Letter of Ariane Bilheran (PhD) to Pr. Judith Reisman, July, 18 2018

Dernière mise à jour : 27 août 2021

Juillet 2018


This letter is a response to the American Professor Judith Reisman who asked me some questions in relation to the very common beliefs in USA supposedly based on Freud about the “psychosexual development” of the child and justifying the precocious sexualization of the child.

She was surprised that I could sometimes refer to Freud, who is often popularized as the theorist of the “sexualized” children, especially in texts supporting the “sexual education” of children.

What is the truth in this world where lies and interpretations prevail which are all together as delusional as they are frivolous?

So here is my answer, these arguments seem to me all the more important if Freud was actually opposed to the “sexual education” and the sexualization of the child… then the only “scientific validation” remaining in the programs of the W.H.O on “sexual education” is the sinister figure of Kinsey.

However, Judith Reisman has already achieved the masterful work of denouncing this scientific imposture and this incredible fraud, work until now is unfortunately still too little known in France.

Therefore, there is no longer any scientific validation for the “sexual education” of children and for the conception of children as “sexualized at birth”.

N.B.: Thanks to Philippe Vergnes, my tireless colleague denouncing the pathologies of power and mass manipulations, from whom I take up below the examples from the “Guide of the Trainer” of pedagogical supports of the education in sexuality in a ministerial document, as well as some of the analysis we conducted jointly.

https://perversionnarcissiqueetpsychopathie.com/2017/07/19/alerte-en-protection-de-lenfant-ce-petit-pervers-polymorphe-que-le-nom-souhaite-re-eduquer/



Dear Judith,


First let me tell you that I totally understand your dismay, if Freud is being taught this way in the United State of America, based on that “psychosexual development” as you sent me which is nothing but Kinsey’s notion adapted to a bazaar of pseudo-psychology.

In France as well, the twisting of Freud’s precepts began approximately in the 1960s, with the “sexual revolution”.

Some psychoanalysts put words in Freud’s mouth, and they even made him say the opposite of what he said.

Now, as no one strictly refers to the sources… it is very easy to make up the fraud, just as the Nazis fabricated the fraud on Nietzsche’s work about the “superman”, a kind of supra-virile Aryan, which has nothing to do with the superhuman defined by Nietzsche (in which women were included…), which describes the human being who has managed to tame his/her passions. You see how far the misinterpretation goes.


Almost the same holds true for Freud, for several reasons :

1° A lack of reference to the texts, and the work of Freud is a work in motion (for example see the evolution between the 1st and the 2nd topics), as Nietzsche’s work, therefore one needs to apprehend its detail, its ensemble and its chronology to grasp the complexity of his thoughts.

2° Some serious translation errors, or even, translations intentionally rendered in ambiguous terms (so if we had twisted minds, we would claim that the pedophiles themselves have quickly seized the question of Freud on sexuality issue, in order to infiltrate into the translation and change the meaning). We must therefore return to Freud’s sources in German.

3 ° Some ambiguities that could be found in Freud’s work, but which are not what people believe (nevertheless they are serious enough to be noted).


Let me start with a quote from Freud himself:

“It is during the total or at least partial period of latency, that the psychic forces are formed which will later hinder sexual urges and, as dikes, will limit and restrict their course (loathing, modesty, moral and aesthetic aspirations). We may gain the impression that the erection of these dikes in the civilized child is the work of education: and certainly education contributes to it. In reality, however this organically conditioned evolution and marked by heredity can sometimes occur without any intervention of education (very important point; the human being therefore naturally develops modesty, loathing etc. if he/she is not disturbed by perverse seduction, Freud speaks of this elsewhere). Indeed education remains properly within its assigned realm only if it strictly follows what is organically preformed, to deepen and purify it. Educators, in as far as they pay some attention to infantile sexuality, behave as if they shared our views on formation, at the expense of sexuality, defensive moral forces, and as if they knew in other respects that sexual activity makes the child uneducable.”

(Excerpt of Three essays on the Theory of Sexuality).

From the start, we must therefore affirm without any ambiguity that Freud, one of the great developers of the psychic life of the child, as well as Piaget, an eminent psychologist specialized in the mental development of the child, are in complete agreement to say that inciting the child to sexuality makes him/her uneducable.

Let’s recall that to educate means to repress urges according to Freud, so, above all, it is a question of not talking about sexuality to children and contribute to repress urges through education!!!!

However, during this period of latency (around 6/7-12 year of age) in which are built morality, virtue, but also the operative thinking (mathematics, logic, Latin…, 7 years: “age of reason”) in the child’s mind, the pedophile lobby teaches “sex with penetration”! (See the Matrix of the “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe”, Spanish version, at age 6, teaching of “relaciones sexual con penetration“, sexual relations with penetration).

This is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT FREUD WAS ADVOCATING.

We are well in the kingdom of the perverts, who seduce the child in a traumatic way.


About “Sexual Education“

It is therefore perfectly wrong and outrageous to indicated that Freud would have supported a “sexual education” of children or some sexual rights” of children, knowing that he affirms the contrary, that is, and to summarize a complex thought within the broad outlines:

The human being is born with urges that should be channeled (these urges are linked to the “principle of pleasure”: “I do what I want right now when I want”, and to the survival), to contain, to repress, to master, to be able to live in society in a civilized way.

I am going to recall that it is Freud who has studied and brought to light the narcissistic and sexual perversions, as being a primitive psychic block precisely before the Oedipus stage, on a very archaic level where the other is seen as an instrument, and not a subject. In psychosis (paranoia, schizophrenia), the other is seen as an extension not detached from oneself, it is therefore short of perversion where the other is an exterior lived as a pure instrument for the benefit of its own enjoyment.

It is also Freud who has worked a lot on paranoia in connection with the disorders of sex change (so, for him, wanting to change sex is: a psychosis), and the relationship between repressed homosexuality (in male) and paranoia (homosexuality that he classified as a perversion). See Schreber case.


To realize the extent of the falsification of Freud’s texts, let us take two examples with the “Trainer’s Guide of educational materials for sex education in the document of the French Ministry”, which show how Freud’s texts are systematically perverted and corrupted. However, these excerpts were written by a psychologist (unknown, certainly, in France):

Excerpt 1:

We can say that hate is older than love, the object is born in hatred(S. Freud).

Note: this is completely wrong.

This is an excerpt from the book Metapsychology, chapter: “Urges and their destinies”

Freud never said that.

He speaks of the ambivalence of feelings: the joint positive feelings of love and negative feelings of hate, which constitute the relations of the subject with the object.

Excerpt 2 (unbelievable!):

“It is worth noting the fundamental aspect of infantile sexuality and of the psychosexual development as a determinant of the future adult sexuality. Freud shows us the child, as a being confronted with his partial urges, truly “a little polymorphous perverse“ who will be structured and unified gradually through his infantile neurosis”.

See below the answer to the question “Is the child according to Freud a polymorphous perverse?

Excerpt 3:

“As in the Sophocles legend, the Oedipus complex in its positive form corresponds to an attraction for the parent of the other sex and the feelings of hatred or of rivalry for the same-sex parent. The inverted Oedipus complex corresponds to a contrary situation and most often there is an oscillation of the child between these two attitudes. “

See below the answer about the confusion Oedipe/incest

Is the child according to Freud, a polymorphous perverse?

I bring up excerpt 2 of the Guide of the French Ministry:

It is worth noting the fundamental aspect of infantile sexuality and of the psychosexual development as a determinant of future adult sexuality. Freud shows us the child as a being confronted with his partial urges, a true “little polymorphous perverse” who will be structured and unified gradually through his infantile neurosis.

Here, the trickery of the assertion thrust as a propaganda slogan (71,400 results on the Google search engine) by the entire psychologist community is very simple to demonstrate: did Freud declare whether or not the child was a “true polymorphous perverse”?

What did Freud write about this question?

Let’s see that!

The answer lies in the Three Essays on the Sexual TheoryThe “polymorphous” occurrence is repeated five times (six, counting the summary): once in a paragraph subtitle, “The polymorphous-perverse disposition” and the other four in two paragraphs: three times for the first and only one for the second.

Freud introduces the first paragraph by the phrase:

“It is interesting to note that the child, as a result of seduction, can become a polymorphous perverse and be led to all kinds of transgressions”.

Is it necessary to clarify this to translate Freud’s thought?

Are we dealing with intellectuals who have failed their text explanation test?

Let us remain serious for two minutes: the “polymorphous-perverse dispositions” of the child, in Freud’s own opinion, are induced by seduction. They are not endogenous, but exogenous. From this observation, he deduces: “He/she is therefore predisposed…”

Predisposed means “to put (someone) in conditions favorable to (accomplish or to appreciate) certain things”; or, in medicine: “put in an unfavorable disposition rendering the organism vulnerable to certain attacks”. Freud thus describes in a very explicit way a situation suffered by the child. If we suppress seduction, the “polymorphous-perverse dispositions” of the child disappear with it.It’s simple, clear, clean and precise. How did we manage to translate Freud’s thought into the mortifying slogan: “the child, this little polymorphous perverse”?

This question is all the more relevant as this paragraph continues as follows:

“…the perverse acts encounter resistance, the psychic dikes [of children] who will oppose sexual excesses (modesty, loathing, moral) which are not established or being only in the process of formation. The child, in the circumstance, behaves no differently than would the average woman who has not undergone the influence of civilization vis-a-vis of the seducer, thus preserving a polymorphous-perverse disposition. A woman disposed this way may, in the ordinary circumstances of life, remain sexually normal; but, under the influence of an experienced seducer, she will take a liking to all the perversities and will henceforth use them in her sexual activity. The prostitute uses this polymorphous and, consequently, infantile dispositionin the interest of her profession; and if we consider the immense number of women prostitutes and those to whom we can not deny the aptitudes for prostitution, although they have escaped the trade, we must recognize that this disposition to all perversions is something profound and generally human.

In other words, Freud, at the beginning of the twentieth century, explains that polymorphous-perverse tendencies are generally a human trait. His demonstration, if it begins with an observation made about children, leads to the whole of the human race.

In the eyes of Freud, it is therefore the entire humanity which presents polymorphous-perverse dispositions that must be fought by education in opposition to seduction as attested by the etymology of these two terms.

See the etymologies in Latin:

Educate: driving out of the infantile state (out of the state of infantile urge)

Seducare: driving out of the right way

Seduction is therefore the opposite of education…

Therefore, “sexual education” instead of repressing urges for sublimating them, liberates them and encourages them… This is a MAJOR NONSENSE ATTRIBUTED TO FREUD, which I think it is perfectly and intentionally set up by the pedophile lobby, who actually knows what it’s all about.

We are very far from the currently accepted interpretation of a child as a “true little polymorphous perverse!”

Yet this is what perverse propaganda and paranoiac ideological infiltration of pedophile lobbies have succeeded in gaining acceptance into the entire psychologist community and the population as evidenced by the majority of lectures/courses, including at universities which repeat non-stop this truncated assertion.

It should also be noted here that, according to Freud, the psychic dikes erected by education (this is the role of education according to Freud, an indispensable role: erecting dikes that are MORAL, MODESTY, LOATHING) can “exit” under the blows of sexual excesses.

This is not good news, because it is precisely what is gradually being put in place at the level of sexual rights and “sexual education”.

That’s what Freud is warning about!!!!

Freud evokes for the last time the polymorphous perversion of the child in this essay. The complete paragraph is this one:

We then found, based on experience, that the external influences of seduction could produce premature interruptions of the latency period and even suppress it, and that the sexual urge of the child would reveasl themselve as polymorphous perverse. Finally, we have seen that any premature sexual activity, produced in this way, made the education of the child more difficult.

At another time, he says clearly that if the child is sexualized by others, he/she becomes uneducable.

Freud confirms the exogenous origin of sexual polymorphous perverse urge of the child and provides additional clarification worthy of the greatest interest: any premature sexual activity produced by seduction makes the education of the child more difficult:

Educators, in so far as they pay some attention to infantile sexuality, behave as if they shared our views on formation, at the expense of sexuality, defensive moral forces, and as if they knew in other respects that sexual activity makes the child uneducable“.

Thus it would have been necessary, to scrupulously respect the Freudian thought, to wonder further about the character of this seduction, which is a perverse seduction by the adult, precisely the seduction of the Kinsey type!

However, Freud himself was asked to “close his eyes” on this question by the international scientific community of the time and his willful blindness “contaminated” generations of psychoanalysts and psychologists trained in psychoanalysis (fortunately, not all of them).


On the “All sexual” Freudian theory

Freud advocates abstinence for the elevation of moral formation, and even says that only individual who are practicing abstinence are capable of great works, which moreover can be conceived from the sexual abstinence of Michelangelo himself.

He also wrote about the case of Leonardo da Vinci to describe the virtues of sublimation (a restraint put on sexuality to transcend sexual energy).

He even links the absence of sexual activity with the faculty of high intellectual studies!

Education being absolutely essential to tame the urges, it covers two functions according to Freud:


the symbolization (ability to convey what was not conceptualized into a mental representation): it is put in place at the moment of the Oedipus complex, precisely, then making the child fit for logical and operative activities (cf. the stages of Piaget), when this passage of the Oedipus complex passes with success.


the sublimation (access to a transcendence, transformation of sexual energy into spiritual elevation, spiritual opening, via love. It should be noted that Plato had said say the same thing in Le Phaedra).


Freud insists very clearly on the differences between infantile urges and adult sexuality.

But let’s go back to this point.

He distinguishes the infantile sexual from adult sexuality.

Adult sexuality is the genital.

The infantile sexual (and he expressly uses two distinct words) are libido-related urges, a concept to be understood as a life urge, a vital energy.

Clearly, the child seeks what relates to his survival, and with his immediate pleasure.

The child passes certain stages, like the sadistic-anal stage, which is a stage of control in connection with cleanliness, where the child develops and expresses sadistic urges, it is enough to see the behavior of some children towards 3-4 years of age with animals (pulling the dog’s tail, hurting it, taking pleasure in it) to understand that the goal of education is precisely to make access to otherness and empathy (which will allow the Oedipus complex, and which is precisely what structures the psyche in a non-perverse way).

Freud links homosexuality to a primitive fixation at a stage of perverse defense mechanisms, this stage occurring briefly, if all goes well (except cases of childhood trauma), at the moment when the child develops a massive anxiety at the gradual separation from his mother (from his mother’s body, in particular).

The child in his infancy takes the toy when he wants, and does not tolerate frustration.

Here is an example of urge activity.

It would be too long to lengthy an explanation here as to why libido is linked to sexual energy, and why it is necessary to transform it, and especially not to awaken it, I devoted an entire program to explain this in french, and it must be understood that this is related to an occult corpus, the one known by the Nazis in sexual magic, which precisely results in awakening in the child to what should not be: sexuality.

It is this same sexual energy that is used in occult mass manipulations, which all occultists know (and it was the object of Aleister Crowley’s mad research…). Freud observes and says: do not wake the sleeping snake, otherwise the child will be uneducable!

As for the rest of the urge activity, it is linked to the question of the ways, by which the child derives his pleasure and his urges satisfaction, pleasure and satisfaction that must absolutely be repressed by education (eg: to beat his friend at school, beat his mother, scratching someone, etc.), according to Freud.

Freud advocates the need for education to contain all the potential impulse excesses that may occur and that the child will not be able to manage (we see it when they are precisely traumatized sexually, children become uncontrollable, and over-excited, with compulsive masturbations from an early age. It is the perversion of the pedophile lobby: to teach masturbation, then to say “look, the child is masturbating”, whereas psychologists specializing in trauma know that a child who is compulsively masturbating is a child who has been/is being sexually transgressed).

Freud recalls the awakening of genital sexuality with adolescent hormones, hence the need to have erected a maximum of moral psychic dikes in the so-called period of latency between about 6/7 and 12 years of age, psychic dikes that will be necessary absolutely to maintain during the return of the urges during adolescenc