Friday, September 28, 2007

“'The Only Game' as Babe Ruth once called it."

This is from my brother Joe.


“'The Only Game' as Babe Ruth once called it."

With the falling of honest Hank's home run record and the surreal spectacle surrounding this event, I suppose you can now say the diva-ization of baseball is now complete.

It is now about individual achievement and push aside team accomplishment. We all can thank the players union and their accomplices. Money hungry team owners for the mess baseball now finds itself in.

The post ' 94 baseball world has led to mass visual advertising in every location a T.V. camera can spot, in ball yards more liken to pinball machine design yet with traditional edifices to hide it. Fit all this with the carnival like atmosphere of massive overblown caricatures sporting almost pajama like uniforms and the post strike era has wrought its prize.

Begun by the commercialization of the other pursuit for the most cherished record in baseball the circle is now complete. Hopefully the supposed guardians of the sport can now go forwards to recapture the true beauty of the only game as Babe Ruth once called it.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Feminist and the Puritan Women don't Love

Feminist and the Puritan Women don't Love

The feminist denied eros and the state upsurged the philia of the family. The state in Western secular regimes has been at war with the family since this time.

The feminist and the Puritan for different reasons taught their daughters not to love, but to mistrust their personal eros and their father’s philia.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Hillary's Outsourcing of American Jobs for Contributions

Hillary's Outsourcing of American Jobs for Contributions

When Hillary Clinton threw her hat in the senatorial ring in 1999, one Sikh donor with business interests in India enriched her to the tune of $50 thousand—and she enriched him with access. The Sikh is a millionaire who circumstances suggest may be living on "borrowed" wealth. The man is hotel-restaurant mogel Sant Singh Chatwal. Chatwal a naturalized citizen from India who initially raised $500 thousand for Clinton in a fundraiser in his Upper Eastside penthouse. Chatwal reportedly committed 14 entities controlled by him to donate $210 thousand of that amount to Hillary's first campaign for the US Senate. Not in the least surprising is the fact that Chatwal is also a key Trustee of the William J. Clinton Foundation.

Chatwal, a US tax deadbeat since at least 1996 (and a debt deadbeat before that) began donating to Bill and Hillary Clinton early in the Clinton years. The Clintons reciprocated (that old political quid pro quo) by approving grants to Indian-American advocacy groups that were used to finance the outsourcing of jobs from the United States to India. Beginning in 1996 Cisco Systems (another major Clinton donor) began laying off $60 thousand-plus high tech employees and replacing them with new hires from Bangalore, India for about half the dollars. Cisco Systems justified the hirings, claiming they could not find qualified employees in the United States. By 1998 Cisco had only a handful of American Infosys Technology workers overseas (Infosys is an outsourcer of jobs to India). Most of their 850 employees are now Indian. (Infosys has just launched an IT subsidiary in Monterray, Mexico to outsource outsourced jobs from India to Mexico.) In 2006 Newsweek reported that Cisco System's R&D facility—employing 3,000 people, would be located in India. (Bill Clinton received $300 thousand from Cisco in 2006 for two speeches at $150 thousand per speech. Cisco employees—those who still had jobs—donated $39,450 to Hillary.)

Bill Clinton invested upwards of $50 thousand in an Indian bill paying company through his WJC Investments, LLP when outsourcing became a hot property. The company, Easy Bill Limited, is an Indian corporation. Easy Bill functions as a one-stop bill paying outlet for utility bills, credit card bills or any other debts you pay online. (It's website, (does not conceal from anyone interested in billing collection services that they are outsourcing to India).

In 2004 Congress—and several States—attempted to enact anti-outsourcing laws. In March, 2004 the Senate approved an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT] disallowing tax dollars from being used to facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs. A day earlier, Congressman Bernie Sanders [I-VT] (now one of Vermont's two US Senators) introduced a bill that would deny grants or loans to any company that outsourced jobs if they laid off workers in the United States to a greater level than layoffs of employees in any other country in the world. Several industrial States attempted to enact anti-outsourcing laws that year, but those bills either failed and were defanged before passage.

As pressure mounted to kill outsourcing, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Chuck Schumer were instrumental in created the Senate India Caucus (which was "coordinated" by the US India Political Action Committee) to lobby Senators who were attempting to derail job outsourcing. When the Caucus was formed, Hillary Clinton told Roll Call that "...[i]t is imperative that the United States do everything possible to reach out to India. This Caucus is dedicated to expanding areas of agreement with India and engaging in a candid dialogue of differences." With their money in her pocket, what else could she say? Hillary is a co-chairman of the Caucus. On the House side, Hillary's allies are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Joe Crowley [D-NY]. (If your job has been outsourced, you now know who to thank.)

In 2005 when it appeared outsourcing would have stiff penalties, Clinton and Chatwal went to India on Feb. 28 to personally assure Hillary's constituents in the New York suburbs of Punjab that outsourcing was safe and that the United States government would make no attempt to save the jobs being lost to outsourcing. (At a recent fundraiser hosted for Hillary by Dr. Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland home—who raised $50 thousand for Clinton that evening—the Senator joked "I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily.")

Meanwhile, back to Chatwal. In March, 2007—after Clinton and Chatwal returned from India—Chatwal committed to raising $5 million for Hillary's presidential campaign."Outsourcing," she had assured her "Punjab" constituents in India on Feb. 28, 2007, "will continue. There is no way to legislate against reality. We are not in favor of putting up fences." Not even, apparently, one on the border. Shortly after returning to the United States, the Delaware-based IT Professionals Association of America [ITPAA]—which represents IT professionals nationwide—voted Hillary Clinton its "Weasel Award," which is given each year to business and political leaders who betray the trust of the American people.

Unlike Clinton fundraiser Norman Hsu who stole over $1 million on his road to being Beijing's 2008 Straw Man to infuse Hillary Clinton's campaign with yuan, Chatwal was accused of defrauding the New York branch of the Bank of India out of $9 million he borrowed from them in 1994 and never paid back. As he prepared to board a plane with Bill Clinton in 2001 he was arrested because he owed the City of New York $2.4 million. He posted a bond and flew to India with Clinton (perhaps to visit Hillary's constituents in Punjab). He was arrested in India on the Bank of India matter. He posted bail equivalent to $32,000 and jumped bail by boarded a flight to Vienna. After borrowing that $9 million, he borrowed $14 million from the First New York Bank for Business—and skipped. The bank failed. The FDIC sued him for obtaining improper loans from a bank—Chatwal was one of the bank's directors.

Chatwal is a tax deadbeat who believes only the working class pays taxes. And, with the help of Bill and Hillary Clinton he made that belief a reality. Chatwal, who was contributing handsomely to the Clintons at the time, testified in his court hearing that his net worth was $2,600.00, and that he had less than $100 in cash to his name. Yet, he lived in a 7,000 square foot luxury penthouse apartment. In a settlement with the Clinton Administration's FDIC, Chatwal agreed to pay the federal government $125 thousand—and the government agreed to drop its allegations that Chatwal defrauded the bank and made false financial statements to hide his assets. The American taxpayers absorbed $13.9 million of the loss and Chatwal continued to financially enable his friends in the White House. (Chatwal said the penthouse was purchased by his wife, Pardaman, for $1.8 million in 1987. The loan came from another bank where Chatwal served as a director. Ownership of the penthouse was transferred to a real estate company owned by Chatwal's brother, Iqbal Chatwal. Sant Singh Chatwal occupies it with "an oral lease.") It is unclear whether or not that loan was ever paid back. Chatwal's history of paying back loans suggests it was not. The transfer of ownership appears to have been used to dispose of the penthouse to avoid repossession by the bank.

Chatwal claims that, at one time, he was worth $45 million. When he filed personal bankruptcy he also filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy protection on his 56 Bombay Palace restaurants. Chatwal owed the City of New York more than $2.4 million in back taxes which have never been paid. The IRS is chasing Chatwal for $4 million in unpaid business taxes and the State of New York is chasing him for more than $5 million in back taxes. Across the ocean, India wants to put him on trial him for bank fraud. Yet, when reporters asked Clinton spokesman Phil Singer if there was anything in Chatwal's background that should be a cause for concern (after the Norman Hsu flap), Singer said, "No..." adding that major fundraisers are routinely vetted "...through publicly available records." (Which ones, I wonder? All of the information in this article came from "publicly available records.")

Meanwhile, back to Hillary Clinton. Despite the aggressive courtship of labor unions by the upper tier Democrats (i.e., Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama), the major unions have withheld their endorsements as they scrutinize the candidates over their position on one core issue—the job drain to countries without binding arbitration rights for labor. Before they rubber stamp the next nominee, labor wants [a] a definitive explanation how that candidate will stem the flow of jobs—in particular the large number of high paid service and technology sector jobs—that are being taken over by outsourced low income workers in India, and [b] they want signed pledges from the candidates that they will stop the drain.

Labor unions are taking a close look at the histories of the Democratic candidates—and some labor leaders have found Sen. Clinton's record alarming. Thea Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO said "...[t]he India issue is still something people are concerned about. Her financial relationships, her quotes—they have both gotten attention." But even more, Clinton—who needs the endorsement of big labor to win the nomination—has had closed door meetings with Big Labor to explain her ties with Chatwal and the Indian companies that are profiting from contracts with American corporations who are outsourcing their jobs to increase their profit margins.

Labor is pressing Clinton to mitigate her support for expanding temporary work visas. The AFL-CIO has questioned the Senator on the help she provided to an Indian company that was allowed to establish an American beachhead in New York state. Hillary Clinton—like most liberals who think you can take a worker's $60 thousand per year job and give them welfare and schooling allowances to retrain them to survive on a $30 thousand service sector job a year or two down the road—after they lose everything in a bankruptcy that's now almost impossible to file—has sponsored legislation to provide retraining funds for American workers whose jobs were outsourced due largely to her efforts and those of her liberal allies in the US Senate.

Clinton has declined repeated requests from the liberal Washington Post for an interview about her version of the outsourcing story. Her spokespeople claim there are no inconsistencies between statements she has made here or in India with regard to her conduct as a US Senator. The Senator, they said, believes in the free enterprise system and she opposes legislation to restrict outsourcing since that would be a restrain of free trade—even to slow the loss of American jobs. But, they added, she has worked hard to provide funds to assist workers who lost their jobs due to outsourcing. In an added insult to the American people, another Clinton spokesman said Hillary "...believes that we must make sure that we are not allowing other countries to take advantage of American workers, and that we do not have policies in place that actually promote outsourcing of American jobs."

At a recent fundraiser in Los Angeles, the host of the event, Nadadur Vardhan told his guests that they should support Hillary Clinton because she will shift more jobs to India. At another fundraiser, Hillary pledged her support to the Indian community and pressed Indian companies to invest more of their profits in the United States to pay the country back for the jobs they got through outsourcing. "If the United States continues to outsource jobs to India in increasingly large numbers, people will begin to feel insecure and may very well seek more protection against what they view as unfair competition. America is not just a marketplace to get a foothold in. It's a place to make lasting investments that will create jobs and economic growth for everyone."

Sanjay Puri—the head of the nation's largest Indian-American fundraising PAC—noted that "...[t]he Clintons made a special effort. They went to India. They made a real attempt to reach out to Indian-Americans at a time when no one else had done that." If that's true, then we can blame the Clintons for every outsourced job that went to India. India is, after all, Hillary's second most important constituent—after China. it's a shame she doesn't fight for the people of New York—or the United States—as hard as she does those who fill her war chest. Too bad the people of the People's Republic of China or India don't vote here. Hillary could use the votes.

Between Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Clintons have made 8 trips to India—and scores of fundraising visits to Indian-American PAC groups within this country. One of the Clinton's India-connections Vinod Gupta, the founder of a Nebraska data processing company who had donated over $1 million to Clinton political causes during the Clinton years—and who paid "private citizen" Bill Clinton $3.3 million as a business consultant.

I guess the 1992 campaign rhetoric Bill Clinton used to describe the co-presidency still applies. "When you elect one of us, you get both." Only this time it isn't the love-hate co-presidency of Billhilly Clinton, its the co-senatorship of Hillbilly Clinton. The first time around, Hillary took the gratuities Bill couldn't take. This time around, Bill is taking the gratuities Hillary can't take. And, between them both, they licked they platter clean. The Clintons apparently still believe the adage, "You can con some of the people some of the time, but when the media remains silent, you can con all of the people all of the time. Or, at least, you can escape due process."

(Author's Note): On Sept. 10 Fox News reported that Sen. Clinton is returned $850,000 in donations raised for her campaign by Norman Hsu (after previously stating she would return only the $23,000 she claims he personally donated to her campaign. However, within 24 hours, she decided that the people who actually donated the money really wanted her to have it, so her campaign said it wouldn't be right to the donors to give their money back.

Why is it that politicians think that giving back money donated by disreputable people—whom they knew were disreputable when they accepted the money, exonerates them? If Hillary was a Republican—say someone like Tom Delay whose "crime" was knowing Jack Abramoff since there was no evidence that donation taken by Delay or his PAC was improper—the whores on Capitol Hill would be circling the wagon and demanding that not only should she drop her aspirations for the White House, but that she should also resign her Senate seat. And, when America wakes up and realizes that Clinton has an even closer, more personal relationship with tax and debt deadbeat Chatwal, how much of the millions received by the Clintons collectively will she return? And how will she explain not knowing his "character" when the man was arrested when he was with her husband? But even more important, when will the American people begin, once again, to demand ethics beyond reproach in their national leaders?

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Psychology and Sigmund Freud’s Cocaine Addiction

Paul C. Vitz, Professor of Psychology at New York University, in his book "Sigmund Freud’s Christian Unconscious" clearly states that Freud was a cocaine addict. I just finished E. M. Thornton's book "The Freudian Fallacy." It shows in my opinion very effectively that Freudian Psychology of which our secular sexual society is formed is a fraud and drug fantasty.

Dr. Vitz says "At times, cocaine may have distorted his reactions; for example, it may have made his depressions darker and harder to fight. But cocaine did not create the primary content and structure of Freud’s mind and thought. (The question of whether Freud’s theories are correct is also one that Thornton addresses extensively. This issue, however important in its own right, is not of concern here).

I disagree with Vitz's view that cocaine didn't effect "the primary content and structure of Freud’s mind and thought." After finishing "The Freudian Fallacy," I thought it destroyed Freud the scientist and the his theory. Read the book. many reviews are written by those who make a living on a drug fantasty.


Cocaine and the Devil

We need now to develop a deeper understanding of Faust by showing the story’s connection to Freud’s use of cocaine. Freud’s important, rather lengthy involvement with cocaine is now being widely recognized.26 (Jones discusses cocaine briefly as an episode, but he plays down the subject to the point of distorting the record.27) Quite recently, both Swales,28 to whom this section owes much, and Thornton29 have made clear the pervasive effects of cocaine on Freud’s thoughts, moods, and fantasies.

Freud began experimenting with the drug in 1884, when he was 28, at a time when cocaine was almost unknown in scientific circles.30 During the period 1884-1887, Freud took cocaine frequently, sometimes in heavy doses.31 After taking the drug himself and getting some preliminary reports from others, Freud published glowing descriptions of cocaine. Not only did Freud think at the time that the drug had anti-morphine effects; he was enthusiastic as well about its contributions to mental well-being. It was an antidote to his frequent depressions, and also provided increased physical strength and sexual potency. Like Faust, Freud was enamored of the idea of a drug-induced rejuvenation. Freud’s initial involvement with cocaine thoroughly captured both his emotional and intellectual interests. He enthusiastically recommended it to others, including his fiancée.32 He administered the drug (very likely via hypodermic needle) to his friend and colleague Ernst Fleischl, who was suffering from a drawn-out, terminal nerve condition that required the use of morphine to ease his pain.33 Freud got Fleischl to take cocaine, which he thought would cure his friend’s morphine addiction and have no undesirable effects of its own. Instead, after a brief period of benefit from the drug, Fleischl became addicted to cocaine as well as to morphine, and suffered particularly from cocaine-induced hallucinations

(e.g., crawling “cocaine bugs”) and delirium tremens.34 Freud later bitterly acknowledged that he might have hastened his friend’s death, saying it was “the result of trying to cast out the devil with Beelzebub.”35

In the eyes of many, Freud was soon seen as a public menace: One prominent doctor wrote of Freud as having unleashed “the third great scourge of mankind,” the first two having been alcohol and opium.36

In Freud’s defense, it should be said that at the time little was known about the drug, although he clearly displayed very poor judgment. His overenthusiasm for cocaine stemmed from three pressing personal desires, which the drug promised to satisfy. First was his intense desire to get married soon, for he was “pathologically” anxious about his separation from and lengthy open-ended engagement with Martha, who was in northern Germany. He was afraid he might lose her. He had already been separated from her for a year when he began using cocaine, although it seemed much longer to him, for he recalled it once as a two-year separation and once as lasting several years.37 A second driving concern was career ambition.38 A medical success, such as the discovery of positive effects from a new drug, would at once advance his career and improve his financial situation, enabling him to marry. Thus, both of these desires would be satisfied by a “cocaine” success. The third need was Freud’s desire for an escape from his deeply neurotic depressions, induced to a large degree by his separation anxiety. (We may recall some of his letters to Martha, as discussed in Chapter Three.39)

Jones summarizes Freud’s motives for working on cocaine as involving the enhancement of virility, as well as promising to speed up marriage with Martha; Jones also notes that in getting involved with cocaine, Freud had “forsaken the straight and narrow path of science to seize a short cut to success.”40 His attitude toward the new “soma” was expressed in a dramatic passage from a letter to Martha on June 2, 1884, shortly after he first took it:

Woe to you, my Princess, when I come [for a planned visit]. I will kiss you quite red and feed you until you are plump. And if you are forward you shall see who is the stronger, a gentle girl who doesn’t eat enough or a big wild man who has cocaine in his body. In my last severe depression I took coca again and a small dose lifted me to heights in a wonderful fashion. I am just now busy collecting the literature for a song of praise to this magical substance.41

Freud received some scientific acclaim for bringing cocaine to the attention of the medical world, but within a year of his official reports the negative effects of the drug were being reported. These criticisms Freud himself described as “grave reproaches,”42 and they put him under something of a cloud. Jones admits, “It was a poor background from which to shock Viennese medical circles a few years later with his theories on the sexual etiology of the neuroses.”43

Ironically, it was a young doctor friend of Freud—Carl Koller, an ophthalmologist—who became famous overnight by discovering that cocaine was an effective local anesthetic for the eye, thus enabling anesthetic to be given for eye operations for the first time.44 Freud had suspected this, but had not immediately investigated the possibility; Koller did. As a result, Koller, to whom Freud had introduced the drug, reaped the career advancement and financial rewards of which Freud had dreamed.

Now the Devil comes into all this through two facts, whose importance Peter Swales has recognized and which he brought to my attention.45 The Swalesian theory is thus the third published interpretation of a Freudian pact with the Devil.46 Freud first took cocaine on the night of April 30, 1884—that is, Walpurgisnacht.47 In doing this, Freud, who took the drug in liquid form (as a “brew”), was clearly imitating Faust in his pact with Mephistopheles.48 The whole affair could easily have been primed by the fact that Goethe’s Faust was the talk of Vienna in early 1884, following a series of well-publicized performances at the Old Burgtheater.49

The yellow smoke gets thicker when another aspect of the situation is considered: Freud obtained his cocaine, which was expensive, from the drug company of Merck in Darmstadt, Germany. He got a local chemist to contact Emanuel Merck, the head of the company. Later, Freud and Fleischl corresponded with Merck personally.50 (An example of the Merck bottle of cocaine, and of a prescription, written by Freud to Merck for cocaine, is available. This particular prescription is from a later date, June 1893; it proves Freud’s continued connection with the drug.51) What Swales has pointed out is that the Merck who founded the company was Goethe’s model for Mephistopheles when he wrote Faust. Goethe, in his well-known autobiographical work Dichtung und Wahrheit, not only referred to Merck as a “great negator” and as a man of the world “who had the greatest influence on me”52; more significantly, he compared Merck to Mephistopheles at least three times.53 Freud knew Goethe’s work well, and was presumably familiar with this text. In writing to the great-grandson of the first Merck, Merck’s “revenant,” he was, psychologically speaking, contacting the Devil.

It is remotely possible that in 1884 Freud had not yet read Goethe’s famous autobiography, in the second half of which Merck figures so prominently. Freud certainly did read Dichtung und Wahrheit at some time, though, since in 1917 he published an analysis of a childhood memory of Goethe cited in this work.54 The memory in question, which Freud interpreted as an expression of sibling rivalry, was one he said he had long known but had only written about for publication when he had come to a psychoanalytic understanding of its meaning.55

Freud also pointed out in his review of the history of cocaine, published in July 1884, that the Spaniards, who first wrote of the use of the coca plant by South American Indians, suspected that it was the work of the Devi1.56

In conclusion, it is clear that cocaine for Freud was thoroughly linked to the Devil, and, indeed, was connected from the beginning to some kind of pact. Thus, while Freud was still a young physician—years before the beginning of psychoanalysis, and some 10-12 years before the psychological “pact” that Bakan proposes—he was already very strongly involved with the Devil. The exact nature of the pact is still not clear, but it appears to have been modeled on Faust’s pact, and it was certainly precipitated by Freud’s admittedly “severe” depressions, his longing for Martha, and his “pathological ambition.”57

Thornton’s Cocaine Thesis

E. M. Thornton has very recently published an extensive discussion of the effect of Freud’s cocaine use on both his personal psychology and his theories.58 Although, for reasons given below, I think Thornton has overgeneralized the significance of cocaine for understanding Freud, she does make a number of important contributions to Freud scholarship.

To begin with, she identifies two time periods when Freud took cocaine59: the first from 1884 to 1887, first noted by Jones, and a second period, beginning in late 1892 and continuing into the middle or late 1890s.60 Thornton is not especially clear on when Freud last took cocaine, but she clearly implies that he took it well after 1900, perhaps until 1912.61 However, because of the complete and uncensored letters of Freud to Fliess, very recently published, it appears that Freud permanently ceased taking cocaine in October 1896, when he wrote to Fliess that he had put his cocaine brush aside.62 An important consequence, in the following months, would be that Freud was often struggling with cocaine withdrawal experiences, especially depression. Thornton also points out that Freud used pure, unadulterated cocaine; he used it frequently and often in strong doses.63 Thornton’s major claim is that Freud suffered from cocaine poisoning and from powerful drug-induced psychological states.64 In particular, she claims that Freud’s psychological theory was simply the natural consequence of extensive cocaine usage.65 It is well known that cocaine causes hallucinations, vivid dreams, and extensive fantasies in frequent users. Cocaine use can also cause sexual preoccupation to become obsessive. Other reliable psychological effects from taking too much cocaine are periods of elation, optimism, and an almost messianic belief in having discovered the great secrets of life; these intervals are followed by periods of deep depression often accompanied

by paranoia and murderous impulses toward friends.66 All of these symptoms, Thornton argues, are clearly shown in Freud’s letters to Fliess and often in Fliess’s ideas as well, since Fliess was also a heavy user of cocaine. (Both suffered from severe headaches and from nasal and sinus infections during this period as well. Such symptoms are typical when cocaine is taken through the nose, as was the case during these years for both Freud and Fliess.67)

My primary critique of Thornton is that much of Freud’s psychology was clearly apparent before he took cocaine. Therefore, although the drug would have accentuated and sometimes distorted Freud’s already existing psychology and intellectual interests, it would not have caused them in the first place. For example, Freud was mentioning his extreme depressive reactions to Martha’s absence before he took cocaine. For example, on August 18, 1882, he wrote, “Without you I would let my arms droop for sheer lack of desire to live”68; on February 14, 1884, he exclaimed, “Do you realize it is two whole days since I heard from you and I am beginning to worry!”69

Likewise, Freud’s previously discussed expressions of religious preoccupation—his lengthy letter about the Christian paintings in Dresden, his many youthful references to God, his early quotes from Faust, and his references to the Devil—all preceded his cocaine use. Most of his involvement with Brentano and the letters to Fluss and Silberstein that have been cited also antedate his use of cocaine, as does his attraction to Flaubert’s The Temptation of St. Anthony, with what Freud called its wild Walpurgisnacht character. Finally, we can observe Freud’s very early expression of extreme self-confidence in a letter written when he was 17 to his friend Emil Fluss. Freud was writing about his high grades in his school (Gymnasium) examinations. One of his professors told him that he had an outstanding writing style, and Freud remarked:

I was suitably impressed by this amazing fact and do not hesitate to disseminate the happy event, the first of its kind, as widely as possible—to you, for instance, who until now have probably remained unaware that you have been exchanging letters with a German stylist.…preserve them [the letters]—have them bound—take good care of them—one never knows.70

Another way to place Thornton’s cocaine claims in perspective is to compare the very different effects of the drug on Freud and on Fliess. Both became somewhat megalomaniacal; both showed occasional signs of sloppy (probably drug-affected) thinking; both became preoccupied with sex. But the differences were even greater and can be plausibly explained by the different personal psychologies and professional backgrounds of the two men. Fliess focused on the sexual significance of the nose71; Freud never seriously theorized about the nose. Fliess empha-

sized his proposed female and male sexual periods of 28 and 23 days, respectively, while Freud turned to sexual experiences in childhood between the ages of two and four. Freud analyzed dreams and fantasies, but Fliess seems to have had no real interest in these phenomena. In short, these were very different ways to approach sexuality, and therefore I conclude that the major effect of cocaine was to accentuate or heighten Freud’s pre-existing thought patterns and psychological preoccupations. At times, cocaine may have distorted his reactions; for example, it may have made his depressions darker and harder to fight. But cocaine did not create the primary content and structure of Freud’s mind and thought. (The question of whether Freud’s theories are correct is also one that Thornton addresses extensively. This issue, however important in its own right, is not of concern here; instead, the present discussion is focused on understanding the origin and nature of Freud’s thought with respect to religion, especially Christianity. The question of the validity of Freud’s theories is treated only with respect to his interpretation of religion, and then only in the last chapter of this book.)

[Pages 113 to 115, to]