Psychoanalysis of the Book of Genesis - Sigismond
From Peaceful Beginnings
Psychoanalytical interpretation allows decoding the three great ontological myths of the Book of Genesis as fables cleverly invented in order to back up, from the youngest age, the idea of the well-founded of circumcision.
First myth: God the father first creates man (the child) out of mud. This myth implies that children, for the father, lord and master, have no more value than mud.
The myth of creation of woman by pulling out Adam’s rib is foremost a myth of precedence of the creation of man over that of woman (the egg made the hen), intended for giving man supremacy and the property of the earth. It is next a metaphor of circumcision. The rib, through a metonymical reversal (mode of symbolisation of the unconscious) of a contained in place of a container, represents the foreskin. Woman, reduced to her vagina, is “created” through circumcision. This reducing of woman to the status of substitute of the foreskin (mere object, slave), is both the preliminary and essential complement of the very polygamous institution which terrorizes the future young man in order to remove every idea of incest with the young spouses of the father out of him.
The third myth, that of the Garden of Eden and of the original sin, is similarly an insidious image veiled in order to inspire into the fresh consciences the idea of the necessity of circumcision. It reflects the situation of the child in the arms of his mother, consuming the fruit that the father will soon forbid. Circumcision is the original punishment that chases the child from this paradise. It makes the little boy pay a very high price both for the sucking of the breast (the apple) set up in original sin, and for autosexuality; he is inflicted not only the laceration of his most intimate flesh (by which he is in a very chauvinist way identified to his glans, through stripping it) but also the metsirsah: the open sucking of his skinned and bleeding glans. A true revenge of excessive patriarchs, it symbolically punishes the child in the same way he “sinned”. Indeed, during breast-feeding, the baby boy enjoys his mother, up to erection (the snake), which makes him “guilty of incest”. The tree of good and evil is thus the mother’s body. At last, the myth points woman, who played with the “snake” (by showing her breast to the baby), as the agent provocateur of sin. Therefore, out of outrageous jealousy, the whole sexuality, based upon orality, of the infant with his mother, is fiercely condemned.
The most hideous, the most scandalously and perversely contrary to life – and to love that is its condition – is the symbol of the snake, an animal with mortal venom, in order to designate the masculine sex. This symbolism is a technique for making people guilty for sexual life. How being amazed that with such a degrading imagery, the sexual moral of the three religions should be so unhealthy, generating violence against women?
The Catholics reinforce this symbolism by that of a woman stepping over the snake. Beyond its rudeness, the image of a woman stamping a symbol of the masculine sex is the most odiously deadly that can be imagined to imprint on the consciousness or the unconscious of the child. Trusting the adult, the latter will be deeply traumatized and hurt by a representation that is genuine calling for castration (castrated singers have been used for religious offices) or even for circumcision, suggested by the fact that snakes loose their skin when moulting. Both lewd and criminal, this symbolism intoxicates Catholic consciences. Making of what gives life a symbol of poisoning and death, and setting the faithful of a religion against those of another by giving the first an ideal of hostility towards sexuality whereas the others are supposed to let themselves be tempted by it, is an appeal for hatred.
The point of departure of the trauma, of the malaise in civilization, is not an imaginary or alleged original sin but an effective original so-called punishment. After having tasted the fruit of the tree of good and evil (the maternal breast in free enjoyment for eight days of Eden), Adam and Eve find themselves “naked”; he, stripped of his foreskin in punishment of autosexuality and threat of future incestuous envies (trust cannot exist in a polygamous society); she, compelled with him to dress so that her young body would not excite the concupiscence of a father for whom all women are to be conquered and whom we guess being rather paedophiliac, unable to face the nudity of his own daughters. The archaic fault is the devilish invention of fathers mad with jealousy, ordering themselves Gods of their children and making them feel guilty through a paedophobe crime.
The unique God of Moses, an enemy of barbarity, jealous of other Gods and prohibiting them, will replace by a good and imaginary God this deification of unworthy fathers. But, as well in the African and Islamic worlds as in the Occidental one, the Covenant by word did not yet succeed to dethrone the Covenant by blood of the Abrahamic myth: the pulling out of the “rib” in punishment of the “bite into the apple”.
However, the Machiavellian enslavers, writers of those deeply chauvinist, sexist and racist myths, likely to intoxicate young brains with guilt for life, caught themselves into their own trap by reversing the logical order between sin and punishment.
The Book of Genesis has been written for gullible children. It is deliberate manipulation of the unconscious by several convergent myths reinforcing each other in order to prepare the wording of Abraham’s “law”. The psychoanalytic interpretation dismantles the perverse spite of those myths carefully devised by shrewd connoisseurs of the mechanisms of the unconscious, manipulators of the masses by a discursive technique worthy of the cleverest totalitarian propaganda. The deep aim is to separate, isolate boys from their mothers and from women, themselves excluded from society, from men’s clan. Rendered accomplices of the crime, mothers are deprived of the intimate tenderness, attachment and deep biological trust and love of their boys. The latter, terrorized, will easily be dominated, enlisted and indoctrinated by the warriors and the religious elite who wrote the Bible. This elite, through the devilish invention of the original sin, settled the pseudo-moral foundations of the Africano-Judeo-Christiano-Islamic civilization, a puritan, predating, despoiling civilization.
Deciphered by psychoanalytic interpretation, the Book of Genesis appears like a tool of the moral order of barbarian, sexist, domineering and self-assured fathers, exploiters of women and children. Similarly, the Christian myth of the Holy trinity relegates femininity to a secondary position; Mary remains a mere mortal.
Supporting the pillar or patriarchy: domination of child and woman, these misleading and neurotising (at best) myths make humanity live within lie when it is not within the piracy of infantile sexual mutilation. The teaching of sexism to the child is intolerable. The authorities of the three religions must expurgate catechisms from those myths which make women and child feel inferior and guilty.
