Greetings & Happy Holidays

Here, at the tail end of the year, we greet you with a completely revised website, which we hope you will like. As always, there are bound to be small glitches so we would appreciate any comments from our readers about how we can improve or correct anything that needs it.

In the New Year we intend to post a wealth of information and research and, at the same time, we will attempt to address the interests more of the general public--who has a definite interest in the subject of Serial Killers and the strange world in which they live. You will have seen on our website that we launching our latest work dealing with the subject of "profiling" Freud--and for that we need to address the subject of the Serial Killer per se, of which Freud is merely an "eminent" (if one can use the word) or at least most famous example.

It will, of course, seem strange, that the Father of Psychoanalysis, presents the most highest rated Serial Killer type on more than one scale used by experts to profile the type. In our book Freud, Profiled: Serial Killer (Type: Roman Emperor) we will not only demonstate, to a fact, that Freud rates as high as any known Serial Killer on the same scale as other identified Serial Killers but that, ironically, the rating characteristics are so overwhelmingly "off the charts" when it comes to Freud that one cannot but marvel over the fact that his own case history, which serves as the very basis of the so-called vailidy of psychoanalysis, itself provides the basis for the identification of the Serial Killer characteristics. In short, Freud is preeminently, the proto-type Serial Killer, and so much so, that it is very easy to not only profile him as a Serial Killer, but also the precise type of Serial Killer. In Freud's case the "Roman Emperor Type."

Every Serial Killer, besides having in common the unique and phenomenally rare characteristics that distinquish him or her from the rest of huamnity, also belongs to a certain "type" in that rare class of inhuman or sub-human category of the Serial Killer. The "pros" and "cons" of this view or that, as to whether the Serial Killer is "sub-human" or "in-human" is discussed and examined in my book and the views of the top experts in the world on the subject are examined--these include those experts who are qualified as "experts" for the purpose of admissible testimony in courts of law which has to deal with the adjudication of Serial Killers.

People who don't give a damn about Sigmund Freud, but do care about the fascinating subject of the nature of the Serial Killer should find our postings for the New Year of great interest. Truly, the importance, I believe, that history will record of the life and works of Sigmund Freud will be that he was a genius Serial Killer and provided, by study of his case, the greatest insight into the nature of the beast--and this, not thourgh a study of his mad theories but by biography of the man which manifests the fact that he was a Serial Killer, par excellence, in every aspect of his being--in all that we know of him from his ealiest years of pre-adolesence, adolesence, maturity, and old age, to the day he died.

It is a fascinating jouney to see a genius mad-man and the monster that he was protrayed by his own overt words and coded confessions. Of course, those who make their livings teaching Freud, getting fat fees for their Freudian analysis, commentators on "Jewish" culture, those who revere him as a cult "Master", will certainly shrink in horror over the facts and deny the sun rises in the morning and sets at night (as regards Freud) to protect their reputations and livelihoods--pretending to be learned men and women who are amongst the "elite" who, like their Master, can "divine" the innost meaning of the human "soul"--a "soul" that Freud demonically denied even existed, to further his own self-proclaimed pact with the Devil. It is a fact that this very detail, a psychic identification with the Devil is itself one of the prime characteristics of the Serial Killer--virtually all of them. 

These are not rhetorical remarks, but remarks grounded in an in-depth knowledge of Freud's own confessions to being in pact with the Devil and his absolute passion for murder.

Again, please, wake up, don't be afraid. Where you think we must be crazy, make your point, show us our errors, if you can, and lets have a rational exchange on the subject which is itself a horror story for Western Culture which has (or did in the past) enshrine him as one of "the greatest amongst all human beings."   Eric

Greetings,                                         www.passion4murder.com

We have a new posting (see link above), which is a close analysis of Dr. Immanuel Velikovksy's first-ever known psychoanalysis of Freud's Moses and Monotheism, which he titled "Sigmund Freud and Moses the Law-giver." Velikovsky's piece was written (apparently) in 1940, the year after Freud died. I chose Velikovsky's article to lead off my discussion of Freud's Murder of Moses, as his was the first, so far as I know, to deal with a psychoanalysis of Freud's theories on Moses, the great hero, of the Hebrew Bible (and, by extension, the Christian Bible).

Velikovsky, a Jew, had deep connections with Judaism. His father, Simon, a Zionist, is an important historical figure in the early history of the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel. Velikovksky was himself also a psychoanalyst who regarded Freud as one of his greatest personal heros--as do many Jewish culturists and pscyhoanalysts into the present. Indeed,  to this day, as evidenced by many memorials, museums, and Sigmund Freud Centers in Isreal and abroad, Freud is regarded by many  as one of their greatest heroes. Ironically, Frued is treated, by many as a "Golden Idol" (the pet name Freud's mother gave him from birth was "Mein Gulden Sigi" -- "My Golden Sigi"). Jews of highest academic standing in Jewish culture, such as Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, one-time Director of Center for Israel and Jewish Studies at Columbia University,  almost seems to equate Freud with Moses himself! Indeed, in his book on Freud's Moses, Yerushalmi quotes for his epigraph:

   "[L]et it be said: the man of God went up to God, and he has become like God."

Yerushalmi, in fact, dedicates his book, Freud's Moses to two Jews, one, Arthur A. Cohen, theologan, and Mortimer J. Ostow, M.D. "whose uncompromising committment to psychoanalysis and to Judaism is as moving as it is exemplary." I will deal, at length, with the Yerushalmi's cultist "religion of Freud" which he has apparently shamelessly adopted--despite the fact that even when he wrote his book it was obvious to any truly informed independent and objective-minded scholar that Freud was a fraud, almost universally regarded by other psychoanlysts as exceedingly " murderous" and, by his own admission he was "Satanic" by nature.The patient reader will see that there is overwhelming evidence of this characterization in the psychoanalytic literature and in Freud's own confessions in his personal letters and communications--which I can an will cite chapter and verse.

I am fully aware that there are many deluded cultists amongst the psychoanalysts, especially, who cherish Freud, and as is the practice of cultists, will continue to revere him regardless of the facts. Moreover, I am also aware that those among them who are Jewish, or not Jewish, secular or otherwise, will find many reasons to brand my work as Anti-Semitic (as if to expose Freud's perverse and criminal nature is violation of a religious tabu or proof of hatred of all Jews). Of course, to those who know their "Freud," the situation is ironic, as it is Freud who was an Anti-Semite, who had a hatred of mankind and religion, and who was an unrepentent psychopath with a passion for murder. His life story and his theories all dramatically underscore this simple truth.

My examination of Velikovksy's "psychoanalysis" of Freud shows that he, himself, (Velikovksy this is) , was so conflicted by his own hero-worship of Freud, his dedication to the Jewish "cause" and Freud's own Anti-Semitism, that he literally couldn't even think straight--much like Yerushalmi and scores of other Jewish and Non-Jewish psychoanalysts and "medical" or cultural Freudians.

In my book, Passion for Murder: The Homicidal Deeds of Dr. Sigmund Freud, I document the fact that Freudianism from its inception was a cult composed almost exclusively of Jews--and, as history shows and I document, Jews who were, for the most part, highly intelligent but decidedly "lost souls" in many ways--being almost to the man highly neurotic, psychotic and some even self-acknowledgely "murderous." Like attracks like.

In my initial article, which consists of my commentary on Velikovsky's "psychoanalysis" of Freud's Moses and Monotheism, I begin at the beginning, from an historical point of view. I do so as I think it is important to realize that the disease of Freudianism had at its inception, and continues to have, very strong Jewish supoort which is itself a stain against Judiasim--where  Freud is exhalted by its religous leaders and offered as an example of "one of its finest." Obviously, this is a cultural matter which extends far beyond any one ethnic or religious persuasion. Actually, my own work, from its inception to conclusion, was itself fundamentally supported by Jews whose passion for the truth was truly a staff and a beacon for discovery of the Freud horror-story and its culture-corrupting influences--even to this day where Freudisn is virtually totally repudiated by the modern scientific community. 

In future installments of Freud's Murder of Moses, I will detail the complicity of Jews, and Non-Jews alike, to conceal the truth of Freud's nature, history, and crimes, and the huge fraud he perpetuated on the world. I will explicate the reasons why one of the greatest of Jewish scholars, S.A. Yahuda, called Freud an "Anti-Semite" and one of "the greatest haters" of the Jews. I will also provide substance to Freud's own granddaughter's claim that Freud and Hitler were the two great "false prophets" of the 20th century. In short I will lay bare the psychological diseases that Freud the Serial Killer had that made him want to murder Moses, again and again! Also, I shall explicate why he invented the bizarre theory that there were actually two Jewish religous leaders by the name of Moses--why one of them had to be murdered (by the Jews, as Freud claims), and why Freud believed that Jews genetically inherited the guilt of murderers because of "their" crime against Moses. In short I shall explicate that Freud's "primal victim," as a Serial Killer, was his brother, whose name happened to be "Moses."

Eric Miller 

Readers, Please see our latest posting (@ www.passion4murder.com)  at our website: Freud & Madoff: Criminal Con Artists.

I would urge the reader to see the notes at the end of the brief article where I quote a prominent pro-Jewish scholar who confirms my remarks suggestion how con artists often succeed because of their standing in a particular community.

I appologise for being so tardy in posting new information. Frankly, I got side tracked working on research on the authorship debate concerning Shakespeare--which is another matter altogether.

I do have a rich store of additional articles which I will begin posting with far greater frequecy. One of my next postings will be on the discovery of a new highly probable murder by Freud (a death that landed literally at his door-step and which has been suppressed entirely for about 100 years!). When it comes to Serial Killers (which, the reader may know, I often abbreviate as SK)it is often the case that the discovery of one murder leads to another--in some cases decades later. That the case I speak of was totally censored by virtually all Freud scholars and historians. I trust it will be an article of some interest to those wanting more information on the SK nature of Freud's condition.

Also, I would like readers to suggest what kind of articles and information they are most interested in so that I can tailor my entries to the interests of the audience. We continue to get more and more responses to our Blog; forgive the repetition of some comments. We will clean this up soon, but the glitch that created them won't interfer with any new remarks--which we love to get--you may care to post.

So, check back with us more often, we are sure to have fresh material posted more frequently in the future. Those who wish to be notified of new postings need only add your address to the feed. Thanks for your patience,

Eric

The below remarks were sent to a website correspondent. Obviously, the comments are in a somewhat jocular spirit, though the quotes from Freud are accurate.  

Glad to hear you were able to get and read Glory Reflected, by Freud’s son—quite a “glory” huh? Of course you are right about the names Freud called his children (i.e., “monkey” and “vermin”), but did you miss his most common name for them—which is “worms.”? He uses this term a number of times. If you were one of his children which term would you like best, do you think, as you daddy’s pet name, “vermin” or “worms”?

I think Freud was right, “worms” is a catchy and charming pet name for one’s children, don’t you think?   Freud says he “is longing for his ‘worms’ when he means children (p. 360 Masson). Of course, Martha was “a vain little worm” (Letter 39 to Martha, pg. 100, March 19, 1884, The Letters of Sigmund Freud, Ernst Freud, editor). Sometimes she was just an “unsuspecting worm”, i.e., Letter 73, ibid, “Do you remember, you unsuspecting worm?” But to be fair to our self-confessed “tyrant” (p. 18), these might have been occasions when he had “strange creatures billeted in my brain.” (ibid, p. 68). Or, he could just have been “crazy with exhaustion” (p.40) probably from work “on my real profession, ‘flaying of animals or torturing human beings.’” (p. 7). But, at least, you will admit, for all his faults, he is not one of “the masses. . .who could not survive with their thick skins and easy going ways.” (p. 51). And, I think, you will agree, we can all be thankful for that, at least!

Naturally he rebuked his “captive” wife for misjudging him, who wouldn’t? Why the little nut attributed to him qualities he didn’t have. “I think you are misjudging me because we are so far apart, and ascribe to me a measure of kindliness and decency that I never possessed, never will possess, and which you could hardly have found in me when we were together.” (p. 89). I’m glad he straightened her out about that! Imagine how you would feel if your wife attributed such qualities to you—qualities alien to you and that you never had and will never have. She’s lucky he allowed her to even survive, if you ask me.

But, do you know what really pissed him off? Take a guess, give up? OK, it was when he had a bout of sciatica. That’s right. “Be prepared for the most unlikely thing you ever heard. In the morning I lay there in the vilest pain and looked at myself in the mirror till I shuddered at the sight of my wild beard. My rage rose and rose until it boiled over. I decided not to have sciatica anymore, to become human again, and abandoned the luxury of being ill.” (p. 100).    

As to Amalie, now there is a sweetheart if there ever was one for a mother. She is reported by her children to be stone cold. She thought only of herself and her pleasures. She did not show any emotion on the death of her daughter or grandchildren. Freud, in one of his letters, tells his mother something to the effect “at times like these, it is permissible to feel a little.” The day after Freud’s daughter Sophie died (I think she was about 20 or so), Freud gave permission to his mother to mourn her passing. “I hope you will take it calmly; tragedy after all has to be accepted. But to mourn this splendid, vital girl, who was so happy with her husband and children is of course permissible. I greet you fondly, You Sigm.” (p. 327). So Freud wasn’t such a cold fish after all, he gave his mother permission to mourn her granddaughter’s death, didn’t he? What a guy!  I think he might well have gotten a Nobel Prize for that alone.

You won’t find these things in the index. But as to Freud’s children, not a bad way to get a little revenge on the old Masterd, don’t you think? And imagine the letters they had to destroy as not fit for public (human?) consumption. Take care.  

ELM

Readers,                                see Home Page @ www.passion4murder.com 

I have had a good exchange with one of my website correspondents which I want to share with everyone.

Sometime ago my a blog site correspondent wrote and made an observation that he believed he had read that Freud had been in a train accident which caused a severe wound to his chin/jaw. He wondered if I knew the source for that piece of information. I remarked that I knew of no such “train accident” that Freud was ever involved in and directed him to the fact that Freud claimed (in Interpretation of Dreams) that he sustained a severe chin injury when he fell from a chair as an infant. I also mentioned that in my book, Passion for Murder, I express the view that actually Freud sustained his injury, which caused a terrible scar his whole life, not when he was not-yet-two but when he was 19 when he murdered John.

I also mentioned that after Freud’s return from England he wore a beard the rest of his life to cover the obvious large scar—and to hide from any questions as to how he had gotten such a wound. I also mentioned that Freud had planted his “cover-story” about how he got the wound into Interpretation of Dream some ten years after original publication of his dream book.

Readers of my book, Passion for Murder, will see that Freud was at pains to conceal and lie about the scar and I devoted attention to the detail because I am sure Freud got the wound when he murdered John—as my research establishes. I also link Freud’s other fraudulent “confession” that it was at the age of 3 when he was traveling with his mother that he was traumatized by seeing the gas street lights of the little town of Breslau which reminded him of “souls burning in Hell.” Thus, I also linked Freud’s famous “travel phobia” to Freud’s trip to England when he murdered John. And in my book I quoted from and frequently refered to Freud’s originally anonymous essay “Screen Memories” as a rich source for Freud’s cover-up confession of his murder of John—I say cover-up as Freud pretends all the traumatic events he claims to have suffered from emanated from the time when he was not-yet-two or about 3 years of age. When, in reality, Freud’s traumatic events occurred when he was 19 (Freud’s code for not-yet-two, i.e., not-yet-twenty). (That is Freud’s traumatic teenage traumas; he was probably traumatized by his “father’s” pedophile sexual assaults at a very early age).

In any case, my correspondent a couple of days ago sent me the below email, following up on the matter. 

Hi,  Do you recall I mentioned Freud's train accident? I think I read about it in The Screen Memories, which as far as i understand is autobiographical. I quote [from Freud’s “Screen Memory”]:"I remember two small incidents during the train journey; as you   will recall, these came up in the analysis of my phobia. What ought to have made the biggest impression on me was an injury to my face, which caused me to lose a lot of blood and was stitched up by the surgeon. I can still feel the scar, which testifies to the accident, but I have no recollection that would directly or indirectly point to this experience. Incidentally I was probably not yet two at the time. "  

Best regards 

Though I had analyzed the situation, and brought much evidence to my conclusions in my book regarding the matter of the wound and scar, the above quoted passage from “Screen Memory” eluded me as to its pointed significance regarding additional evidence that Freud’s wound was linked with his “travel neurosis” and the fact that, because of this, Freud found himself unable to “keep his mouth shut” about the matter.   

Of course, Freud was unable to tell the truth about the scar and had to lie, again, about the matter—contradicting his explanation (as referred to above as found in Interpretation of Dreams),i.e., that he suffered his wound falling from a table.  

Actually, I was wrong in my remarks to my correspondent that Freud originally mentioned the scar and the accident in Interpretation of Dreams. Freud, first told of the story in “Screen Memories” (1899) and did not mention it at all in the first edition of Interpretation of Dreams (1900). It wasn’t until 10 years after the first publication of the dream book that he inserted the story about falling off a chair and sustaining his injury, resulting in a deep scar—10 years after his first mention of it in “Screen Memories,”—which was written anonymously!!  

The fact that he was obviously concealing something important is mentioned by Freud’s own official biographer, Ernest Jones, who wrote, in specific reference to the matter about the scar and Freud’s attempts to conceal his mention of it in “Screen Memory”:

It is therefore plain that Freud regarded the story in the screen memory, or rather the deep personal feelings connected with it, as something especially intimate, though the grounds for this are far from evident to anyone else.  

But it is evident to us because we know why he felt the necessity of concealing the story’s full truth—again, the fact that he really sustained the wound when he murdered John. Below is Freud’s account of the same incident in Interpretation of Dreams, given 10 years after his first mention of it in “Screen Memories.”

But let us leave this: the locality, a pantry, the chest, from which he [i.e., Freud himself] wants to take something (in the dream, to put something on it), are unmistakable allusions to an accident of my own, brought upon myself when I was between two and three years of age. I climbed on a foot-stool in the pantry, in order to get something nice which was on a chest or table. The foot-stool tumbled over and its edge struck me behind the lower jaw. I might very well have knocked all my teeth out. (Interpretation of Dreams) 

It must be borne in mind that Jones knew Freud had yet another, contradictory, story for the same injury but, of course, he did not tell that to the reader. Here is Jones’ comment on the situation, from Jones’ biography of Freud about the account given in Interpretation of Dreams: 

An incident which he could not recollect was of slipping from a stool when he was two years old, and receiving a violent blow on the lower jaw from the edge of the table he was exploring for some delicacy. It was a severe cut which necessitated sewing up, and it bled profusely; he retained the scar throughout life. 

Of course, the reader will see (above) that Freud tells a completely different story, as said, about the same matter. More telling yet is the fact that Freud went to extreme lengths to cover-up the fact of his earlier confession in “Screen Memory” which, again, was published 10 years before his second version, which was then erased entirely from the Interpretation of Dreams in publications of the dream book in a 1925 issue of his works and after. Jones again rats on his Murder Master, while at the same time concealing much valuable information from the reader—namely that Freud tells contradictory stories about the scar. The following amazing information is in Jones’ Volume One of his Freud biography, pg. 67: 

The incident in question, however, is of considerable interest. It is the one Bernfeld unraveled from the anonymous description Freud published under the disguise of a supposed patient whom Bernfeld labels Mr. Y. In 1899, when it was written/nothing was known of Freud's early personal life, but he did not reprint the essay where it would naturally belong, in either the Sammlung Kleiner Schriften (Collection of Small Papers) or the Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Ten years later he inserted into the second edition of The Interpretation of Dreams, which contains so many personal allusions, a remark (concerning his facial scar). . .  When the Gesammelte Schriften (Collected Writings) were being arranged in 1925, Freud could not refuse the editors permission to include the beautiful little essay in question, "Screen Memories.” It would have been too pointed and would certainly have aroused their suspicion of a mystery. But at the same time he took care to erase from The Interpretation of Dreams, which was also being reprinted for the Collected Writings, the revealing passage even at the cost of making the context there unintelligible. [underline added] It is therefore plain that Freud regarded the story in the screen memory, or rather the deep personal feelings connected with it, as something especially intimate, though the grounds for this are far from evident to anyone else. Nor could all the precautions he took prevent its being pretty clear to several of us that the "patient" must have been himself.  

My highly educated and perceptive correspondent (working on his second doctorate, in Psychology) sent me the following email:  

Eric, 

Nice of you to write to me. Yes, when Freud says one thing he probably means something else. We can never be sure if, when and where the accident he refers to happened. A couple of suspicious points: had he had the accident before the age of two, he would have asked and been told about it. So he would not have the need to find out about the accident via self-analysis. Besides, people would have asked him about the scar all his life, thus the scar must be of a later origin. By the way, there is a number of pictures of Sigmund as a youngster and I haven't seen any scar, you could check them out, by the way, where was the scar situated, I could check it out too, the next time I look at his pictures. 

One more thing, he talks not about one, but about two accidents! So he must have been injured in more than one place. By the way, train journey in Freudian symbolic language mans a departure, thus death, which can fit neatly into your killing hypothesis. The Freudian train of death. I thought about you too, and wondered if you were making any progress. I have almost finished reading Freud-Fliess letters, and they only confirm what I thought, Freud was insane, paranoid and I believe Fliess—who claimed that Freud tried to kill him. . . .  

Best regards and Keep up the good work 

I wrote back, in reply to yet other of my correspondent’s remarks: 

That Freud’s career is littered with dead bodies is certainly correct, as you observe, and as I believe I have well documented in my book. . .  We do seem to be on the same page. I’ll end with mentioning I have sent again another attachment—in it I pulled and pasted what Jones had to say about the scar. I think you will be very interested. I quote directly from ID and Jones, etc. . .  And, in closing, since you now have the FF [Freud/Fliess]  correspondence if you check page 268 you will see that after confessing that John is at the center of Freud’s  travel phobia and determined everything that is “neurotic and intense” in all his friendships he ends with confessing that this is the real source of his “travel neurosis.” –

This nephew [John] and this young brother have determined, then, what is neurotic, but also what is intense, in all my friendships. You yourself have seen my travel anxiety at its height.”  

So, Freud’s travel neurosis really does directly relate to John! Just as I claim in Passion for Murder. Fun communicating with you.Eric 

We see, then, that Freud’s first comment about the scar directly related it to his “travel phobia.” 

 So, with that I’ll end this Blog entry—and I wish to express my thanks to my correspondent who has added to the evidence by directing me to some additional evidence, and important evidence, that I had previously neglected to add to my argument in Passion For Murder.  

By the way, such input from the readers is valuable and I hope anyone who wishes to contact me will do so, knowing that I will automatically preserve your identity—unless you specifically authorize me to use your name. Also, if you have something you’d like to be considered for posting at our website please send it on. More to come, I have much new info to share, keep checking with the website at: www.passion4murder.com 

Eric 

P.S. A capstone of evidence already posted on my website on the first page is worth adding, it is from one of Freud’s letters to Fliess: 

I know quite a number of people whom I respect highly-among them not only Meynert, but you, too whose epidermis would have been torn open by the traumatic events of my life whereas I may achieve in time quite a solid layer of scars. With you I don't have to protect myself against the suspicion of exaggeration.

We have the testimony of Dr. Ernest Jones that the wound was severe and he “retained the scar throughout life.”  

Link With Edgar Allen Poe, Found! 

In previous postings at our website and Blog (i.e., “Did Freud Plagiarize Poe?” and “Commentary on Poe’s Imp of the Perverse) I brought to reader’s attention evidence showing Freud was an out and out plagiarist. I showed that he not only plagiarized the great German philosophers (and others) such as Nietzsche and Schopenhauer—and produced evidence of the fact by citing recent scholars and Thomas Mann—but I also made the case that Freud made major use of the works of Edgar Allen Poe. He not only “borrowed” much from Poe for his psychoanalytic “technique” (á la Detective Dupin of The Murders of the Rue Morgue” etc.) but also used specific language from Poe’s murder maniac in Rue Morgue to describe his own exact feelings. These are feelings specific to the serial killer. Freud loved to make murder confessions but he always thinly disguised them as mere dreams or attributed his murder mania to “infantile” impulses. In the examples I give, however, I show that Freud adopted the language of the murder maniac in Poe’s story to describe himself quite in keeping with the kinds of “games” serial killers like to play to both reveal and conceal their crimes.      

Although I felt I had strong proof of the linkage between Poe and Freud well in hand, nonetheless I continued to look through many works and biographies of Freud and was unable to locate any specific references to Edgar Allen Poe by Freud—whose work I was convinced Freud must have known and pirated. It is well known that Freud was an inveterate reader of English novels and other works but, though he cites many English writers there was nothing to be found on Poe. I attributed this to the fact that Freud wanted to hide the Poe connection as being, even for him, too telling. His use of Poe was, so to speak, a private “joke.” Finally my continuing efforts to find a Poe-Freud link were rewarded. While doing research for another article I will soon post on the website—one which gives more detailed information on Freud’s murder of Pauline Silberstein (see just posted “Indictment of Freud” currently featured on the home page)—I had occasion to once again examine Freud’s early letter to Eduard Silberstein. Yesterday, while doing so I happened on the below information. The quotation from Freud given below can be found in Sigmund Freud’s Letter to Eduard Silberstein 1871-1888I, Harvard University Press, 1990).       

On February 21, 1875, 5 months before traveling to Manchester, England where I claim Freud murdered John, as my website abundantly documents, Freud wrote a letter to his boyfriend Eduard Silberstein. In the letter he tells Eduard that he proposes they have an “auto-da-fé” (an execution at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition) and destroy the writings of their secret society, the A.E. (Academia Espanol).  

Today I indulged in a pleasure I have missed for a long time. I paged through and read the A.E. papers, which I obtained yesterday from your brother (who has grown into a strapping young fellow), and reveled in the memory of days gone by. I wanted to propose an auto-da- fé, but now lack the courage and instead confirm that I shall take over the secretariat of the A.E. from you and accord the archives due care and protection.  

Freud then goes on to say he is sorrowed to discover some of his writing are missing and he muses over some of the writings that he rereads. Among those are: 

Several polemical articles by our several hands from that period of romantic revelations, my memorial on the subject of the Cretaceous which led to G.’s dismissal. My awful nocturne in which I vie with Poe, and a hair-raising episode from your novel “Konrad,” in which you vie with Balzac. The beginning of my novel “the Journey to Roznau,” luckily truncated. (underline added) 

So, this entry, when Freud is almost 19, clearly indicates that he not only read Poe, as I concluded, but consciously imitated him in his own creative writings. Clearly Freud is saying that he had imitated Poe and his friend had imitated Balzac in their respective writings. The old canard, “Imitation is the highest form of praise” is obviously applicable.   I will soon present readers with a new Blog and additional evidence on Freud’s murder of Pauline Silberstein who is included in the list of Freud’s murder victims in the just posted article on “Freud’s Indictment.” Moreover, I hope to share as well some comments from a reader from Australia who had some interesting comments. 

Eric

I have been tardy getting a new Blog posted as I have been immersed, once again, in researching related Freud materials (reading the Torah, the Masoretic edition of the Hebrew Bible, new historical books on Moses and Akhnaton, etc.). Lately I have been working on Freud’ zany, or should I say “psycho” theory that Moses was murdered by the Jews and that there were actually two Moses—not just one!

Greetings Again,

We begin the new month of November by posting an article on Edgar Allan Poe and Freud’s plagiarizing of his work. This, I believe, is a new chapter in the history of exposing Freud’s criminality and the uses he made of great literary writers to covertly confess to his serial killer nature. Please take a look at the two pieces (so far) on this subject. The first was our positing of Poe’s murder story “The Imp of Perverseness” along with a brief commentary showing, in some cases, remarkable almost word for word uses of Poe by Freud. This new piece is an amassing of additional evidence that Freud “stole” parts for his theory from Poe’s murder stories. Any feedback will be appreciated.

Below is a website visitor and reader of my book Passion for Murder. She expresses her reluctance to believe Freud was a Serial Killer

It is difficult to believe, mainly, I think because it is so dramatic and sensational -- kind of like the theories of who was the real "Jack the Ripper" ?  Theories about Jack having been some famous person we already know instead of some obscure criminal, are titillating, but ultimately hard to swallow. It's like those people who explore their "past lives" and always turn out to have been a Russian princess or Sir Lancelot, and never a fishwife or an unemployed shepherd.   We've been conditioned to get excited about such claims and then to say to ourselves, "Wait a minute -- this is just too sensational and explosive to be true!"

But I am definitely open to being convinced.  In no way have I rejected your claim.  And  I absolutely believe that  your  book should be read and seriously examined  by  many more  people  than  it  has  been.   I hope the reprint  and the new book will receive a LOT of publicity.   All your careful research deserves to be taken very seriously.  

Marilyn

I responded to Marilyn with the following remarks, which addresses her above remarks and her questions about Freud and Edgar Allen Poe:

Marilyn,
 
Thanks again for taking time to respond to my work. I'm glad you expressed your reservations about whether Freud actually murdered anyone as opposed to his machinations to promote his theories, by apparently any means. In your reservation of whether Freud actually killed anyone you join Elizabeth Thornton, and Elivesha Velikovsky, Paul Scagnelli, and others who have confessed the same reservations to me.  
 
Ms. Thornton, whom I cite in extenso in my posted piece on the website, "Freudgate 08", was the first woman to be admitted to the Royal Academy of Science as a Lay Fellow Historian of Science. She herself wrote The Freudian Fallacy an excellent landmark book on Freud which proves he was a severe cocaine addict at the time he was writing his theories and that he exhibited very strong homicidal tendencies as one of the symptoms of severe cocaine addiction. She became a supporter of mine and a correspondent.
 
Elivesha Velikovsky, an accomplished violinist and artist whose works are featured in the New York Museum of Art, was a good friend of mine (wife of Immanuel Velikovsky, author of Worlds In Collision), who knew Freud, and her husband corresponded with him and wrote the first psychoanalysis of him ever—and he credited me with the correct analysis of Freud as a “homicidal maniac.”  
 
Both these women had the same reservation as you--they hesitated to accept that Freud really killed anyone as opposed to being homicidal, even a homicidal maniac. Between the thought and the deed falls the shadow!
 
Even Dr. Paul Scagnelli, professor of psychology and clinical psychologist who wrote a large book, inspired by my work, Deadly Dr. Freud and himself who wrote large books on Freud's murder compulsions and claims that Freud killed his real father, Emmanuel, nominally his "brother"--throughout calls Freud "master" adds even more potential victims to the list--yet even he psychologically hesitated, he confessed, to fully accept Freud "actually" killed people and was, in fact, a serial killer.

Indeed, Scagnelli, describes his own symptoms upon reading my work for the first time. He confesses he was physically ill. He wrote of his "compelling emotional basis for my rejection of Miller's thesis. . . I was emotionally incapable of giving real credence to Miller's ideas. . . The idea seemed bizarre, and made me experience a nauseous rejection in the weeks and months following my first reading of Miller's strange book. etc." You get the point. So Velikovsky, who corresponded with and visited Freud in his home (Elevesha was a Viennese Jew, as Freud was), Elizabeth, who herself found him dangerously homicidal, and Paul, who himself, following my work, claimed Freud killed John (but at a different time than I indicated because he was unaware of facts that invalidate his time frame) and Emmanuel Freud, Freud’s real father--even then, it was hard for all of them to believe he "really" killed people. O.J. Simpson couldn't be convicted and I may not be able to convict Freud either, at least until the public gets “used to the idea.”
 
In my new book I intend to go into more detail on 5 of Freud's murders. In Passion for Murder I wanted to get on record my thesis and the foundation evidence. Actually, I think a careful study of my book does offer sufficient proof that Freud looks like a serial killer, walks like a serial killer, and quacks like a serial killer--now I will follow up with detailed info of those he killed. In 1984 the criterion for indentifying a serial killer had not yet been developed by the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI at Quantico laboratories. That actually came out in late 1984, after publication for my work. This is a great boon for me. I spoke in PFM of Freud's Homicidal Mania, We have learned a great deal about serial killers since publication of my work. And I myself was amazed at how Freud's hand (unlike O.J.'s?) fit into the glove. The focus of the serial killer profile now offers a great opportunity to show how Freud absolutely fits the profile--indeed, one might say the profile was made to fit! Since even among murderers, serial killers are a rare minority, we are able to "trace the murderer" with his unique "fingerprints."
 
Though I have already written a whole book on SFSK (Sigmund Freud Serial Killer) I was amazed to read in Poe, such extraordinary detail of his murderer in The Imp of Perverseness that I find difficult to believe Freud did not plagiarize Poe to show his "murderer feathers" in full plume. Serial killers love to toy with the police, detectives, journalists--they love to claim their trophies without getting caught. This is what is at the heart of Freud's murder confessions.

Serial killers have all kinds of ways of making and taking murder trophies. Some take an object, a driver’s license, a lock of hair, strip their skin off and make a purse of it, what have you. Freud planted his trophies in his books—which is not to say he did not also take other physical trophies from his victims. Did you know that Freud used to take heads and figurines of his "old gods" archeological collection to the dinner table with him and set it before him when he ate? Did you know his office was adorned with pictures of mummies, heads of statues, was dark, morbid and had the smell of death about it--as reported by his visitors. Did you know that at his beside he kept a funeral urn filled with water for his nightly needs, and that he wrote in his letters that he longed to drink out of the skull of his enemies? 

I could go on and on. These are just a few of the outward signs of the serial killer, much like Dahmer and many another serial killer. Freud's physical characteristics and symptomology, his trolling, confessions of a deep dark pit of blackness in his soul, his bipolar frenzies, his aural phase, etc., etc. I'll touch on more of this soon and post new evidence of Freud’s serial killer characteristics on my website.

ELM

Sorry once again for the delay in positing something on my Blog. I really have been very busy getting new materials together. I have a lot of new stuff that I find amazing, hopefully the reader will as well.

One thing, I would like to bring to your notice, is the new posting (to be found by clicking on “Links” – at the bottom of the features box at the top right hand of the Home Page. The piece I am referring to is entitled A NOTE ON FREUD & SELTZER’S BOOK SERIAL KILLERS 10/04/2008. There is a good representative quotation from Freud, of the kind that only a maniac or serial killer would make. Check it out. I received the below response:

I'm sorry the previous email I sent via the email option given on your website did not come through.  In it, I said that I had noticed in your book, PASSION FOR MURDER,  that you mentioned one of the three FBI specified childhood characteristics of a person who later develops into a serial killer -- enjoyment of torturing animals -- but I wondered if you had information on Freud having had either of the other two characteristics, since my understanding is that the FBI says that serial killers seem to consistently have evidenced two of the three characteristics in their childhood.   The other two are being a bed wetter and being a fire setter. As a middle school counselor during the time of the Springfield, OR school shooting rampage and also Columbine, I felt a HUGE responsibility to be aware of indicators and provocations for violence, so it has been an interest  of mine for some time.

Hope others have not had a problem with the email. We are looking into it. As to the issue raised: Actually, in Passion for Murder there is a lot of information concerning Freud’s serial killer profile. But, actually, the FBI did not come out with its Serial Killer Profile until after initial publication of PFM. In PFM I mention in a couple of places, I believe, Freud’s fondness for torturing animals. The issue of fascination for fire and being maniacally attracted to it is also featured in a number of places. Indeed, Freud refers to the very center of his soul as being a raging inferno;

In Freud's words, the unconscious [obviously his unconscious] was "an intellectual hell, layer upon layer of it, with everything fitfully gleaming and pulsating; and the outline of Lucifer-Amor coming into sight at the darkest centre." 5.

The “darkest center” is, of course, in Hell itself; at the center of Freud’s personal hell is the image of the Sex Devil. This kind of language is not at all unusual for a serial killer. I am completing a new work which makes a close examination of the Serial Killer Profile and  refers to the very center of his soul as being a raging inferno. Freud’s earliest memory (he has different versions of his earliest memory) he tells us was at the age of three when he traveled with his mother to Breslau and he say “gas flames” of the street lights was burned into his memory and which he claims reminded him of “souls burning in Hell.” I could go on and on. I have an entire chapter on the serial killer “triangle” of torturing animals, fascination with fire and bedwetting specifically relating to Freud’s psychological profile. As to bedwetting, again, one of Freud’s earliest memories involved him urinating on his parents bed, at about nine years of age—as an act of defiance. Freud frequently discusses urination issues in his dreams. More on all of this later.

Of course, the Serial Killer Profile is far more involved and the above mentioned “triangle” is only a general indicator—which, in fact, may not even be present with all serial killers. Below is another general comment on the “type.” This might be helpful to an educator such as yourself, as the below indicated signs are more easily observable in a classroom situation. The following is from a website on serial killers sponsored by persons from the legal profession.

The F.B.I has its own list, but due to its unavailability I have prepared my own. Traits that should be looked at when trying to decide if a person is a potential killer include: Social withdrawal, abnormal dependence’s on ones mother or ulcerated relations with ones parents, hypochondria or other attention seeking behavior including forms of clothing, delusional mind as to grandeur, severe depression, a general feeling of emptiness as to the future, inability to take criticisms, a general feeling of being mistreated, inability to assert ones self, parental taunts as to ones inability to be sufficient (or as I prefer to call it - the Hitchcock ‘Psycho’ syndrome), mood disorders, and a general failing in attempts to succeed. Of course these are very general points, and even if someone had the majority of these (as I do), it would not necessarily mean that they would become serial killers, it is only meant as a point of reference.

I have studied and read many books on serial killers over the last two decades and I can tell you quite confidently Freud is unquestionably of the type—an extraordinarily rare type, even among murderers. I believe my new book will convincingly frame the issue.

ELM

Hi, I'm Greg Moon, I'm the Webmaster for Passion For Murder, and I'm working with Eric to get the word out about the truth about Sigmund Freud as revealed in Passion For Murder.  I'll be posting on the Passion For Murder blog occassionally along with Eric.  I've been very busy getting the website and blog going, and also working hard with our publisher to get the book available to the general public. 

Although I'm very familiar with the book, and have read large sections, I've just started to read it cover-to-cover.  While reading the book, I had the following question for Eric:

I'm sitting down and reading the complete book.  I really enjoy your style and of course the content!  However, I read Chapter 1 last night, and I have a question that could come up in an interview:  You state that Freud panicked when he discovered his personal letters floating around, but you also say that serial killers kind of want to be found.  How would you address that question? 

Eric replied: 

As to the issue you raised. Of course serial killers want publicity, but they also do not want to get caught. If they wanted to get caught they would just turn themselves in--but that would spoil the fun of killing more people, and that's something they can't do without.

So, as a compromise between announcing their wonderful deeds to the world, they write codes, sent them to the police, and if the police can break the code then the jig is up. This is exactly what many of them do, they "encode" their murders and taunt the police with "solving" their "puzzles." This is exactly what BTK (Bind Torture Kill) did, as well as numerous serial killers. Freud was so bold with his codes because, as he said, "I am 10 to 15 years ahead of everybody and they will never catch me up."

So, F. was horrified because of all the "codes" he had in his letters and in some of the letters he told too much, so much that the Freudians destroyed the more revealing ones---but the idiots underestimated how he could easily be found out if anyone even suspected that he was in fact a serial killer. Once, one is "on to him" the rest is duck soup to see in stark terms the incontrovertability of the fact that he was SFSK.

ELM