Deduction and Induction in Psychoanalytic Thinking.

I was reading a book on the struggles of Einstein and free thinkers in his time in Europe with great details of the links he had with the physicists of his time. The book showed well the effect of his 'sudden unexpected genius' of the notion of relativity on the field of electromagnetism. Most of that part of the book was high above my mental capacity, but one trivial remark by the author Matthew Stanly about Einstein's way of thinking gripped more than my attention. He said that Einstein's intuition came from Inductive thinking and not from Deductive thinking. There is so much to say about the distinctiveness of each of these bipolarities, but the striking thing is that deductive thinking adds to a postulate what clarifies it while inductive thinking deduces from the postulate what explains it. 

This simple and clear distinction between the two poles of thinking shed a beam of light on psychoanalysis. Generally, we agree that the basic discovery of psychoanalysis came to Freud from interpreting dreams and discovering (uncovering)the primary and secondary processes. He inductively distinguished the difference between Instinct and Trieb, the duality of the subject in narcissism, even the Beyond the pleasure Principle, and most of his major and not so major discoveries came from inductive thinking.

I went back to the Standard Edition to remind myself of what was deductive and what was inductive in his work, and it was a totally new journey to psychoanalysis. This issue brought to my mind the points of disagreement I always had with analysis based on deductive work; especially with the birth of schools (even Lacanism). It also reminded me of some difficult supervisions of some candidates who insisted that discovering the unconscious is a deduction and they could not comprehend the notion that it should come from inducing it from the material. I must admit that I did not have that distinction clear in my mind as it is now after reading Stanly's book. 

I wish some young analysts would include the distinction between deductive analysis and inductive analysis and training faculties in the institutes give that distinction some serious attention

 

Understanding (Interpreting) With and Without a Context

Nothing but Nothing could be understood (interpreted) without a proper context. The context of 9\11 is that the USA is no longer as it was till then separate from the rest of the world –politically, socially, geographically – even psychologically. The most evident part of ending that previously accepted position by Americans is the changes that happened to the USA since then. Some of the changes were profound and foundational and some were and still are more loud but not of any serious nature. I am saying that as a trained psychoanalysts who is conditioned to find the ‘context’ of the changes in the patient's condition before reaching a proper interpretation of the patient’s claimed changes. This attitude is foundational in any work of interpretation in any field of epistemology. The difference between a good analyst and a not so good one it their abilities to finding the right context to use in understanding the meaning of the patient change.

The war in the Ukraine is a historical statement that requires interpretation, because of many features in it. So, thinkers have to chose the context this event has to be understood within. I have chosen the context of the end of the last empire in the history of social development. That war could be understood within the framework of the undeniable fact that Europe is the last front that still carries features of the old sociopolitical entities…… the Empires. Trying to maintain its military façade NATO backfired and resulted in the devastation of the Ukraine. To still think in terms of democracy and unilateral leadership, and in terms of communism (whish does no exist anymore) and capitalism is like psychoanalysis based on the libido theory.

We are few decades from Earth invading the Milkyway Galaxy. So please shed off the old fixation on They and US.

 Sociopolitical Background of the Ukraine Crisis.

A Psychoanalyst’s Point of View

Few weeks before the onset of the military action in the Ukraine I published several postings on issues that pertain to ‘group psychology’ like self-deception, hate, projection., etc. I was trying to use the psychoanalytic way of understanding matters, which could be initiated by ‘group psychologies too, to highlight the use of analytic thinking outside the Clinique. Soon after the start of the crisis in the Ukraine it became clear  that not only analysts, but an astonishing range of people-including politicians (active in the politics of Europe at this time) did not realize or understand the basic-background- of this crisis. The difficulty this lack of knowledge creates is making the ordinary citizen prone to being misled by politicians-intentionally or unintentionally- if they are ignorant as the case is in the Ukraine war. Politics and history of political crises were and still are of major interest to me since I was politically active in my youth, in my country Egypt.

Two years ago, I finished reading a very intelligent book on the history of the rise and fall of empires. It started with the Babylonian empire, ending with the Western, or the European  Empire, which is now an American extension of the vanished British Empire. The evolution of the human race, and the recent vanishing importance of distance and time in our Globe earth, facilitated the emergence of several centers of power in the world, after long centuries of the dominance of one or two empires at a time, at most. All that led to a major...major change in the concept of coexistence on ‘earth’. The Western or the European Empire, that owned the world by hock and crock and now with the USA as its extension exploited most of the world for six long centuries. After three wars of its own making in one century this empire destroyed itself while the rest of the world was constructing a worldwide concept of coexistence. The European Empire was created by the West occupied and established colonies all over the world, exploiting their wealth, fought among themselves, but uniting against the exploited colonies and helping each other in keeping the grip of domination.

After the two big wars Western Europe in Europe the west was looking for ideological thought to stay floating. The two wars made Europeans become politically more mature and improvise defined socio-political programs to be govern accordingly. The political parties-including the communist parties- created political democracy from those conflicting ideologies. Yet, one overriding idea (value) remained and protected democracy from being stifled by another Hitler, i.e., “reform and not change”. Western Europe -which is now named The European Union, is the modern and more civilized image of the old, outdated concept of an empire. The USA helped the old empire to get the time to rebuild and renew itself. Russia was not part of that movement on the road to the unity of Europe because it was building on its revolution in 1917 when WWII started. It was devastated by the WWII more than any other European country because they all had colonies that were lifesavers while Russia did not have any. Nevertheless, the West considered Russia a dangerous adversary (because of communism) and adopted with it the same attitude it took from Nitze Germany. They were not yet completely recovered from WWII to attack her, so they created NATO. It is a military face of a dying empire that could not surpass the Russian’s speed in recovering from the war.

NATO is the last breath in the dying Western Empire. I must explain why what is happening since the end of WWII is manifestation of the gradual death of this Empire. The death of empires is preceded by the birth of small political entities and the weakness of the central authority. Just to make it brief, the weakness and end of the great ruling families (the Romanovs, the Hapsburgs, etc.)  was the onset of the decline of the old Europe and the beginning of the last phase in that decline.  

The war in the Ukraine is one of the results of the decline and the falling of the Euro-American empire. After the Second World War; the Western European-American empire denied and avoided facing up to that three things: A. They are not anymore, the socio-cultural-moral power they were before for  several centuries, B. They do not have an enemy to hate and endeavor to crush, so they had to find one or create it.  C. Communism, after succeeding in getting both China and Russia out of their old decayed political states, has changed to become the basis of stronger and more advanced capitalist countries; it made social justice a fundamental component of governing whether it was conservative or liberal.

As was explained in previous postings, two senior employees (von Leyen and Stoltenberg) in the European Union, who were also a bad mix of ignorance and arrogance, took on themselves to revive a dying Western Empire and the disappearance of the need for NATO. NATO was created by a dozen countries to protect the European union from communist Russia. Russa is not a communist country anymore and it did not object to its precious allies to join NATO. So, creating from Russia an imaginary danger lets politicians play a game of public opinion that misleads the subjects of that empire. And that is what is happening now in sometimes vulgar ways.

The danger of communism does not exist anymore. The links between the West and Russia is evident and undeniable in the industrial integration between the two old enemies. Human mutual interests are not hampered anymore by political conflicts. Russia cannot be ignored as different from Western Europe in all aspects of life {do not foul yourselves with the notions of dictatorship. Russia once had a bad political politician named Yeltsin who was as comic as Trump is}. Therefore, the war in the Ukraine is understandable as a residue of the vanishing Western Empire and concepts like democracy, social values, our this and that, have to gradually and even better quickly  to disappear because we are already few steps inside a less narcissistic world and a more global meaning of world.

 

The Precipitating Factor in Psychoanalysis

    There are events that look as of no big significance, yet they are followed by major changes that eventually prove that those insignificant events were quite significant in a different way. This  is familiar both in individual cases as in political and social cases. They precipitate  change in unexpected way. Changes in those cases are understood only retroactively. They reveal that the sudden  is only so because change was taking unexpected and unnoticeable course.

    I will give two examples from my clinical practice which stand out  in my memory as exemplary to what the word precipitation suggests. To do that it is important to mention that after Lacan published his paper on the “Mirror Stage” the understanding of narcissism had to radically leave the Libido theory behind. I gradually and unintentionally (for a while) recognized a difference between the two types of patients'  associations that relate to who is talking to me. There was the I patient and the me patient. The I talks as the subject of the analysis, and whatever he mentioned came from that person who is lying on my couch, not someone talking to me about him: {She was nice and kind}. The me patient talked to me about himself as the object of the analysis {I felt that she is nice and kind}. The subtle difference is the difference between talking (I am), and talking- about (me says), which directly or indirectly told me about his me. 

    The first patient- Mr. P. was an I patient. At the time he was in analysis it was common to use the psychoanalytic stages of development (Oral, Anal, Phallic) as an additional element in the diagnosis of patients. Mr. P. was an anal character (person) where ‘everything in his life’ was tidy, and his religion (a middle eastern religion) was the only source of rules in his believes and life. One day on the train which he used daily to commute to work he had a dispute with another commuter that resulted in some physical struggle which was immediately stopped by the other passengers. Just using the diagnosis of anality for a second, I would say that: something undesirable skipped the psychological sphincter of Mr. P., and the tidy I had to deal with the untidy nature of !!!!!me. The event was not so aggravating, but it was a psychical straw that broke the back of Mr. P’s rigidity.  The change started with doubting everything about what he thought of himself  and evolved to reveal to him a "me" that was a secret he kept, particularly-since childhood- from his mother.  Analysis of the ‘me’ was the rout to sort of cure, which was limiting a milder anal character to himself and let others live outside his expectations.

The second case was of a typical Egyptian young woman (Twenty-two years old) who was expected to be a me person (the object of anything she talked about, to the degree of not having a speaking I at all (if there was one). She was expected to speak as middle class, well brought up daughter and future wife, and stop being argumentative and a person with an identity. She was expected to speak as upper class well brought up girl, and stop being argumentative. The mother who came with her for the first interview mentioned marriage and the suitability of her daughter for a good match since she is getting a little older than her relatives and friends. The daughter was obvious in her ’childishness’, which was- to me- an undeclared strong mutual dependency  between mother and daughter. So, it was a complicated me kind of patient: the me that mother does not approve of is the me that preserve the interdependency between the two. The me that the patient was keen to acquire and, able to be, was the one the upper class 'Dallo-a' (an Egyptian term of a spoiled brat) is not suppose to have. The analysis was stopped when the patient, after few weeks of getting worse, was not allowed to come to her sessions by orders from her mother. 

Unexpectedly, I got a call from  her brother few weeks later informing me that she was hospitalized for a couple of weeks and she and the rest of the family (except the mother) wanted her back in therapy. I found out that what precipitated her breakdown was her cousin and a friend getting engaged and were supposed to get married soon. He explained the decision to pursue therapy was that after several "bizarre" fights with her mother in which she mentioned things she became aware of in her therapy the mother thought that I am not good for her daughter. The patient became incoherent, and sleepless and had a tendency to be physically violent. Hospitalization was recommended. After two weeks she wanted to go back to therapy and -as the brother mentioned- she was much more mature and serious about her future than anyone even thought that she has ever considered those matters.  The precipitating factor  was seeing with her own eyes what her mother did not want her to see. What she saw was that she was the one who is the main person in any marriage arrangement even if it is a traditional marriage. The precipitating factor was maturity as a requirement for separating from mother's symbiotic attachment to her daughter.

The link between the precipitating factor and the sudden change is a gradual unconscious change to undesirable ways of life, or thinking. What this means is that the precipitating factor is merely a trigger of change that is already ready to be declared but is not. The important factor here for analysts is the gradual but consistent process of interpretation and avoiding the scattered interpretations that do not lead to a definable target. With Mr. P. the  definable target was gradually bring to focus rigidity as a me that is translated in dealing with others as an I. Interpretations only -interpretations- could reveal to the patient the distinction between I and me, because an interpretation shows the patient difference between what is said and what is meant. This point is seldom touched in training, because in the history of the unconscious we were trained to think of it to be hidden and not part of the obvious, while it is always there in front of our eyes and ears. It just has to be brought out of its embeddedness in the obvious.  as an example: Mr. P. was quite concerned and worried about his son's 'Lesse  Fair' attitude regarding spending (twenty dollars a week). I intercepted his concerns as what about the future. This shift in emphasis brough about his anxieties about his son's idealization of him and his anal restrictions. In other words, interpretation is making the implicit explicit and that kind of change would eventually lead to the a precipitating factor of change.  

Interpretation leads to creating a gap between I and me. This gap is where the work of precipitating the cure takes place. When Mr. P. realized that there is an me that he is denying its existence this awareness released several other restrictions he was imposing on himself, like religion and its rituals. 

There is more say at this juncture but I wand to write about is how this model of understanding is also applicable to sociopolitical phenomena. I home to write something about it.

   

 Negation: The Most Primitive Defense Mechanism.

The literature in psychoanalysis shows that the two concepts of ‘defense mechanism’ and ‘reconstruction’ are not of much relevance anymore. The reason- in my experience and opinion- is that analysts got distracted by the new psychoanalytic discoveries  of the sixties and the seventies like the schools and new flashy psychoanalytic stars. Psychoanalysts considered some, if not all, the basics of the early psychoanalysis, matters to sidestep. They let the new generated ideas and the newer issues overtook the center of psychoanalysis, and the past to be ignored. This is a wise idea when the issues at hand is science, theoretical reformulations or matters pertaining to methodology. But Psychoanalysis is an epistemology of the human subject, thus we could improve and make some changes to epistemology but not the human subject himself. Therefore, some old issues have to be revisited and improved, not neglected, or abolished.

As long as our work is ‘analyzing’ (interpreting),then reconstruction is not an old insignificant subject  to be ignored. Moreover, interpreting requires and demands that the analyst has to know  defense mechanisms; because whatever we analyze to reconstruct later is distorted by what was named (hastily) defense mechanism.  What Freud identified as defenses were simply modes of speech of patients who were struggling with implicit unconscious issues. Freud misunderstood those ‘other’ things implicit in regular speech’ as issues defended against. The purpose of this post is to show that proper reconstruction  comes from a proper understanding of the effect of defense mechanisms (implicit meanings) on the patients’ analyzable self.

 ………………………………………………………………………..

Defense mechanisms are always associated to the level of mental maturation of the individual. An infant does not react to mother’s impatience by projection, but maybe by somatization or identification (projection is partly self-identity). Thus, we should always consider  defense mechanisms are part of the subject’s psychological and mental endowment. Similarly, defense mechanisms relate to the subject’s basic personality, i.e.  they reflect the degree of psychical maturity the subject has reached, thus his ability to assimilate the new realties he will be facing. The question is: which decides the other: does defense mechanisms decide the nature of the individual’s personality, or does the basic personality engenders specific defense mechanisms according to the situation.   My answer is that emotional maturation decides the level of sophistication of the activated defense mechanism (Freud, S.E. vol.X1X, 235-242). The significant remark Freud made in that regard is that defense mechanisms are the way the ego determines the nature of the ‘reality’ managed by the subject. Negation, therefore, as a defense mechanism, negates the existence of the real and replaces it with a reality of his creation. The scary demon under the child’s bed is real because the temptation to masturbate is real. This is not projection because the child at that age of phobias does not have a sense of identity that creates the space that allows projection. Thus, reconstruction of the analyzed data requires identifying the defense mechanism that the patient is using. In supervision I noticed that candidates are spontaneously able to make those distinction or need just a hint to bring the issue in focus. raising it  in the subject is seeing in essence  that reality he has to recognize. No wonder that child psychoanalysis (which I knew very little about) would need a different way of reconstruction involving negate reality and the manners it shows the child real wish. The child’s wish is quite  essential in giving the child notions about his difficulties. The child’s wish is the reality he could  deal with. Grown-ups who deny reality make their wishes take the place of their real-life….they live a phantasy life.   

A warning: beware of the politicians’ political opium: Self Deception

 Analysis of non-Analytic Material:

Any analysis, specifically psychoanalysis, is as good as the work of reconstruction that it could generate and follows. This is the criterium of good analytic work. What that means is that whatever we analyze, psychological, political, chemical etc. is as good as it leads to the restructuring the elements of the analyzed product. In psychoanalysis the analytic work is to reach the events, memories, early constructs that contributed to the psychoneurotic structure, and bit by bit reconstruct the patient’s intrapsychic entity.

Something similar is could be done with social phenomena: how to reconstruct the events that preceded the invasion of the Tatars  to West  Asia? or what led to the first world war? The historian’s reach for an answer is identical to the point when a patient decides to seek treatment. This issue is commonly not emphasized enough: The patient does not suddenly or even gradually realizes his need for therapy because that realization is commonly existed before starting the analysis. The difference is in the patient’s realization that his condition is Analyzable, i.e., should and could be reconstructed and understood. Even what we call ‘resistance’ is a manifestation of that realization: when the patient says to the analyst (in nonverbal ways too): “I do not see how what I said could be explained by what you said”, this is not resistance but could be-in some instances- an unconscious hint that the interpretation does not fit with the work of reconstruction. 

I mention this point because “psychoanalysis” is a way of thinking, working, doing something in any area of human nature. It is not merely a technique of psychotherapy. The question is what is the nature of the material we analyze and re-construct? In our clinical work we know that the psychodynamic of a psychosomatic skin rash (an infantile demand for physical contact with the mother) is different from the psychodynamics of hysterical skin rash (a symbolic call for closeness). In the first case there is no interpretation for the rash, and reconstruction will be of the physiology of the body being affected by childhood unresolve relations with the caregivers. In the hysterical condition the work will be on the skin condition as a symbolic message of wish , and as an expression and a request from the analyst for that closeness.

The same issue of analyzing a historical or a social event. A historian with an analytic mind could analyze and understand a political situation, like the one we are witnessing now, and reconstruct it to shed light on several other issues that are part of it, but do not seem to be. An example, this war seems to create material damage that correspond well to the technical advancements in all human tools, of late. Yet, the human casualties compared to the material damage is strangely very low. This is a important point because in reconstructing the whole event of the war there should be a question about the purpose and meaning of this war: is it a conflict of people or a conflict in issues. Personally, I think the Ukrainian war was created by what I mentioned before which is the problems of NATO and it is not a conflict between Russia and the Ukraine.

However, the insistence of the European Union to expand NATO and get physically closer to pressure Russia politically and militarily is related to something completely different. It is like an analytic work getting closer to a patient’s unconscious repression of homosexual tendencies which abhors him.

Thise End of ‘The European Empire’.

In my clinical experience, the strongest resistance (not refusal as a preconscious condition) is a patient coming to realize a latent homosexual inclination, whether in men or women. The homosexuality I mention here has nothing to do with the sexual component it is famous of: it is attraction and captivation in a narcissistic relation with one or more persons of the same sex. The cause of that abhorrence is its complex narcissistic structure that steals the individual sense of identity (complex but necessary to understand to appreciate the importance of transference).  

The European Union is resisting the fact that the whole European Empire is faltering, and the world is not as it was in the last six centuries, i.e., a European Dominion. Africa is no longer divided as colonies of European countries. Asia has two or three greater countries than any European country. South America has finally liberated itself from the American domination and is giving the signs of more new surprises. The USA, as an extension of Europe, is obviously struggling with significant and profound internal social issues. Comprehensively, the European domination (Europe and the USA) of the world is coming to its ends.

Therefore, in reconstructing the present political crisis of the Ukraine  we should consider  more serious and more encompassing historical reasons for it. The decline of Western Empire is behind a political stupid gesture that Russia has to be contained by the force of NATO as a manifestation of the still dominant Wester Europe. Two things should be done: make the world hate Russia and bring it its knees militarily.

Media and Hate:

Although- it goes without saying- the enemy in any war is a hateful entity. Yet, wars cannot be won by hate alone. The other danger of relying on hate as a psychological weapon against an enemy is the ease by which -in desperation- hate could turn into admiration of the successful hateful enemy. This was one of the most serious issues Churchill was aware of during WWII. More importantly, is how much truth is there in the negatives of enemy, i.e., how much lying about the enemy is good. Managing hate- Psychoanalytically speaking- is very important in war because it is the foundation of projection and if it is misused it could affect the process of projection.

The danger in the Ukraine War is that the media reporters are not reporting about their nation and people, thus they are serving a function that does not pertain to themselves. This is exactly like when one says I know how you feel which is a gesture of empathy but far from being of any real effect or value. Thus, it makes the issue more of a psychological quandary because reality- if it existed- it will be impersonal and a dictation from a paid ‘piper’. The other factor is that people are not stupid: they have an unconscious that they store in it what they realize and truly believe. Thus, without managing hate properly the issue could backfire after a while and the Ukrainians will retrieve from their unconscious what was temporarily ignored.

That leads to the question: If the Western empire is dying or dead but still refuses to join the world on equal grounds what will happen.

Failed psychoanalyses tend to create a messy ex-patient. They keep trying other therapists and therapies with no results. Yet, the lucky ones find one or few persoOns who realize the crisis and just keep that person under observation and guidance. The equivalent to that in civilizations is new politicians or thinkers within the defunct civilization or empire who keep it from total collapse and being a political risk. The end of the two Roman empires (west and east) was the creation of nations and union of nations. The Western or the European empire will be forced to occupy a place in the world but not the only empire that existed.

WE WILL BE SAVED FROM THE NOTIONs OF OUR DEMOCRACY, OUR VALUES, OUR SO AND SO.

 

 Analysis of non-Analytic Material:

Any analysis, specifically psychoanalysis, is as good as the work of reconstruction that it could generate and follows. This is the criterium of good analytic work. What that means is that whatever we analyze, psychological, political, chemical etc. is as good as it leads to the restructuring the elements of the analyzed product. In psychoanalysis the analytic work is to reach the events, memories, early constructs that contributed to the psychoneurotic structure, and bit by bit reconstruct the patient’s intrapsychical entity.

Something similar is could be done with social phenomena: how to reconstruct the events that preceded the invasion of the Tatars  to West  Asia? or what led to the first world war? The historian’s reach for an answer is identical to the point when a patient decides to seek treatment. This issue is commonly not emphasized enough: The patient does not suddenly or even gradually realizes his need for therapy because that realization is commonly existed before starting the analysis. The difference is in the patient’s realization that his condition is Analyzable, i.e., should and could be reconstructed and understood. Even what we call ‘resistance’ is a manifestation of that realization: when the patient says to the analyst (in nonverbal ways too): “I do not see how what I said could be explained by what you said”, this is not resistance but could be-in some instances- an unconscious hint that the interpretation does not fit with the work of reconstruction. 

I mention this point because “psychoanalysis” is a way of thinking, working, doing something in any area of human nature. It is not merely a technique of psychotherapy. The question is what is the nature of the material we analyze and re-construct? In our clinical work we know that the psychodynamic of a psychosomatic skin rash (an infantile demand for physical contact with the mother) is different from the psychodynamics of hysterical skin rash (a symbolic call for closeness). In the first case there is no interpretation for the rash, and reconstruction will be of the physiology of the body being affected by childhood unresolve relations with the caregivers. In the hysterical condition the work will be on the skin condition as a symbolic message of sorts, and as an expression and a request from the analyst for that closeness.

The same issue of analyzing a historical or a social event. A historian with an analytic mind could analyze and understand a political situation, like the one we are witnessing now, and reconstruct it to shed light on several other issues that are part of it, but do not seem to be. An example, this war seems to create material damage that correspond well to the technical advancements in in all human tools, of late. Yet, the human casualties compared to the material damage is strangely very low. This is a important point because in reconstructing the whole event of the war there should be a question about the purpose and meaning of this war: is it a conflict of people or a conflict in issues. Personally, I think the Ukrainian war was created by what I mentioned before which is the problems of NATO and it is not a conflict between Russia and the Ukraine.

However, the instance of the European Union to expand NATO and get physically closer to pressure Russia politically and militarily is related to something completely different. It is like an analytic work getting closer to a patient’s unconscious repression of homosexual tendencies which abhors him.

The End of ‘The European Empire’.

In my clinical experience, the strongest resistance (not refusal as a preconscious condition) is a patient coming to realize a latent homosexual inclination, whether in men or women. The homosexuality I mention here has nothing to do with the sexual component it is famous of: it is attraction and captivation in a narcissistic relation with one or more persons of the same sex. The cause of that abhorrence is its complex narcissistic structure that steals the individual sense of identity (complex but necessary to understand to appreciate the importance of transference).  

The European Union is resisting the fact that the whole European Empire is faltering, and the world is not as it was in the last six centuries, i.e., a European Dominion. Africa is no longer divided as colonies of European countries. Asia has two or three greater countries than any European country. South America has finally liberated itself from the American domination and is giving the signs of more new surprises. The USA, as an extension of Europe, is obviously struggling with significant and profound internal social issues. Comprehensively, the European domination (Europe and the USA) of the world is coming to its ends.

Therefore, in reconstructing the present political crisis of the Ukraine  we should consider  more serious and more encompassing historical reasons for it. The decline of Western Empire is behind a political stupid gesture that Russia has to be contained by the force of NATO as a manifestation of the still dominant Wester Europe. Two things should be done: make the world hate Russia and bring it its knees militarily.

Media and Hate:

Although- it goes without saying- the enemy in any war is a hateful entity. Yet, wars cannot be won by hate alone. The other danger of relying on hate as a psychological weapon against an enemy is the ease by which -in desperation- hate could turn into admiration of the successful hateful enemy. This was one of the most serious issues Churchill was aware of during WWII. More importantly, is how much truth is there in the negatives of enemy, i.e., how much lying about the enemy is good. Managing hate- Psychoanalytically speaking- is very important in war because it is the foundation of projection and if it is misused it could affect the process of projection.

The danger in the Ukraine War is that the media reporters are not reporting about their nation and people, thus they are serving a function that does not pertain to themselves. This is exactly like when one says I know how you feel which is a gesture of empathy but far from being of any real effect or value. Thus, it makes the issue more of a psychological quandary because reality- if it existed- it will be impersonal and a dictation from a paid ‘piper’. The other factor is that people are not stupid: they have an unconscious that they store in it what they realize and truly believe. Thus, without managing hate properly the issue could backfire after a while and the Ukrainians will retrieve from their unconscious what was temporarily ignored.

That leads to the question: If the Western empire is dying or dead but still refuses to join the world on equal grounds what will happen.

Failed psychoanalyses tend to create a messy ex-patient. They keep trying other therapists and therapies with no results. Yet, the lucky ones find one or few persoOns who realize the crisis and just keep that person under observation and guidance. The equivalent to that in civilizations is new politicians or thinkers within the defunct civilization or empire who keep it from total collapse and being a political risk. The end of the two Roman empires (west and east) was the creation of nations and union of nations. The Western or the European empire will be forced to occupy a place in the world but not the only empire that existed.

WE WILL BE SAVED FROM THE NOTIONs OF OUR DEMOCRACY, OUR VALUES, OUR SO AND SO.