More Secessionist Madness--from the Arab World!

This is worse than absurd, and would be funny were it not so sad. From my good friends at MEMRI comes this story: Sudanese Muslim clerics are now claiming that thirty-seven rabbis are actively under arms in Fallujah (maybe they're counting 37 Jewish chaplains, but I won't vouch for even that), and that Americans are streaming across the border into Canada. They also claim that Sigmund Freud, with his psychoanalytic theories, was pushing the Jewish party line.

Now neither they nor anyone else will get any argument from me, when they say that Sigmund Freud was almost as bad as Kinsey himself as a sexual revolutionary. (Warning: the links above contain quotes that address mature themes. PJADAA.) And yes, Sigmund Freud was Jewish by racial extraction. But psychoanalytic doctrine has nothing--zero, zip and zilch--to do with Holy Scripture and still less to do with the Jewish Talmud. Freud wasn't pushing any Jewish party line; if anything he was selling out the tenets of the faith of his fathers. In the days of the Divided Kingdom, he'd likely be a high adviser to one of those kings who "did evil in the sight of YHWH."

Indeed, the excerpts that MEMRI cites look like a classic non-sequitur. What does Freud have to do with how many Jews have joined the United States Army, or how many have been deployed to Fallujah, or how many Jewish chaplains have joined them there? Nothing whatever. This is more of the anti-Semitic Muslim party line.

But the story about Americans fleeing to Canada is the real roll-on-the-floor howler. You can't rely on hits on the Canadian immigration service web site for migration statistics! Instead, you'd need to talk to the National Board of Realtors and to its Canadian equivalent. As far as I know, I have no evidence to suggest that the housing market in America has become slightly depressed, while that in Canada is booming a little more. When, as, and if I see such figures, I'll take notice, perhaps.

I would, however, like to mention one paragraph that I could almost imagine my pastor writing:

The theory of social liberty was created in the 19th century. A number of writers and philosophers support it, and we won't mention them by name from this pulpit. Whoever studies science and visits libraries knows who they are. This theory evolved until the writers of existentialism in the 20th century. Various schools of thought stemmed form it, such as permissiveness and existentialism. Even economic schools of thought adopted social liberty. Socialism was also a school of social liberty. They put their trust in Man's downfall. They didn't say "downfall," but they said that society limits people. Especially in the case of sex.

The first theoretician we mention on this pulpit is Freud. He is the one who claimed that all of man's urges revolve around the sexual urge. He even claimed that babies have sex when they breastfeed from their mothers, meaning they don't breastfeed out of hunger or thirst - no, they breastfeed due to a sexual urge. This is extremism. They claimed that the restrictions on this urge have created repression.

Now that's the one element of truth in the whole article--except that I don't buy socialism as "a school of social liberty." Clearly someone is confusing socialism with hedonism--not too difficult to imagine, because at least in America we have seen the same people--namely the Democratic Party--pushing socialism and hedonism in the same platform.

But that aside, I have the same quarrel with Freud as that anonymous cleric has. Freud's theories are worse than extreme, however--they are roll-on-the-floor laughably absurd.

And here is the irony: the same people who, in this last election campaign, practically took the Muslim side, have no idea how Muslims really feel about them. They have no idea that we are fighting a three-cornered war. I'm not even sure that all the militant Muslims understand that. But I do, and I hope that anyone reading this would understand it, too.