Sigmund Freud, Impostor?

by Friedrich Hansen

The Brexit crisis has revealed among a host of other truisms that the British Conservative Party, by
far the oldest such institutions in the world, suffered a loss of 75 % of its membership ship since
2005 with 35% alone leaving in 2013 after David Cameron’s embrace of same-sex marriage. 1 As I
witnessed myself during my sojourn in London in the decade following 9/11, Freudianism had
arrived in England only with a delay of almost a century, thanks to the unwritten laws of Common
sense going back to Runny Mead. The brave English gentlemen just had no use for the underdog
sophistry called psychoanalysis. It was with Freud that previously Marxist “group think” has been
internalized by subsequently imposing Greek dynamics of hubris and nemesis on the liberal
mainstream. Freudian apologetics of the pleasure principle during the Fin-de-siecle decadence
created the germs for the familiar version of Freudian “primary process” groups focused on sexual
identity. This would be accomplished by the diversity drama of “intersectionality” or “us versus
them” mentality. It unmistakeably follows the trajectory of the anti-authoritarian game of chasing
down “old white males“.2 This archaic dynamic has come to eventually derail the venerable Tory
party.

For what’s the point of sameness and groups mirroring sexual identity and replacing the human
countenance of vis-a-vis love? Same-sex relations are more typological than personal and more
often than not mired in power plays. They are also attached to vision and group think in the
tradition of Greek antiquity. As such today’s rainbow of gay, lesbian, trans, queer is reminding us of
the frozen characters of Aristotle’s disciple Theophrastus.3 Greek types lacked dynamic
personalities in the real world and could only be realized in stage drama. Only with monotheist
marriage and love the Jewish concept of person could arise, namely in the from of an actualization
of the unique human countenance reflecting the image of God. Turning ones back to the human
countenance is tantamount to rejecting the idea of the divine and abandoning Western civilization as
we know it. Equally Freud by ridding human conversation of the “vis a vis” in the psychoanalytic
setting marked the end of Christian empathy and self sacrifice.

This was accomplished by Freud’s shift from memory to imagination or from deed and ritual to
liberal pose and myth. This is the stuff of typologies following the philosophy of Arthur

1 http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6919/the_conservative_party_s_disdain_for_their_membership.
2 https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/classics-studies-no-country-for-white-men/.
3 https://www.city-journal.org/theophrastus-behavior.
Schopenhauer and became irreversible in the context of the Fin-de-siecle tumble from guilt to
shame culture. It was best performed in Oscar Wilde’s unapologetic embrace of decadence in his
novel “The Picture of Dorian Grey”. Freud and Wilde shared with young Adolf Hitler, if
unacknowledged, the fierce rejection of guilt culture and the affirmation of phallic addiction as
Thomas Pynchon has pointed out.4

It is with this in mind that we might doubt the plausibility of same-sex love since it centres on
visibility and attraction by sameness shunning difference. It is therefore closer to possessive
addictions than to empathic and sacrificial love. Not least because of the notoriously deceptive
features of visual perception Judaism came to worships an invisible deity that transcends human
nature and is accessible best by listening to the sublime voice. While human vision is fragmented
and does not quite catch reality, only hearing affords us the full spatial perception which is needed
for all embracing love. It alone is capable of the emotional overflow towards transcendence. By
contrast the view from behind or looking back in hindsight is for ever linked to trouble and death: in
the Hebrew Bible Lot’s wife upon reversing her sights back at Sodom being consumed by fire
instantly turns into a frozen column of salt.

Greeks were prone to diversity and worshipped many visible gods, the Jews only heard the voice of
one single deity talking to them. Which is why Hellenism is concerned with centrifugal typology
and Judaism with centripetal personality. Addiction to attributes like identity & diversity militates
against peerless coherence of the family. While sexual identity is still subject to pride and envy, the
much underappreciated Jewish deity could live without any attributes at all and is ideally addressed
in gender neutral language. The proverbial “hosts” all sharing one Lord, have no sex. This is also
one of the reasons why the oldest Christians, preserved in Eastern Orthodoxy, are still observing the
religious ban on “graven images” (think of Egyptian reliefs). Until today Orthodoxy devotes itself
to a “genderless” flat image of the divine countenance.

This is in stark contrast to Western Christians who keep transgressing the image ban with
representations of the three-dimensional body of Christ and sundry. When the Reformation removed
all those “graven images” from holy places Protestants could not but “swallow” or internalize Christ
in order to maintain his charisma and attract followers. Yet with secularization inevitably Christ had
to be “coming out” again, which occurred in the Fin-de-siecle and gave us “sexual identity” and
Freudian sexual expressionism.

4 Thomas Pynchon “Gravity’s Rainbow” 1971.

The inauguration of monotheism was preceded by Lot’s flight from Sodom – a father subsequently
forced to commit incest with his daughters apparently because no heterosexual men were available.
The flight from Sodom is tied to a reassertion of the religious image ban: the precept not to look
back at the burning cities. The lesson here is that humans cannot rely on shame and vision alone for
checking out reality. Rather they need to stick to language, listening and voice as the organs of guilt
culture. Sameness follows the dictates of visible equality in shame culture and makes sense only
within the treasonous visual paradigm on which our animal instincts have to rely with no access to
sublime language. It is for this reason today’s animal worship corresponds to “gender liberation”
from conscience and the dropping of divine inner calling or the personal sense of meaningfulness.
This why Lot’s wife is instantly frozen upon loosing her countenance which does not bode well for
the arrangement of Freud’s psychoanalytic setting recoiling from vis-a-vis too. It somehow reflects
Sigmund Freud’s diligent discipleship of Nietzsche, the author of “Gay Science” celebrating fantasy
and forgetfulness and loathing history. This fantastic turn would aggravate human alienation by
exposing it to mere animal impulses and in keeping with Freud’s “unconscious”. Given that Freud
concerned himself far more with Christian, namely Protestant, tenets than with Jewish Orthodoxy,
today’s fast absorption of most Anglo-American and Germanic Protestant denominations into the
abortionist and gay orbit follows the trail blazer Freud. For the misogynist Oedipus-complex
hearkens back to the Christian father-son dyad as a fruit of Hellenisation under the reductionist
visual paradigm of existence. The father-son-dyad may well have been inspired by male envy
toward female reproductive power and is designed in the fashion of the proverbial Greek
metaphysical mirroring or doubling. Since the visual paradigm would by default create an
antagonism between father and son the natural result is the Oedipus-rivalry. It is in the nature of
Greek metaphysics to complement the visual handicap of fragmented reality by producing a mirror
image just like the famous narcissist adoring his mirror image in order to gain wholeness. In the
same way any myth of male reproductive autonomy came up in the supposedly self-sufficient Greek
city states only thanks to a slaveholder economy and the marginalization of women as the
frightening “other”. Under the sublime auditive paradigm nothing of this sort was to be expected.
Nor is the supposed antagonism in the father-son relation universal. To the contrary it amounts to
nothing more than a Freudian generalisation arising from the ethical impotence of Greek aesthetics
mired in visible shame culture.

It is the Protestant infatuation with Hellenism and its abandonment of Jerusalem that finds its
culmination in Freudianism. Judaism’s biblical heterosexual dyad requires God as a “third partner”
for bridging the “ontic gap”. 5 This relationship is not metaphysical at all and rather implies a

5 Kiddushin 30b, Joseph B. Soloveitchick: “Family Redeemed” p.142.

transcendent source of identity which is the shared divine being. It is easy to figure that Freud’s
model focusing on non-circumcized babies with yet little sexual features went easily with his
levelling not only of gender but also the parent-child hiatus. It comes perhaps pretty close to any
fantasies about vanishing natural gender differences. This means that a vertical relationship of
family with parent-child transmittance of experience would be turned into the horizontal
relationship of peers. But how did we get to the present culture of shaming others under an
indisputable liberal “consensus”? Well the postmodern power machine of magic and unshakable
group consensus on climate and sex change seems in keeping with the archaic Freudian “taboo”
extended toward modern minorities. It is thanks to Freud that criticism of sexual identity politics is
forbidden and subject to penalty laws against “discrimination”, exempting only Jews as the default
object of hate. It is a derivate of the guilt-diluting peer mechanism which took first shape in Freud’s
original Fin-de-siecle concept of primitive hoards of brothers and sisters which allegedly killed
Moses and left us with unconscious guilt feelings. This story is summarized in Freud’s “Totem and
Taboo” of 1900 and also in his testament of 1939: “Moses and Monotheism”.

Now we need to ask ourselves, why Freud ignored Moses second descent from Sinai 6 as it is
recorded in Hebrew Scripture. Moses returned from his second encounter with the divine being
carrying a new set of tablets and exhibiting a happy “radiating face”. Yet Freud in his essay on
Michelangelo’s Moses does not mention this, his sole attention being focused on the first descent of
an “irate Moses” upon his confrontation with the Golden Calf. One way to think of this is the
difference between written and oral Torah. On his first descent Moses carried only written evidence
while upon the second he fully memorized oral Torah. This memorization represents the birth of
human conscience, the inner self or Adam II which Freud wanted to discard. Ironically the
memorized “oral Law” amounts to the exact opposite of the Freudian “unconscious” ruling the
human person. Freud always uses the “we” of group think , familiar to everyone from the peers of
the scientific community. But the speculative setting of psychoanalysis more fittingly refers to the
archaic horde of sisters and brothers as the template for peer group think. Just like Nietzsche Freud
ignores human history by analogizing the present with ancient Greek society along the logic of
shame cultures. Given that Freud speaks of polygamous family relations rather than monogamous,
he also transscribed patient memories into his imaginative expertise. Frank Cioffi could show
convincingly that Freud’s fantastic associations nowhere came close to anything like real
experience.7

6 S Freud: “Der Moses des Michelangelo”, 1910, first published 1914 anonymous in Imago.
7 Frank Cioffi: “Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience”, Open Court, Chicago and La Salle: 1998.
Quite naturally Joseph’s narcissism in the Bible and his dreams would inspire Freud to his first
book.8 He certainly identified with the juvenile impostor Joseph with his gay dress and his rejection
of Potiphar, misread by him and also by Thomas Mann as misogyny and same-sex attraction. Freud
translates into English as “gay”. He is likely to have identifies with Joseph, who like little Sigmund
was the victim of his brothers, being the youngest among many siblings – a pattern believed by
modern research to incur homosexual inclinations. Just as the impostor Joseph made his career in a
thoroughly homosexual Egypt, so did Freud in the gay environment of Vienna with a burning desire
to relocate to the gay Mecca of Berlin as late as 1936. It is believed that this even prompted him to
delay his departure from Nazi Germany to the last moment.

Madonna with Child, Giovanni Bellini 1500, Venice

8 Sigmund Freud: “The Interpretation of Dreams” first published 1900.

The catastrophic effect of Freudianism is still upon us. Surely he had a big role in the so called
sexual revolt of 1968 as a result his school adamantly confusing the meaning of jealousy, family-
related and redeemed through love, with envy, engendering mere power conflicts. But even more
deleterious was his reinvention of Judaism in the spirit of the Reformation which according to his
affirmative biographer Yoseph Hayim Yerushalmi is now considered the gold standard of
thoroughly modernized Judaism. Today the rate of Jewish-Protestant intermarriage accounts for
well over half of the Jewish diaspora in the US.

Just as in Christian humanism public attention has moved from the Jewish family toward centrifugal
individualism and peer groups. Freud’s writings render the family doomed by antagonistic conflicts
not least because of his unscrupulous embrace of polygamy and visual shame culture. Gone is
Jewish self-sacrifice after the archaic scapegoat in the desert and the burnt offering in the Temple of
Jerusalem transformed eventually into the rabbinical, inner sacrifice of the personal will. For it was
Jewish Orthodoxy which transcended the old urge for “sacrificing the other”. Yet against the
evidence of modern anthropology Freud would have nothing of this and insisted on the persistence
of the oedipal myth of patricide. This position may well have eased his own suffering from a
polygamous father but it had already been defeated in the grand anthropological dispute of the 19 th
century when Robertson-Smith established the primacy of ritual over myth in archaic societies.9

By contrast Western history of Christianity, building on Judaism, set about to overcome mass
infanticide, which in late antiquity was an archaic relict common in the Mediterranean and the
Middle East. It would be redeemed by the symbolic sacrifice of Christ as divine infant. Hitherto a
baby cult has always been as prominent within Christianity, based on the ritual of baptism, as it was
in psychoanalysis, but rarely in Judaism. Why would the baby “Jesus” gain such prominence in
Renaissance paintings, even if depicted for the most part mistakenly as uncircumcised? Here, albeit
without Freud admitting it, the “repressed” infanticide of Hellenist antiquity and its expiation makes
a “return” in the chaotic days of the Renaissance. The notoriety of the myth of Christian sacrifice
and miraculous resurrection of the hero, king or saviour, is born from a Hellenistic culture. It is a
travesty of male “institutional” reproductive power, which in Judaism was sublimated in the
continuity of generations through names.
Notoriously Greek male megalomania has always been mortified by dependence from females,
which is reflected in the Aristotelian melancholy and its compensatory myth about the “eternity of
matter” meant to comfort men - rather than childbearing women – mortified by their invisible
participation in creation. Another evidence of a male inferiority complex, first addressed by

9 Catherine Bell “Ritual”, introduction.

Wilhelm Leibniz and later called the fundamental question of visible metaphysics by Heidegger, is
his: “Why is there something and not nothing?” This fatalist male-narcissist mortification facing
child birth makes short shrift of Freudian allegations on female “penis envy”. It is only through
Freud’s reduction of fertility to a cult of sexuality that the gender valuation was turned upside down
by ascribing to males a dominant role with the unintended consequence of encouraging sterile
sodomy.

Even the ban on ritual “kosher” slaughter, favoured in Scandinavia and Belgium, seems to be
inspired by Freudian ideology namely its support for the Christian regression from the Rabbinic
self-sacrifice of the “inner animal” to modern infanticide. Protestantism would later internalize the
human sacrifice of Christ as universal proxy for self-sacrifice. The modern confusion between envy
addressing non-animated or “dead things” and jealousy addressing enchanted or “animated family”
seems to be the result of abandoning rabbinical self-sacrifice - a surrogate and placeholder for burnt
offerings. All this can be traced back to the Old Testament story of Adam’s preference of meat over
a vegan dish, from which sprang Cain’s murder of his brother Abel because of wild envy. In the
absence of meaningful sacrifice man slaughter is more likely to resume. Humanity learned from
biblical teachings that ritual animal sacrifices helps to quench human bloodthirstiness. But vegans
are about to corrupt this moral progress entirely even as the symbolic “inner sacrifice of the will” of
Rabbinic Judaism survived the final destruction of the Temple and became an essential element of
the liturgy in synagogue. Because Freud identifies the will with sexual appetites that ought to be
liberated he basically reverses the logic of Rabbinic Judaism entirely.
 Charles-Michel Geoffroy 1845, anticipating green abortion & the renaissance of wolves

It is for this reason that Joseph Hayim Yerushalmi errs greatly when he presents Freudianism as the
long overdue update of Judaism for the 20 th century. After turning 70 years old Freud followed the
advice of his daughter Anna, who owned a wolfhound called Wolf – an unconscious reference to the
nickname of Hitler? Freud came to love dogs very much and even fed his chow chow Yofi (Hebrew
for lovely) from his own plate. 10 He seems to have cherished closeness to animals as an equivalent
to the human animal. This represents certainly a transgression away from Judaism towards animal
worship.

All this was brilliantly seized upon by Italo Svevo and James Joyce. It is epitomized in their quip
about “penis envy”in which they mocked little cannibal Sigmund “chowing at the big ankle joints
of his mother” as sort of revenge for the overpowering idea of her giving birth to him. Ever since
Greek antiquity and its power myth on the Achilles tendon this “biting of ankles” relates to cutting
heels as immobilizing “wild game” or the “insurmountable other”. This whole story referred to
Freud’s Rousseauan-Protestant turn in order to biologize modern scepticism and topple the

10 https://freudsbutcher.com/psychology/7-little-known-facts-about-sigmund-freud-including-the-prescription-of-his-
glasses/https://freudsbutcher.com/psychology/7-little-known-facts-about-sigmund-freud-including-the-prescription-
of-his-glasses/;
insuperable Jewish father religion by “oedipal” reforms. While living in Trieste before the Great
War, back then still the harbour of the Habsburg Empire, Italo Svevo had consulted Freud once in
his Vienna office hoping he could help him to quit smoking. Upon his return, disillusioned as it
were, he decided to compose a jocular travesty of his therapeutic experience. He would share all
this with his close friend James Joyce. As true men of letters both were flabbergasted by Freud’s
Darwinist mindset. It led him to emphasize quantitative aspects and energy yet ignore quality,
namely his emphasis on dependency of babies on nourishing mothers in fact eclipsing the
qualitative difference fathers can make. This set him on a trajectory of utilizing mostly mechanistic
and energetic reasoning with hydraulic metaphors for human needs.

While Freud was abetting close associations of appetite with sex he was suggesting regressive
associations between psychoanalysis and cannibalism. In this sense Svevo and Joyce would poke
fun at young Freud by framing him as driven less by sexually mature penis envy against his father
but stuck in the lower precincts of the oral drive and addiction - a shift that would direct Freud’s
aggression against his mother and devour her like wild game. 11 Both were rather well read in
Judaism and Torah and so they knew well that Freud’s bizarre imagination was commensurate with
his status as a quasi-illegitimate child fighting for recognition. On the one hand he was the eldest of
eight children yet only springing from his father’s third marriage. Freud’s half brother Emanuel
from his fathers first marriage was 24 years old when Sigmund was born. Emanuel fathered a child
John, making even Sigmund’s nephew one year his senior.

Given his messed family relations Freud had good reasons to replace depressing memories with
high flying fantasies which became useful for his many face-saving excuses as well as for
bolstering his self respect. Gifted with a powerful imagination nurturing his boastfulness Freud
displayed grandiloquence in the service of boundless self promotion. From the biblical narrative of
“Joseph and his brothers” we learn that boastfulness is often the compensation for being last in line
family-wise. Thus his adoration of Joseph who was the second youngest but the most beloved of
Jacob’s twelve sons - a family including the offspring of two sisters: Leah and Rachael. Yet
subsequently Joseph became showy, gay and transgressive, features best combined in the role of
overbearingness. Freud tried hard to emulate Joseph’s breathtaking trajectory and he would identify
with his soul mate by focussing on biblical Egypt eclipsing entirely the events at Sinai for his own
founding myth of monotheism. It was from his extremely selective and biased account called
“Moses and Monotheism” that Freud managed to attribute the emergence of guilt culture to the

11 Italo Svevo “Confessions of Zeno”, Putnam & Co, London: 1948, p.338, 715; Stanislaus Joyce: “The Meeting of
Svevo and Joyce”; Universita Degli Studi Di Trieste, Instituto Di Philologia Germanica, Del Bianco Editore: 1965.
killing of an Egyptian prophet called Moses. While Jacob stands for mature Israel, Freud’s own
attachment to infancy stems from his narcissist identification with Joseph as the preferred youngest
son. That neurotic rebellion runs right through Freud’s conceptualizations, most obviously in the
grand scheme emulating Moses, with his own biographic “ontogenesis” as latecoming prophet who
dismantled his peoples “phylogenetic” obsolescence. Freud did not shy away from comparing
himself to Moses thanks to his psychoanalytic enlightenment of “archaic” Judaism.

Driven by family and self hatred though Freud would distort the historic record by tracing back the
most advanced guilt culture to an archaic family tragedy of a “primal horde” killing its father
Moses. Yet this facile notion of chasing the “old white male” was altogether a very modern and
personal passion which explains why it has been extremely successful until today. In particular it
fitted into the pattern of self effacing obsessions of Western liberalism. Freud’s book on Moses does
more to obscure than to “explain” the emergence of guilt culture, since in contrast to the personal
root of it his notion of primal hordes buries individual guilt in groupism - actually its visual
dispersion into diluted group shame. This emulates the logic of “execution squads” in the military
serving to obscuring the murderer in order to protect him from acts of revenge. Not for nothing this
became very popular with liberalism, which by absorbing psychoanalysis came to project habitual
self-hatred on others by scapegoating adversaries in order to dilute guilt and fend off acts of
revenge. Today this is known as character assassination of adversaries.
We also note Freud’s penchant for ambiguity, free association, and his playing around with
possibilities which was spotted by Ludwig Wittgenstein. He pointed at Freud’s expertise in
confusing ”purpose with means or cause and effect”. This plays nicely to Freud’s statement that the
repression of egoistic, antisocial impulses through religious rites depends on the same psychic
mechanism as the suppression of sexual appetites underlying the symptoms of obsessive neurosis.
Read this line again and you will find it is an oxymoron. Freud would conclude that for this reason
alone religion is the same as neurosis. Freud’s analogical generalizations are deeply flawed and
point to his calculated if unconscious exploration of the Protestant apologetics. His emergence from
an insignificant, literally “Bohemian”, immigrant was marked by reckless and opportunist
assimilation to his Christian environment. It exhibits many features attributed to the ambivalence of
“parvenu or pariah” by Hannah Arendt. Freud played with Greek mirror metaphysics and obscured
the ontological difference between the Greek visibility and Jewish attachment to listening and
voice. He kept exposing the shortcomings of his psychology as compared to philosophy and
religion. This became palpable in his stubborn preference of myth over ritual or mere cognition
over verifiable deed. In particular Luther’s “ban on charitable deeds” survived in Freud’s insistence
with patients on their “abstinence” from deed. In effect Freudianism substituted the Protestant “ban
on deeds” for the biblical “image ban”. Judaism for one thing has always been inimical to
asceticism and mortification. Freud rather followed Christological proxy-ism with his therapeutic
currency of self-denial and hapless individualism. Like Luther, Kant and Nietzsche before him,
Freud cut the bond between the generations, the bond which ties the individual person to the family.

Finally we come to the present with its “eco-sex” paradigm for green politics fostering sterile and
vegan same sex. Not surprisingly it can be traced back to Freud’s extremely flawed but still
influential work “Totem and Taboo”.12 It contains the “vegetable” myths for visualizing monotheist
guilt as shame in effect shedding personal responsibility, ritual and “deeds” and replacing them with
typological or group shaming. What Freud succeeded in doing was to establish the taboo of group
guilt, contriving cover for most of today’s diverse (sexual) minorities under the rainbow coalition.
The archaic taboo on “touching” the sacrificial animal in tribal rites of primitive societies meant
that touch engenders guilt. It was modernized by Freud into the concept of “untouchable” infantile,
immature and “polymorph perverse” sexuality. These are today’s sexual identity groups who are
protected by the laws of anti-discrimination and thus sadly immunized against savoury experience
and personal maturation by a “cordon sanitaire” of speech codes. No doubt the shaming arrows of
homophobia and Islamophobia serve as pop amplifiers for modern typologies and PC culture and
throw us back into ancient Greek shame culture. Look at the sentimental affinities between
veganism, animal worship and same-sex love, all of which are rejecting nature as we knew it. These
religious substitutes of a “natural religion” has its shame rituals such as condoms and zealous
rubbish separation, magic rituals meant to eradicate the carnivore “human animal”of old white
males and certainly limiting Western reproductive chances.

Psycho-Guru Freud was too weak to quit smoking -

till his very end, suffering form oral cancer

12 Sigmund Freud “Totem and Tabu”, first published 1913.

Freud’s fatal error was his abandonment of free will, deed and memory for sexual fantasy which
had been all the rage with the Zeitgeist after Nietzsche. This became evident with the turn of the
20th century when Freud stopped believing stories of child abuse by arguing they were not in fact
true but born from suppressed sexual fantasies. Here Freud just fell victim to Protestant tenets going
back to 500 years of Lutheran rejection with regard to ritual and justification by charitable deeds.
Similarly we can trace back the green “eco-sex”-paradigm which is tied to animal worship. It might
well originate in Freud’s assertion about the twin fundamental taboos in primitive tribes, “namely
not to kill the totemic animal, and to avoid sexual intercourse with totem companions of the other
sex”.13 Well both these myths live on today in totemic “animal rights” and green heterophobia, the
liberal gospel of today’s rainbow coalition.14

Fraud, sorry Freud, with his unquenchable appetite for cigars, was himself a perfect illustration of
his verdict on adults stuck in the oral phase of childhood leaving doubts regarding the notion of
“sexual maturity”. By packing all desires into one super sex, Freudian libido had by itself become
irresistible and overwhelming, which would put impulse rather than conscience in the driving seat
of the person. It would also eclipse all the other desires which is what we see today in the
“sexualized” West. Freud’s sexual monomania came to be the closest theoretical concept for
explaining addiction also rendering psychoanalysis the most congenial to it by dint of unfettered
discursive “orality”. This explains the virtually interminable cure of psychoanalysis. Because he
reduced all human desire into the one category of voracious appetites quite naturally eating would
attain the role of fall back position from exhaustive sex. This Freud also helped bringing about the
modern nemesis of obesity. It is this monomaniac Guru of perverted individualism that always
disgusted me. Freud was replacing the family inaugurated at Sinai with his individualism stuck in
group think of peers- the eternal source of centrifugal envy and rivals in “adult consent” by default.

Psychoanalytic theory with its artificial three stages of child development: oral, anal and genital has
implemented a deprived trinity of monism into the human life cycle. Hence we can see how the oral
type might be transmogrified into a voracious hog or wolverine which almost looks like the
conclusion of the Christian descent from heaven back to nature ending in the decadent embrace of
the archaic world. Just like Freud’s “Totem and Taboo” was echoed by, say Tchaikovsky’s “Sacre du
Printemps”, modern green “vegetables” adore ravenous wolves - treading slavishly in the steps of
Anna Freud and her wolfhound. The liberal affinity to primitivism, bloody fantasy movies and
voracious monsters speaks for itself. It looks like a self fulfilling prophecy of Freudianism, a
13 S. Freud: “Totem and Taboo”, 1913, Chapter I, see Wikisource.
14 Catherine Bell: “Ritual- Perspectives and Dimensions” Oxford University Press: 1997, p.13.
humanist episteme that managed to substitute the “centripetal” family with “centrifugal”
individualism and group think.

Few of the gentile liberal research community in the humanities have cared since to look at the
Jewish original sources such as Torah. Technically Freud’s enlightened Judaism knows no
conscience, no internal self (Adam II), but follows impulse and outer self (Adam I). Following the
pattern of the Reformation this creates the proverbial Protestant or liberal posturing which is
substituting deed and ritual with mere gestures. The liberal pose by default results in the stiffening
of intellectual discourse which in turn leads to abating tolerance. Thanks to Christ’s symbolic
sacrifice, the baby morphed from a Hellenic liability to a Christian treasure and it was celebrated as
such in the bulk of Renaissance paintings. Freud’s sad accomplishment has been to reverse this
trend with psychoanalysis becoming a vehicle to substitute patricide in the name of rebellious
Oedipus with infanticide as a weapon against fatherhood, today known as mass abortion.

Moses life was at risk at beginning not at the end of his life, as Freud would us make believe
Since the West abandons its babies in droves it is small wonder that Christianity, already reduced to
the ritual of baptism, is also vanishing. Freud is among those to be blamed for this because he
misinterpreted the Moses story as patricide when in truth it is about preventing infanticide. Conrad
Black has pointed out that US democrats are hell bent to reverse this with their latest legislation on
infanticide of living babies: “Abortion is too intrusive, too inconvenient; let the children be born
and then the mother can decide whether she wants to be a mother after all, or kill the child, or give
it up for adoption.”15 Little Moses, however, rescued and raised by the Pharaoh’s family, preached
again and again: “Choose life, not death” (Deuteronomy 30, 11-20).

15 https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=68108.