Deep corruption of academic psychology

The whole academic subject of social psychology has been recently revealed to be plagued by unreplicated and irreproducible results, fraudulent research, and extreme left-wing bias.

In related fields, the most famous result in decision theory is wrong, and another hyped gay gene theory is bogus. And I am just criticizing the research of reputable scholars that is published in the most prestigious journals. Of course the lower level stuff is junk.

According to Wikipedia, the most influential post-WWII book was The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950 by a left-wing Jewish organization whose mission is to advocate for Jewish ethnic interests.

Based on the summary there, the book is a wacky mixture of Freudianism, homophobia, Jewish paranoia, leftist dogmatism, and anti-family propaganda. Most of all, it was an attempt by Jews to pathologize non-Jews.

The authors hated the Nazis, and I can understand that, but they keep trying to associate right-wingers with Nazis and authoritarians. The Nazis were socialists, not right-wingers. Leftists are much more authoritarian than right-wingers.

The book has no scientific merit. The authors were even opposed to the idea of empirically testing the claims of the book. And yet it was the leading book in the field.

The book's thesis about right-wing authoritarianism continues to be used by Jews and other anti-Christian academics to promote claims that right-wingers are evil in various ways. Because of the definitions used, Jews are claimed to be the least authoritarian of major religious groups.

But Jews are actually much more authoritarian than other religious groups. I used to think that the Catholics were the most authoritarian, but they are much less authoritarian than Jews, Moslems, and even many Protestants. But Catholic authority is mainly over who can perform the sacraments, and what can be represented as official doctrine. Judaism teaches obedience to institutional authority. Rabbis pass judgment on disputes that Catholic priests would never consider.

If you look at authoritarian movements, from Marxism to the modern Democrat Party, you will find Jews supporting and leading them.

Another major point of the book, and of its Jewish sponsors, was to create racial animosity by making various bogus accusations of racism. And another point was to attack the autonomy of the nuclear family.

The book's thesis about right-wing authoritarianism continues to be used by Jews and other anti-Christian academics to promote claims that right-wingers are evil in various ways. Because of the definitions used, Jews are claimed to be the least authoritarian of major religious groups.

But Jews are actually much more authoritarian than other religious groups. I used to think that the Catholics were the most authoritarian, but they are much less authoritarian than Jews, Moslems, and even many Protestants. Catholic authority is mainly over who can perform the sacraments, and what can be represented as official doctrine. Judaism teaches obedience to institutional authority. Rabbis pass judgment on disputes that Catholic priests would never consider.

If you look at authoritarian movements, from Marxism to the modern Democrat Party, you will find Jews supporting and leading them.

I am not trying to criticize Jews here. If some Jewish organizations want to promote Jews by attacking other ethnic groups, they could be said to be just acting in their own interests. They are no more offensive than Japanese or white nationalist organizations. My quarrel here is with university social science departments that have adopted all this cultural Marxist hate speech, to the exclusion of more scientific and less left-wing views. These academic disciplines have been rotten for decades.

Update: Here is more explanation of gay gene statistical errors.