The media and psychoanalysis

In the sweet naivety that always characterized me (unless it is paranoia ?), I hoped the media would take an interest in my theories, criticize them constructively, publicize them to the extent they could be useful to our society … I was all the more surprised by the systematic lynching which has now lasted for 32 years for instinctotherapy, and for 24 years for metapsychoanalysis.

Of course, this lynching could not be purely gratuitous. It would have been a bad brand image, in a country boasting to be a model of freedom of expression and respect for human rights. They had to find pretexts. And since they were not found in my theories themselves, they had to be fabricated. Certain journalists have shown themselves to be masters in the matter and launched on the airwaves and the press, deadly confusions: instinctotherapy might have killed people, and metapsychoanalysis was only an apology for pedophilia.

Eating 100% raw only leads to gradual weight loss, general weakening, and if you insist: death. VSD if I am not mistaken, spoke of “deaths in the cupboards” (meaning that we were hiding the corpses of instincto’s failures), building on the clever rumors launched by Anne-Marie Casteret and the avalanche of echolalia in all the national press which followed. No tabloids, on the other hand, mentioned that my trial for illegal practice of medicine, subject to dismissal regards to the charges of false advertising and fraud, demonstrated these rumors to be totally dismissed. Would there have been deaths, it is not three months of suspended sentence which would have been the end of it, but more like a conviction for homicide resulting in a lengthy jail time.

Another weapon was therefore needed to exterminate the dangerous local guru: to label him as a guru of pedophilia. This is what Anne-Marie Casteret did eight years later, by launching this new title in a newspaper with a large circulation, immediately passed on by all the competing newspapers. The sledgehammer argument: metapsychoanalysis would only be a justification of pedophilia and an incitement to child / adult relationships.

The only thing is: when you go through my writings, you don’t find any justification or any incentive of this type. There are only questions posed in relation to what I believe to be the great discovery of metapsychoanalysis: the existence of an innate metapsychic finality belonging to the non-reproductive part of human sexuality. Or what I called the “metasexual postulate”.

Difficult to forbid someone, or to reproach them, to ask questions. It was therefore necessary to build a context so that these questions appear to be justifications. This is what the media did, Anne-Marie Casteret and some of my detractors in mind: convince public opinion that my theory was the work of a pedophile, then fabricate testimonies that more or less abounding in this direction, demarcating judicial authorities indirectly by a press campaign or directly by phone calls, some anonymous, others more committed. The mixup mystification did not take long to take shape, undoubtedly because it responded to unconscious conflicts. Then ensued all the legal action which did not fail to set in motion, and still pursues me today.

Once and for all, let’s clarify things: metapsychoanalysis is not a justification for pedophilia. First, the main part of the thesis concerns adult sex life. The question of infantile sexuality is only dealt with to the extent that the basic postulate compels it by way of pure logic. It is quite clear that the knowledge of a finality hidden until now obliges any right-thinking mind to wonder about the whole of human sexuality. It turns out that this is divided into two parts: one part whose manifest goal is reproduction, characterized by the genital impulses which appear with maturity; another part whose usefulness in terms of procreation is contradicted by the drives that belong to it, which Freud called polymorphic - in fact all the sexual behaviors which, in the language of the ancients, wasted the precious seed supposed to grow and multiply the species. Romans had a god to represent these deviations, Onan, punished for scattering his sperm in the rocks.

Freud had the very bad idea of calling this side of Eros “infantile sexuality”. It is infantile in the sense that it appears from birth, but it remains an integral part of human sexuality throughout existence. Not very astute either to speak of “polymorphous drives”, as that condones the other notion of “normative sexuality” professed by psychiatry (everything except “normal” coitus being a priori pathological and pathogenic). This led the father of psychoanalysis to consider the child as a “polymorphic pervert”. For my part, I prefer to speak objectively of non-reproductive drives, or of a metasexual instinctive program so as to evoke the durability of these drives we find at any age - for example homosexual drives, caresses, masturbation, fellatio, etc.

It is perhaps in this term of “infantile sexuality” that the confusion takes root. People who do not know psychoanalysis see it as an promotion of a sexual initiation of children by adults, while it is simply a question of taking into account the existence of these drives and wondering about their function. In most mammals, sexual behavior is not seen until maturity. Masturbation is only observed in higher primates, even if it’s supposed to disappear in Judeo-Christian primates. The same goes for homosexuality, already declared punishable by death penalty with Moses.

As for me, I am only wondering, and justifying the questions on the function of non-reproductive drives, and examining the consequences of the metasexual postulate. If non-reproductive sexuality aims at metapsychic structuring, knowing the importance that extrasensory faculties could have in the destiny of the individuals and of humanity in general, we must of course ask ourselves if the way in which we treat the issue of precocious impulses in our society respect or not the potentialities of the human being. It immediately appears, regardless of my own inclinations, that repressing these drives, under the aegis of the Oedipus complex, could explain the atrophy of the extrasensory faculties which characterizes our modern world.

These questions flow from simple logic. The metasexual postulate stems from the observations that everyone can make on the functioning of sexuality in a natural food context. The absence of exciting factors indeed lets appear the same impulses in an infinitely less urgent or oppressive form, so that the subtle links between love and metapsychic phenomena can be observed, in particular a flagrant increase in inspiration, intuition, creativity, and very often the appearance of clairvoyance faculties whose authenticity is much easier to verify, when the phenomena are more frequent.

At the same time, the very fact that drives - whose potential importance thus became manifest - are repressed possibly accounts for disorders in adult sexual functioning, in particular pedophilic tendencies. An impulse which has not been able to express itself may emerge later in the form of a confusion with other impulses, or be the object of confusion, for example the pedophile confusing the image of the child with that of the wife. I try to deepen this analysis in my book “Essay on a theory of metasexuality”, in the chapter devoted to pedophilia. The mechanism of cross-drive induction is exposed in the pages devoted to “Metapsychanalysis and cross-drive analysis”.

A new theory inevitably leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. When it concerns a subject as hot as that of love and sexuality, these misunderstandings very often turn into visceral reactions. And it is on these misunderstandings and these visceral reactions that we were able to surf the media, dragging in their wake the assembly of the accusation system and the legal action of which I was the object. Even today, any magistrate who approaches my case begins to convince himself that metapsychoanalysis advocates pedophilia, that I use it to justify perverse tendencies, there is no point in proving the contrary.

We can therefore say that the media have succeeded in exterminating the disturbing theory and its dangerous author. This situation seems serious to me, because of the stake that could have the recognition of a metapsychic finality to Eros, divinity much abused in a world where the transcendence of the being all but disappeared from minds …

Beyond the Œdipus complex or the sexual error of the West, written in the midst of the media and legal storm, and attached here. This is not to share my current thoughts, but to demonstrate what I was saying loud and clear at the time, which may explain the reactions I received…