writer who lives with his family in New Zealand. He has a 36-year-old daughter, Simone, who is getting her masters in nursing at UCSF. His wife Leila is a pediatrician and they have two sons: Ilan and Manu. They live on a beach in Auckland with three cats and Benjy the Failed Guide Dog (the hero of Jeff’s latest book).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Sanskrit from Harvard University. He was Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Toronto. While at the university he trained as a Freudian analyst (from 1971-1979) graduating as a full member of the International Psycho-Analytical Association. In 1980 he became Project Director of the Sigmund Freud Archives.
Given access to Freud’s papers in London and the Library of Congress, his research led him to believe that Freud made a mistake when he stopped believing that the source of much human misery lay in sexual abuse. Masson’s view was so controversial within traditional analytic circles that he was fired from the archives and had his membership in the international society taken away. Janet Malcolm has written a book about this episode (In the Freud Archives – the subject of a libel suit by Masson) and Jeff has published a series of books critical of Freud, psychoanalysis, psychiatry and therapy.

Skeptical that humans could be understood (at least by psychologists) Masson turned to animals. In 1995 he published When Elephants Weep, an international best seller, followed by the equally popular Dogs Never Lie About Love.

So, here is the gist of it:

The Atlantic Monthly | February 1984

“Freud and the Seduction Theory:

A challenge to the foundations of psychoanalysis”

by Jeffrey M. Masson.

In 1970, I became interested in the origins of psychoanalysis and in Sigmund Freud’s relationship with Wilhelm Fliess, the nose and throat physician who was his closest friend during the years Freud was formulating his new theories.

For some time, I corresponded with Freud’s daughter, Anna Freud, about the possibility of preparing a complete edition of Freud’s letters to Fliess, an abridged version of which had been published in 1950 in German and in 1954 in English, as The Origins of Psychoanalysis. This edition had been edited by Anna Freud, Ernst Kris, and Marie Bonaparte.

In 1980, I met with Anna Freud and Dr. K. R. Eissler, the head of the Sigmund Freud Archives and Anna Freud’s trusted adviser and friend, in London, and Miss Freud agreed to a new edition of the Freud-Fliess letters. As a result, I was given access to this sealed correspondence (the originals are in the Library of Congress), which constitutes our most important source of information concerning the beginnings of psychoanalysis.
In addition to including all the letters and passages that had previously been omitted (which amounted to more than half the text), I thought it necessary to annotate the book fully. I therefore needed access to other relevant material. Anna Freud offered her complete cooperation, and I was given the freedom of Maresfield Gardens, in London, where Freud spent the last year of his life.
Freud’s magnificent personal library was there, and many of the volumes, especially from the early years, were annotated by Freud. In his desk I discovered a notebook kept by Marie Bonaparte after she purchased Freud’s letters to Fliess, in 1936, in which she comments on Freud’s reactions to these letters, which he had written years before. I also found a series of letters concerned with Sándor Ferenczi, who was in Freud’s later years his closest analytic friend and colleague, and with the last paper Ferenczi delivered, to the 12th International Psycho-Analytic Congress, in Wiesbaden, in 1932. This paper dealt with the sexual seduction of children, a topic that had engrossed Freud during the years of his friendship with Fliess.

Blogger interjection: yes, “Bonaparte” as in related to Napoleon. Paragraph from “Scandalouswomen.blogspot.com” may give a clue just how family lives of royalty may be royally strange, and screwed up, despite titles and riches, and how come Marie Bonaparte had Freud’s letters to Fliess: “The Last Bonaparte: The Extraordinary Life of Princess marie Bonaparte.” (1882-1962) If I may…as she not only was influenced by Freud (after having an affair with one of his disciples Rudolph Loewenstein). She was attached to him helped protect him, his work, and others families, from Hitler.

Marie Bonaparte was the daughter of Prince Roland Bonaparte and Marie-Felix Blanc. Prince Roland was the grandson of Napoleon’s younger brother Lucien, who was the most rebellious of the brothers Bonaparte. While Jerome fell in line with Napoleon’s wishes, divorcing Betsy Patterson and marrying Princess Catherine of Wurtemberg, Lucien refused to put aside either of his wives.

Consequently, he was disinherited by his brother. While Lucien was made a prince by the Pope in Rome, he and his descendents were not part of the Imperial line. . . . .

[In fact, this Princess’s mother had died a month after she was born. While it mentions missing her father (who was absent), the truth is, she never had a mother, either. Later on, she eventually becomes emotionally attached to — Freud:]

Princess Pierre [that’s the grandmother of the princess in the photo] arranged her son Roland’s marriage to the daughter of Francois Blanc, who was the principal real-estate developer of Monaco, also co-owning the Casino in Monte Carlo as well as one in Homburg (Pierre’s brother Prince Charles-Lucien Bonaparte broke the bank at Homburg winning 180,000 francs, the first person to do so.) Marie-Felix had a fortune of almost 14 million francs. She was also suffering from tuberculosis which was kept from her. The race was on to get Marie-Felix pregnant before she died. On July 2nd 1882, she gave birth to a daughter Princess Marie Bonaparte known to her family as Mimi. A month later, but not before making out a will in her husband’s favor, Marie-Felix died in his arms of an embolism.
Princess Marie was brought up isolated at St. Cloud, outside of Paris, her only companions were her wet-nurse and then later her governess. She rarely saw her father, who she adored, since he spent most of his time with his work with the Geographical Society (he also discovered several species of ferns) and her grandmother had little use for her. When Marie was child, she showed symptons of tuberculosis which meant that she was even more isolated until her father and grandmother were assured that she would survive. Because of this isolation, Marie grew up a bit neurotic, worrying that she might die at any moment like her mother. It wasn’t until she was older, that Marie learned that her isolation was partly because her grandmother and father were not accepted in Parisian society.

[a few paras later of her basically isolated, and as a result probably neurotic, though wealthy, life, including being married off at 25 to Prince George of Greece (Tall, handsome, 13 yrs older, and simply not interested in her ..

Despite the lack of affection, the couple [[Prince of Greece, and Princess Marie, above]] managed to have 2 children, Prince Peter born in 1908 and Princess Eugenie born in 1910. Seeking the love and affection denied her by her husband, Marie indulged in a series of discreet affairs with among others Aristide Briand, the French Prime Minister and one of Freud’s disciples Rudolph Loewenstein but she still remained unfufilled sexually. During the Balkan wars and World War I, Marie occupied herself with setting up hospital ships in Athens and serving with the Women’s Emergency Canteens for Soldiers in Compiegne in France.
Marie became interested in psychoanalysis through Rudolph Loewenstein. She hoped that by being psychoanalyzed by Freud, it might help with her frigidity. She had already undergone an operation to have her clitoris moved closer to her vagina, after undertaking a study of 243 women which showed that women who had theirs closer easily achieved orgasm during intercourse.** She published her findings in the medical journal Bruxelles-Meidcal under the pseudonym A.E. Narjani. It was the beginning of a life-long study into female sexuality that culminated in her book Feminine Sexuality that was published in 1953 and republished in 1979.

If that sounds strange, follow up (it’s in the article) and read what Freud and Fliess had between them (and omitted from the published letters of Freud) — Fliess had a habit of operating on the noses of women who, because they masturbated, which was thought to be dangerous and cause painful menstruation, would need first medical intervention, then ongoing psychological counseling to make sure they didn’t masturbate again — or the operation would be useless. Considering the times, when in doubt, operate?

Here in 1895, is Fliess, a man with an ego and reputation to defend, confident, inspiring confidence, handling young girls who confess that they masturbate, which they’ve been told is wrong, and discussing it with his colleague, Freud, and coming up with a diagnosis (I am quoting the author referenced in the post title, Masson, 1984 article. except for italicizing the German, emphases mine…):

In Freud’s copy of Fliess’s 1902 book, Über den ursächlichen Zusammenhang von Nase und Geschlechtsorgan (On the Causal Connection between the Nose and the Sexual Organ), this passage has been marked: “Girls who masturbate normally suffer from dysmenorrhea [painful menstruation]. In such cases, nasal treatment is only successful when they truly give up this aberration.”
I believe that Freud marked this passage in later years because in his opinion it described the case of Emma Eckstein. She was, as we know from her own publications, very much concerned with the then prevalent belief in the dangers of masturbation, something she undoubtedly discussed with Freud during her treatment. Her symptom of irregular or painful menstruation would have been attributed to masturbation, and once Fliess was brought in, it was inevitable that he would recommend an operation on her nose, for Fliess held the very strange belief that the nose and the sexual organs were intimately connected, and that sexual problems could be cured through nasal surgery.

In this matter, Freud, by turning over a patient (Emma Eckstein) to his friend Fliess, who had said, of course operate — had almost gotten her killed. Freud had left a half-meter of gauze in, after removing the “turbinate bone” in her nose!! Others rescued her. Freud wrote Fliess about it (March 8, 1895)

[J. M. Masson, writing:]This letter, which was omitted from the published edition of Freud’s letters to Fliess, is critical for an understanding of subsequent events in Freud’s intellectual life. Fliess had “mistakenly” left half a meter of surgical gauze in the cavity created by the removal of the turbinate bone in Emma’s nose. Freud wished to minimize the significance of this and to protect Fliess’s reputation. He wrote that “no one is blaming you, nor would I know why they should.” Yet Emma Eckstein had almost died, in what Freud called a Verblutungsszene (a scene of bleeding to death).
. . . .

When, therefore, Freud said that “we had done her [Emma Eckstein] an injustice; she had not been at all abnormal” (sie war gar nicht abnorm gewesen), he hinted at an unspoken insight: the place to search for psychopathology in this case was in Fliess and in himself. It was “abnormal” of Freud to have handed Emma Eckstein over to Fliess, and it was “abnormal” of Fliess to have operated at all and also to have bungled the operation. Emma Eckstein’s reaction—hemorrhaging—was a completely normal response to surgical violence. Later Freud would retract this insight and claim that Emma Eckstein’s hemorrhages were hysterical in nature, the result of sexual longing. If Freud meant that Emma Eckstein herself had not been “abnormal” prior to the operation, an even greater insight, then he and Fliess had had no business subjecting her to a theory that had first been tested in a life-threatening operation.

I am starting to think particularly after looking at the Congresses and some of the personnel behind the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA), which began in weekly meetings with Freud in 1902, that PERHAPS the reason we have so much psychoanalysis today is that a prominent man (Freud) couldn’t handle isolation and social exclusion fro his colleagues. When faced with a choice of accepted that he and his friend had almost, carelessly and needlessly, killed a woman (Eckstein), despite her loyalty to Fliess (traumatic bonding??), he rejected that interpretation and went with the wolf pack, keeping his most insightful observations on the matter to the other perpetrator, Fliess.

As to whether Emma maintained her respect for both men, Schur wrote a mysterious passage on page 67 of his book Freud: Living and Dying:

That Fliess had a gift for impressing his friends and patients with the wealth of his biological knowledge, his far-reaching imagination, and his unflagging faith in his therapeutic abilities can be concluded from the intense loyalty of his patients which was evident from Freud’s correspondence with him. Even a patient who . . . suffered dangerous consequences from a grave “slip” committed by Fliess remained loyal to him for the rest of her life [emphasis added].

BACK TO, PRINCESS MARIE BONAPARTE (by then HRH Princess George of Greece) & FREUD:

Her meetings with Freud began a life-long friendship and led her to a new career as a psychoanalyst. Freud’s famous remark “The great question that has never been answered and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my 30 years of research into the feminine sould, is ‘What does a woman want?” was asked of Marie. Freud helped Marie remember that as a child she had seen her wet-nurse and her father’s half-brother Pascal who worked in the stables, not only having sex but also that they had drugged her to keep her quiet while they snuck off to have their affair. Marie spent increasing time in Vienna not just being psychoanalyzed but also studying with Freud, much to the dismay of her children who were increasingly resentful and jealous of their mother being away.
. . . .She became one of Freud’s closest friends, lavishing gifts on him. When things looked dicey for Freud in Vienna, because of Hitler, Marie later paid the money that Freud needed to get out of Austria, as well as paying to set him and his family up in Hampstead. She also bought Freud’s letters to Wilhelm Fleiss to preserve them despite Freud’s wish that they be destroyed. When Freud died, his ashes were placed in an urn that Marie had given him. She later became very good friends with Freud’s daughter Anna. Marie also spent a considerable part of her fortune to help rescue at least 200 Jewish families leave Germany, saving them from the Nazi’s.
. . . . .
She also used her money to help set up a school in Paris to train psychoanalysts. Her wealth contributed to the popularity of psychoanalysis in France, becoming a pivotal figure in the French Psychoanalytical Society. During her career, Marie only took on 5 or 6 patients at a time, crocheting while they talked. Most of her sessions took place outside in her garden, and then later on in life when she got older she would see her patients in her boudoir while wearing a lovely peignoir. Later in life, when she and Prince George attended the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II of England, Marie spent her time psychoanalyzing the gentleman next to her who turned out to be Francois Mitterand, the future President of France.

[[SORRY about the interjection, but it does set some context, which on this topic, is important!…]]


(From “The Atlantic Monthly | February 1984”
“Freud and the Seduction Theory: A challenge to the foundations of psychoanalysis”

by Jeffrey M. Masson.

[Because I’ve inserted so much explanation, on Marie Bonaparte, and Fliess, on these letters, the first two paragraphs repeat the situation, followed by the author’s reaction to discovering the letters. quote, my words will be inside brackets like this..anything else is a quotation./LGH]]

Freud’s magnificent personal library was there, and many of the volumes, especially from the early years, were annotated by Freud. In his desk I discovered a notebook kept by Marie Bonaparte after she purchased Freud’s letters to Fliess, in 1936, in which she comments on Freud’s reactions to these letters, which he had written years before.
I also found a series of letters concerned with Sándor Ferenczi, who was in Freud’s later years his closest analytic friend and colleague, and with the last paper Ferenczi delivered, to the 12th International Psycho-Analytic Congress, in Wiesbaden, in 1932.* This paper dealt with the sexual seduction of children, a topic that had engrossed Freud during the years of his friendship with Fliess..

[[* Being curious, I ended up with a “find.” Call it instinct? Here’s the list, from the IPA (notice the logo), International Psychoanalytic Association, of their past congresses, showing it started only in 1908 — AFTER Freud gave his (in)famous 1895 address. Approximately around this time in Africa, some of their countrymen (British, Germans) were having the Boer Wars and setting up practice concentration camps, in anticipation of a nice genocide…I cannot help but reflect that arrogance and this “let us study their problems” attitude towards the “other” whether it be an ethnic group, a different culture or, here, the other gender, is more prone to hurting the “other” than understanding them…]]
[[I see these conferences were HEAVILY European were in: Austria, Germany, Germany, Germany (Carl Jung), Hungary, Holland, Germany, Austria, Germany, Austria, Oxford-England, Germany, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, France, Zurich-Switzerland, Holland, London-England, Geneva-Switzerland, Paris (1957), Denmark, Scotland, Stockholm-Sweden (1963)at which time they start having themes. The first conference with a “theme” was in 1965, and here it was: “Theme: Psychoanalytic Treatment of the Obsessional Neurosis / Presidency: William H. Gillespie & Phyllis Greenacre” America (New York) didn’t get to host one until 1979, nor a second one til 1995 (San Francisco) Poor America, are we still emulating the Europeans like second-class citizens? …. Also note there was a long break for World War II after which they started coming every two years. Perhaps all the veterans and orphans made for more subject matter to study…]]

PLEASE NOTE: The Robert S. Wallerstein (President) who hosted a conference in Montreal in 1987, “Theme: Analysis Terminable and Interminable – 50 Years Later Presidency: Robert S. Wallerstein” is indeed the husband of Judith S. Wallerstein of “Center for the Family in Transition” fame. If so, does that not shed some light on her work and perspective? Her own childhood trauma was loss of her father to cancer; her primary theme was the negative effects of divorce and fatherlessness. Background (from LA Times 2012 obituary):

Born Judith Hannah Saretsky in New York City on Dec. 27, 1921, Wallerstein experienced a major trauma early in life. Her father, a director of Jewish community centers, died of cancer when she was 8. Wallerstein did not know how grave his illness was and for a long time denied he was dead.
“You can trace all this work to my own suffering as a child and how my mother tried to handle the situation,” she told the Baltimore Sun in 1997. “I know the importance of an intact family, about the importance of fathers.
She spent her teenage years in Tel Aviv, where her widowed mother taught English. She returned to New York to attend Hunter College and Columbia University, where she earned a master’s in social work in 1946. She underwent psychoanalytic training at the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kan., where she met Robert S. Wallerstein, who was also studying there. They married in 1947.
She and her husband later moved to the Marin County town of Belvedere. Wallerstein earned a doctorate in psychology from Sweden’s Lund University in 1978 and was a lecturer at UC Berkeley’s School of Social Welfare from 1966 to 1991.

Yep, same man. So her entire field has been drenched with (and she was also living with) a psychoanalyst. in fact the President of the International Psychoanalytic Society, for a while…Well, back to Masson, on seeing the Fliess letters for the first time:]]

As I was reading through the correspondence and preparing the annotations for the first volume of the series, the Freud-Fliess letters, I began to notice what appeared to be a pattern in the omissions made by Anna Freud in the original, abridged edition. In the letters written after September of 1897 (when Freud was supposed to have given up his “seduction” theory), all the case histories dealing with the sexual seduction of children had been excised... . .
Anna Freud urged me to direct my interests elsewhere. In conversations with other analysts close to the Freud family, I was given to understand that I had stumbled upon something that was better left alone. (This was made even more apparent when my connections with the Freud Archives were suddenly terminated.)
If the seduction theory was really only a detour along the road to truth, as so many psychoanalysts believe, it would perhaps have been possible for me to turn my attention to other matters. But the seduction hypothesis, in my opinion, should have been the very cornerstone of psychoanalysis. In 1895 and 1896, Freud, in listening to his women patients, learned that something dreadful and violent lay in their past.
The psychiatrists before Freud who had heard seduction stories had accused their patients of being hysterical liars and had dismissed their memories as fantasy. Freud was the first psychiatrist who believed that his patients were telling the truth.
[[“The Etiology of Hysteria paper, 1896”]]
Freud announced his discovery in a paper entitled “The Etiology of Hysteria,” which he gave in April of 1896 to the Society for Psychiatry and Neurology in Vienna—his first major public address to his peers about his new sexual theories. As Freud was later to describe it, he believed that in giving this paper he would become “one of those who had, disturbed the sleep of the world.”
The address presented a revolutionary view of mental illness. Its title referred to Freud’s new theory that the origin of hysteria lay in early sexual traumas, which he called “infantile sexual scenes” or “sexual intercourse” in childhood. This is what later came to be the seduction theory—namely, the belief that such early experiences were real, not fantasies, and had a damaging and lasting effect on the later lives of the children who suffered them.

Freud’s patients had the courage to confront what had happened to them in childhood—often this included violent rapes by their fathers—and to communicate their traumas to Freud, no doubt hesitating to believe their own memories and reluctant to remember the deep shame and hurt they had felt. Freud had listened and understood and given them permission to remember and speak of these terrible events. He did not think they were fantasies, as he explained in his paper

[quote added with 12/2013 revisions]:
“In 1905, Freud publicly retracted the seduction theory. What happened? What caused this momentous about-face, which would affect the lives of countless patients in psychotherapy from 1900 to the present? Psychoanalysts have not been notably curious about the reasons for Freud’s change of heart, even though, along with Freud himself, they acknowledge that the abandonment of the seduction theory prepared for the birth of psychoanalysis. The standard explanation—that clinical experiences taught Freud that he had made a mistake—is not a very satisfying one, as we shall see. It never seemed right to me, even as a student, that Freud would not believe his patients. I did not agree that the seduction scenes presented as memories had been only fantasies, or memories of fantasies. But I had not thought to doubt Freud’s account (often repeated in his writings) of his motives for changing his mind. Yet, when I read the Fliess letters without the omissions (of which Freud, by the way, would undoubtedly have approved), they told a very different, agonizing story.
“Between 1894 and 1900, Wilhelm Fliess was Freud’s closest friend and possibly the only person with whom Freud could discuss his newly emerging insights into the origins of mental illness.”

Towards the bottom of the paper, Masson talks of the implications of all this censorship to Psychoanalysis itself:

At some time during 1895 or 1896, Freud had become convinced that the persons most often guilty of the sexual abuse of young children (primarily girls) were their fathers. (In the published letter of September 21, 1897, to Fliess, Freud wrote: “Then the surprise that, in all cases, the father [emphasis in original], not excluding my own, had to be accused of being perverse.”)

But Freud did not say this publicly. The taboo against speaking about fathers seducing their children seems to have been handed down through the generations of analysts since Freud. Thus, the editors of The Origins of Psychoanalysis, Ernst Kris and Anna Freud, omitted from the letters several case histories in which a father seduced a child, thereby depriving posterity of the opportunity to judge or even become aware of the evidence Freud was finding in his clinical practice for his belief in the reality of early sexual traumas. This was systematically done for letters written after September 21, 1897 (the date on which Freud supposedly gave up the seduction hypothesis). The reason for these omissions, presumably, is that once Freud had given up this notion as a mistake, it would confuse future analysts to have information dating to a time when Freud had not yet understood the all-powerful nature of fantasy. An important document here is this case history, omitted from the published version of a letter of December 6, 1896:

Personal Observations:

Although my family court case didn’t indicate allegations of child abuse, like many (ours was primarily about domestic violence, although the overlap indicators are plenty clear in it, i.e., the manic intensity to eliminate a mother from my children’s life, particularly after they hit puberty, incest in the fathers’ and his new woman’s family lines, etc.), I am familiar with the scenario of someone trying to put a psychological spin (on ME) for actions taken by others, including sometimes themselves. I eventually came to the conclusion that issuing some pseudo-scientific statement (generic, vague, unsupported, and often simply false) is mentally easier, and cheaper (to the person involved) than reading the case file, or looking at the immediate evidence. Along with the oppression comes justification, and that is often going to take the form of blaming the oppressed person, or population. Not to mention, did I yet mention “Eve”? (as in the Biblical account). Eve was blamed for succumbing to temptation, and Adam was blamed for listening to her. Foundation for millennia of “great” relationships between men and women.

is now also a page. For many (if not most) posts I wanted to keep the economic focus. I was looking up some board member and ran across the book, looked up the man, and realized it’s time to re-address this issue.

This is a must-read, in my opinion

Curiosity and attention to detail paid off this time. Am I obsessive at looking things (and people) up?
Perhaps some are just not curious enough. That act is called gathering data (scanning the horizon) for related information.
Yesterday [@Feb. 2013], it had been my intent simply to present some basic information on the domination of psychology and education as fields of choice for those involved in population management through the courts. BUT — a single woman from Indiana University’s “Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,” (cf. Kaiser Wilhelm Brain Institute (see Ritter, Rudin, noticing the specialties), and there is a connection; also on p.2 here, see the Rockefeller contributions), well, enough was enough and one thing led to another.
Freud KNEW but he was censored and silenced. It haunted him. Others knew (including Anna Freud) but they also censored. Moussaieff Masson discovered and reported what Freud knew, and Anna Freud et al. censored, and was himself exiled. I’m getting tired of all that….
Whatever kind of person this author was, or wasn’t, I’m with him on this one.
In writing this post, I looked up some personnel. One of them (below), a 2012 AFCC Stanley Cohen awardee, had participated in “The Kinsey Institute.” I looked up one of the other investigators and in a book list ran across: Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: “Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing.” (2012):
From this author’s “JeffreyMasson.com” site, this is how it goes:

In this ground-breaking and highly controversial book, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson attacks the very foundations of modern psychotherapy from Freud to Jung, from Fritz Perls to Carl Rodgers. With passion and clarity, Against Therapy addresses the profession’s core weaknesses, contending that, since therapy’s aim is to change people, and this is achieved according to therapist’s own notions and prejudices, the psychological process is necessarily corrupt. With a foreword by the eminent British psychologist Dorothy Rowe, this cogent and convincing book has shattering implications.
True, I may think about these things as a mother, but if this is done to cows to push milk on schools where other material might do better for kids — which is now fairly well known — where, really, is the concern about the children, and their mothers?

[[Looks like some missing paragraphs here. However, search “Raw Milk Wars,” on this blog, for more. Our country sure does pick strange things to start wars on, whether raw milk, fatherlessness, violence against women (that’s now an established industry), or poverty. Of all those, the most successful one was probably on raw milk…. It’s not gone, but it’s tricky to keep available….]]

Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is a writer who lives with his family in New Zealand. He has a 36-year-old daughter, Simone, who is getting her masters in nursing at UCSF. His wife Leila is a pediatrician and they have two sons: Ilan and Manu. They live on a beach in Auckland with three cats and Benjy the Failed Guide Dog (the hero of Jeff’s latest book).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Sanskrit from Harvard University. He was Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Toronto. While at the university he trained as a Freudian analyst (from 1971-1979) graduating as a full member of the International Psycho-Analytical Association. In 1980 he became Project Director of the Sigmund Freud Archives.
Given access to Freud’s papers in London and the Library of Congress, his research led him to believe that Freud made a mistake when he stopped believing that the source of much human misery lay in sexual abuse. Masson’s view was so controversial within traditional analytic circles that he was fired from the archives and had his membership in the international society taken away. Janet Malcolm has written a book about this episode (In the Freud Archives – the subject of a libel suit by Masson) and Jeff has published a series of books critical of Freud, psychoanalysis, psychiatry and therapy.

Skeptical that humans could be understood (at least by psychologists) Masson turned to animals. In 1995 he published When Elephants Weep, an international best seller, followed by the equally popular Dogs Never Lie About Love.

He also wrote “The Evolution of Fatherhood A Celebration of Animal and Human Families”

Masson offers a remarkable look at one of the most fulfilling roles in the animal world: fatherhood. With fascinating insight, impeccable research, and captivating writing, controversial psychoanalyst Jeffrey Masson, a new father himself, introduces us to the world’s best dads.
Best Dads List: The Emperor Penguin, the wolf, the beaver, the sea horse, and a South American monkey, the marmoset.
Worst Dads List: Lions, Jaguars, Bears, and Humans.
On the “links” page, see “Milk Sucks” remembering that the species doing this to cows is homosapiens. This lifestyle was organized by humans, and that by and large, that industrial, feed-lot, efficiency-based mass production society was also run, politically and for the most part religiously, by men.

The dairy industry, naturally, also caters to the school industry. (see “Stop Dairy Industry from Milking School Lunches for Profit“).** There do seem to be some comparisons between cows in feedlots being dosed with BGH to make them produce more, the quick separation of nursing or very young of the species from their mothers, to to pre-designed slots in the assemblyline of life (whether preschool for kids — send nursing and other mothers to the corporate factory (exceptions for the middle class or wealthy who can opt out of it, but when a non-upper-middle-class or wealthy mother actually stays home with her kids, it’s “Society’s Burden” or some crackpot eccentric, or a “welfare queen”) — and how animals we use for what we can extract from them, or test on them (drugwise).
**From “Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine”:

PCRM [Aug 2012 post] recently petitioned the federal government to stop requiring milk in the National School Lunch Program. The federal government spends more money on dairy products than any other food item in the school lunch program. But research shows that milk does not improve bone health and is the No. 1 source of saturated fat in children’s diets.
“Milk doesn’t make children grow taller and stronger, but it can make them heavier,” says PCRM nutrition education director Susan Levin, M.S., R.D. “We are asking Congress and the USDA to put children’s interests above the interests of the dairy industry. Focusing on milk as the single most important source of calcium in children’s diets distracts schools and parents from foods that can actually build bones, like beans and leafy greens.”


The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory is a 1984 book by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. It argues that Sigmund Freud deliberately suppressed his early hypothesis that hysteria is caused by sexual abuse during infancy, a conclusion that Masson reached while he had access to some of Freud’s unpublished letters as projects director of the Sigmund Freud Archives.[1]

“Some of Freud’s unpublished letters” is a major understatement, and dismissive …. as is even calling it “the seduction theory.”

1990, he came out with: “In the Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst“:

[Book description]: He was the rising star of psychoanalysis, an intimate associate of Anna Freud and Kurt Eissler, a member of the Freudian “inner circle” with unrestricted access to the Freud Archives. And then Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson threw it all away because he dared to break the psychoanalytic community’s deepest taboo: he told the truth in public. As he unmasks the pretensions and abuses of this elite profession, Masson invites us to eavesdrop on the shockingly unorthodox analysis he was subjected to in the course of his analytic training. But the more prestige Masson attained, the more he came to doubt not only the integrity of his colleagues, but the validity of their method. In the end, he blew the whistle–fully aware of the personal and professional consequences.

With wit, wonder, and unflinching candor, Masson brilliantly exposes the cult of psychoanalysis and recounts his own self-propelled fall from grace. A sensation when it first appeared, Final Analysis is even more provocative and engrossing today. Written with passion and humor, this is the book that revealed a revered profession for what it was–and launched Masson on his true career.

Review from The Library Journal :
A former projects director of the Sigmund Freud Archives, Masson claims that he was fired for espousing and publicizing views concerning the sexual abuse of children that radically challenged psychoanalytic theories. Since then, he has been a thorn in the side of mental health professionals with his searing critiques of therapy. Here he abandons his formidable research skills for a personal glimpse into how, in his training and psychoanalytic career, he too became enmeshed in the mystique that psychoanalysis could cure unhappiness and that analysts were all wise and moral. Although Masson describes with great candor his wasted analysis, his rise in the elite inner circle, and his close ties with Kurt Eissler and Anna Freud, this is no autobiography but rather an attempt to knock psychoanalysis from its pedestal once and for all. Recommended.
– Janice Arenofsky, formerly with Arizona State Lib., Phoenix
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

This material ties DIRECTLY into family court matters, as psychologists, evaluators, GALs, and others to this day, in the course of promoting and expanding their profession, have (in my opinion) the same core defects. Child sexual abuse and attacks on children and women is a form of violence and traumatizing. It’s going to affect them. To fail to address the attacks and then go about to characterize the relationships between the attacked and the attackers is — and this author said so in 1984 — to do violence to their (those attacked) inner souls. In our day, stealing one’s children in retaliation for reporting prior abuse is also a form of severe violence intended to silence a parent. It is an assault on the truth.

Of course there is a taboo and hardship, difficulty, talking about violent acts by adults upon children unable to resist, who are sometimes dependent on them for care! I don’t like it, no one likes it — but that’s still no excuse for covering it up and calling it something else, which is simply lying.
That is exactly how I see it. The “Hegelian conflict” in these matters are between factual, events, and the need to diagnose minimize the facts and maximize the effects. The incentive, besides general arrogance and covering up this abuse, is also financial.
The Atlantic Monthly, February 1984, published Masson’s article on how he came to understand that Freud actually believed his patients’ reports of violent sexual assaults upon them as children, how his colleagues in 1895-96 received this report, “The Etiology of Hysteria,” how they responded and that, while the now-isolated (on this topic) Freud in 1907 rejected this theory, it haunted him for the rest of his life.
How published editions of his letters, or, for example, “The Origins of Psychoanalysis,” including Freud’s daughter, Anna among the editors, sa late as the 1950s CENSORED (excised, omitted) Freud’s continuing pre-occupation with this, and what this means for psychoanalysis itself.

It is both validating and disturbing to read how Freud’s colleagues responded, his subsequent isolation, and, moreover, how this, I’m going to say, courageous 20th century individual J.M. Masson, who saw and cared enough (i.e., had some integrity) to want to undo some of this censorship for the sake of the truth and future clients, he was promptly dismissed from the archives, eventually lampooned in the New Yorker by a journalist, who he then sued (along with The New Yorker), followed by 12 years of lawsuits, finally deciding that as psychiatrists were rejecting the work, he’d write about something else he loved, animals. Perhaps you’ve heard of “When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals“??
Please keep in mind that at about this time (early, mid-1980s) the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts as an organization was picking up speed, supporting, and funders.

What’s in this material alone (let alone other books by the same person) really does shake the foundations of psychoanalysis to the core. Connecting the dots, a lot of psychology as practiced today is the development of that field to get around the domination of psychoanalysts, typically the province of those who could afford the treatments. Nicholas Cummings and his Foundation (formerly head of mental health for Kaiser, creater of American Biodyne, and sponsor of the “Our Broken Courts Family Initiative,” in part) per his own interview (I believe in “psychotherapy

This is heavyweight material; whether it’s true or false, matters. My sense that it’s true parallels similar behaviors in related fields today. Huge efforts are poured into characterizing individuals reporting, truthfully, violence or crimes against them or immediate family members, as having a “problem” or being the problem, and labeling (and/or treating) that problem with therapy, mandated or all but, through court orders. Of course such are a problem — they are a problem to certain professions, and a problem to the coverup of violence, and the extent of violence, towards the most vulnerable in society, which includes children (boys and girls, young and adolescent) and their mothers. Yes, I said “mothers…” which is a subset of the category “women.” (In the inset, the font changes are of course mine. No one publishes that many in a single article!)

These two fields are based primarily on theory as practiced on humans (with or without their informed consent) — I have next to zero respect left for these fields of study, although I definitely have a healthy respect for their influence in the wrong hands (where they currently are).

EDUCATION — as a field of study

PSYCHOLOGY — as a field of study
They have the lowest entrance requirements, tend to behave like religions in practice (they are based on theories that are constantly evolving, demand an endless supply of subject matter to practice on, and are marked by gurus. They are also highly political). They can harm people, and do, and widespread, can harm a nation.
Psychology, in particular, has very nasty connections to wartime — i.e., how does one talk an entire nation into going to war to profit private interests? Obviously the ability to persaude massive groups of people to virtually sacrifice their children (in the prime of life) and life energies, resources (for the civilian populations) and produce generations of orphans, and shell-shocked veterans needing after-care or, not getting it, taking the war home to their families and hurting them.
And yet, what are the family and conciliation courts all about? By design…..from what I can tell, they are about the strategized setting up of specialized courts by pre-arrangement of those running them, by which the public can be billed at large for indoctrinating those who are netted by these courts into referral businesses in the fields of counseling, relationship education, and mediation — i.e., the mental, behavioral health framework.

They are about developing the fields of practice at public expense (through fees, and through federal and other grants) with private money, as I have shown in the FUND-a-Mentals post (as the Conciliation Code spells out) to help the very bureaucracy that elicited a “SEC” (Strategic Evaluation Commission) in May 2012 in California for its rapid expansion, bloated staff, and alleged culture of control // fiefdoms, at the top of the courts.

The training programs ARE the vehicles of corruption, per this 1997 review of bank statements AND fronts and backs of cancelled checks…. This particular short article is a “print-and-read” basic primer of getting evidence — let alone, of what’s been going on…
Which I blogged on Jan. 24, 2013 and have been reporting throughout the history of this blog. When “aliases” (corporations, or funds within a county or state, etc.) that literally do not exist, are getting checks made out and deposited (or, money transferred under that guise) — that’s fraud. And that’s what Marv Bryer discovered.
As to the funds that DO exist (without commenting on how they are being handled), these should be discoverable by the public. Go figure, the CAFRs are not publicized to show collective net worth of government (which would put the lie to the need for taxes of almost any sort, at this point, for public services), nor are the major media publicizing the lists of existing funds in any given government, although they can be found often on a comptroller’s site. (I did, once I knew where to look and how to look).

BUT — the pattern of non-reporting, and strategizing to control the public at its expense, abusively so — is hardly new. What’s new every few years, it seems, is mechanisms for doing it, new techniques added to the longstanding ones.

Family Courts really ARE where the Educators and Psychologists are funded to practice on whoever possible, funded at public and private expense. As this can destroy a household in minutes — or months, real estate where owned can go belly-up, as well as businesses. To make rulings of this sort, ideally, one needs judges, courtrooms, and attorneys (“Officers of the Court”). Cast, Characters, Stage, Scenery. The thing is, who wrote the scripts? People tend to resist being robbed, evicted, enslaved, and degraded, which is why it’s also handy to have bailiffs, weapons checks in courtrooms, and outside them law enforcement and prisons (a high-profit industry, it would seem. At least judging by Corrections Corporation of America)….
POST SPLIT IN TWO 06-04-2013. The first several paragraphs will start also the new one, which developed simply by my looking up Stanley Cohen again, and then looking up a recent “Stanley Cohen” awardee, who turns out to be working at The Kinsey Institute @ Indiana University. I think it’s time to talk about the direct throwback to where did Fritz Balluseck get his subject matter from, not just where Kinsey got HIS subject matter from. It is this treatment of people as “subject matter” attitude which (in my opinion, and I’m a woman) the whole field “reeks” of.
Anyone who hangs around the personnel cannot but eventually be struck by the prominence given to promoting psychology, and the insistence that the public should pay for professional “educators” and “trainers” (formerly a term used of animals, right?).
In case you still don’t “get” this — go to my Vital Links at the bottom, and carefully read a Vol2#2 1983 Newsletter or two by AFCC (1984, Vol. 3) and note the address! This organization tends to skip states a lot: In 1984 it moved to Oregon. In 1989, when Stanley Cohen retired, it moved to Wisconsin, where main HQ now is, I think.
(Stanley Cohen, Dept. of Psychiatry, Oregon Health Sciences University)
(Example of Divisions in this Department, current):
Adult Attention Deficit Disorders Clinic
Adult Neuropsychology Clinic
Adult Psychiatry Clinic
Avel Gordly Center for Healing
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic
Clinical Psychology
Complex Neuropsychiatry Clinic
Forensic Psychiatry
Intercultural Psychiatric Program
Obsessive Compulsive Disorders Clinic
Pediatric Neuropsychology Clinic
Psychosomatic Medicine
Sleep Disorders Program
Sleep Medicine

List of AFCC Stanley Cohen Award recipients might be familiar to some of us who are protesting or promoting “parental alienation” stuff.. Many of these people are still around, they have been writing, conferencing, and operating in this field for many years, while children are being affected by the mindset and policies of this “we’ll run the courts” mentality:
Here’s that list. I looked up the 2012 awardee, who was unknown to me:

    Past Recipients

2014 update: Amy, above is also (with plenty of others) on the editorial board of the AFCC mouthpiece “Family Court Review,” jointly published with Hofstra University, and Stanley Cohen was a former editor, along with Meyer Elkin, and Hugh McIsaac.
LOOK IT UP YOURSELF (easy google search!). Look under the law school at Hofstra University which is in New York State.
POST SPLIT IN TWO 06-04-2013. The first several paragraphs will start also the new one, which developed simply by my looking up Stanley Cohen again, and then looking up a recent “Stanley Cohen” awardee, who turns out to be working at The Kinsey Institute @ Indiana University. I think it’s time to talk about the direct throwback to where did Fritz Balluseck get his subject matter from, not just where Kinsey got HIS subject matter from. It is this treatment of people as “subject matter” attitude which (in my opinion, and I’m a woman) the whole field “reeks” of.

Section of Post Moved. Look for a Link in Near Future

SO o o o . . . If I can summarize here…

At the heart of this issue of the Family and Conciliation Courts seems to be these two issues, family violence and sexual abuse of children.
I believe the tiebacks to eugenicists should be sufficient to tell us — quit psychologizing criminal behavior, and yes, those two categories of behavior are indeed criminal — they are violent, dominate and oppress others, cause injury (sometimes death) and trauma, etc.
Rather than having generation after generation of renowned (or recent) Ph.D.s being funded by us — and private foundations — to study these things and publish their findings where the victims and their parents are unlikely to (1) hear the accounts and (2) have input into the assessments — I suggest we remember the origins of the field.
There HAS to be a better response to this than appealing to the better side of this type of sociopathic leadership. And as multiple forms of warfare on the average citizen (i’m talking in the US especially) are now being waged :::
Psychological, educational, and economic (in particular), plus of course working towards getting us to lay down our arms (Newtown, Connecticut) and train our young in the art of the lockdown — while conditioning parents to keep sending them off to institutions where they have been, and will continue to be no doubt, sometimes molested by their teachers (or peers), dumbed down, treated like animals (including being caste and race-sorted), NOT learn much productive about the history of their own country (whether at the top or the bottom of the rankings, as to public schools anyhow) — and their parents will be billed for this
It’s time to
Just Say No to Warshak” (and friends). It’s time to start telling this story and reminding those who think there are different kinds of people, as if these were genetically or racially defined (inherently) — “LOW_INCOME” and “MIDDLE CLASS” and the “PROFESSIONALS” whose job it is to coach, train, and lecture the Lower and Middle (while being upper-middle by many definitions) while they eat off the Queen’s table, so to speak. They are very talented, magnificently so in some case, hired hands. Who need to be reminded of the truth of the histories (individual and collective) they have been degreed and privileged to re-write and re-vise.
ALL of this ties into the economic system, and it’s that economic system (investment banker sorts) + government + corporations in collusion to run the Educational, Psychological, Psychiatric, Medical (Rx), SOCIAL and INSTITUTIONAL environment we are born into, grow up, give birth (or father children), get educated (perhaps) or have our children educated in, and eventually we die in this system. Some die overseas in war, some in institutions (sometimes prematurely so in institutions, including under public guardianship, etc.), some of old age nicely with a family, or having outlived a spouse… We all die sooner or later, so to me the question is, what use is going to be made of the time we are still alive.
I know that I did not complete college, develop a work life (a good one), have children, raise those children, leave a violent marriage the LEGAL way, and even then acted honorably towards my ex-batterer (also a deadbeat Dad by choice; Some are not by choice; this one had some….) and managed not to commit felonies along the way. In return, my children were stolen overnight, I was hauled repeatedly into this Archipelago on frivolous lawsuits, staged (it eventually became obvious) hearings, and eventually was driven out of my profession, and then out of a work life — only to THEN find out what had been concealed (deliberately) from me and others like me, by those funneling and herding us into the courts — the sheer existence of the intent to keep some people IN poverty and turmoil for the purposes of studying them until they are spent.
That is not acceptable for anyone. But, to make it different, we need to do our homework and get the account straight. I think the primary area to focus on is not arguing with the psychologists, psychoanalysts, psychologists, or people obsessed with the psychophysiology of arousal and getting research grants, lots of them, to write it up.
I THINK we need to figure out a different way to survive economically (become financially independent as possible), for the sake of our children, remove certain nonprofit privileges, stop a slush fund or two (just for the fun and skill of it) and in general, start solving our own problems. COMPLETELY.
please comment if you have a better idea….. By the way, acquiescence is not a better idea.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
ADDED Dec. 2013, these are just lookups (Wiki):
Looking into the origins of the International Psychoanalytic Association, one starts to wonder what kind of creature we have here,
Apparently IPA Society was the idea of Ferenczi, founded in 1910 by Freud, but Freud had earlier begun weekly meetings in 1902 with his colleagues. In light of how relevant is this topic, I recommend at least reading that Wiki, and clicking on various names.. incl. Karl Abraham, student of Freud, son of a “Jewish religion teacher”whose medical studies led him to meet C.G. Jung; Max Eitington (hover cursor, who I see was later President of IPA, and had a lot to do with establishing standards, including you can’t psychonalyze unless you’ve been through it, son of wealth, used hypnosis to help war vets), Ernest Jones, the first English-speaking psychoanalyst who:

Jones, appalled at what he had seen of the institutionalised treatment of the mentally ill, began experimenting with hypnotic techniques in his clinical work.[3]
It was in 1905 in a German psychiatric journal that Jones first encountered Freud’s writings, in the form of the famous Dora case-history. It was thus he formed, as his autobiography records: “the deep impression of there being a man in Vienna who actually listened with attention to every word his patients said to him…a revolutionary difference from the attitude of previous physicians…”[4]
Jones’s early attempts to combine his interest in Freud’s ideas with his clinical work with children proved to have seriously negative consequences for his career. In 1906 he was arrested and charged with two counts of indecent assault on two adolescent girls he had interviewed in his capacity as an inspector of schools for “mentally defective” children. At the court hearing Jones maintained his innocence, claiming the girl’s were fantasising. The magistrate took the view that there was no prospect of any jury believing the testimony of such children and Jones was acquitted.[5] In 1908, employed as a pathologist at a London hospital, Jones accepted a colleague’s challenge to demonstrate the repressed sexual memory underlying the hysterical paralysis of a young girl’s arm. Jones duly obliged but prior to conducting the interview he omitted to inform the girl’s consultant or arrange for a chaperone. Subsequently he faced complaints from the girl’s parents over the nature of the interview and was forced to resign his hospital post.[6]
Jones’s first serious relationship was with Loe Kann, a wealthy Dutch émigré referred to him in 1906 after she had become addicted to morphine during treatment for a serious kidney condition. Their relationship lasted until 1913 and ended with Kann in analysis with Freud and Jones, at Freud’s behest, with Sándor Ferenczi.[7]
A tentative romance with Anna Freud did not survive the disapproval of her father.
= = = = = =

. . .
With his career prospects in Britain in serious difficulty,*** (SEE allegations of sexual [or “indecent”] assault of mentally ill adolescent girls, above) Jones sought refuge in Canada in 1908, taking up teaching duties in the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Toronto (from 1911, as Associate Professor of Psychiatry). He also, in addition to his private psychoanalytic practice, worked as pathologist to the Toronto Asylum and Director of its psychiatric outpatient clinic. Following further meetings with Freud in 1909 at Clark University, Massachusetts, where Freud gave a series of lectures on psychoanalysis, and in Holland the following year, Jones set about forging strong working relationships with the nascent American psychoanalytic movement, giving some 20 papers or addresses to American professional societies at venues ranging from Boston, to Washington and Chicago. In 1910 he co-founded the American Psychopathological Association and the following year the American Psychoanalytic Association, serving as its first Secretary until 1913.[9]

[Food for thought. Shows the rivalries, in-fighting, ousting, and in general behaviors of the entire crowd].

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Have you read from madness to mutiny by Amy neustein and Michael Lesher.?

    A must read.


    Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint


    February 6, 2013 at 4:36 am

    • Not yet, although it’s advertised at nearly every conference or website of a certain type. I probably will one of these days, thanks for the reference.

      Are you going to read the Atlantic Article?

      {{Rest of this comment may sound sarcastic, but I really am wondering who else is willing to look at some of these other issues, and sources of information.}}

      How much of this blog have you read — any comments on its materials? (Did Neustein and Lesher tell us anything about the AFCC, NACC, CRC, CPR, SVN (Supervised Visitation Network), or their funders — including but not at all limited to the US taxpayers (HHS, DOJ….) or the connection between nationwide nonprofits to strange laws across the nation (conciliation courts) re-classifying extreme violence as family disputes and claiming jurisdiction over the cases?

      Have you looked at the Fathers and Families Coalition of America website yet, or any of its affiliates azffc.org)

      Have you yet looked up a “CAFR” for your local state and county, and located the family law trust fund (if there is one), the child support accounts, the children’s trust fund (bet there is)?

      I probably will. However right now, I am reporting under reported material with the hope that some of the public will wake up, protest the welfare diversions into marriage/fatherhood, if possible stay off the welfare/child support system (even if they divorce: find another way), etc.

      And reconfigure their lives to do something about this chaos.

      Generally speaking, I cannot get through to most noncustodial mothers (or those in a custody challenge) because they’re either too distraught, or off at a rally, or filming their stories for Lawless America in hopes there’s still a nice, moral authority figure at the helm of our government, whether President Obama, or Congress. It’s also next to impossible to get through to the leadership of the DV industry (they’re on a roll with the program material), and the reason it’s not possible to get through to the Crisis in the Courts individuals appears to relate to the organizations and individuals in them having a true and heartfelt desires to suck up to whoever has the most power and public platform — which currently seems to be some who are part of the problem in promoting clinical psychology as (if it were actually) a helpful science.

      Women’s rights or women’s organizations are not vitally interested in the family court problems, i.e., lawyers don’t like to eat their own as an entire field of practice. (I just looked at another national one yesterday).

      Guess am getting old and crotchedy about this information ….But what this guy Moussaieff Masson did is inspiring — he appears to have been smart, did have the educational opportunity (like Harvard!), and a perspective of being raised under parents enamored of a guru — and made some decisions about what was unacceptable. He decided it was unacceptable to strategically censor the reporting of sexual abuse of chiildren in the annals of a very successful and international profession, i.e., psychoanalysis.

      So that gives me hope that sometimes individuals, if well-placed, can really make a difference.
      It helps if the information can be published and readable, of course, something I definitely need to work on.

      Let's Get Honest

      February 6, 2013 at 8:56 am

  2. Thank for sharing such thorough research. I am looking forward to following your enclosed links to get more in-depth information. I applaud you in bravely presenting such a controversial viewpoint so publicly.

    Currently, I am acquiring my own first-hand experience of being at the mercy of the Family Court system and of the truth presented on your blog. On my blog, I will be adding my voice and research to bring awareness to the devastating extent our system is failing children and families in general. Based on what I have been able to glance over I may be referring to your blog in my posts quite often. My dealings with Family Court have only just started, and hopefully by being armed with the type of information in your blog–the fate of our family will perhaps have a better outcome than the statistics predict.


    February 9, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    • Amanda, I just looked at your blog.

      There’s very little concrete detail or even indicator (who does, what, work life, education, husband, geography, your kids, etc.) in there.

      It seems you had a second child in about April 2011, but now you are going through Family Court (separation)?

      This is a recent entry about some 2012 event?

      Does this refer to a medical emergency, or is medical emergency the metaphor.

      (Actually, I just skimmed your wordpress blog, read several posts.) I am about a generation and a half older (probably), I had children later in life after the work & degrees, it was a great time, but poor choice of spouse, and that’s taken up another entire generation, i.e., my children are now legally, at least, adult.

      I hope you are not about to separate or go through family court against your husband, father of your children. However if you are, time is going to speed up — fast, and if it’s not possible to stay out of that court, and you want to speak to me, say so on a comment, and I’ll email. I am blogging things someone should’ve told me, but didn’t, and thus also blogging why I think they didn’t. It’s spelled, m.o.n.e.y. and private agenda.

      I began journaling at nine also, and was often alone growing up (though not without family, but intellectually, emotionally alone. It happens). I made my own way in life, at least connecting with others and working with them, living with them. When I finally, being a fairly complete and happy person, came within range of my family again, and had children in front of one of them (who’d opted to abort, I heard, twice, probably out of convenience, but I don’t know because she never discussed this with me) — and was in abuse, they did nothing to stop the abuse, basically. I mean, for some smart people, they were functionally (like other communities), clueless.

      So when I again found out how to file to legally evict an abuser, and started rebuilding and making decisions about where to live, how to live, what to do — somehow this same family chose to attack — and have destroyed — nearly ALL my primary relationships in order to retain what I call the “Dominatrix” (only there are men involved) relationship — i.e., for me to haves a set of standards and values outside this family (which basically has none, and acknowledges none — they ARE the standard, and make things up as they go, meaning it’s never possible to have a discussion on anything related to truth or logic, only the facade of a conversation which, as with my ex-batterer, is really about force. SO in addition to the basic abusive, controlling, force-based relationship, there is also the lying aspect, which in my opinion is simply to justify the abuse, and is part of it.

      Anyhow, I don’t know your situation, but like I said, I hope you are doing OK with your husband.

      The world doesn’t work probably like you think it does, so as a writer, this will be fascinating, but understand, it’s not all in your head. What’s outside really counts, at least as much.

      Watch out for the “Crisis in the Courts” crowd. They have backers, and are not reporting honestly. They report the effects; they do not report the causes, at least not accurately.

      I’m looking for people who can write, who can reason, who can research, and who are highly motivated. However, sounds like you have young children and issues to deal with.

      How did you find this blog, please?

      Let's Get Honest

      February 9, 2013 at 1:14 pm

      • I would be very grateful for the email–let’s say I didn’t have much choice regarding getting on train, but now it’s going full speed and I am desperately trying to get us off this ride or safe or find an emergency break.


        February 9, 2013 at 2:20 pm

      • I just got the chance to read your comment in full– thank you. I was hoping to use this experience to one day help someone else, and speak out for the need for reform, etc.—after reading more of your blog, my concerns about blogging about my family’s situation publicly have been confirmed. I have some editing to do and hope you will contact me.


        February 9, 2013 at 2:49 pm

      • I sincerely apologize for the excess comments—pressed send accidentally while I was being used as a jungle gym for my toddler. My email is amandapoet@live.com and I find a link to your post via Facebook page share from Safe Kid International. Please edit my comments as you see fit.


        February 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm

      • Thank you so very much for this blog. I think you are among a very small minority that sees what is happening & desires find a way to survive & cope with it while maintaining your integrity. Bravo!

        I too am a single, protective mother & DV victim whom lost custody of my 3 children in 2004 at the ages of 13, 11 & 8. i am a female veteran & pioneer woman West Point graduate. I was shocked by the tremendous abuses I’ve suffered in every area of my life. It took me a long time to recover. I keep getting knocked back down as I am also an organized gang stalking target.
        I found your blog tonight because I have been torn about whether to go to the bmcc this weekend. I do not know anyone going as I have been pretty well isolated. I did contact one of the speakers a couple years back whom was actually pretty rude & insulting to me. I came across the article: “A Life Sentence”. I saw your comment & was curious about your comment about the bmcc. As such, I came to your blog. I am recovering from a very negative experience 2 weeks ago & I am not up to going to the conference to experience any form of harassment. Money is also an issue, although I already paid for my hotel room. But if I don’t go I will save gas & food money that I really need right now.

        After reading a couple of your blog posts I think I will not go. I have done tons of reading to try to understand what has happened to me, my family, community, state, nation & world. I think you are right on track with the root of these issues & the NWO.
        There are people trying hard to hang in there with integrity, but we tend to be targeted & isolated. I recently saw a video done by the young Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson Family about his concern over the great disparaty of wealth in the US between the 1% & 99%. I can imagine he faces tremendous pressure to get in line with the other’s of his class & family. There are many TI’s speaking online, but it gets very confusing because there are a lot of perpetrators posing as targets to discredit real victims. As such, I usually don’t comment but I am interested in your blog. I love to research & get to the root of issues. I plan to fully research the other articles on your blog. Again, thank you! I hope you are doing well!


        May 9, 2013 at 1:06 am

      • Quick reply, Thank you for expressing response to this blog. I know it’s read a lot, but it’s rare to get a thoughtful response; however I have connected with some very smart, diligent mothers over time, in different states.

        I would like to talk to you more; as this issue with the BMCC directing women off-course to the cause (or at least a primary motivation) of why custody is being switched (“It’s the economy, stupid!”) and WITHHOLDING not just information, but also tools to get to the information that at least might make sense of it. I am also working on a draft again.

        Could you tell (or provide) which link you’re referring to that led here; and also what is a “TI”??

        After many years I attended one BMCC conference (living on the opposite coast) but by then already knew its primary business was “marketing to distressed mothers,” and knew about many of the presenters. Did you know one of the presenters (this is a bit off-track, but seems symbolic of how people just don’t check out people that come across as “Friends” by subject matter) — and this is not a reflection on the person’s ability to litigate in court — but the younger Hoffheimer (Kristin, I think) was married to a lesbian down-hill racing biker who was caught in a cross-country (multistate) sting for selling marijuana? They were busted, and while this attorney wasn’t implicated — she expressed no regret or remorse at having hooked up with someone who thought it appropriate to transport illegal substances (yeah, yeah, we know the debate of its legality; I’m from California) — in a truck; or that this behavior MIGHT compromise the credibility of the BMCC conference.

        That’s hardly the main point — the main point is, they do not teach women about fatherhood.gov, access/visitation, the role fo the OCSE (child support) or in short almost anything. THey don’t inform people about the AFCC as a nonprofit. Result? A bunch of underinformed, though very outspoken followers who are subject to manipulation from the platform by nonprofit organizations with mutual self-interests.

        No one is saying (and I’m not claiming) that the abuse reported, and associated distress, wasn’t real. However, I do know some women who continue to associate with this group, and I’ve had to cut basic communications, as it’s like talking to someone involved in a cult. They are still believing that if loud enough COMPLAINT is made, someone will fix the “boo-boos,” and haven’t yet figured out what our own government is up to, namely setting up money-laundering systems throughout welfare (fees for friends), and then using the distressed population (a.k.a. “poor people” which you become soon enough after getting in the system if you weren’t headed there already) -as subject matter for social science studies.

        While this is hardly comforting information, and it’s not always something I know how to manage — it IS the truth; and I would always rather know the truth in a matter, when making time-sensitive and critical decisions about how to respond.

        In any basic situation (surely your military training showed this), we have to make decisions RIGHT THEN about what to do, or how to respond (including whether to respond or not). These should be informed decisions.

        I have made it my practice to attempt to hang out with wise people (see Proverbs; “he that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of fools….”) and to when possible dissociate with people whose practice is withholding, and/or dishonest portrayal of reality. A lot of that takes place at the professional level; and as our society naturally looks UP to professionals, they can tend to be a little too obsequious.

        Do you have contact with your three children, have you been put on supervised visitation, or what happened? I would like to learn more. If it’s in an area where I’ve already done some lookups, I will direct you to them; there are a few very intelligent people (male & female) on this topic on the East Coast, particularly in Massachusetts/Connecticut.

        Take care. My kids were transferred overnight when the younger one had JUST turned 13. It was wicked how it was done, and I am still reeling with the aftereffects, but still also standing (surviving) and we have not yet seen the end of the story. Systems that mess with innocent people — and my kids — will have to give and answer and show some accountability. THis system entirely messed with the wrong woman, and I dedicated this blog and my time to exposing it; not just for my own kids alone, who have now aged out, but were dramatically affected and stolen from (as was I). You cannot have a parallel and conflicting contradictory set of laws — one which says action XYZ is a felony, but another one (Family & Conciliation Courts) which says — well, it would be BUT if we redirect the case to THIS court(courthouse, judge, etc.) then by laws that we lobbied for, it’s NOT a felony.

        No wonder there’s so much cognitive dissonance! Is assault and battery a crime, or not a crime? How about child molestation? How about kidnapping? How about stalking? How about fraud in court? How about perjury? How about contempt of child support orders, deliberate and ongoing? How about harassing others through filing frivolous lawsuits to the point they cannot conduct a normal life?

        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
        So long as this system exists, the District Attorneys and prosecutors can “dump” cases into it, while continuing to get grants for “victims of Crime” (never saw a dime of it, but was victim of plenty of crimes), DV organizations can continue to get grants to “educate” professionals on what is and what is not domestic violence (failing to show that in family court, it’s just a family dispute anyhow) — and so forth. Meanwhile, the marriage/fatherhood grants system can continue to distress the distressed populations, and the egregiously harmed children adn simply MAKE UP causes for it – i.e., the created field of responsibel fatherhood.

        What’s kind of fun (puzzle-solving) for me is to look up WhoDunIt and quote them in the planning process, and also report on who paid for it. This is what brought me to realizing it’s an economic matter and part of (innate to) the entire tax system itself, the nonprofit/individual wage-earner divide. Without a historical workup, it just makes zero sense.

        Add into this “what’s with all the psychology?” and you have some serious, und under-reported answers. I have seen SOME progress and changes happen (locally) over the four years of blogging, but wish more people were on it. I am not positioned as a “train the trainer” organization and don’t want to form a nonprofit, so there you have it..

        Anyhow, write again, and if you do go to BMCC, shoot me another comment, I’ll get some links. Search for anything reading “Our Broken Courts” on this post for an indicator — some of that was facilitated out here, some with BMCC presenters help, and some from a prominent psychologist; the conferencew as in Arizona, but I think he comes from Nevada (DNR offhand).

        Let's Get Honest

        May 9, 2013 at 8:42 am

  3. Reblogged this on AmandaPoet's Blog and commented:
    As I write more about my attempt to preserve the well-being of my children within the confines of Family Court and a society in denial about the prevelance of sexual abuse, the following heavy-weight of a post will demonstrate the potential difficulty I will be facing.


    February 9, 2013 at 1:05 pm

  4. […] In 1954 “The Origins of Psychoanalysis” (Freud’s letters to Fliess, 1887-1902), allegedly censored of cases involving sexual abuse of minors, was […]

  5. […] see “Stunning Validation by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: The Assault on Truth and the Origins of Psychoanal…” and the Kinsey/AFCC/Stanley Cohen connection (Stanley Cohen, up at the Oregon Health […]

  6. […] “An Assault on the Truth,” (see my “Stunning Validation of Jeffrey Mousaieff Masson” post of Feb. 5, 2013), meaning, a conscious and deliberate attempt by associated professionals […]

  7. Thank you, for this is an important blog/article but it requires refinement so that many others may easily understand the relevance it plays in their lives & immediate familes & how such corrupt practice(s) both severely & collectively by courts/judges/police/social services & government departments, aided-&-abetted by lawyers/solicitors, barristers can impact so Negatively on the Child/Children/Family &, communities/Society and generations, as a whole & therefore so destructive a path for Humanity. Please contact me if you want to know of my related experince. aka-Jon360

    Vijay L. Dandiker

    August 12, 2014 at 4:58 am

    • Thanks for comment. Many of my posts need refinement for sure. However, what do you think is the relevance of the post? Which corrupt practices are you referring to from it?

      Re: Contacting you — I don’t normally make contact without good cause, and am personally involved in my own legal situation (again), i.e., more than occupied. However, if you want to describe your situation, and can write it up in a non-hearsay, non-accuse-my-ex (i.e., anecdotal only) way that would be of public interest, and tell my readers about operations in your area — I’m willing to consider posting it. If you want to talk about the case using names, there should be a related court docket somewhere. As you can see, I am most interested in the groups collaborating to run the courts, and history of various organizations influencing this, moreso than individual rulings. I take a different position than many on these fields and on the courts. What jurisdiction or geography are you in?

      Let's Get Honest

      August 12, 2014 at 5:12 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: