…by Jonas E. Alexis
Slavoj Zizek reminds me of Tevye of the 1971 movie A Fiddler on the Roof. Like Tevye, you never know what Zizek is going to say next, and if you listen to his explanation of love, youâll end up asking yourself, âWhat the heck is he saying?â
Zizekâs writings are more substantive than his lectures, but still I donât usually agree with them. His embrace of Jacques Lacanâs ideology and Sigmund Freudâs psychoanalysis destroys him as a cultural and Marxist philosopher precisely because the Freudian edifice is simply a house built on sand, and the scientific community itself has viewed it as such. As one observer put it,
âThe scientific standing of psychoanalysis and of its therapeutic claims has been severely compromised both by a lack of empirical support and [by] its dependence on an outdated biology.â[1]
Zizek himself admitted in 2006 that psychoanalysis âis outdated scientifically,â but given enough time it will prove to be right.[2]
Well, that hasnât happened yet. On the contrary, Frederick Crews of the University of California (Berkeley) has recently pointed out that that psychoanalysis continues to be alive because
âbiographical Freud studies have been dominated by partisans of psychoanalysis with a vested interest in preserving the legend of epochal discovery.
âNearly all of Freudâs apologists, heading a tacit plea on his part to be exempted from dispassionate evaluation of his claims, have engaged in protective discourse: ascribing special acuteness to the master, always granting him the benefit of the doubt, and, when there appears to be no dodging the evidence of his illogicalities and ethical lapses, blaming them on the autonomous operations of his unconscious mind.â[3]
Crews, who has recently written a devastating biography of Freud, declares, âBy exaggerating Freudâs competence in various respects, this Freudolatry has obscured the central drama of his career.â[4] Freud, boasting that psychoanalysis had some scientific validity, wrote to a Swiss colleague by the name of Oskar Pfister, âWhy was it that none of all the pious ever discovered psychoanalysis? Why did it have to wait for a completely godless Jew?â[5]
Why did they have to spend their time and energy on something that is against the moral order and common sense? Why did the people in the psychoanalytic movement have to propagate their ideas as a cult?[6] Why did Freud himself fail to acknowledge that there were other people who were basically saying the same thing that he perpetuated in psychoanalysis?
Why did Freud deliberately have to write them out of history? Why did he have to form cult-like devotees like Ernest Jones who would excommunicate anyone who even questioned his ideological enterprise?[7] Why did he have to make up much of the evidence for psychoanalysis? Didnât Freud himself say that psychoanalysis cured no one?
And why is it that no serious intellectual pay close attention to psychoanalysis anymore? Why did Crews even explicitly argue that psychoanalysis is âa pseudoscienceâ way back in 1995?[8] As Crews puts it, âIn 1999, a comprehensive citation study in the flagship journal of American psychology reported that âpsychoanalytic research has been virtually ignored by mainstream psychology over the past several decades.ââ[9]
In any event, Zizek is both a philosopher and a psychoanalyst, but his fundamental philosophy seems to be a function of psychoanalysis. In fact, he has built much of his intellectual life on the work of Jacques Lacan, who also was an avid Freudian. But Zizek has recently made an interesting comment which seems to destroy the game that feminists constantly plays in Hollywood and elsewhere. He said:
âWhen women dress provocatively to attract the male gaze or when they âobjectifyâ themselves to seduce them, they donât do it offering themselves as passive objects: instead they are the active agents of their own âobjectification,â manipulating men, playing ambiguous games, including reserving the full right to step out of the game at any moment even if, to the male gaze, this appears in contradiction with previous âsignalsâŚâ
âFemale sexual liberation is not just a puritan withdrawal from being âobjectivizedâ (as a sexual object for men) but the right to actively play with self-objectivization, offering herself and withdrawing at will. But will it be still possible to proclaim these simple facts, or will the politically-correct pressure compel us to accompany all these games with some formal-legal proclamation (of consensuality, etc.)?â[10]
If we take Zizek seriously here, women can âobjectify themselvesâ when they dress provocatively or seductively, particularly when their original intent is to seduce âthe male gaze.â If that is the world that feminism actually wants to present to men out there, then it is dangerous precisely because once the âmale gazeâ is seduced, all hell breaks loose. In that world, the male gaze will more than likely violate the moral order. In fact, seduction itself entails a violation of the moral order. That is why Dionysus asked Pentheus if he would like to see women dance naked in Euripidesâ The Bacchae.
So, can we really say that the feminist movement is completely innocent when rape or sexual harassment occurs? Donât these people have to carry some responsibility? Can they continue to deliberately flash their cleavage on social media day and night and then later cry like babies, saying that they were sexualized and then raped?
Sure, men do have to take responsibility for getting caught with their pants down, but who made these sexual crimes alluring? Shouldnât people like Megyn Kelly take some responsibility for degrading themselves on the Howard Stern show?
Will the sex culture carry some moral burden by refusing to produce pornography in the name of âdemocracyâ and âfreedomâ? Donât we all know by now that pornography damages the brain?[11] Will colleges and universities around the United States stop offering âcoursesâ on pornography to their naĂŻve young students?
These questions deserve serious reflections and answers, and British-American actress Angela Lansbury has recently come to similar conclusions. She wrote that attractive women “must sometimes take blame” for sexual harassment, which she said “backfired on us.” Lansbury added:
“There are two sides to this coin. We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us, and this is where we are today.
“We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although itâs awful to say we canât make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped,â â
Back in 2004,
âIt was reported that a local porn queen received college credit in her art class at the University of Southern California for an exhibit of hard-core âperformance art.â The class project that earned her rave reviews was undressing in front of the class and performing sex acts with two other women using vibrators.â[12]
Candice de Russy is a former professor and a trustee of the State University of New York. She argued that âsex toys, âbondage sex,â and even âpedophilia artâ are now topics being taught in womenâs workshops on campus, English literature classes, art departments, and in new centers of âlesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender studiesâ at a growing number of respected colleges on the campus of SUNY.â[13]
There is more. De Russy pointed out that courses or topics were and probably still are being offered on subjects such as
âSodomy, Miscegenation, and the Impossibility of Privacy, along with a performance by a Los Angeles drag queen known as Vaginal Crème Davis. A previous conference on the same campus, âRevolting Behavior: Challenges to Womenâs Sexual Freedom,â promised to offer âcutting-edged scholarship in the field of lesbian sadomasochismâ and âhow toâ manuals for lesbian sex, and booklets on how to dispose of razors and other instruments used in âcutting rituals.ââ[14]
Last November, Harvard University hosted “anal sex workshop,” which included “a presenter denouncing the ‘stupidity of abstinence’ and the joys of ‘putting things in your butt.'” It was reported that
“At one point the presenter leading the workshop passed out gloves and butt plugs to students as she offered instructions on anal relaxation techniques. ‘Remember itâs all about practice, practice, practice,’ said the presenter, Natasha, a representative of the Cambridge-based adult shop Good Vibrations.
“Identifying the event with the sexual positivity movement, Natasha said the goal was to ‘encourage people to go after their desires and not feel shame.’ ‘Come up front guys, were gonna have some dirty fun,’ she said as the presentation began. Noting ‘not all men have penises, not all women have vaginas,’ she added ‘the butthole is the great sexual equalizer. All humans have a butthole.”
Last year, the University of Chicago launched a “sex week,” which again included “love enchantments, âsexual painâ workshop, BDSM tutorials.”In 2014, the same university offered “field trips to kinky sex dungeon.”
Eve Enslerâs The Vagina Monologues are still being praised on college campuses. The whole point of The Vagina Monologues, as E. Michael Jones points out,
âis to break down the natural sexual reserve and modesty of the largely female teenage performers and audience as a prelude to colonization. It was a classic instance of sexual liberation as political controlâŚ.
âModesty is the first defense against the arousal of passion; it facilitates rational moral control of sexual impulse, but modesty was deliberately violated and ridiculed by the people putting on the [Vagina Monologues].â[15]
You see, none of these issues has been reported fairly and truthfully because the regime wants to bury decent Americans beneath an avalanche of hoaxes, deceptions, fabrications, and just plain lies.
More importantly, college and university professors across the country taught that moral relativism is true for decades, but when men begin to grab women âby the pussy,â to use Donald Trumpâs phraseology, all of a sudden professors begin to propound that âThere Is No Moral Relativity in Sexual Harassmentâ![16]
These people need to stop using double standards and accepts some responsibility for the sexual debauchery they have created. They despise morality and attack it viciously in the school curriculum, in higher education and even in films, but they embrace it whenever their own ideological philosophy gets them into trouble. The sex industry praises people like Michel Foucault, who bragged, âTo die for the love of boys: What could be more beautiful.â[17]
Focault declared:
âThe Faustian pact, whose temptation has been instilled in us by the deployment of sexuality, is now as follows: to exchange life in its entirety for sex itself, for the truth and sovereignty of sex. Sex is worth dying for. It is in this (strictly historical) sense that sex is indeed imbued with the death instinct.â[18]
What we are seeing again and again is that âfemale sexual liberation,â as Zizek himself has implicitly argued, is Frankenstein reincarnate. Zizek agrees that
âthe rise of Political Correctness and the rise of violence are two sides of the same coin⌠And the French linguist Jean-Claude Milner was right to point out how the anti-harassment movement unavoidably reaches its climax in contracts which stipulate extreme forms of sadomasochist sex (treating a person like a dog on a collar, slave trading, torture, up to consented killing).â[19]
The same people who created the monster is now complaining that the monster is killing their children by the truckload. Perhaps they need to pick up a copy of E. Michael Jonesâ study, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control.[20]
——————————————————–

The interesting thing is that instead of leading his readers to the moral order and practical reason, Zizek takes them back to Sigmund Freud,[21] who himself declared: âSexual moralityâas society, in its extreme form, the American, defines itâseems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.â[22]
Keep in mind that Freud made that statement in 1915, long before the sexual revolution stormed America. On his way to America in 1909, Freud declared: âWe are bringing them the plague.â[23] And with Crewsâ recent biography of Freud, we now have a mammoth of evidence which shows that Freud was deliberately attempting to destroy the sexual mores of the West, which to a large extent was based on the moral order. Psychoanalysis, as it turns out, was a function of Freudâs own sexual perversion. As he put it to his friend Wilhelm Fliess in 1897:
âI have found, in my own case, 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.â[24]
This theory got morphed into other perverse ideas. For example, when a young woman by the name of Emma Eckstein came to see Freud with âsharp leg painsâ and âgastrointestinal distress and dysmenorrhea, or extreme pain during menstruation,â Freud risibly summoned his own invented theory to advise that Eckstein, according to Crews, suffered from âa misconstrued erotic incidentâŚâ[25]
When that didnât work, Freud and Fliess invented another theory out of their magic hats: the nose was essentially âthe control center for other organs and their maladies.â[26]
Freud was obviously incapable of treating Eckstein. He therefore concluded that she had a sexual desire which she expressed through âspurts of blood.â[27] If you think this is weird, then fasten your seatbelt because Freud is going to take you to a bumpy ride. Crews declared:
âFreud super-added an element of weirdness that was all his own. Womenâall womenâimpressed him as sinister creatures whose genital concavity bears a menace of âcastrationâ to any male who ventures across its threshold. And he believed that every man dreads being âweakened by the woman, infected with her femininity and of then showing himself incapableâŚ.â
âEven worse, Freud divined that the secret ambition of every female was to acquire the envied penis by absorbing and severing it. Thus all women were monsters at heartâŚThe very tenderness of women, he would remark in his little book on Leonardo da Vinci, conceals a âruthlessly demandingâ sensuality, âconsuming men as if they were alien beings.â
âHere, then, were the broodings that would lend classical psychoanalysis its tone of grim fatalism. That doctrineâs bogeyman, castration, instead of deriving from close clinical observation of either women or men, came straight from Freudâs interior house of horrors. It was daring on his part to publish such evidence of his morbidity for all to see. He did so, however, under the misapprehension that all men were similarly warped.â[28]
So, it is really interesting that Zizek would lead his followers back to psychoanalysisââFreudâs interior house of horrorsââwhich Zizek himself admitted in a lecture last October is ânot an objective theoryâ like biology or mathematics, but is a âsubjective experience.â Here again Zizek implicitly destroys the scientific pretension of psychoanalysis which, as Crews has nicely put it, should now be regarded as âFreudolatry.â
I must give Zizek some credit for deconstructing David Horowitzâs argument when Horowitz horridly compared the Palestinians with Nazis âwho wanted to kill Jews.â Zizek immediately responded, âDid you ever visit the West Bank. It is totally safe there for Jews to visit! Sorry, Palestinians [in the West Banks] are screwed up [by the Israelis].â
Horowitz preposterously responded, âYeah, theyâre screwed by Hamas, they screwed by the PLO, they are screwed by Saudi Arabia, and they are screwed by Egypt.â Horowitz implicitly brought the anti-Semitism card, which astonished Zizek who, as we have already seen, is an avowed Freudian!
- [1] Quoted in Frederick Crews, Freud: The Making of an Illusion (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2017), 2.
- [2] Slavoj Zizek, âFreud Lives!,â London Review of Books, May 25, 2006.
- [3] Crews, Freud, 3.
- [4] Ibid.
- [5] Quoted in Joel Whitebook, Freud: An Intellectual Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 377.
- [6] See for example Richard Noll, The Jung Cult: The Origin of a Charismatic Movement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung (New York: Random House, 1997); Peter Watson, The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century (New York: HarperCollins, 2000); Nandor Fodor, Freud, Jung, and Occultism (New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1971); Richard Wolin, The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
- [7] Anna Freud, one of Sigmundâs daughters, chose Ernest Jones specifically to write a biography of his father because, as Crews put it, âhe could be trusted to do Annaâs bidding.â Frederick Crews, âFreud: Whatâs Left?,â NY Review of Books, February 23, 2017.
- [8] Frederick Crews, âCheerful assassin defies analysis,â Times Higher Education, March 3, 1995.
- [9] Crews, Freud, 2.
- [10] Slavoj Ĺ˝iĹžek, âSign a contract before sex? Political correctness could destroy passion,â Russia Today, December 25, 2017.
- [11] See for example Gary Wilson, Your Brain on Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction (Kent, CT: Commonwealth Publishing, 2015); William M. Struthers, Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009); Gail Dines, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality(Boston: Beacon Press, 2010); Pamela Paul, Pornified: How Pornography Is Damaging Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families (New York: Times Books, 2005).
- [12] Jim Nelson Black, Freefall of the American University: How Our Colleges Are Corrupting the Minds and Morals of the Next Generation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 190.
- [13] Ibid., 191.
- [14] Ibid.
- [15] E. Michael Jones, âThe Vagina Monologues at Notre Dame: Who Has the Most Famous Vagina in History?,â Culture Wars, April 2003.
- [16] Ani Kokobobo, âThere Is No Moral Relativity in Sexual Harassment,â Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2017.
- [17] Quoted in Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics (New York: New York Review of Books, 2001), 157.
- [18] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, âTwilight for the Oligarchs, Part II,â Culture Wars, November 2016.
- [19] Ĺ˝iĹžek, âSign a contract before sex? Political correctness could destroy passion,â Russia Today, December 25, 2017.
- [20] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustineâs Press, 2000).
- [21] Ĺ˝iĹžek, âSign a contract before sex? Political correctness could destroy passion,â Russia Today, December 25, 2017.
- [22] Quoted in Peter Gay, Freud: A Life of Our Time (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988), 143.
- [23] Quoted in Richard Noll, The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 47.
- [24] Crews, Freud, 516.
- [25] Ibid., 469.
- [26] Ibid., 424.
- [27] Ibid., 479.
- [28] Ibid., 420-421.

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Comments are closed.