← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · TexasAnarch

Is Bush's Freudian slip self-hatred? analysis

Thread ID: 14626 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2004-08-06

Wayback Archive

TexasAnarch [OP]

2004-08-06 04:48 | User Profile

Is Bush’s Freudian slip self-hatred?

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.  They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,” the President told a roomful of top Pentagon brass Thursday (8.5.04)

“His malaproprism came during a signing ceremony for a new $417 billion defense appropriations bill that includes $25 billion in emergency funding in Iraq and Afghanistan.” (Reuters, quoted on Yahoo news)

Such malaproprisms mark the X between conscious processes and unconscious thought, Sigmund Freud discovered.  They provide the Living Marrow in the backbone of   psychoanalytic theory.  Freud used an almost identical example, a flustered high government official actually beginning a tense meeting pronouncing the words “I declare this session closed! “  (oops…er… open, he presumably added).  The easily recognized, often excruciatingly embarrassing type of gaffe got pegged a “Freudian slip.”.

Now, however, so commonplace have Freudian slips become that White House spokesman Boucher could simply pooh pooh hint of instability, “Proves all of us are human, anyone can misspeak,” he said (apprx.)

That’s a little breezy for the particular instance, however. “They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people …(looks up from script, adds)…”and neither do we.” Well, of course he didn’t mean to run the words together that way, he was caught out in a moment of inattentiveness to the text, following the rhythmic cadence of the tokens “and so are we”, matching “the enemy” point for point in rhetoric. Only liberal and other pre-emptive Bush haters could read anything deep and sinister into this incident. Right?

Wrong. How it happened, in this case (though not in all such) is subordinate in explanation to what. The words evoke layers, or levels of self-reference mixing “we”, “harm”, threat by enemy, war on terror, etc. constantly churning recent, new variations on the same narrow themes, occasional reversals must be expectred.

But look were that’s at. It’s at the borderline of fantasy and reality, craziness and sanity, life and death – Pakistan and Afghanistan. What can be allowed to slide by, personally, as presidential petard, cannot be dropped at the group-level. The “we” he used is used with him, by many, who must be quaranteened. They will see him get by with “misspeaking”, if that is what it was; notice that contradictions of this sort, killing your own people or killing the enemy who is killing them, doesn’t really matter, It’s just the killing, whichever side you are on, and thinking about that all the time is whast matters.

Let’s psychoanalyze them.

What one has here is a people in an advanced stage of a psychotic convulsion, so split off and dissociated they are afraid to either take a side – only capable of taking half-a-side, alternately – or not to take sides – incapable of standing outside the emotional turmoil. These are people bound together under the linguistically imposed unity of “we”, “country”, under President George W. Bush forced to bear contradictory descriptions of ourselves.

He cannot plead personally innocent of bestowing this (split/conjunct-reversal self-hating/self-affirming, (self-affirming as self-hating)) psychotic condition on the group. It was already implicit in his talk of “faith based” initiatives. There is no “faith”, in any propositional, cognitive sense, as recognized by Roman Catholicism, for instance (Aquinas), without an opposite, the forces or powers set over against whatever “faith” holds (that there is no God, for instance, the falsehood of which Aquinas thought could be demonstrated). When he bases any government action on (what he calls) “faith”, therefore, he unnecessarily posits an enemy opposing him at the deepest, hidden, religious level. What is unnecessary is hatred of himself. Once that is a given, theologized, then projectively re-experienced in “God’s enemies sent to attack us,” the psychosis must follow.

Other reminders of reversals of his conscious intention that must crowd his memory. First, the enormous number of deaths by “friendly fire”, not just among our own soldiers, but those of our ex-allies, Canada and Italy (the Red Cross, the U.N.) must weight heavily on any real presidential mind. Second, the is the Big Lie Rebound threat if Saddam Hussein not only didn’t pose an imminent threat to the U.S. with any weapons of mass destruction whatsoever, he didn’t “poison his own people”, either – that was G.W. Bush poisoning his own people with CIA fabrications (neocon-Chalabi faction). Something may have happened at Hallubja, in the ‘80’s when yhe U.S. was supporting him in the war with Iran. This reversal of poisoned-poisoner goes back to the very origins of experience in fetal relations to the (cyclically) poisonous placenta, with leader=mother/placenta, unborn children in the birth canal = people of America. It is anb inexorable law that if the leader does not split off and ‘dump’ the poisonous side of the placenta which is retained as the phantom evil, …into an “enemy”, “war” against which leads to Victory!, re-Birth, valorization of group, etc. ..thus turning him into a Good, nurturant placenta (even restoring the economy, bringing “blessings”) .. .the reversal will rebound on himself. Then, people will view him in the same terms he taught them to cringe at used for Saddam. What goes around comes around, and this is “what” (=fantasy of leader as poisonous placenta of group-children as siblings inside the womb of America.). .

One also recognizes in this the hardest-core group fantasy that gripped Hitler’s Germany vis a vis the Jews: the were psychic “poison containers”, onto which the leader displaced the strongly bonded group identity (of blood: youth, folk, racial, military) under the group-psychotic “idea” (“group-psychotic insight”) that getting rid of them would purify the Aryan blood. The Nazi’s, of course, didn’t regard it as psychotic, any more than Ghengis Kahn’s declaration of his extra-terrestial origins was so viewed. For them, it was the way it was. The Freudian slip-flip token this fantasy complex gave rise to, of course, is “ethnic cleansing”, later used to justify stopping what Serbs were alleged to be doing to Albanians in old Yugaslavia.

Bringing up all these memories from the unconscious side of American sign-use, giving them highest cathexis-with-anxiety (scary tokens) is the Orange terror threat alert. On Monday, August 2, following the announcement by Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, New York City, for one place, was in a state of shock. Mayor Bloombers speaks out Tuesday vowing to spend what ever it takes, for however long it takes, forever if necessary, to defeat terrorists. Next day Gov. Pataki is seen on CNN swearing pro-active vengeance on Muslim extremists, while busting in a Mosque in Albany and rousting somebody at the other end of the state about the anthrax poisoning (?). Shows government in action, protecting the public from the threat of their externalized fantasy. Whether this doesn’t create the enemy it spends every minute organizing to protect against remains a question mostly unasked; but commonsense resoundingly answers one way only.

Putting people under the Orange terror threat, as if risk to be in the city of New York was suddenly elevated, when it really wasn’t, is a very, very grave thing anyone could be thought by themselves to do, at any level. Was the entire city, nation, seized with a spasm of need-to-torture itself, come August? Can we hate ourselves, each other, our country so much that delegates of God-the-Devil, self-appointed, can appear and begin ordering everyone around at gun point, because these people have brought hate due themselves unto us all?

Ponce

2004-08-06 05:17 | User Profile

One more time,,,,,,,,, the three missing months in Bush's military record? well, he was in the Zionist state of Israel getting brainwashed.

This joker is an idiot who should never have been in the White House.

By the way, the first thing that a dictator does before taking over a country is to increase the numbers in the armed forces and then increase their salary, and that's what Buys has just done.

Okiereddust

2004-08-06 07:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Is Bush’s Freudian slip self-hatred?

Such malaproprisms mark the X between conscious processes and unconscious thought, Sigmund Freud discovered.  They provide the Living Marrow in the backbone of   psychoanalytic theory.  Freud used an almost identical example, a flustered high government official actually beginning a tense meeting pronouncing the words “I declare this session closed! “  (oops…er… open, he presumably added).  The easily recognized, often excruciatingly embarrassing type of gaffe got pegged a “Freudian slip.”.

Now, however, so commonplace have Freudian slips become that White House spokesman Boucher could simply pooh pooh hint of instability, “Proves all of us are human, anyone can misspeak,” he said (apprx.)........

Let’s psychoanalyze them.................

**One also recognizes in this the hardest-core group fantasy that gripped Hitler’s Germany vis a vis the Jews: the were psychic “poison containers”, onto which the leader displaced the strongly bonded group identity (of blood: youth, folk, racial, military) under the group-psychotic “idea” (“group-psychotic insight”) that getting rid of them would purify the Aryan blood. ** The Nazi’s, of course, didn’t regard it as psychotic, any more than Ghengis Kahn’s declaration of his extra-terrestial origins was so viewed. For them, it was the way it was. The Freudian slip-flip token this fantasy complex gave rise to, of course, is “ethnic cleansing”, later used to justify stopping what Serbs were alleged to be doing to Albanians in old Yugaslavia.
[/QUOTE]

Texas Anarchist, you don't give a source for this piece of yours. But in case you didn't notice it, it is an analysis of Bush using, in a singularly explicit way the "Critical Theory" developed by the Frankfurt School, one of whose principals, Max Horkheimer, used as a key part of his seminal work The Authoritarian Personality as well as other works also published as part of the Studies in Prejudice Series, which was published by the American Jewish Committee.

Really some people in paleo and nationalist circles go so far on this anti-Bush kick that they seem to forget who their friends and enemies are. Does the answer to the neoconservativism of Kristol, Perle, and Wolfowitz lie in a return to the New Left critique of modern western societies capitalism and militarism of people like Herbert Marcuse, Jerry Rubin, and Abbie Hoffman? Is that where we're all headed?

SARTRE

2004-08-06 17:34 | User Profile

Okiereddust,

Hope those that have achieved awareness, has matured from the dialectic scam. While, Abbie Hoffman ate of the forbidden fruit, his street theater correctly reflected the absurd condition of the establishment. It seems that few within our generation have learned this valid lesson.

The only real political course to achieve a just society based upon individual liberty, rests upon traditional principles. But where is the opposition to the counterfeit conservatives, coming out of the ranks of the current majority? The old guard has been purged from influence and relegated to the back of the bus.

That’s the price of standing on principle. Since it is essential to maintain and defend the correct moral underpinnings, the sentence is willing served. However, how does one remove the tyrants - the real terrorists?

Submit to achieve a common sense society of Edmund Burke, requires the senselessness of a Hoffman in the wraps of a Thomas Paine. Regretfully, there are not enough revolutionary conservatives . . .

SARTRE

TexasAnarch

2004-08-06 20:36 | User Profile

References: the first quote was general knowledge, availabel everywhere, but taken specifically from Reuters, Yahoo news, cited in next par. The artefacts cited as "sign-uses" would have been in mainstream communicatons.

I know something of these sources, more of the politics of their use. My psychological assumptions bottom out where Freud, Jung and Wlhelm Reich (theory of the orgasm, Mass Psychology of Fascism, etc.) overlap; plus birth-trauma anxiety theory (deMause's psychohistory as the story of rebirths through wars, mostly).

The ones you mentioned --the most American in the strain, as I identified with them was Hoffman; the rest were ideological (SDS types, whom I respected, but only went parellel with; America was getting redefined, it was ideas, not people; the worst were Kissinger/Nixon "conservatives"), soulless (Rubin, yippies in general), opportunists -- I think I was perhaps unique, in going with none; but feeling as if going with all. I remember being ready to set ;myself afire, like a Buddhist did, if it would have done any good, but probably didn't really have the courage. Since retiring in '99, and ealing with the strange, strange narrative already being anticipated, and pre-scriptively prepared for in '98 ("Wag the Dog", to take advantage of the super sexual- surreal atmosphere around Clinton, whom I detested from day 1), following the '96 "Clean Break" by the neocons, I have been able to do nothing more than track these things -- the unconscious fantasies, pegged to token sign-uses cycled through 'everymans' ('yederman') daily consciousness -- until they have deconstructed into the horrors it can give neither me, nor anyone who makes themselves undergo what it takes to keep up, pleasure to relate. This thing about the Spirit, and the times came in, surplanting depth psychology based on understanding repression, anxiety, with (more Jungian) archetypal 'dawning', won't go further in naming it, but personal re-connections at deep, deep levels of historical memory many, even of us here, I think, didn't even realized existed. It is a true implosion I don't want to defeine for anyone else, except show how it is happening for me, in what i see.

I'll hold down the blogin, Okie. There's one more I would like to post on Bush's dementia, grace permitting, connecting it with what is coming into view to oppose. I hope SARTRE sees it that way, too...but BATF has something eaten into it somewhere, doesn' it? We could make them give uip Bush IMHO, but we must not inheret Kerry -- I can't agree with the "its got to get worse to get better" thing -- where could a 3rd man come from? (not Nadar. I was actually a Perot guy, strong, in fact)

I appreciate your work and thoughts.

SARTRE

2004-08-07 01:38 | User Profile

TA,

For those so inclined to vote, Michael A. Peroutka, Constitution Party Presidential Candidate would be a recommended option. The insight and correctness of "[I]its got to get worse to get better[/I]" is properly derived from the reality that the political trends never cease to stop or reverse the decay of the original revolution.

For those of us who opposed the ‘establishment’ during the 60’s, our common bond was to stop the insanity and overturn the betrayal. Frankly, since that era, the prospects for achieving those goals have diminished. The yuppies of my generation are just as misguided as the yippies were, with the notable exception that they now are the ones making the rules.

A former business associated lived off Park Lane in Dallas and ran in the Perot circles. His assessment was that RP’s sucking sound was more directed at the populace. While I supported Pat Buchanan, the potential of Ross to become the fly in the ointment seemed possible. One must never forget that dropping out then back into the race defied plausibility. However, a larger then life “cause celebrity” seems to be the only type that some voters would consider as an alternative.

When PB got the Reform Party slot, his campaign seems to sink by design. His move to court the disaffected Left was reasoned, but we all should know that overtures to dissenting Statists fail because they are mired in a false belief that government CAN be a solution.

Sorry, implosion is the only relief from the current scripted theater of the absurd.

SARTRE

Okiereddust

2004-08-07 03:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SARTRE]Okiereddust,

Hope those that have achieved awareness, has matured from the dialectic scam. While, Abbie Hoffman ate of the forbidden fruit, his street theater correctly reflected the absurd condition of the establishment. It seems that few within our generation have learned this valid lesson.

Which establishment, the jewish or gentile establishment? Do you remember in Culture of Critique this account of the "Chicago Seven" trial?

Cuddihy notes the overtly ethnic subplot of the trial, particularly the infighting between defendent Abbie Hoffman and Judge Julius Hoffman, the former representing the children of the Eastern European immigrant generation tending towards radicalism, and the latter representing the older, more assimilated German-Jewish establishment. During the trial Abbie Hoffman ridiculed Judge Hoffman in Yiddish as "Shande fur de Goyim" (disgrace for the gentiles) translated by Abbie Hoffman as "Front man for the WASP power elite".

So what establishment are we talking about here, and what is the nature of it? That is a very important question I think a lot on this list are still pretty vague on in many ways.

The only real political course to achieve a just society based upon individual liberty, rests upon traditional principles. But where is the opposition to the counterfeit conservatives, coming out of the ranks of the current majority? The old guard has been purged from influence and relegated to the back of the bus.

Actually I think the old guard occupies more the place of those muttering from the back of the room, if you remember the old story about Khruschev.

See, there's no real mystery about where the old guard/old right is. It has declined as the mileau of the old ethnic group which provided its basic cultural climate has collapsed. Like all defeated old groups those who have survived and visibly prospered by and large are those who have made their peace with the new powers, aka neocons.

That’s the price of standing on principle. Since it is essential to maintain and defend the correct moral underpinnings, the sentence is willing served. However, how does one remove the tyrants - the real terrorists?

The old question MacDonald posed, of the natural response of western man to its eclipse. The answer of course was that it will eventually learn to adopt some of the more succesful strategies of its natural opposition.

Submit to achieve a common sense society of Edmund Burke, requires the senselessness of a Hoffman in the wraps of a Thomas Paine. Regretfully, there are not enough revolutionary conservatives . . . SARTRE[/QUOTE]

Or at least not enough who are wiling/able to organize effectively.

SARTRE

2004-08-07 12:31 | User Profile

Okiereddust,

The following is from a series: [URL=http://batr.org/archives/part5.html]Similarity, Community, Values and Human Nature - Part V[/URL]

Abbie Hoffman Born in Massachusetts and educated at Brandeis, Hoffman continued to criticize and satirize American culture, creating a near-riot at the New York Stock Exchange by throwing dollar bills onto the trading floor. He also led 50,000 people to surround the Pentagon and try to levitate it with psychic energy. He went into hiding for six years after a 1973 drug bust. In 1989, he killed himself.

The significance is that the failures in the foundation of the entire society, were exposed for what they were, in he bankrupt foreign policy of the War. But this was a violation of the most cardinal precepts! The breakdown involved the entire established 'Civilization'. The stake were of the highest order, and no quarter would be extended. Was it really a new day, or would the 'Similarity' prevail? The sentiments of Abbie Hoffman, captures the moment:

"Revolution is not something fixed in ideology, nor is it something fashioned to a particular decade. It is a perpetual process embedded in the human spirit."

You are asking probing questions that were not intended within my post. Will attempt to clarify.

1) The meaning for “Establishment” in this context was the entire power stardom of society. The Industrial Military Complex was the focal point that drove the war policy. The case within, Culture of Critique, was not addressed. [url]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm[/url]

2) During the 60’s, my recollection did not include the insights that MacDonald made thirty years later. Even the ACLU was opposed to the war and was seen as friendly. Only after direct contact with their leading organizers, was there a hint for the roots of their ethnic cause. Even then, it was not obvious that their basic goal was to control the use of future war policy and who would benefit most from such a infiltration. The nature of the “Establishment” rest upon the power to control the economy, culture, media, education, both political parties, and bureaucratic functions. Who makes up that group of power brokers needs to recognize that there is no ethnic restriction upon entry. The standard is to demonstrate a willingness to accept and promote the ideology and policies that protect and advance the objectives of the evil cabal of despots. Part of the required worship serves the Tribe most and aid their ranks into key positions of influence. Secular Humanism was and still is the theme song of the 60’s. The greatest error of that period was a rejection of submission to the will of God. The relevance of institutional churches was questioned and found wanting. Most congregations still remain in a deep sleep about the true nature of the gospel. The need for spiritual meaning is basic to our common nature. During the last forty years the “Establishment” has gone global and consolidated it’s reach and effectiveness. Therefore, the beast has become more powerful. One should lump in all the elite’s and their coordinating organizations into the mix. The oligarchy operates under the dominion of Satan, as some of the Tribe serves in the role of high priest.

3) The meaning intended for Old Right is:

Old Right is a term for those who believe in the 1776 Revolution and are faithful to the principles why it was fought. As most know from our essays, our version of Old Right defends the relationships under the Articles of Confederation. When the US Constitution was ratified (credible evidence casts doubts regarding some States counted) the seeds for central government tyranny were encoded.

Old Right would oppose Federal Judicial review of State laws, the War of Northern Aggression, Wilsonian Internationalism, FDR's version of Communist treason, and the Welfare State of LBJ endorsed by every other administration.

A union of individual sovereign States under a "Federalism" checks and balances and inherent States Rights, a George Washington foreign policy, Jeffersonian limited government and Bill of Right protection from Federal Despotism are the bedrock essence of America.

By these standards the last hundred and fifty years have been an age of deceit and betrayal.

4) Most folks won’t like this answer because it will not lead, as they perceive, to victory. If one employs deceit and ruthless Machiavellian standards to gain power, where is the triumph? Merging into the “Establishment” to correct it is a doomed tactic. Can’t find any examples of honorable statesmen in this age. From the pure numbers game, the battle can never be won. The best that can be achieved is to expose the interdependency of the global gang of oppressors. Now the next point will get challenged! The old saying: There would be no war if everyone just didn’t show up . . . As true as that is, the character of our fallen nature breeds power hunger madmen, and docile slaves in most of the rest. Who among us has the talent to organize the remaining few who define their essence within a commitment of dissent?

You know well my position on what it would take to overthrow the old regime. Prudence dictates that specifics are left to the imagination . . .

SARTRE

Okiereddust

2004-08-07 20:41 | User Profile

[quote=Sartre]Okiereddust,

The following is from a series: [URL=http://batr.org/archives/part5.html]Similarity, Community, Values and Human Nature - Part V[/URL]

Abbie Hoffman Born in Massachusetts and educated at Brandeis, Hoffman continued to criticize and satirize American culture, creating a near-riot at the New York Stock Exchange by throwing dollar bills onto the trading floor. He also led 50,000 people to surround the Pentagon and try to levitate it with psychic energy. He went into hiding for six years after a 1973 drug bust. In 1989, he killed himself.

The significance is that the failures in the foundation of the entire society, were exposed for what they were, in he bankrupt foreign policy of the War. But this was a violation of the most cardinal precepts! The breakdown involved the entire established 'Civilization'. The stake were of the highest order, and no quarter would be extended. Was it really a new day, or would the 'Similarity' prevail? The sentiments of Abbie Hoffman, captures the moment:

"Revolution is not something fixed in ideology, nor is it something fashioned to a particular decade. It is a perpetual process embedded in the human spirit."

Interesting stories about Hoffman

Secular Humanism was and still is the theme song of the 60’s. The greatest error of that period was a rejection of submission to the will of God. The relevance of institutional churches was questioned and found wanting. Most congregations still remain in a deep sleep about the true nature of the gospel. The need for spiritual meaning is basic to our common nature.

Interesting contrast with those ideas of your avatar and existentialism, if you're referring to orthodox Christianity. Do you discuss this anywhere on your site?

3) The meaning intended for Old Right is:

Old Right is a term for those who believe in the 1776 Revolution and are faithful to the principles why it was fought. As most know from our essays, our version of Old Right defends the relationships under the Articles of Confederation. When the US Constitution was ratified (credible evidence casts doubts regarding some States counted) the seeds for central government tyranny were encoded.

Old Right would oppose Federal Judicial review of State laws, the War of Northern Aggression, Wilsonian Internationalism, FDR's version of Communist treason, and the Welfare State of LBJ endorsed by every other administration.

A union of individual sovereign States under a "Federalism" checks and balances and inherent States Rights, a George Washington foreign policy, Jeffersonian limited government and Bill of Right protection from Federal Despotism are the bedrock essence of America.

Anti-federalism is one viewpoint of the old Right, but I don't think it defined it per se.

SARTRE

2004-08-08 02:17 | User Profile

Okiereddust,

This Solitary Purdah tract may address the topic. [URL=http://batr.org/solitary/121603.html]Religious Meaning as the Art of the Existential Experience[/URL]

As you are aware our existential emphasis follows that of Kierkegaard.

On the HOPE site [URL=http://www.batr.org/hope/goodnews.html]Good News[/URL] we consider that the Sermons on the Mount are the essential message.

SARTRE