Beware of any "academic" who must do all the writing, and promoting in a field of their own invention. Or who treats that famous peer-reviewed journal "YouTube" as the preferred forum to promote their views.

According to Wikipedia he is;
...."trained as a lay psychoanalyst, which is defined as a psychoanalyst who does not have a medical degree."

This then promotes the pseudoscience of Freudianism while eliminating the requirement that the proper Freudian analyst must've met the rigors of an outside medical or psychiatric field at its highest level.

Contrast this with the American Psychoanalytic Institutes requirement that candidates be either MDs or hold a Masters in Psychiatry from programs where that is the highest possible achievement.

RationalWiki, ever the enemies of fringe crankery see right through this guy;

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psychohistory

"Psychohistory is an extremely fringe academic field that, in theory, attempts to combine psychology and history, but is, in reality, a fusion of history, pseudohistory, and Freudian psychoanalysis into one giant mess of pseudo-scholarship."

....

"It has failed to gain traction within academia as no departments of psychohistory exist nor are degrees given in the subject at any university, though the rare course in the subject can be found. The historian Jacques Barzun called it "pseudo-historical.""

.....

"One of the main claims of psychohistorians is that violence and war are driven by childrearing methods, child abuse, and infanticide. The last "psychogenetic mode," called the "helping stage" in which abuse and harsh discipline was condemned, was only reached in the mid-20th century. One of the problems with this, of course, is that correlation does not equal causation. Psychohistorians claim that improvements in childrearing led to improvements in society, but perhaps it happened the other way around."

......

"This sort of determinism is evident in deMause's descriptions of World War I, World War II, and the Holocaust. DeMause reduces the causal factors of all these events down to harsh childrearing practices of late 19th century-early 20th century Germany and Austria. However, why such practices existed before then as well and never led to atrocities on the scale of the World Wars and the Holocaust is never explained. DeMause also mostly blows off the mountains of other historical factors, including Germany's history of anti-Semitism and various other social, cultural, political, and economic influences."

His writings on other cultures take info from anthropologists and then dismiss out of hand the conclusions drawn by the respected persons in these fields in order to promote some things unheard of outside of his invented science.

Basically the conclusions you can actually draw from the cross-cultural practice of fellating infants to sleep is that its not incestuous or sexual to many other cultures.

Some tribes are even more stoic about affection. I'm sure that to a few the pat on the back which comforts an upset child is a taboo sexual display.

But disagreement over erogenous zones or prepubescent sexuality is common.

Almost all cultures agree that procreative sex by those who can procreate IS sex.

There is much disagreement over what non-procreative acts constitute sex and whether those before puberty are actually expressing this.

Further, by decreeing that the 20th century child-abuse panic is the peak of civilization and promotes anti-War tendencies, he dismisses all the anthropological evidence which demonstrates that the greater the sexual permissiveness and degree of lavishing physical affection on children, the lower the rate of social violence including warfare. This, despite the fact that much of this laxity is deemed "perverse" by the pathological standards of the warlike West.

( See Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence over at the IPCE Library for more details. )

Freudianism is already crankery. But his own personally invented and self-promoted version is unscientific personal bias attempting to displace good work in Anthropology and History.

Generally speaking, if someone has a legitimate scientific point of view it won't have kewl stock-photo graphics on its website or its own YouTube channel. Academics tend to be dry. And even the publicity hounds like Noam Chomsky know that their work will speak enough for itself that they can go for a simple and plain web page. After all, when your academic peers are critiquing the work, you don't have to be your own best admirer.

Dante