ON WAR

--part1_c.cdc60e1.2bad05d7_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Norm Rosenblood wonders if the sacrificial phantasy that I wrote about
might also subsume an "apocalyptic wish" as well. He suggests that we may be
observing the acting out of the "Samson myth:" the desire to bring the Temple
down on everyone. Hitler, of course, was the supreme example of this dynamic
of courting defeat in order to destroy the world.

I agree with this assessment and suggest that this is precisely what is
going on: an apocalyptic, sacrificial, masochistic fantasy is being acted
out. What is occurring has no economic or rational meaning. We want to endow
it with profound "geopolitical significance" in order to deny that an
infantile fantasy is being acted out on the stage of "history" (tremble,
tremble).

Of course, no one wants to talk about this because everyone wants to be
caught up in the excitement, to partake in the "world historical events" (the
fantasy that something real is happening).

If one calls something "politics," is the phenomena then beyond the
scope of psychoanalytic inquiry? Politics is the arena in which the
collective fantasies of the human race are acted out.

Everyone is paralyzed by the presumed "facticity" of the phenomenon: it
is assumed that just because something is happening that makes it real.

War (a consequence of the belief in "nations") is a collective fantasy
to which everyone is symbiotically bound. There is something unregenerate in
the attraction to this phenomenon. One does not want to separate from one's
nation or culture. No one wants to be left out (it's a family affair).
"People all over the world, join hands."

How come no one has asked (or asks): "What's in it for Saddam Hussein?"
How come all you hear about is Bush, Bush, Bush?

The negation of Saddam Hussein on the military level is equalled by the
negation of Saddam Hussein as a subject of analysis by the "intellectuals."
The same dynamic is involved: the fantasy of the omnipotence of "America."

Of course, through the dialectic of denial, negation constitutes
affirmation. Because one does not wish to encounter his MIND OR MENTALITY,
therefore Hussein becomes the "most famous man in the world." He is
fulfilling his fantasy through the vehicle of the United States of America.
He is the subject or agent that has seduced the "other" to enact his myth.

It is Saddam Hussein's apocalyptic, sacrificial dream that has been
activated on the stage of reality (a faint echo of Hitler's world destruction
fantasy, the repressed returning, whispering to us from a distance).

Best regards,

Richard Koenigsberg

--part1_c.cdc60e1.2bad05d7_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>      Norm Rosenblood wonders=
if the sacrificial phantasy that I wrote about might also subsume an "apoca=
lyptic wish" as well. He suggests that we may be observing the acting out of=
the "Samson myth:" the desire to bring the Temple down on everyone. Hitler,=
of course, was the supreme example of this dynamic of courting defeat in or=
der to destroy the world. 
 
      I agree with this assessment and suggest that=
this is precisely what is going on: an apocalyptic, sacrificial, masochisti=
c fantasy is being acted out. What is occurring has no economic or rational=20=
meaning. We want to endow it with profound "geopolitical significance" in or=
der to deny that an infantile fantasy is being acted out on the stage of "hi=
story" (tremble, tremble). 
 
      Of course, no one wants to talk about this be=
cause everyone wants to be caught up in the excitement, to partake in the "w=
orld historical events" (the fantasy that something real is happening). 
 
      If one calls something "politics," is the phe=
nomena then beyond the scope of psychoanalytic inquiry? Politics is the aren=
a in which the collective fantasies of the human race are acted out. 
 
      Everyone is paralyzed by the presumed "factic=
ity" of the phenomenon: it is assumed that just because something is happeni=
ng that makes it real. 
 
      War (a consequence of the belief in "nations"=
) is a collective fantasy to which everyone is symbiotically bound. There is=
something unregenerate in the attraction to this phenomenon. One does not w=
ant to separate from one's nation or culture. No one wants to be left out (i=
t's a family affair). "People all over the world, join hands." 
 
      How come no one has asked (or asks): "What's=20=
in it for Saddam Hussein?" How come all you hear about is Bush, Bush, Bush?<=
BR>
 
      The negation of Saddam Hussein on the militar=
y level is equalled by the negation of Saddam Hussein as a subject of analys=
is by the "intellectuals." The same dynamic is involved: the fantasy of the=20=
omnipotence of "America." 
      
      Of course, through the dialectic of denial, n=
egation constitutes affirmation. Because one does not wish to encounter his=20=
MIND OR MENTALITY, therefore Hussein becomes the "most famous man in the wor=
ld." He is fulfilling his fantasy through the vehicle of the United States o=
f America. He is the subject or agent that has seduced the "other" to enact=20=
his myth. 
 
      It is Saddam Hussein's apocalyptic, sacrifici=
al dream that has been activated on the stage of reality (a faint echo of Hi=
tler's world destruction fantasy, the repressed returning, whispering to us=20=
from a distance). 
 
Best regards, 
 
Richard Koenigsberg </HTML>

--part1_c.cdc60e1.2bad05d7_boundary--