From: Janakosl-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 21:37:22 EST
Subject: Re: Richard Koenigsberg speaks on the psychology of war and genocide


In a message dated 1/5/2004 2:14:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
rjohnson-AT-sju.edu writes:
Please. You plucked one line and ignored the context that gave it meaning.
That you can define each word in the line doesn't take away from your
ability to misread it in its entirety. Don't be a troll.

j


On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 Scribe1865-AT-aol.com wrote:

]In a message dated 1/5/2004 2:12:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
]rjohnson-AT-sju.edu writes:
]
]
]> Hitler only "tells us" this if we
]> read, as Koenigsberg does, beneath the rationalizations, and what it tells
]> us, is that we go to war to act out deeper pathlogies--motives which give
]> the appearance (falsely) of reason, or at least, logic, to essentially
]> irrational acts.
]
]I don't think I misread the announcement. It said " Hitler
]
While I agree that Hitler was more intent on figuring out ways to exploit and 
kill those he demonized, and was more intent--if we look at his finger 
pointing statements--on telling us something he misread (under the lens of political 
psychosis) as truth about the Jews, gypsies socialists, unionists on the one 
side and the Aryans on the other side, I also very much like R K's "misread" 
(if it is a misread) that he was trying to tell us something about the meaning 
of war. We should explore that idea, not discount it. Who knows where it will 
take us. Politicians--psychotic or not--often feel they have something 
urgent--to tell us -- about the world. They are often selling some ideology or 
definition about something to shape our thinking. In fact, every leader of every 
nation at war spends valuable time with colleagues figuring out ways to tell "us" 
something about war to justify his or her war acts or war crimes or war 
plans. For example, what is Bush trying to tell the Middle East and the rest or the 
world about war?  I'm sure there is a definite message about the meaning of 
war itself embedded in every missile, every bullet, every curfew, every press 
conference, and every death--in every American or allied soldier walking into 
an Iraqi house or a cafe or a supermarket. We are always communicating on 
multiple levels--and this is especially true in politics. To isolate Hitler by 
ostracizing him outside of the political arena is dangerous. He was a totalitarian 
ruler. Fascist. He was not alone. He is not alone.  He should be placed side 
by side with other rulers and his political behavior examined. We should 
dissect his political madness with the same passion (although not the same emotions 
or methods) he physically dissected the many people who got brutally trapped 
in his government's anti-Semitic, anti-intellectual, antiunion, etc., web.

Furthermore, it seems to me that totalitarian regimes -- if not consciously 
than unconsciously -- work hard to establish their meaning of  war as entries 
in the cultural & political dictionaries of the people whose support they need. 
Even in the worst case delusional political context, mass slaughter or 
systematic genocide still have to be at least partly justified in order to carry out 
the slaughter with the least of amount of expenditure to the regime. That is, 
if the world isn't with them, these war regimes at the very least want to be 
left alone in their dirty work. Otherwise, the slaughter becomes too costly.

 Finally, isn't war the ultimate attempt to establish order--your order--on a 
geographical or political space, including your own? In fact, to question 
whether Hitler was consciously or unconsciously trying to control definitions to 
suit his needs is an intriguing question.  In Hitler's case, we could also 
angle off into psychological space. According to Alice Miller, Hitler's father, 
who abused the young Hitler on a regular basis and earned his contempt, was 
part Jewish. In this sense, we could say that Hitler was trying to tell us 
something about psychological constructs and child abuse. In other words, if we look 
at the behavior rather than the surface or conscious intent--if we admit the 
unconscious into the equation of intentions (and I doubt we can ever leave it 
out), we might find Hitler trying to tell us a lot of things about himself, 
the human race, family relations, projections, transference, and political and 
personal psychosis. We are all walking stories. Hitler too has a story to tell 
in a political mirror that many of us have never looked in. Let him talk. 
Anyway, those are the ramblings.

LJ


was trying to tell us something about the meaning of war."
]
]The verb "trying" indicates intentionality, does it not? It implies
]intentionality on Hitler's part, does it not?
]
]To write that Hitler "was trying to tell us something" is a curious trope,
]which is why I made such a big deal about it. The trope suggests that 
"Hitler"
]as a historical figure exists to "tell us" something or other. It confuses
]psychological investigation with the actual intentions of the dictator.
]
]As for Koenigsberg's larger thesis, it was suggested by Wilhelm Reich in _The
]Mass Psychology of Fascism_ many decades ago, but it would be interesting to
]learn how K expands upon Reich's thesis.
]
]Best to all,
]Eric Yost
]
]
]--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
]This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
]
]Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
]
]--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
]multipart/alternative
]  text/plain (text body -- kept)
]  text/html
]---
]


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---