Re: Terrorism as "sin transference"
D@mrdcom.net Mr D.
news:optx76mpzg3bzrao@kalroten...
> In my article (below) I have discussed the psychological elements of
> terrorism and argued that it derives from unconscious motives and
> archaic thinking ('Ur-phantasien'). Lack of capability of individual
> life leads to a longing after the 'Big Dead Spirit', namely adherence
We can in fact ignore this wordy junk from the first line onwards: it is a
critique entirely determined by the precepts of the would-be analyst's own
society, and, in particular, by the power-structures which determine both
that society's policy and the lies that are then told about it.
Depth-psychology -- seeking, as it has historically done, to buttress its
own power *before anything else* -- has always shown a disgraceful readiness
to treat with existing power-structures (Freud's post-WWI defence of the
state-endorsed electrical torture of so-called 'war neurotics' is one
example; Jung's sick-makingly cynical and opportunistic pre-WWII deal with
the Nazis is another); the result is that depth-psychology and its
practitioners *continually* show themselves to be 'quietistic' with respect
to the power-structures under which they hope to prosper. In short, and with
regard to the particular outpouring of garbage that this thread is wasting
its time on, the fact is that no-one in the West, however clever their grasp
of either psychoanalysis or 'analytic psychology', can opine with even basic
sanity about 'terrorism' unless they first possess an objective grasp of the
geopolitical reality that 'we', the West, are *the principal terrorists* --
guilty of the greatest organisation of the greatest resources aimed at
coercing the greatest number of people by means of the greatest violence. To
put it aphoristically: compared to what Washington does, the activities of
'al-Quaeda' are mere nail-polish -- whence one cannot 'do' Freud, or Jung,
in this context, without first having 'done' Chomsky or Hermann. Without
this basic honesty -- essentially a refusal to obediently ignore the
Military-Industrial elephant in the room -- all 'psychologising' attempts at
'analysing the enemy' are merely self-serving stones thrown from inside the
glass house of a tacitly accepted propaganda system -- and therefore show
the would-be analyst as nothing more than the psychological equivalent of a
compliant *court historian*.
M.D.
M Winther
You haven't even read my article because I do include the terrorist
acts of the Western world in my concept. Your contemptive language, in
itself, betrays a personality incapable of carrying suffering, always
ready to humiliate others. This is the essential characteristic of the
archaic concept of sin transference.
The transfer of sin to a victim, like in the human sacrifice of the
innocent, has a therapeutic function in that the participators are
relieved of their own failings, which are transferred to the victim.
This is what underlies bullying in the school yard, too. It is the
archaic psyche at work. They dispense with their own failures and thus
relieve themselves of devitalization and sickness.
The devitalization of the Islamic peoples stems from the inability, at
this level of culture, to adapt to an encroaching culture which is
rooted in the individual, namely the Western culture. Some of them
approach this problem by indulging in 'sin transference'. It derives
from the archaic functioning of the psyche and it really is not rooted
in higher politics and religiosity.
Mats
D@mrdcom.net Mr D.
You are *a liar*, sir. I have indeed fought my way through the gas-cloud of
fantasy that is your 'article'. And I observed that it *completely ignores*
'the terrorist acts of the West'.
What's more, by saying (inter alia) that "Cho Seung-Hui, the school-shooter,
was in every sense a terrorist" you reveal yourself to be playing fast and
loose with terminology in a way that Jung (that nauseating old fraud!) would
certainly approve of -- but which the thinking world today regards as
intellectually diresputable and ethically contemptible.
Your chances of understanding my post, in short, are close to zero: you are
not, in fact, among the people I was addressing.
M.D.
M Winther
How can you say that I completely ignore the terrrorist acts of the West when I
say, for instance:
"Terrorism seems illogical. War historians fail to understand why
Churchill saw fit to carry out the massacre of German civilians in the
Dresden bombings, etc. It did not contribute to the war effort. If
anything, it only used up resources that could have been of good use
elsewhere. What's the point of terror-bombing thousands of innocent
people? Only psychologists can provide an answer to this enigma.
The Americans applied this strategy in the grand style. Around one million
Japanese were killed in the bombings of Japanese cities. As if this
wasn't enough, president Truman was intent on dropping two atom bombs
on innocent civilians, too. The Japanese despairingly tried to
surrender the whole summer before the bombs were dropped, but Truman
refused to listen. He referred to a technicality concerning
'unconditional surrender', which the Japanese War Cabinet found it
hard to accept because they feared that the Emperor would have to step
down. Of course, it was quite possible to resolve this situation in a
negotiated surrender so that the Japanese wouldn't have to 'lose
face'.
So why was the nuclear bombing necessary? Its consequences were
horrifying; 340,000 dead instantly and up to five years later, and
much suffering thereafter. The skin on people's faces was torn loose
so it hung down like rags. There were many anguished children with
dead mothers and people with their bowels and brains extruding. There
was 'a woman with her jaw missing and her tongue hanging out of her
mouth' wandering around in the rain crying for help (Hachiya, 1955,
p.117). But this was only the beginning. The internal organs would
decay in great suffering, and people would die of radiation.
Why is there an urge to vilify and to murder masses of innocent people?
This urge is the simplest definition of terrorism. In order to come to
grips with this issue it is necessary to identify the common
motivation among mass murderers such as Harry S. Truman, Adolf Hitler,
and Osama bin Laden."
(excerpt from: http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/terror.htm )
So you cannot have read my article properly. I have thought about the
case of Cho Seung-Hui, too. So I am not "playing fast and loose with
terminology". In fact, I am being fully consistent. The following is
an excerpt where I discuss the school-shooter. I argue that,
psychologically, he tallies with the terrorists because of the inner
cultural conflict and the outspoken narcissistic symptoms.
'Richard McBeef' by Cho Seung-Hui
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html
Analysis:
To my mind, 'Richard McBeef' by Cho Seung-Hui would not seem to
indicate that the author has been subject to sexual abuse. We always
tend to pussyfoot around our complexes, and not to speak openly about
the subject matter in explicit language. Had there existed such
experiences then, typically, the inner pain would have taken on a
different expression characteristic of unconscious imagery. Instead,
the author uses the image of sexual abuse as a tool of artistic
expression. He would not do this if it was a burning issue.
On the other hand, had he reached a stage where he could consciously
discuss the subject matter of an authentic case of sexual abuse, then
he had already successfully begun to confront the problem. He would
know the real name of the perpetrator, which he could relate to the
police. He would also be able to discuss his experiences with a
therapist, or at least record some of it in writing. A conscious
realization of this type would counteract a collective punishment of
innocent people. The problem always gets its correct dimensions in the
light of consciousness. So it is very unlikely that his problem was
due to childhood sexual abuse.
Much of his imagery is clearly consciously delineated. The
hamburger-eating, fat and sloppy McBeef, seems to signify America.
Korea, his mother country, has been "abused" by USA, who enforced its
partition, and suppressed the leftist movement. Clearly, he doesn't
like "rich brats" and accuses them of "orgies". We see a psychology
that bears resemblance to the Islamic terrorists, who oppose
fornication and indecent life, and want to found a state of idealistic
cleanliness. The son in the play is not McBeef's biological son.
Cho Seung-Hui came to America as an eight year old, and was "adopted"
by America-McBeef. The biological father, who was "murdered", could
signify the conscious lifestyle of his Korean forbears. The murder of
the boy's father, then, is the partition of Korea, and South-Korea's
affiliation with corruptible Western lifestyle. America-McBeef is
projected as once a rather successful person but now going downhill.
In the play McBeef says that he tried to help the biological father,
similar to how US politicians said that they "helped" Korea from
leftists
and Communists. This is probably estimable, but not in the mind of Cho.
I haven't read his other play, but the narcissistic solution of
"splendid isolation" (Kernberg) is obvious, and it combines with the
typical compensatory megalomania, when he compares himself to Jesus
and other important persons. The wish to die is there, too. From the
little I know about this case, I see the typical signs of a standard
etiology. It's that same boring old imposition of guilt on an innocent
collective, etc. With Hannah Arendt, I yawn loudly and say how boring
and banal it is. It's that same old never-ending vulgarisms. This
pattern
of thought ought to be taught in many different curriculums, not only in
psychoanalysis. In the patient, the conscious realization of an
archetypal
pattern will give consciousness the upper hand and the complex is
devitalized.
Pathological narcissism (NPD) is associated with the borderline
conditions, although it is perhaps a category of its own. While it is
much
more far-reaching than "neurosis", it does not belong to the psychotic
category. The anti-social category is a subgroup of pathological
narcissism, and reading Kernberg's description of it in Borderline
Conditions and Pathological Narcissism, and elsewhere, I find many
poignant points of concordance. Interestingly, in some cases, says
Kernberg, there is probably a hereditary factor, and there is a
certain likeness to symptoms of autism.
Comparatively, the psychotic personality is at times delusional, but the
reality-function with this person is such that he can pay his bills,
drive a car, carry out his study assignments, and submit them in time.
He seems amply controlled, but with the narcissistic rage just below
the surface. The very controlled and planned behaviour of the school
shooters; the total lack of empathy and extreme aggression, rhymes
perfectly with this etiological category. Nor is the 'Richard McBeef'
play particularly psychotic. It is the same old muck, boringly
predictable, full of that oral rage and paranoid accusations
characteristic of the anti-social NPD patient. Had it been a work of a
psychotic, then, clearly, it would have been more interesting. I
suppose it is possible to make a psychotic content analysis, but then
one would have to make an effort.
It's important to point out, however, that the perception of NPD
does not imply a reversion back to the "oldest issues and dogmas" of
good old Freudian psychoanalysis. Kernberg says that, generally, he
wouldn't recommend this group for psychoanalysis. Schwartz-Salant
says that the prognosis is bad, although, in the general category, he
has had some success. So it's not simply the question of lying on the
analyst's couch for a couple of months, dissolving a complex. We do
acknowledge factors of heredity, and factors of abuse, especially of
an emotional character deriving from the mother, and we do acknowledge
the relative inefficiency of psychoanalysis in many of these cases.
Also, these patients do have fantasies of grandiosity and of the
paranoid hue, alternatingly. But it's not the same as psychotic
delusions.
The longing after a good father is evident in Cho's play. The real
father had drowned. Researchers in pathological homosexuality have
found that the absence of a good and loving father is, in itself, a
pathogen. There is a connection between NPD and the etiology of
homosexuality. In homosexuals, according to Kernberg, we see many
cases of different grades of pathological narcissism.[1] Aardweg,[2]
Bieber,[3] Kronemeyer,[4] West[5], Westwood[6] find that, due to an
absent or negative father, the boys have developed an unnaturally
strong emotional bond to the mother, which is causative of
identification, and therefore an identification with the father is
locked out. In Cho's case we see that the leading character is unable
to identify with America-McBeef.
A paradoxical aspect, then, is that a mother needn't be particularly
neurotic, or emotionally stifling, in order to cause damage to the
boy. Women are always narcissistic and binding to a moderate degree.
The very absence of a good father, or strong fatherly principle, is
often the relevant problem. Corneau says that the physical presence of
a loving father is central, in that he will create in the boy an
acceptance of his own body as beautiful, something that he will wear
with pride. Homosexuality, then, is a ritual by which the bodily
feelings are won back.[7]
In Cho's play we see the expression of homosexual fantasies that are
being rejected by Cho's alter ego. The sexual innuendo would not hint
at earlier abuse. It harks back to an age where the physical and
emotional contact between father and son have an important and
wholesome psychological function. But the homosexual solution of
ritual reclamation of manhood is not open to Cho. Clearly, an
identification with the father in the form of America is locked out.
Cho, torn from his Korean context, knows that his looks and mentality
is far from the general ideal.
In the Eastern cultures the presence of the fatherly principle is
traditionally very conspicuous: in China Confucianism, and in Japan
the strong emphasis on civil conduct. This phenomenon is evident also
in the Arabic civilization. It goes together with the relative level
of psychological maturity. A deterioration in the respect of a strict
fatherly society will also threaten the personality with regression,
which necessitates the narcissistic solution and homosexuality.
In Cho's play the father will simply not suffice. It's another father
that he needs. We see in this drama what underlies the revolt against
the democratic society, occurring in Islamism, Communism, and
elsewhere, namely the reaction against the weakening of the impersonal
and overarching fatherly principle. The psychological weakness of the
personal father on that particular level of cultural maturity, needs a
compensation in the form of one-sided collective ideals. The
individual discriminative capacity mustn't be counted on in the same
measure as in the Western societies.
The conclusion is that far-reaching pathology with the consequences of
mass-murder, belongs in the modern world where laws governing a sound
conduct of life are dissolved, and where people of different cultural
maturity are disseminated. The ability to identify with a group, and
the feeling of belonging in a society, is being sundered in this way.
It goes together with a depletion of the role of the personal father
as a role model, but also as a source of loving kindness.
Mats Winther
----------------------------
References
1. Otto F. Kernberg, Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism
(1975).
2. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, On the Origins and Treatment
of Homosexuality (1986).
3. Irving Bieber m.fl., Homosexuality - a
psychoanalytic study of male homosexuals (1962).
4. Robert Kronemeyer,
Understanding homosexuality, (1985).
5. D. J. West, Parental Figures
in the Genesis of Male Homosexuality. Int. J. Soc. Psych., 5:85-97
(1959).
6. Gordon Westwood, A minority - A Report on the Life of the
Male Homosexual in Great Britain (1960). 7. Guy Corneau, Frånvarande
Fäder, Förlorade Söner (1995).
Nota bene: when I say that "the physical and emotional contact
between father and son have an important and wholesome psychological
function" then I do *NOT* mean sexual contact.
Mats Winther