Speaker 1: If you want to support the show and get the
episodes early and ad free, head on over to Freemanbeyond
the Wall dot com forward slash Support. I want to
explain something right now. If you support me through substack
or Patreon, you have access to an RSS feed that
you can plug into any podcatcher, including Apple, and you'll
be able to listen to the episodes through there. If
you support me through a subscribe, star, gum Road or
on my website directly, I will send you a link
where you can download the file and you can listen
to it any way you wish. I really appreciate the
support everyone gives me. It keeps a show going. It
allows me to basically put out an episode every day now,
and I'm not going to stop. I'm just going to accelerate.
I think sometimes you see that I'm putting out two
even three a day, and yeah, can't do it without you,
So thank you for the support. Head on over to
Freeman Beyond the Wall dot com, forward slash Support and
do it there. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone
back to the Pekingana Show. Josh Neil is back. Josh,
how you doing?
Speaker 2: I am nasally congested and that makes me very much
like the gentleman we're about to talk about today. So
I'm I'm feeling sympatico with the subject matter.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we're going to talk about Freud here. We're
going to talk specifically, we're going to read an article
that Lorraine Gignol wrote back in twenty nineteen and included
in one of his books. So, if we're talking about Freud,
is there anything that gives you like, have you ever been?
What's your credibility to be able to talk about Freud?
Speaker 2: Well, the graduate school I went to was a heavily
psychodynamic psychoanalytic program. Most of the people, most of the
faculty in the psychology the grad program had had that background,
and so that was most of I mean, most of
the classes I took to were from a Freudian perspective.
I'm not a Freudian myself, and most of my career,
if you want to call it that, what I took
from Freud was sort of like a a contrarian point
of view, which is to say, there's there's a couple
of like. To the extent that people know about Freud,
they tend to land on a couple on one of
a few perspectives. One conventional perspective is that, well, he
wasn't doing real science, so all of it is junk
if you're in this milieu. One perspective as well, he
was Jewish, so it's all junk. Or if you're like
sort of like a like a left winger, then he's
sort of unimpeachable in a lot of ways. I fall
somewhere in the middle. I think his work is very
instructive as an insight into the Jewish not just the
Jewish mind, but like Jewish communal living, because, as we're
going to see with his essay, most of his work,
you could say his work is heavily autobiographical. The concept
he develops are a direct result of his own experience,
and he prefigured, he prefigured like the sort of modern
preoccupation with with like trauma, which is unfortunate because I
think it was it was. It's an it's now like
sort of a trite observation to make that a large
amount of psychological dysfunction, even social dysfunction, is due to
disruption of of the home, the domestic circumstance early in
a child's life, whether we're talking about like homosexuality or
you know, aberrant sexualities in general, they're just statistically they're
they're the result of dysfunction in the home life early
on in the kid's life. I also think he's interesting
just for his like sort of anthropological work, which also
kind of you have to take him into view what
what Lourentz argues in this book to kind of understand
his anthropological work. His his whole idea of like the
the son's ganging up to kill the father takes a
different tone when you consider his own personal autobiography and
and and what his work was about. But also like
some of his anthropological work, like his book From Moses
to Monotheism, you know, he's treated as a subversive, especially
people who get into stuff his his relatives were up to,
like Edward Burnet's and they there's maybe you could say
he was an equal opportunity subversive because he undermined the
Jewish claim to being the first monotheistic people. So I
think he was an interesting He had an interesting career.
But what's more interesting is the stuff beneath the surface,
which we're obviously going to get into today.
Speaker 1: All Right, so I'm going to start reading. Stop me
at any time, don't just stop me, don't be you know,
don't hesitate to stop me. It's not I'm not going
to be insulted or anything like that. And yeah, so
this is the title of it. The chapter in the
book that this is included in is different, but the
title when he wrote it and it was put on
uns review was Freud's Sexual Abuse in Bena Breath. So
I'll start reading stop me whenever. In the last few years,
there I've been lots of news reports, documentary films, and
articles about sexual abuse of children in Orthodox Jewish communities.
In March twenty seventeen, for instance, Haretz reported that the
Israel Police arrested twenty two ultra Orthodox Jews for sex
crimes against miners and women, and in July twenty nineteen,
The Times of Israel reported that the Deputy Health Minister
Jakov Litzmann was alleged to have improperly intervened to aid
at least ten sex offenders from Israel's ultra Orthodox community.
In twenty fifteen, Jewish attorney Michael Lescher wrote sex Abuse,
Shanda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities to document, quoting
the dismal history of how far too many of those
cases have been assiduously concealed, both from the public and
from the police. How influential rabbis and community leaders have
sided with the alleged abusers against their victims. How victims
and witnesses of sexual abuse have been pressured even threatened,
not to turn to secular law enforcement for help. How
autonomous Jewish patrols, displacing the role of official police in
some large and heavily religious Jewish neighborhoods, have played an
inglorious part in the history of cot. How some Jewish
communities have even succeeded in manipulating law enforcement officials to
protect suspected abusers. This reminds me of the story of
how Freud, having stumbled upon the widespread reality of child
abuse among his mostly Jewish clientele, covered it up with
the theory that all little girls desire their father's penises
and all little boys dream of screwing their mothers, and
named his theory after a gentile myth.
Speaker 2: Well just to well, just just the the bit about
how the Jewish community will aggressively not even self police,
but but more of like do run interference between themselves
and the larger community. There was an there was an
article like ten years ago in the New York Times
that was talking about the tendency for the Rabbinical Orthodox
Jews to ostracize members of their community if they brought
stories of sexual abuse to the broader, gentile public. So
I wish I could pull that up. I just there's
I don't know, I'm not finding it now, but yeah,
it's just it's it's remarkable. I hesitate to say exactly
that that sexual abuse or sexual violence is like sort
of intrinsic to the Jewish social milieu, but it's hard
to argue otherwise.
Speaker 1: All right. Two Freud's assault on truth the story has
been told by Jeffrey Massan, and the assault on truth
Freud's suppression of the seduction theory. In eighteen ninety five
and eighteen ninety six, Freud, listening to his neurotic and
hysteri patients, became convinced that most of them had suffered
from traumatic sexual abuse in their childhood. The traumatic origin
of hysteria and overused diagnosis in these days had already
been discussed by neurologists, including Jean Martin Charcaut, whose conferences
Freud had attended in Paris, and Hermann Oppenheim, who published
in Berlin in eighteen eighty nine a treatise on traumatic
neurosis neuroses, yet psychological traumas of sexual nature were rarely
discussed openly. On the other hand, there were medical publications
known to Freud documenting the frequency of violence on children,
including sexual assaults, but they focused on the physical consequences.
In April eighteen ninety six, confident to have made a
major breakthrough in psychiatry, Freud presented his findings to the
Society for Psychiatry and Neurology in Vienna, his first major
public address to his peers. His lecture met with total silence.
According to Masan, Freud was urged never to publish it
lest his reputation be damaged beyond repair. He found himself isolated,
but nevertheless published his paper The Ideology of Hysteria. Are
you familiar with that term?
Speaker 2: Actually, I'm not. I think it's just an ortho orthodox
pronunciation of ideology, just to say the origin of hysteria.
Speaker 1: Freud's conclusions are drawn from eighteen case studies, six men
and twelve women, all of which he claims bear his
general thesis. This is quoting. I therefore put forward the
thesis that at the bottom of every case of hysteria
there are one or more occurrences of premature sexual experience,
occurrences which belong to the earliest years of childhood, but
which can be reproduced through the work of psychoanalysis and
by the intervening decades. I believe that this is an
important finding, the discovery of a kaputnilli kaputnili in neuropathology.
Sexual experiences in childhood consisting in stimulation of the genitals,
coitus like acts, and so on, must therefore be recognized
in the last analysis as being the traumas which lead
to a hysterical reaction to events at puberty and to
the development of hysterical symptoms.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Just that's the UK spelling of ideology, and that
phrase caputnili is also just saying the origin of neuropathology, okay.
Speaker 1: Freud suggests that this conclusion applies not only to hysteria
but to most neuroses. Among other remarks, he suggests that
children who aggress sexually other children do so as a
result of having been sexually abused themselves. Quote. Children cannot
find their way to acts of sexual aggression unless they
have been seduced previously. However, one year after this article,
Freud decided that he had made a mistake in believing
his patients. He determined that what he was taken at,
what he had taken as repressed memories of sexual abuse,
were in fact fantasies. For the rest of his life
he would keep telling how he overcame his era and
discovered that these fantasies were intended to cover up the
auto erotic activity of the first years of childhood, to
embellish it and raise it to a higher plane. And
now from behind the fantasies, the whole range of a
child's sexual light came to light. They this is from
the history of the psychoanalytic movement in nineteen nineteen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and just to clarify, I mean, there's a lot
of sort of unorthodox language and spelling of common terms
in the English language, like fantasy with a pH is
not meant to be synonymous with fantasy with an f
fantasy with the pH is And this is something that
that other psychoanalysts picked up later, like Melanie Kleine. But
it's basically a sort of mental representation of the the
wishes and desires of the individual. So it's it's not
quite it's not a fantasy with an f it's a
fantasy with a pH. It's it's it's connected to sort
of unconscious mental processes and the way that they they
generate this, they generate wish fulfillments. That's tied to Freud's
idea of the wish fulfillment, but also frustrated wishes. So
that's just generally what the pH is supposed to denote.
Speaker 1: From the standpoint of Freud's earlier theory, which he euphemistically
called the seduction theory, his new theory of spontaneous infantile
sexual fantasy can be seen as a projection. Not unlike
sex offenders tendency to blame their victims, the patients themselves
are now accused of both sexual passion and murderous fantasies
towards their parents. By repressing these self generated impulses, says
Freudian orthodoxy, they have created their own neuroses, which may,
in hysterics, take the form of false memories of abuse.
Thirty five years later, Freud's most gifted disciple, once president
of the International Psychoanalytic Association, stumbled on the same realization
that Freud had shared in the Ideology of Hysteria. Sandor
Frengi wrote in his diary in July nineteen thirty two
that the Oedipus complex could well be the result of
real acts on the part of adults, namely violent passions
directed towards the children, who then develop a fixation not
from desire, as Freud maintained, but from fear mother and
father will kill me if I don't love them and
identify with their wishes. Overcoming his apprehension of Freud's reaction,
Florenci dared present his conclusions before the twelfth International Psychoanalytic
Conference Congress in electrotitled Confusion of Tongues between the Adults
and the Children. His paper contains a number of important
ideas confirmed by later research, such as the victim's psychological
identification with the aggressor or introjection. The aggressor disappears as
external reality and becomes intrapsychic instead of extra psychic, so
that even the guilt feelings of the aggressor are introjected.
Ferensi hypothesized that helplessness caused the victim to empathize with
the aggressor, a process today known as Stockholm syndrome.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's what introjection basically refers to. It's
the internalizing, making a mental model of some authority, the
internalizing of the characteristics or habits or mentalities of some authority. Figure.
Now that takes a very different context, you know, the
difference between like internalizing a teacher or a school master,
or a parent or an older sibling, as opposed to
internalizing the attitudes and dispositions of an abusive of an abuser.
I mean that also, there's a lot of Freudian concepts,
not to like get way ahead of where we're at already,
but there's a lot of Freudian concepts that take on
a different character if you view them as being sort
of compensatory responses to extreme trauma, extreme sexual violence. Like
repetition compulsion is another example. Repetition compulsion, in like the
orthodox Freudian worldview, is the tendency of an individual to
repeat some action, usually a dysfunctional action, until they gain
mastery over it and then can integrate that aspect of
themselves into the larger psychological world. But when you think
about the habit or the tendency of like sex abuse
victims to engage in repetitive sexual dysfunction to like volunteer
themselves into pornography or prostitution, or go from one one
disastrous sexually violent situation to another disastrous sexually violent situation.
It they never get to a point of mastery, and
it's sort of like dispels the whole idea of the
of the like the claim, the cleaned up interpretation of
what that is supposed to express. It makes more sense
in the context of as we're going to see a
little bit later on, that individual has a split internally
and they don't have The only frame of reference they
have is this violent, chaotic, traumatic aggressor personality.
Speaker 1: Extreme adversity, especially fear of death, may also trigger a
premature development, for which Ferenci uses the metaphor of a
fruit that ripens or becomes sweet prematurely when injured by
the beak of a bird, or of the premature ripening
of a wormy fruit. Shock can cause a part of
the person to mature suddenly, not only emotionally, but intellectually
as well. Such traumatic maturation happens at the expense of
psychological integration, and Ferensi brings in the notion of a
personality split quote, there can be no shock, no fright
with that traces of a personality split. In his personal diary,
reflecting on a patient who cannot remember having been raped
but dreams of it ceaselessly French, he writes, I know
from other analyzes that a part of our being can die,
and while the remaining part of our self may survive
the trauma, it awakens with a gap in its memory. Actually,
it is a gap in the personality, because not only
as the memory of the struggle to the death effaced,
but all other associatively linked memories disappear, perhaps forever. The
observation is consistent with the findings of French medical doctor
and psychologist Pierre Janet, whose work has long been overshadowed
by Freudian psychology but has generated increased interest. In the
nineteen eighties, Jeanete theorized the first model of disassociative identity disorders,
now included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
In Les Nevros Nevrosis, jene wrote, justice, synthesis, and association
are the great characteristics of all normal psychological operations, So
disassociation is the essential characteristic of all diseases of the mind.
Dissociation accounts for the evolution of traumatic memories composed of psychological, sensory, effective,
and cognitive experiences, which Jenez calls ide fise. These fragmented
aspects of the experience do not allow a real memory
to integrate the biography of the subject and instead develop
into separate psychic entities which nevertheless interfere with the main personality.
In the most severe cases, it can develop into schizophrenia
or multiple personalities. Parensis lecture confusion of tongues met with
the same disapproval from members of the Psychoanalytic Association of
Freud's ideology of hysteria had met with the Viennese psychiatrists.
Farensi was ostracized by Freud and his sectarian disciples, and
his paper was never translated into English for the International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, as was customary. He died a few
years later A Broken Man. Section three, The Hidden Fault
of the Father. This story raises two questions. First, what
is it that made Freud change his mind in the
first place and made him shun ferensis work thirty years later? Secondly,
and more importantly, why was Freud's theory so successful despite
being long proven scientifically flawed and its therapeutic value baseless.
On the first question, Massan shares his conviction that what
Freud had uncovered in eighteen ninety six that in many
instances children are the victims of sexual violence and abuse
within their families, becomes such a liability that he literally
had to banish it from his consciousness. This theory has
been challenged, and Masan has been criticized for exaggerating the
negative reaction to Freud's seduction theory. All that can be
said with confidence is that his paper didn't bring him
the instant fame he expected.
Speaker 2: That's actually, that's the first time I actually ever heard that.
I thought the only story I'd ever heard was that
he had presented this idea of sexual violence as the
precursor to psychological dysfunction, and that he was basically threatened
with losing his career for proposing something that was so
shocking to the senses of bourgeois European society. I guess
I would have to see, you know, I tried to
click that link there. I think that's a dead link.
So I don't know if you can actually find the
source that he's claiming, but it would be interesting to
find other accounts. Certainly, if he self censored out of
a sort of inability to to leap frog his career,
that would be a lot more damning than simply he
thought that he was going to be shut out of
the discipline and out of the you know, the academic
system for proposing something that was so like barbaric and
shocking that. Again, that would also put a very different
spin on because Freud also the thing that's like you
would not really get this from just reading the Freudian ouvoir.
So to speak. He was intensely self conscious about his work.
He was intensely self conscious about the sort of the
psychoanalysis as a sort of universal system of interpretation. Like
that was one of his grand or ambitions. Was not
just that it would be a therapeutic intervention or you know,
his ambition was just that he was advancing a science
of the human nervous system. He later again I invoked
like from from Moses to Monotheism, he invoked his own
system as a as a as a as a medium
for literary criticism, for historical analysis, for sociology. So he
thought it was a way a revolutionary way to look
at everything, not just the human psyche and not just medicine.
So on the one hand, he does have this reputation
is like an intentionally self conscious, sort of career minded person.
Even his even his relationship with Carl Jung, it was
to an extent a sort of opportunistic way to present
his ideas to gentile society by having them come through
the mouth of a gentile speaker. So I guess maybe
it's not a stretch to argue that he self censored
out of a frustration with the lack of positive reception.
But the common explanation going all the way back to
Stefan maliunew Stefan Maliannu did a video about this like
ten or fifteen years ago that the reason he pivoted
from the seduction theory to this sort of if you
want to say, victim blaming account of mental illness was
basically because he had been threatened by his peers in
the in the discipline. So I guess that's up for debate.
Speaker 1: Masson takes other factors into account. He believes that Freud
was influenced by the wacky or what the hell is
that word oderheinunologist William Fliss, unhappy inventor of the nasal
reflex neuroses, with whom Freud had developed a very peculiar
emotional bond. Incidentally, Fleiss's son would later write on sexual
abuse and hint of his own abuse by his father.
Massan is the editor of the Unextrigated version of Freud's
letters to Fleis. Freud destroyed Fleis's letters, but failed to
have his own letters destroyed, which provide unique information on
the way Freud elaborated his theories. Yet at the end
of the fascinating investigation, Massan amiss that the full explanation
for Freud's sudden conversion eludes him. Additional insight has been
supplied by two books published almost simultaneously nineteen seventy nine,
one in French and one in German, both translated in
English in nineteen eighty two, Marie Balmari Freud and The
Hidden Faults of the Father and Marianne Krohl Freud and
his father both draw extensively from Freud's letters to Fleiss,
which document how Freud was led to his theoretical about
face by his introspective self analysis. Bal Maria and Kroll
point out that Freud undertook this self analysis just after
the death of his father, Jacob. On November second, eighteen
ninety six, ten days after his father's death, Freud writes
a flice about a dream he had the night before
his funeral, in which appeared a sign saying you are
requested to close the eyes, which he interpreted as referring
to one's duty to the dead. Yet, on February eleventh,
eighteen ninety six, after mentioning that forced oral sex on
children can result in neurotic symptoms, he adds, ultimately, my
own father was one of those perverts and is responsible
for the hy theory of my brother, all of whose
symptoms are identifications, and those of several younger sisters. The
frequency of this circumstance often makes me wonder. The following summer,
he went through a depressive episode and wrote on July seventh,
I still do not know what has been happening to me.
Something from the deepest depths of my own neurosis set
itself against any advance in the understanding of and you
have somehow been involved in it. Soon after September twenty first,
he announced to his friend I want to confide in
you immediately the great secret that has been slowly dawning
on me in the last few months. I no longer
believe in my neurotica his seduction theory. He gave his
one explanation, the surprise that in all cases, the father,
not excluding my own, had to be accused of being perverse.
In the next letter, October third, he wrote confidently that
in the case of his own neuroses, the old man
plays no active part. Finally, October fifteenth, he referred to
the Oedipus story, quoting a single idea of general value
dawned on me. I have found in my own case too,
the phenomenon of being in love with my mother and
jealous of my father, and I now consider it a
universal event in early childhood. Balmari and Krall independently build
a strong case that Freud backed off from a theory
which tarnished the ideal image of the father he w grieving.
After his father's death, Freud felt constrained by a mandate
that he was unable to resist, and hence dutiful son
that he was, took the guilt upon his own shoulders,
with help of his Oedipus theory. Balmari and Krall bring
in the equation a recent biographical discovery of Jacob Freud's
less than perfect behavior the forgotten second wife name Rebecca,
who mysteriously disappears, possibly by suicide, at the time of
Jacob's marriage with his third wife, the beautiful Amelia Nathanson,
his half his age and already pregnant of Sigmund. Of fact,
Jacob tried to conceal by falsifying Sigmund's date of birth.
In light of post Freudian developments in transgenerational depth psychology,
it is possible that Freud had from early age an
intuitive sense of a hidden fault to the father linked
to his own identity, which may have combined with memories
of his father's sexual abuse on himself and his brothers
and sisters. During his self analysis at the age of four,
the whole thing came knocking at the door of his consciousness,
but he finally surrenders to the self conscious imperative to
close the eyes to cover up the menacing truth of
his father's faults. Freud invents of the Oedipus complex, changing
children charging children themselves as polymorphous perversion, while Mary points
out that in his personal identification with his hero Oedipus,
who solved the riddle of the Sphinx, Freud truncated the myth.
According to Greek tragedians, Oedipus's father, Lais, was cursed by
the gods for seducing a young teenage boy and leading
to his suicide. Then, frightened by the oracle's prophecy that
he would be killed by his own son if he
conceived one conceived one, Lais had his newborn son abandoned
in the forest ankles pierced by the middle by the
middle with iron spikes Euripides the Phoenician maidens. Thus, in
the complete myth Oedipus, Oedipus's predestination to kill his father
and marry his mother is not determined by his own impulses,
but by the faults of his own father for Balmari,
Freud's ignorance of this part of the myth reveals and
symbolizes his own blind spot, his failure to discover the
secret guilts of the father, both of his own father
and by consequence, the fathers of his neurotic and hysterical patience.
Speaker 2: Got anything there, No, no, no, I'm just following them.
Speaker 1: Lets keep going, all right, here we go Part four,
The dark emotional Powers of Jewishness. Neither Massan nor BALMII
deal with the Jewish aspect of this issue. Marion Kroll
hints that the father's mandates to close the eyes was
a question of filial piety, on which ultimately the entire
Jewish tradition is based, but although Jewish herself, she does
not insist on that aspect. For an interesting on the
Jewish hidden background of the Oedipus complex, we can turn
to the very stimulating book of John Murray Cutahee, The
Ordeal of Civility. The author points out that Freud had
been fascinated by Sophocles Sophocles's play Oedipus Rex from his adolescence.
When he saw it played in eighteen eighty five, it
made again a deep and mysterious impression on him. Twelve
years later he wrote to Flices that he found, with
his new theory of universal repressed wishes of incest and parricide,
the explanation for the gripping power of Oedipus Rex. In
other words, comments cuta He, Freud proposes a theory to
explain the play's power over him, and to make intelligible
why he should identify so deeply with its hero Oedipus.
It is in the course of that effort that the
core of the theory of psychoanalysis is born. But then
cute He suggests that But then Cutehi suggests that Freud
failed to see the real origin of a fascination with
Oedipus Rex. What had resonated deeply in him from the
time he first read Oedipus Rex was not so much
the general plot of the play, the hero killing his
father and marrying his mother, as the circumstances in which
Oedipus killed his father. Coming down a narrow road, Oedipus
was rudely ordered to step aside by the herald of
the king, then was struck on the head by the
king himself. Enraged, Oedipus slew the king, his herald, and
the rest of his retinue except one. This story, not
acted but narrated in the play, bears an uncanny resemblance
with another story that had made a lasting impression on
Freud a few years earlier. As he explained in the
Interpretation of Dreams, this is a story of a father.
This is a story that his father, a stead old
Jew from Morovia, where Sigmund was born. Moravia, where Sigmund
was born, had told him when he was ten or
twelve years old, quoting to show how much better things
were now than they had been in his days. When
I was a young man, he said, I went for
a walk one Saturday in the streets to your birthplace.
I was well dressed and had a new cap on
my head. A Christian came up to me and with
a single blow, knocked off my cap into the mud
and shotted jew. Get off the pavement. And what did
you do, I asked. I went into the roadway and
picked up my cap. Was his quiet reply that struck
me as unheeric conduct than the part of the big
strong man who was holding a little boy by the hand.
I contrasted this situation with another which befitted my feelings better,
the scene in which Hannibal's father, Hamilcar Barka made his
boy swear before the household altered to take vengeance on
the Romans. Ever since that time, Hannibal has had a
place in my fantasies. Freud Cut, he argues, had experienced shame,
had experienced shame of his father, and to be ashamed
of a father is a kind of moral parricide. Quoting Freud,
presumably experienced not only this rage and shame, but guilt
about the rage and shame censored. These unacceptable feelings unacceptable
to a dutiful son, ostensibly proud of his father, he
repressed them. Years later, he encounters Sophocle's tragedy and it
lays a spell on him. Still later, after his father's death,
he rationalized the spell with a universal theory that discharged
him from further inquiry into his own family story. But
the idea fix which that Oedipus was to become for
Freud cut He maintains, hinges on a small detail, small
but structurally indispensable of the action of the story that
Freud never mentions in all the countless times he retells
the legend a social insult, a discourtesy on the road
stemming from someone in a position of social superiority, King
Laius to the unknown wayfarer Oedipus, just as a Christian
in Freiburg who forced Jacob Freud into the gutter. According
to kutahe the supposedly universal Oedipus complex de Freud thought
he discovered was in reality the veil of characteristically was
the veil of a characteristically Jewish complex of his time.
Speaker 2: Again over, Yeah, I was just gonna say, because in
his book Totem and Taboo, Freud is basically trying to
again create like an originary scene for how societies sort
of organize themselves. And the basic idea is this idea,
the myth of the primal Horde, which to put it really,
really simplistically is describes this symbolic murder of the father
by the sons. And I'm just I've never looked at
the because it's been like many, many many years since
I read some of these books, certainly before I ever
took on like this kind of framework to to think
about them. I'm sitting here just wondering now with the
implications of his anthropological explanation would be, you know, in
the context of this Jewish persecution, the weakness of his
own father, the way his own parental sort of by
the way that I do fixated means fetish, so the
way his own sort of fetishized parental relations are informing
his his hys theorizing. I'm gonna model that one a
little bit more. But yeah, you can. You can continue.
Speaker 1: Even if we judge that I already read that one,
or did I.
Speaker 2: I don't think he did.
Speaker 1: Okay, even if we I'm sorry, you know, that's yeah,
Even if we judge that yeah, even if we judge
that that thesis overstrained, it is questionable how the fantasies
with pH of avenging and billing the father could merge.
We can appreciate how kutah. He draws attention to the
fact that Freud's father, the father whom he felt compelled
to exculpate, but toward whom he nevertheless experienced a murder wish,
was a Jewish father recently immigrated from Yiddish Land into
the heart of European civilization. Freud's disciple and first biographer,
Ernest Jones remarks that Freud felt himself to be Jewish
to the core, and evidently it meant a great deal
to him. Books dealing specifically with Freud's Jewishness, such as
Moisha gracer Dual Allegiance Freud as a Modern Jew Sunny
Press nineteen ninety four, can rely on several statements made
by Freud himself, either in private correspondence or in Jewish environment.
In the preface for the Hebrew translation of Totem and Taboo,
for example, asking himself rhetorically, what is Jewish in his work,
Freud answered, A very great deal and probably its very essence.
In a speech prepared for delivery at the Benet Breath
Lodge in Vienna in nineteen twenty six, Freud explained his
motivation for joining thirty years earlier in eighteen ninety seven, quoting,
whenever I have experienced feelings of national exultation, I've tried
to suppress them as disastrous and unfair, frightened by the
warning example of those nations among which we Jews live.
But there remained enough to make the attraction of Judaism
and the Jews irresistible. Many dark emotional powers, all the
stronger the less they could be expressed in words, as
well as the clear consciousness of an inner identity, the
familiarity of the same psychological structure. So I became one
of you. The statement is actually excellent.
Speaker 2: I was just gonna say that sounds very much like
the Ordeal of civility hypothesis right there, that trying to
become stepping out of the schedtle, stepping out of their
sort of tight knit, borderline incestuous little world, and suddenly
they're confronted with, you know, the technological modernity of European society.
I don't know if this is kind of his argument,
because I've actually never read The Ordeal of Civility, But
that could if we wanted to take a more cynical
approach to explaining why he has gone through these changes
in his psychological theory. I mean, it could be that
he wanted to in the same way he wanted to
absolve his father, he also wanted to absolve his people
of their own dysfunction, their ugliness, the violence that their
community sort of harbors. That in bringing bringing Jewish society
to Gentile society, he wanted to sort of make their
dysfunction like, not a particular dysfunction. I mean, I don't
know if he would we say that his theore, the
universalizing of his theory is a way to whitewash, particularly
particularly Jewish dysfunction. Is it a way to help integrate
Jews into gentile society by saying, well, all this expressly
Jewish dysfunction is actually sort of a universal human tendency.
I don't know, but that sentence, so I became one
of you is very telling to me.
Speaker 1: Well, what I think is interesting here is that he
says that he joined the Bena breath in eighteen ninety seven,
which is I believe they says the year his father died.
I believe it says that earlier in the article. So
he's it seems like if he's joining the Bena breath
at that point, he's embracing his Judaism as his father
is passing. And you know, I don't know what his
dad dies on November two, eighteen ninety six, or ten
days before that, and then the next year he joins
the Benet breath, which is, you know, I assume to
be around, be around other Jews, or even to find
a replace his father in some way by finding somebody
who you know, in a leadership role in Judaism. I
don't know, just there as Yeah, the statement is an
excellent illustration of what Cut he calls the ordeal of civility,
the struggle of every Jew who wishes to assimilate yet
feels unable to overcome the dark emotional powers of his
ancestral Jewishness, with its implicit imperative not to assimilate Jewishness
has much to do with what Ivan Nagi calls those
invisible loyalties. They combined a person to his ancestors by
an irresistible system of values, obligations, and debts. The question
is to what extent freud psychoanalytical theory is the result
of freud surrender to those dark emotional to those dark
emotional powers. We must take Freud seriously when he tells
us in the Interpretation of Dreams that his own Jewishness
took the form of an identification with Hannibal and the
fantasy of taking vengeance on the Romans. He went on
to say, quoting I myself had walked in Hannibal's footsteps. Hannibal,
with whom I had achieved this point of similarity, had
been my favorite hero during my years at the Gymnasium. Moreover,
when I finally came to realize the consequences of belonging
to an alien race and was forced by the anti
Semitic feeling among my classmates to take a definite stand,
the figure of the Semitic commander assumed still greater proportions
in my imagination. Hannibal and Rome symbolized in my youthful
eyes to struggle between the tenacity of the Jews and
the organization of the Catholic Church. The significance for our
emotional life which the anti Semitic movement has since assumed,
helped to fix the thoughts and impressions of those early days. Thus,
the desire to go to Rome has in my dream
life become the mask and symbol for a number of
warmly cherished wishes for whose realization one had to work
with the tenacity and single mindedness of the Punic general,
though their fulfillment at times seemed as remote as Hannibal's
lifelong wished to enter Rome. The significance of this public confession,
printed in eighteen ninety nine for all the world to read,
cannot be overstated. Here Freud names as a driving force
for his life the fantasy of entering Rome, the Christian
world and destroying it to avenge to Phoenicians the Jews.
If Freud was deeply influenced by his Jewish backgrounds, so
were the other founding members of the psychoanalytical movement. Dennis
Klein writes in Jewish Origins of the Psychoanalytical Movement, quoting
From its beginning in nineteen oh two to nineteen oh six,
all seventeen members were Jewish. The full significance of this
number lies again in the way they viewed themselves, For
the analysts were aware of their Jewishness and frequently maintained
the sense of Jewish purpose and solidarity. This feeling of
positive Jewish pride formed the matrix of the movement in
the psychoanalytical circle as a spirits are renewed independence. It
tightened the bond among the members and powered their self
image of a redemptive elite. The exception is Carl Jung,
whom Freud named president of the International psycho Analytical Association
in nineteen ten, precisely is to deflect the reproach to
psychoanalysis was a Jewish science. Interestingly, Jung is the only
member who never subscribed to Freud's theory of infantile sexuality.
In response to a letter by Karl Abraham, who complained
that Jung seems to be reverting to his former spiritualistic inclinations,
Freud explained, it is really easier for you than it
is for Jung to follow my ideas, for you stand
nearer to my intellectual constitution because of racial kinship. Freud
asked A. Abraham not to antagonize Jung, because it was
only by his appearance on the scene a psychoanalysis escaped
the danger of becoming a Jewish national affair. In contrast
to Jung, Abraham was the most zealous supporter of Freud's
theory of infantile sexuality in the history of the socho
analytical movement. In nineteen nineteen, Freud wrote that the last
word in the question of traumatic etiology was later on
said by Abraham, when he drew attention to the fact
that just the peculiar nature of a child's sexual constitution
enables it to provoke sexual experiences of a peculiar kind,
that is to say, traumas self inflicted traumas, so to speak.
Freud was referring to a nineteen oh seventeen paper by Abraham,
the Experiencing of Sexual trauma as a form of sexual activity.
It is perhaps significant that Abraham, son of an Orthodox Rabbi,
was also the most ethnocentric of Freud's disciples. He wrote
in nineteen thirteen an essay on neurotic ec exogamy, diagnosing
Jewish Men who say they could never marry a Jewess
with an neurosis resulting from disappointed incestuous love.
Speaker 2: I wondered, Yeah, not to interrupt too much, I always
wondered why. I mean, because that that basically Jung's rejection
of the seduction theory, really his rejection of Freud's sort
of like if you want to say, fixation on child's
childhood sexuality, was the wedge that drove them apart. And
the further that as as that that sort of disagreement
became more pronounced than Freud started to more aggressively attack
Carl Jung privately and publicly, even taking out full page
of newspaper ads saying that he was basically undermining him
in his career. I've always wondered why Jung didn't take
up that explanation of Freud's and I just wonder if
that speaks to like a fundamentally different sort of I
don't know, if you want to say, just cultural hygiene
between gentiles and Jews, that it's like less credulous to
like a gentile of well upbringing to believe that there's
rampant sexual violence going on.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Jung was famously sort of sort of had his own
sexual hang ups or or maybe not hang ups per se,
but we'll put it this way. He brought pleasure into
his private practice quite a bit. In fact, Freud chastised
him for romancing his his patient and Carl Jung would
even like when he was giving speaking engagements, he would
travel with his wife and his family and his mistress,
so like he had his own sort of sexual I
guess if you want to say, sexual identity related issues.
But it was never clear to me why why he
took such a conflict with Freud on that point. I mean,
I don't know, just wondering out that. Well, here's a
question for you, and I don't know if you know
this or not. You know, basically the beginning of this
and through the beginning, it seems to imply that there
may have been a problem with parents, fathers molesting their
children in the Jewish community, and that it still happens
through today back then, do you know, how do you
know how was that just common? Was that just something
that was you know, was done by more than just Jews.
There were a lot there were a lot of cultures
that engaged in that I certainly couldn't point to, like
empirical proof of that. I I mean, I think it's
probably not just a problem in like the Jewish community,
but I mean the type of dysfunction that Carl Jung.
I mean there was not a lack of sort of
friction between him and his father, but it was of
an entirely different nature. Jung's father, I think was I
don't remember. I don't think he killed himself, but he
was sort of like a faith he was a pastor,
but he also had his own sort of personality conflicts. Yeah,
I don't think I have an answered that question. I
don't think it's a strictly Jewish phenomenon. I think what
is unique to the Jewish community, and it clearly has
been for a long time, is like circumcision is effectively
part of their tradition and has been for a very
long time. And do we have to get specific into
a kind of, you know, all overly narrow idea that
sexual violence. I mean that to me, circumcision is a
kind of sexual violence. The rabbi cleaning the aftermath of
that with his mouth, This is basically a violation. Whether
we want to talk in more overt terms or in
a sort of to borrow Freudian word a sort of
sublimated religious excuse for engaging in the same kind of
territorial behavior. It's no matter what way you want to
look at it, there's something intrinsic to their community that
produces that sort of dysfunction. But I mean, I don't
think it's if we just wanted to talk about the
problem of incest more generally, or like familial sexual violence
more generally. I think it's out there. What's it? What's
kind of I did my own show on my substack
ebl on the work of George Patai recently, and one
of the questions that we had sort of raised. George
Pattai was a French well, he was a seminary student,
and then he became sort of a sort of your
stereotypical kind of French pervert philosopher, and he carried on
this tradition that you see a lot during Freud's time
and after, where there's this extreme preoccupation with incest as
a sort of foundational anthropological, psychological question to be answered
about human nature. And some of the most obvious examples
of intellectuals who broached that question were Freud, but also
Levi Strauss, who was also Jewish. And there were a
number of Jewish intellectuals at that time who, in their
social theorizing, were wondering about the foundational rule incest place,
what it tells us about human nature. And they weren't
all Jews who did that. George of Bataie was not Jewish,
but he was also very heavily influenced by le By Strauss.
And you know, that to me is like sort of
an indication that there's an over representation of this problem
in that community. But I don't think by any stretch
of the imagination, they were the only ones to uniquely
deal with that.
Speaker 1: Okay, a new section denial projection inversion. I suggest that
Freud's abandon of the seduction theory and it's cover up
by the Oedipus complex were motivating half unconsciously, at least
by Freud's loyalty not only to his father but to
his Jewish community. In the eighteen nineties, Freud's clientele was
drawn exclusively from the Jewish middle class. Imagine if Freud's
seduction theory had earned him the recognition he craved for.
Although he disguised the identity of his patients and his
case studies. It would not have been long before his
work was attacked not just as Jewish science, but as
evidence of the depravity of Jewish mores. However, I don't
think Freud's consciousness is I don't think Freud reasoned consciously
in this manner. As he was turning a blind eye
in the incestuous sexuality of his patient's family, his blindness
was not fake, but psychologically constrained. It is the blindness
that characterizes Jewishness. At the core, Jewishness is the conviction,
deeply internalized from the earliest age, of the superiority of
Jews over non Jews chosenness. Anything contradicting the superiority creates
a cognitive dissonance, which is overcome by denial. Denial means projection.
To protect the dirty secret of child abuse and Jewish families,
including his own, Freud projected an imaginary, repressed, infantile perversion
on all mankind. Projection, in turn, means inversion. Freud's close
disciple Otto Rank claimed that Jews had a more primitive
and therefore more healthy sexuality than Gentiles. Freudians and Freudo
Marxists have systematically denounced Christian civilization as suffering from sexual repression.
According to Wilhelm Reich, anti Semitism is itself a symptom
of sexual frustration and could be cured by sexual liberation.
The mass Psychology of Fascism nineteen thirty four, an improvement
from Leo Pinsker's theory that Judeophobia was a hereditary and
incurable disease transmitted for two thousand years. In order to
understand the psychological ban background of the Reiche and Messianic
mission to cure the Christian West, and in order to
see more clearly the projective nature of the psychoanalytical theory
of repression, it is helpful to know that the personal
story of Wilhelm Reich, which reads as a caricature of Freud's.
At ten years old, when he realized that his mother
was having an affair with his tutor, the young Wilhelm
thought of blackmailing his mother into having sex with him. Eventually,
he confided in his father, that is, about his mother's adultery.
In nineteen ten, after a period of beatings from his father,
his mother committed suicide, in which Reich blamed himself. One
of the most puzzling aspects of Jewish relationship with their
host nations is its ambivalence pattern on biblical history. Within
Jewish thinking, saving the nations and destroying them are not
two sides of the same coin, but one and the same,
because what nations are supposed to be cured of is
their very identity, their gods in biblical terms. According to
Andrew Hines, author of Jews in the American Soul, Jews
have shaped American ideas about the mind and soul with
the preoccupation to purge the evils they associated with Christian civilization.
It really started with Freud, and September nineteen oh nine,
invited to give a series of lectures in New England,
Freud jokingly asked his companion Sandor Ferenzi and Carl Jung,
don't they know we're bringing them the plague? An extraordinary
statement for a medical doctor pretending to have found a
cure for neurosis and a prophetic one. Freudianism became a
justification for a sexual liberation that can be seen in
retrospect as a massive sexual abuse of the youth.
Speaker 2: So I don't want to rebut this too strongly. It's
just worth pointing out that Reich was a critic of Freud,
and that Reike they met in nineteen nineteen. Reich did
try to get to some degree into Freud's inner circle,
have access to his clientele, and he took up some
of Freud's theorizing, but certainly by the end of his
career he was sort of an antagonist to Freud. And
there's some I think there's I don't want to sound
like I'm trying to do apologetics here, because I'm not
really a Freudian. I think he's an interesting person in
in you know, intellectual history, but there's there's a sort
of a difference between Freud and then Freudianism that followed
after him, And there a lot of people who took
up Freud as a kind of revolutionary figure. It took
his ideas as a as a vehicle for like anti Christian,
anti gentile, anti you know, Western polemics. I mean, as
Lourene Greynatt mentions earlier in the passage that you read,
you know, a lot of the post Marxist tradition was
a blend of Freud and marx UH, and it was
taking up some of those ideas that really were compatible,
compatible as a sort of like radical communist polemic against UH.
You know, the the inherited tradition of Western society. But
Reich in particular used this sort of free wheeling sexuality
as as a as a foundation of his theorizing. It
was a it was a foundation of his polemic against
Christian sexual morality. I don't know that I read into
Freud that as much, although some of those quotes, I
had not heard that about the plague before. So that's
the first time I'm hearing that. You're telling me for
the first time. It's that is telling. And I think
it's undeniable that he had a conscious self concept as
a Jewish man interfacing with gentile society. But sometimes I
feel that he gets tarred a little bit too much.
Just a thought.
Speaker 1: Just for those who are watching. There's a picture here
of Sigmund's grandson, Sir Clement Freud claiming as a British
mp pedophile, rapist, suspected murder of three year old girl.
If you go to Wikipedia. All of these allegations were
made after his death, and I don't think anything could
be proven, but two or three women gave very similar accounts.
So just I know people who are watching this are
going to be like, Hey, what's that what's that? So
all I can say is Clement Freud has a Wikipedia page,
and I'm sure if you want to go, go down
a rabbit hole, all right, Part six, bene Brith and
the Road to Fame. By a stunning coincidence, Freud was
initiated into the recently founded bene Brith in September eighteen
ninety seven, precisely the time of his conversion to the
dogma of infantile sexuality. Dennis Klein writes in chapter three
of his book the Book The Prefiguring of the Psychoanalytical
Movement Freud in the bene Breth that after the bitter
disappointment of being denied professorship, Freud filled through the bene
Breth the professional as well as the social vacuum in
his life. He was a very active member, attending almost
every meeting during the first decade his most productive years.
He recruited at least three members, and in nineteen oh
one was a founding father of a second lodge in Vienna,
the Harmony Lodge. The same year he gave a talk
on goals and purposes of the bene Breath Society. Freud
often presented his work to the Bena Breath before publishing it.
In this respect, writes Klient, the Viennase bene Brith Lodge
was a precursor of the movement of psychoanalysis. After his
death in nineteen thirty nine, the bene Breth of Vienna
continued relentlessly the support granted during his lifetime to the
famous brother. To what extent where the bene Breth Masonic
meetings influential and Freud swing from the seduction theory to
the Oedipus theory, No one can say. However, we can
hold as fairly certain that Freud's membership inay Birth was influential,
and as becoming one of the major intellectual stars and
gurus of modernity. As a scientist, Freud was a failure,
duped by his own unconscious and unrealistic confidence that he
could solve the human enigma by self analysis alone. He
was also an impostor who, in his published case studies,
invented cures when there was none. As investigations, as the
real biographies of his patients have shown true, he was
sometimes insightful, but the hagiographic image of Freud as a
discoverer of the unconscious is totally unwarranted. As Henri Ellenberger
has shown in his classic study The Discovery of the
Unconscious quoting throughout the nineteenth century there existed a well
rounded system of dynamic psychiatry. The basic features of the
first dynamic psychiatry where the use of hypnosis as an
approach to the unconscious mind, the interest in certain specific
conditions called magnetic diseases, the concept of a dual model
of the mind with a conscience with a conscious and
an unconscious ego, the belief in the psychogenesis of many
emotional and physical conditions, and the use of specific psychotherapeutic procedures.
The therapeutic channel was seen as being the rapport between
hypnotists and patient. The cultural impact of the first dynamic
psychiatry was far greater than is generally believed. It could
easily be argued that in matters of psychology, every sensible
thing that Freud said had been said before him, and
that almost everything he said hadn't been said before has
been proven wrong. So why did Freud become f The
long answers that Freud benefited from the same kind of
communication networking that produced many other Jewish intellectual quote unquote geniuses,
and made French novelists. Andre Guide comment in nineteen fourteen
in his diary about this tendency to constantly emphasize the
Jew This predisposition to recognizing in him talent, even genius.
The shorter answers to the question above is ben a Breath.
I will not suggest that the Bena brit supported Freud's
Oedipus theory because they saw its potential for the moral
corruption of the West. Nor do I suggest that the
ben a Breth and Freud conspired to ruin Western civilization
with thetis pest elential idea of infantile sexuality. But I
do suggest that had Freud maintained his earlier conviction in
the reality of the abuses suffered by the Jewish parents,
he would not received as much support, probably none. To
clarify this point, and is it appropriate to recall a
memorable demonstration of power by the benet Brith, which has
an obvious relevance to Freud's intellectual biography. In nineteen thirteen,
the Bene Brith created the antidefamation lead to save the
life and reputation of Leo Frank, the wealthy young president
of the Atlanta chapter of the Bena Brith, who was
convicted of the rape and murder of Mary Fagan, a
thirteen year old girl work in his pencil factory. The
evidence for Frank's guilt was overwhelming, but tremendous financial resources
were deployed for his legal defense, including false testimonies. An
intense publicity was orchestrated in the news media, with the
New York Times devoting enormous coverage to this case. I
quote from ronn Uns's article, quoting for almost two years
to nearly limitless. Funds deployed by Frank's supporters covered the
cost of thirteen separate appeals on the state and federal levels,
including to the US Supreme Court, while the national media
was used to endlessly vilify Georgia's system of justice in
the harsher's possible terms. Naturally, this soon generated a lite
local reaction, and during this period, outraged Georgians began denouncing
the wealthy Jews who were spending such enormous sums to
subvert the local criminal justice system. All appeals were ultimately rejected,
and Frank's execution date for the rape and murder of
the young girl finally drew near, but just days before
he was scheduled to leave office, Georgia's outgoing governor commuted
Frank's sentence, provoking an enormous storm of popular protests, especially
since he was legal partner of Frank's chief defense lawyer
and obvious conflict of interest. A few weeks later, a
group of Georgia citizens stormed Frank's prison farm, abducting and
hanging him, with Frank becoming the first and only Jew
lynched in American history. Thanks to the mobilization of the
Jewish power elite. As one man, Leo Frank had been
turned from a convicted pedophile and child murder into a
martyr of antisemitism. We don't know what Freud thought of
this case, but there is an obvious residence between his
assaults on truth and the Benet Brits. If young Mary
Fagan had visited Affreudian psychoanalyst before her atrocious death and
complained of her boss's sexual overtures, she probably would have
been told about her own penis envy. Had she protested,
she would have been told that her protest proved her
sexual repression. Exactly has happened to Freud's patience. Dora Dora
i'd a Bauer by her real name, an eighteen year
old girls suffering from hysterical symptoms. I will say this,
the KKK up until this point really had no the
Jewish question wasn't really on their radar. This basically was
a turn in their organization. And actually at that point
their organization had weakened and this kind of woke them up.
So yeah, we see the Uh what happens when ju
power and money goes to protect their own people doings,
who've done something wrong or being accused of doing something wrong?
How other people just go Wait a minute, let's start
asking some questions about this? So all right? Part seven
The Isaac complex. The son's repressed wish to murder his
father is perhaps Freud's most fertile intuition. The problem is
with Freud's abuse of generalization, only the neurotic son of
a destructive and manipulative father has a repressed wish to
kill the father. Freud discovered this impulse in himself and
confounding his own self analysis for a scientific quest of
universal laws, he projected it on all mankind. But the
fact that Freud's Jewish disciples all discover the same impulse
and that Freudian has it became so widely accepted by Jews,
suggest that Freud's generalization was not without merit. It only
suffered from the tendency of Jewish intellectuals to protect toject
Jewish issues on all mankind. The child's repressed wish to
kill his father is not universally human, but may be
characteristically Jewish. For the Jewish father is the guardian of
Jewishness and the representative of the Jewish God, and every
Jewish buyer is in the depth of his soul to
free himself from Yahweh, the archetypal, abusive and castrating father,
as Philip Brought's character Smilesberger says in Operation Shylock, to
appeal to a crazy, violent father, and for three thousand
years that is what is to be a crazy Jew.
And so the secret wish to murder the Jewish father
is also a secret wish for the death of the
Jewish God. It is therefore identical with the so called
Jewish self hatred that Theodore Lessing saw as affecting every
Jew without exception. There is not a single man of
Jewish blood in whom cannot be detected at least the
beginning of Jewish self hatred.
Speaker 2: This also begs, the makes me wonder again, Like thinking
of his book From Moses to Monotheism. If we're taking
this point of view that Lorent is putting forth here,
I mean, maybe there's a vested interest in Freud wanting
to complicate or problematize the Jewish view of themselves as
being the first and only authentic monotheistic people. I mean,
I do think in that book he talked about Yahwehs
being a volcanic god. I mean, these are sort of
things that like contemporary comparative religious scholars sort of look at.
Certainly it's something anti Semites look at and say, hmm,
this is a particularistic god with the specific origin that
reflects an aspect of the Jewish psyche and maybe it's not,
you know, the one true loving God of the Bible
blah blah blah. I mean, it's certainly interesting to turn
the psychoanalysis back back on the psychoanalyst. That's always a
fun game to play.
Speaker 1: We're almost done here, so I guess we're gonna finish
this up alrighty. By choosing a Greek myth as a
metaphor for his theory, Freud was projecting on Gentiles a
Jewish problem. Had he recognized the Jewish overtone of the complex,
he might have called it the Isaac complex, since Isaac
is the son that Abraham was willing to slaughter. The expression.
The expression Isaac complex has actually been used by French
heterodox psychoanalyst Jean Pierre Fresco, who defines it as the
overall consequences of the son's psyche of a father perceived
as as psychologically menacing, destroying, or murderous. Fresco calls such
a father a Brahmic. He draws his insight from a
reading of Frantz Kofka's autobiographical and posthumously published Letter to
the Father, in which Kafka describes the devastating effect on
his personality of a father who means of education, work, abuse, threats, irony,
spiteful laughter, and oddly enough, self pity. Kafka also wrote
to his father, my writing was all about you. All
I did there, after all, was to be moan what
I could not be moaned upon your breast. Kafka's major
novels refer autobiographically to his relationship with his father and
its deletarious psychic consequences. The metamorphosis tells of Gregor Samson's
transformation into a repulsive insect, chased and killed by his father,
whose incestuous violence is suggested in the scene where the
father attacks his son from behind with a cane, tapping
his feet and pushing out sibilants like a wild man.
After the death of Gregor appears his sister Greta, his
double in the other sex, the homosexualized son in the Verdict, George,
anagram of Gregor, has just become engaged with Frieda Brandenfeld
same initials as Felice Bauer, the woman whom Kafka had
just started dating, and announced it to his father. The
father opposes a terrible prohibition to this project of marriage,
accompanied by extreme narcissistic violence. The paternal prohibition of emancipation
through marriage is linked to an incestuous domination that becomes
clear when George submissively proposes to the father to exchange beds.
Fresco also finds a psychic trace of the father in
Kofgo's novel The Trial, whose narrator Joseph Kay was arrested
without knowing who slandered him nor who will judge him.
According to Fresco, this incomprehensible and omnipotent slanderer accuser. Judge
is the palymphesist, the polympicist of an archaic Abrahamic father,
unconsciously introjected as an archaic and sadistic super ego and
turned into an inner prosecutor. I find it significant that Kafka,
by his own omission, drew his inspiration from his experience
as the son of a psychopathic father, while his Jewisish
literary critics consider him quintessentially Jewish by common consents at
Harold Bloom, Kafka is not only the strongest modern Jewish writer,
but the Jewish writer, hence Israel's long decade long legal
battle to secure his autograph manuscripts as national treasure. Who
is right of Kafka and his critics? Does his genius
come from being Jewish or from having a psychopathic father? Obviously,
it is impossible to distinguish the two factors. Because the
psychopathic father happens to be Jewish, he is, in Fresco's terms,
the typical a Bramic father. But are not all Jewish
fathers of Brahmik in the measures of their jewishness? Is
not the Jewish God a psychopathic father and the psychopathic
father of a Jewish god. Kafka perceived his sadistic father
as a cruel divinity whose laws were totally arbitrary and
yet unquestionable, just like the Jewish God. For me, as
a child, everything you called out to me was positively
a heavenly commandment, he wrote in his Letters to the Father.
From your armchair, you ruled the world. Your opinion was correct.
Every other was mad, wild with sugar, not normal. Your
self confidence, indeed, was so great that you had no
need to be consistent at all, and yet never ceased
to be right, quoting Hence, the world was for me
divided into three parts. One in which I, the slave,
lived under laws that had been invented only for me,
and which I could I did not know why, never
completely comply with. Then a second world, which was infinitely
remote from mine, in which you lived concerned with government,
with the issuing of orders and the annoyance about their
not being obeyed. And finally a third world, which everybody
else lived happily and free from orders and from having
to obey. I was continually in disgrace. Either I obeyed
your orders, and that was a disgrace, for they applied,
after all, only to me, or I was defiant, And
this was a disgrace too, for how could I presume
to defy you and I could not obey because I
did not, for instance, have your strength, your appetite, your skill,
although you expected it of me as a matter of course.
This was the greatest disgrace of all. I mean, this
is I was as I was reading this section right here,
the quoted section, I was just thinking of E. Michael Jones,
a Jewish revolutionary spirit, where I mean he's just basically
he's revolting against everything around him and all he wants
to do is just be. It seems like just be
a solo man where the only the only person he
has to answer to is himself.
Speaker 2: I don't know, Yeah, that that that sort of radical
individualistic streak does seem to be kind of characteristically Jewish.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's a it's been pushed upon us, upon
this culture, upon America and what used to be the
West for one hundred years now. It's a you know,
it's seen as a virtue. And if you go against
that individualism, you're a communist, which is ironic considering where
both of those ideas came from right, yeah, all right.
Part eight, and this is the last part, the trauma
of eight days circumcision. After all, the Abrahamic father is
the executioner of the commandment given to Abraham. As soon
as he is eight days old, every one of your
male's generation after generation must be circumcised. Had Freud preserved
his original insight into the psychological damage of sexual abuse
on children, he might have eventually reflected on the impact
of neonatal circumcision, but he has been rather discrete on
the subject. Though he didn't have his own sons circumcised,
he broaches in his later books, but only in the
context of anthropological speculations. In New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,
he speculated that during the human family's primeval period, castration
used to be carried out by a jealous and cruel
father upon growing boys, and the circumcision, which so frequently
plays a part in puberty rights among primitive people, is
a clearly recognizable relic of it. Freud went further in
Moses and Monotheism. Circumcision is the symbolic substitute of castration,
a punishment which the primeval father dealt his sons long
ago out of an awfulness of his power, and whosoever
accepted this symbol showed by so doing that he was
ready to submit to his father's will, although it was
at the cost of a painful sacrifice. Interestingly, Freud originally
got that idea from Sandor Ferenci, who had written an
article that greatly impressed Freud, that circumcision as a means
of inspiring terror a symbol of castration by the father.
But we note that in the above quotations, Freud isn't
referring to Jewish circ circumcision of eight day children, only
to circumcision of adolescent boys. Given the Jewish undercurrent of
Freud's intellectual biography, it is reasonable to assume that his
inability to deal with the issue of Jewish neonatal circumcision
is connected to his refusal to face the devastating reality
of child abuse. Isn't the first abuse suffered by every
Jewish male that part of his parents and kin's circumcision
on the eighth Day, It physically impresses on every Jew
and on all Jews collectively, the traumatic domination of Yahweh
and his covenants. The psychological impact of neonatal circumcision performed
without anesthesia and causing unbearable pain has been studied by
Professor Ronald Goldman, author of Circumcision The Hidden Trauma. His
research shows a disturbance in the mother child bonding process
after the ritual. Testimonies from mothers who observe circumcisions show
that the mother's guilt is also part of the equation.
Here is one from Elizabeth Pickard Ginsburg. I don't feel
I can recover from it. We had this beautiful baby
boy in seven beautiful days, and this beautiful rhythm starting,
and it was like something had been shattered. When he
was first born. There was a tie with my young one,
my newborn, and when the circumcision happened, in order to
allow it, I had to cut off the bond. I
had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so,
I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I
cut it off to repress the pain and to repress
the natural instinct to stop the circumcision. The unnatural incestuous
wish that Freud and his Jewish male disciples discovered in
their repressed unconscious could perhaps be explained as a result
of the inhibition in mother child bonding caused by the
trauma of neonatal circumcision, a trauma cause at this age
has little chance to ever be brought back into consciousness
and be healed. Research is perhaps needed on the possible
link between Jewish circumcision and the fact that, according to
the nineteen o six Jewish Encyclopedia, that the Jews are
more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the
other races and peoples among which they dwell. Research done
by sociologist Leo Stroll in nineteen sixty two show that
the rate of neuroses and character disorders among Jews was
about three times higher three times is high among Catholics
and Protestants. In the Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud
describes religion, meaning essentially Christianity, as universal obsessional neurosis, which
has for believers the merit that their acceptance of the
universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one.
With a similar approach, Judaism can be described as a
collective sociopathy. That does not mean that the Jews are sociopaths,
but rather that, in proportion to the degree of their
identification is Jews. They are victims of a sociopathic mindset
patterned from the tannak marked in their flesh, impressed traumatically
in their subconscious by circumcision, and fuel by their elites
with the paranoia of anti Semitism. The difference between collective
sociopathy and individual sociopathy is the same as between collective
neurosis and individual neurosis. According to Freud, participation in a
collective sociopathic mentality allows members of the community to channel
sociopathic tendencies towards the outside of the community and to
maintain inside a high degree associability.
Speaker 2: So I'm thinking, especially in the light of those last
two sections, if you look at a lot of if
you look at some of the other classic Freudian concepts,
some of his defense mechanisms, even his tripartite model of
human consciousness, to in the ego, the super ego, it
does I mean, this is one of the reasons, going
through my education, but also just reflecting on it throughout
my life, I never really considered myself a Freudian was
because I never felt in my own experience as a
thinking person, any identification with or recognition of some of
these things that he treated as sort of paramount to
the human experience. So you know, the idea of a
super ego as this sort of crushing mental tyrant, urging
you into conformity. I mean, that sounds a lot more
like how Lourent Goynott talks about the relationship that Jewish men,
Jews in particular, feel towards Yahweh and the desire to
overthrow the Father, to set themselves up as a sort
of authoritarian god of one type or another. I mean,
that is what the super ego is and his conception,
and that's sort of what you know, a certain like
anti Semitic reading of the God of the Old Bible
looks like. And I don't know too many gentiles my
whole life who really necessarily had a problem with like
I mean, there's an extent to which, you know, nobody
likes to be told what to do, and at some
point in life we're all like shaking our fist against
the man or whatever. But this sort of like deep seated,
for lack of a better word, pathological relationship with authority
or conformity. I mean, most of the guy, I mean
I grew up middle class for the most part, so
most of the people I knew, like, never had a
problem with conformity so long as the native sure of
the authority was acceptable or justifiable. And you see a
certain streak in like these more radical Jewish intellectuals, where
there there literally is no standard that they will subject
themselves to and and many Jewish philosophies are entirely based
on this idea that I am my own measure and
how dare you? This is almost like like is his name,
Dave Portnoy from barstool Sports. It's like he's like almost
a good representation of this, Like, fuck you. There is
literally no standard I will accept because that standard is
external to myself. And that is so dysfunctional. And Lorenz
says at the end, sociopathic. I mean, you literally can't
build a society. You can't build a community around a
type of masculine psychology that simply categorically rejects any other
and any other responsibility to beyond itself. I have some
other thoughts. I don't know if you want to respond
to that. No, keep going, So, I mean the other
thing that so, the other thing that Freud is well
known for putting forth, are this sort of comprehensive list
of defense mechanisms, some of which, like frankly like never
made sense to me and part of the reason why
I struggled to really embrace my career as a psychologists
because it was like, some of these these are supposed
to be foundational ideas, and it's like I don't really
see them reflected in other people. I don't really see
them in myself. So, like, for example, reaction formation and sublimation,
these are psychological defense mechanisms that actually make a lot
more sense if you're assuming that it's a sort of
group outsider group strategy in a hostile society. So the
idea of reaction formation is that you behave in a
way that is the opposite of how you feel, or
is the opposite of your natural inclination. And maybe if
you are sort of like maybe like Freud potentially was,
where you just simply bristol at the norms and the
expectations that the society around you expects you to conform to,
that you have to go through this sort of tortured
psychological transformation where you're taking your native sort of again,
if we want to invoke e. Michael Jones, if you
have a sort of like radical transgressive impulse, but you
necessarily have have to function in a society that will
not tolerate that. And I don't know about you. I
didn't go around as a kid like necessarily feeling like
I had to flip everyone the bird and flip over
every table and piss in everyone's cheerios. I mean I
had youthful vigor. I think every young man growing up
has like a certain desire to impress themselves upon the
environment around them, But to the degree where you like
are constantly like foaming at the mouth with like I
can't be the way they want me to be. I
refuse to do anything they want me to do. I
hate them, and yet I've got to I've got to
abide by them anyway, Like reaction formation, where you've got
a there's a fundamental dissonance between your behaviors and your
actual internal experience. That doesn't I feel like you don't
really see that. Some of the places you do see
that are frankly like pathological work environments. You know, like
you see them really you kind of only see them
in this sort of post Jewish privileged world where everything
is sort of remade and reformed to conform to a
sort of Jewish morality that I mean, yeah, when I
go to my if I have my office job and
I hate my deiboss and I have to smile at
him even though I'm cursing under my breath, like you don't.
I mean, that's that makes sense. But then again, it's
like the same framework, like you are an outsider. You
are sort of a marginalized person in this existing ecosystem,
and you've got to find a way to navigate it.
Sublimation is another one, channeling unacceptable impulses into socially acceptable activities.
I mean, doesn't that describe tikon Olem. It's like, it's like,
I got into this argument with this Jewish woman on
Twitter the other day. She's like one of these not
to get all inside baseball Twitter micro communities on you
and your audience. But she was part of this like
Hegelian egirl thing that was like a very minor social
media thing a year ago. And she's an ethnically Jewish
woman but a devout Christian, and over the course of
this conversation, she's basically you know, she's being provoked because
she's she's she put up this post where she said
how much she hates German people and that she confused
considers them a inferior people, and she prays to God
for forgiveness and she prais it the Germans pray to
God for forgiveness too. It's like, Okay, if you have
these sort of tortured reactions to the world around you
that you are trying to make acceptable to those around you, like,
isn't that like isn't that what tikon Olham was? Because
she's basically saying, like, I'm a really good Christian because
I want to bring about this Christian eschatology. And isn't
that really the same thing as tikon Olam. Isn't there
no difference between Christ coming back to Earth and also
I'm going to destroy all your icons and overturn all
of your world orders. It's like, actually, I think there
is a fundamental difference between what the return of Christ
means versus I'm literally going to destroy every representation of
gentile society that exists around you. When you look at these,
you know the history of Jewish intellectuals driving civil rights
legislation or DEI or woke or whatever. What are they
doing if not masking their sort of radical transgressive spirit
via a masking it with this sort of like liberal
Christian morality or this liberal Enlightenment value system. It's it's
actually difficult to look at some of these Freudian ideas
and not see them as dressed up vehicles for basically
Jewish impulses.
Speaker 1: Well, it's.
Speaker 2: If you believe in.
Speaker 1: The authoritarian personality. The book from nineteen forty nine nineteen
fifty commissioned by the jew American Jewish Committee, put out
by Adorno and the Frankfurt School, which basically lays out
how to destroy Anglo society so that they'll never be
fascism again. All of this makes sense because if Jews
are going to be safe and no longer persecuted, you're
either going to have to turn the population into Jews,
like instill Jewish values, those Jewish values you know of
basically chaos of rebellion against everything that historically Anglo Europeans
held deer. You're either going to have to do that,
or you're going to have to figure out a way
to sedate them, you know, with pornography and basically attack everything,
and then you know, in the end, if they start
fighting back, then you make it. You make antisemitism illegal,
you start, you know, persecuting people who are you know,
starting to ask the Jewish question. And I mean, I
think that's like the last hundred years is pretty much
a picture of that of Tea and themol On basically
destroying seeking to destroy Western culture so that Jews can
fit in, so that they can blend in. So basically
now everybody is, everybody has is carrying their their ideals.
But also you know, they don't seem as the outsider anymore,
because that's been the problem that you know, that was
the problem in Russia. The problem in Russia was it
was like you had gigantic diaspora German you know, in
the in the seventeen eighteen hundreds, you had German populations
in Ukraine and they were thriving and they you know,
the czar's leadership loved them. But then you had this
other group that just stuck out like a sore thumb
because they were so different than everyone else, and whenever
you tried to deal with them, it was like, no,
we have to remain different. And then when laws were
changed and the Stettle is broken, the Schttle system was
broken up. It was just this reaction of trying to
push back against that, trying to trying to keep your traditions,
but also this group of people who are escaping from
their traditions, and they're like, Okay, now I can do
anything I want. And in order for me to be
able to do anything I want, I have to basically
create a world where people can do anything they want.
I mean, that's that's what it seems like to me.
That's of all the reading I've done you two hundred
years together, Jews in the Economic Life by Sombart Shahaks,
Jewish History, Jewish Religion, You Gentiles, Maurice Samuels, it just
basically seems like the It's like we were this people,
were these people who've always been on the outside. We
are always going to be on the outside. So we
have to create a society that looks like us, so
that we're no longer you know, we're no longer persecuted,
we're no longer seen as the outsider. And then you
throw into the fact that they get their own country
and they have nuclear weapons, and then that's a whole
different discussion.
Speaker 2: It's sort of like an impossible mission to set out
upon because, as larent mentions, towards the end of this
essay the sort of self persecuting tendency within Jewish society.
I mean, we're living now in the most judaized version
of the United States that has ever existed, and the
sense of these people as being persecuted seems like it's
more pronounced. It's certainly more pronounced than in my forty
years on this planet, my twenty five years odd as
a thinking adult, aware of global dynamics. I mean, they
didn't have this same oh my god, we're on the
precipice of Hitler two attitude in the nineteen nineties. They
didn't have it in the two thousands. It only started
to creep up in the twenty tens now that we're
halfway through this decade.
Speaker 1: Even because we have the we have the Internet, and
we have cameras on our phones, and information can be sent,
you know, can be sent instantaneously, and their people are
watching them basically incinerate populations. Yeah, it's I mean, how
is that not going? And then you know, and that
would be bad enough if it was just this country
six thousand miles away, but then you have people who
are claiming this to be the same as those people
over there that are doing it in your own country,
who are defending it and calling you evil and calling
you an anti Semite and basically saying that you you've
given up your right to exist anymore if you criticize this,
if you say that it's evil, if you say that,
how can you do this? What is it inside of
you that allows you to do this? And it's just information.
That's the thing that changed in the nineteen nineties. You know,
they could they could go into Gaza or the West
Bank and they could do what they did, and the
world only knew what the New York Times and what
you know, a couple a couple cable news outlets and
the local news told them. But now that everybody can
see it and it's exposed, you know, and it's basically
it's like they're back in Russia. They're back in Russia
where they're amongst people who you know, it's like my
you know, my mother's family came from is from Galicia.
They're you know, Hungarian Hungarians and Pollock's who were around
them in Galicia, and like they came here in like
nineteen ten and nineteen eleven, and you know, I'm growing
up and I'm like, why is my grandmother, Well that's
why I'm talking about my great grandparents, and I'm thinking,
why is my grandmother hate Jewish people so much? And
it's like, oh, yeah, because they because they lived in
they lived in basically what was Pale Settlement at the time,
and they got to see the way that they acted
and they got to see how revolutionary they were, and
they got to see them assassinate like public officials and
everyone knew who was doing it, and that's what's happening now.
It was like back then they couldn't hide it because
you know, they were in one section and they stood
out like a sore thumb. And now everyone can see
what they're doing because we have the Internet and it's
blasted everywhere, and they start their own telegram channels and
post videos of them doing it, like the seventy two
Virgins channel that was run by IDFY by Unit eighty
two hundred, and they were advertising what they were doing,
so let the world know. And it's like okay, yeah,
well how do we how are we supposed to deal
with that? I mean, and if you ask questions, it's like, okay,
why are you doing this? Why you know, why are
you saying that, you know, every time a baby dies
there was a terrorist hiding behind them. Yeah, it's like,
I mean, how do you You can't rational I can't rationalize.
You know, a terrorist in this country hiding under, you know,
a building in downtown New York and dropping a bomb
on that building to get to get one terrorist. I
don't see how that can I don't see how you
can do that. But oh everybody in that building is evil.
What I mean you talk about I mean, this goes
beyond gas lighting, this goes to Holy fuck, do you
think do you think I'm I mean, how fucking low?
Speaker 2: You know? What?
Speaker 1: What do you think about i Q?
Speaker 2: Is?
Speaker 1: I mean you think I'm I think.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I must not be as extremely online as I thought,
because I've never heard of this channel you mentioned, and
now I'm looking at a Jerusalem Post article about it,
and Holy Christ, that is that's yes, Uh, it's hard to.
Speaker 1: They were their own fucking atrocities.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can't imagine that that level of of of barbarism,
which is funny because we're told that they are the
outpost of Western democracy in the Middle East, and that's
that's barbarism. That makes you know, uh what they did
take a dafi look like uh, you know, an elementary
school beat down, you know, like you're in the backyard,
you got roughed up behind the fucking slide or whatever.
Like that's that's like child's play compared to the stuff
that's on there. Just to go back the section or
the the excerpt you've read about the woman expressing guilt
over circumcising her son. I mean again, it's it's just
the persecution is coming from inside the house is really,
I think the punchline of this essay. Whatever we want
to say about Freud's genuine intentions or his genuine malice
or not. Maybe he was totally unconscious, Maybe there was
no malice whatsoever. Maybe he just was a wacky guy
with a weird sense of humor and which, from time
to time say really condemned, you know, self condemning things
to his peers and whatever. Just the nature of that community,
and they're, like you said, their their need to separate
themselves out from every their population. They do that through barbarism,
they do that through terrorism, and you know the sort
of tragedy. Say this trying to be you know, a
little bit careful with my language here, I mean, the
tragedy of it is that they are still human and
that they obviously are tortured by these things they do
to themselves that they like. On the one hand, they
want to do it, and they seem to consciously understand
the purpose of circumcising themselves, of doing the brits, of
doing all these things that they do, these ritualistic ways
of marking their identity and cohering their community, like they
understand the role that it functions, and they seem to
understand the brutality of it, but they nonetheless carry the
toll of those consequences. And then they're out in the
world amongst us, you know, and and and that's what
makes sort of these Freudian defense mechanisms kind of so significant,
because if you, if you, you know, imagine yourself in
the shoes of somebody who brutalized their infant son because
it was part of their their religion and part of
their identity to do that, and they had been doing
it for countless generations, and they know that it's brutalizing,
and the only way they can cope with it is
to sort of become like this cold, distant tyrant to
their own children, and then you're the child that grows
up like that. You grow up basically cattle prod you know,
within seven days of being born, and it's your parents
go ahead.
Speaker 1: It's worse than that. Okay, So not only are you
brought up that way, you're also brought up told that
everybody wants to kill you, that historically everybody has wanted
to kill you, and you're told that your God's chosen
mm hmm, that we are this special people. Now, I'm
not going to pretend like I've read, you know, papers
and books on narcissism, but to me, all of those
things combined seem to create sup like the greatest army
of super narcissists that have ever walked the planet.
Speaker 2: Complex narcissists too, because if you think about so just
I mean to put a little bit of technical technical
language on you, I mean, there are multiple kinds of
narcissists and and and there's it's interesting. I mean, on
the one hand, you have like the categorical personality disorder
of narcissism, but there's like grandiose narcissists, which is to say,
overt narcissists. That's like the kind of stereotype that we
all have in our mind of like the guy who
gets out in front of the crowd to be the
big man. You know, That's what we all tend to
think of as narcissists. But then there's communal narcissists, there's
antagonistic narcissists, there are malignant narcissists, covert narcissists, and it
seems like in any given moment, an afflicted Jewish person
can kind of like oscillate between all of them. They
are the grand standing moralizer or the grand standing like
I am a superhero. But then there's also like the
like Jonathan green Black type of shrinking back where anything
you do, anything you say is an attack on me,
makes me feel small, makes me feel like you're being pure.
The type of narcissism where you know, like like the
social worker or the community organizer or the you know,
social justice activist, where they're masking their narcissism in this
kind of grand, almost christlike manner of being everything to everyone.
I mean, they they seem to like hit every flavor
of narcissism imaginable, and that that almost I mean, this
is one of the things where if you want to
get racist about your psychology, you have to take a
step back and say, like, Okay, is is narcissist a
racial type before it's even a psychological type. And if
it's a racial type, then how do you even categorize
narcissism as a sort of general psychological tendency when it
looks different from one group to the next, and even
within one group, it looks different based on the context,
Like when you sort of generalize narcissism to to like
the whole of the human species, Like the most common
ones are like the timid you know, I'm I feel
bad about myself and my narcissism is a is a
cope versus the sort of like strong narcissistic type where
it's it's a it's a the word I'm looking for,
sort of an intractable personality style that always shows up
in every situation that they're in. It's like, those are
the most common types of narcissisms of narcissism that you
see in the world. And maybe you could say that's
a sort of general tendency speaking to whether you know,
people either have inflated sense of self worth deflated sense
of self worth, but Jews have this sort of like
complex narcissism. That is that again, it defies generalizing to
a to the level of a universal human condition.
Speaker 1: Let's leave it there. Please promote you have you have books,
you have yes, please promote.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well again, thanks for having me on. I love
talking to you. I wish I had more to offer
during the essay. I was just really wrapped up in
getting through that with you. Definitely thought provoking when we
got to the end of it. But check me out
on Antelope Hill Publishing dot com for my new book,
Intolerant Interpretations. Check out Imperium Press for my two previous books,
American Extremist and Understanding Conspiracy Theories. On Substack. I haven't
published anything in a while, and I might not for
a while because I'm busy doing a lot of shows
like with you Janeel dot substack dot com and on
Twitter or x Still, Janeel, thank you so much, Pete.
It's a pleasure. Hope your audience enjoys appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Josh, yeah, man. Thanks Y