Changes

<i>Humoresque</i>, arguably Robert SchumannWhat's piano masterpiece, is to he read against the background of the gradual loss of the voice in his songs: it is not a simple piano piece, but a song without the vocal line, Wrong with the vocal line reduced to silence, so that all we effectively hear is the piano accompaniment. This is how one should read the famous "inner voice <i>linnere Stimmel</i>" added by Schumann (in the written score) as a third line between the two piano lines, higher and lower: as the vocal melodic line which remains a non-vocalized "inner voice," a series of variations without the theme, accompaniment without the main melodic line (which exists only as <i>Augenmusik</i>, music for the eyes only, in the guise of written notes). (No wonder that Schumann composed a "concert without orchestra," a kind of counterpoint to Bartok's "concert for orchestra.") This absent melody is to be reconstructed on the basis of the fact that the first and third levels (the right and the left hand piano lines) do not relate to each other directly, i.e. their relationship is not that of an immediate mirroring: in order to account for their interconnection, one is thus compelled to (re)construct a third, "virtual" intermediate level (melodic line) which, for structural reasons, cannot be played. Its status is that of an impossible-real which can exist only in the guise of a writing, i.e. physical presence would annihilate the two melodic lines we effectively hear in reality (as in Freud's "A child is being beaten," in which the middle fantasy scene was never conscious and has to be reconstructed as the missing link between the first and the last scene). Schumann brings this procedure of absent melody to an apparently absurd self-reference when, later in the same fragment of <i>Humoresque</i>, he repeats the same two effectively played melodic lines, yet this time the score contains no third absent melodic line, no inner voice - what is absent here is the absent melody, i.e. absence itself. How are we to play these notes when, at the level of what is effectively to be played, they exactly repeat the previous notes[[Fundamentalism]]? The effectively played notes are deprived only of what is not there, of their constitutive lack, or, to refer to the Bible, they lose even that what they never had. The true pianist should thus have the savoir-faire to play the existing, positive, notes in such a way that one would be able to discern the echo of the accompanying non-played "silent" virtual notes or their absence.Part II

And <i>Humoresque</i>, arguably [[Robert Schumann]]'s piano masterpiece, is this not how ideology works? The explicit ideological text (or practice) is sustained by to he read against the "unplayed" series background of obscene superego supplement. In "Really Existing Socialism," the explicit ideology gradual [[loss]] of socialist democracy was sustained by the [[voice]] in his songs: it is not a simple piano piece, but a set of implicit (unspoken) obscene injunctions and prohibitionssong without the vocal line, teaching with the subject how not vocal line reduced to take some explicit norms seriously and [[silence]], so that all we effectively hear is the piano accompaniment. This is how to implement a set of publicly unacknowledged prohibitions. One of one should read the strategies of dissidence famous "inner voice <i>linnere Stimmel</i>" added by Schumann (in the last years of Socialism was therefore precisely to take written score) as a [[third]] line between the ruling ideology more seriously/literally than it took itself by way of ignoring its virtual unwritten shadowtwo piano lines, higher and lower: as the vocal melodic line which remains a non-vocalized "You want us to practice socialist democracy? OKinner voice, here you have it!" And when one got back from a series of variations without the theme, accompaniment without the Party main melodic line (which [[exists]] only as <i>apparatchiksAugenmusik</i> desperate hints , [[music]] for the eyes only, in the guise of how this is not the way things functionwritten [[notes]]). (No wonder that Schumann composed a "concert without orchestra, one simply had " a kind of counterpoint to ignore these hints..Bartok's "concert for orchestra. ") This [[absent]] melody is what happens with to be reconstructed on the proclamation basis of the Decaloguefact that the first and third levels (the [[right]] and the [[left]] hand piano lines) do not relate to each [[other]] directly, i.e. their [[relationship]] is not that of an immediate mirroring: its revolutionary novelty resides not in its content[[order]] to account for their interconnection, but one is thus compelled to (re)[[construct]] a third, "[[virtual]]" intermediate level (melodic line) which, for [[structural]] reasons, cannot be played. Its status is that of an [[impossible]]-[[real]] which can [[exist]] only in the absence guise of a [[writing]], i.e. [[physical]] [[presence]] would annihilate the accompanying virtual texture of the Lawtwo melodic lines we effectively hear in [[reality]] (as in [[Freud]]'s obscene supplement"A [[child]] is [[being]] beaten," in which the middle [[fantasy]] [[scene]] was never [[conscious]] and has to be reconstructed as the [[missing]] link between the first and the last scene). This is what Schumann brings this procedure of absent melody to an apparently absurd [[self]]-reference when, later in the same fragment of <i>acheronta moveboHumoresque</i> ("moving , he repeats the underground") as a practice of same two effectively played melodic lines, yet this [[time]] the critique of ideology means: not directly changing score contains no third absent melodic line, no inner voice - what is absent here is the explicit text of the Lawabsent melody, but, rather, intervening into its obscene virtual supplementi.e. [[absence]] itself. Recall the relationsnip towards homosexuality in a soldiers' communityHow are we to play these notes when, which operates at two clearly distinct levels: the explicit homosexuality level of what is brutally attackedeffectively to be played, those identified as gays they exactly [[repeat]] the previous notes? The effectively played notes are ostracized, beaten up every night, etc.; howeverdeprived only of what is not there, this explicit homophobia is accompanied by an excessive set of implicit web of homosexual innuendostheir constitutive [[lack]], inner jokesor, obscene practicesto refer to the Bible, etcthey lose even that what they never had. The truly radical intervention [[true]] pianist should thus have the [[savoir]]-faire to play the existing, positive, notes in such a way that one would be able to military homophobia should therefore not focus primarily on discern the explicit repression echo of homosexuality; it should rather the accompanying non-played "move the underground,silent" disturb the implicit homosexual practices which SUSTAIN the explicit homophobiavirtual notes or their absence.

It And is in this not how [[ideology]] works? The [[explicit]] [[ideological]] [[text]] (or [[practice]]) is sustained by the "unplayed" series of [[obscene underground which enables us ]] [[superego]] [[supplement]]. In "Really Existing [[Socialism]]," the explicit ideology of socialist [[democracy]] was sustained by a set of implicit (unspoken) obscene injunctions and prohibitions, teaching the [[subject]] how not to take some explicit norms seriously and how to approach in implement a new way the Abu Ghraib phenomenonset of publicly unacknowledged prohibitions. Does anyone still remember One of the unfortunate Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Saddam's information minister who, strategies of [[dissidence]] in his daily press conferences, heroically denied even the most evident facts and stuck last years of Socialism was therefore precisely to take the Iraqi line - ruling ideology more seriously/literally than it took itself by way of ignoring its virtual unwritten shadow: "You [[want]] us to practice socialist democracy? OK, here you have it!" And when one got back from the US tanks were only hundreds Party <i>apparatchiks</i> desperate hints of yards from his officehow this is not the way things function, he continued one simply had to claim that ignore these hints... This is what happens with the proclamation of the [[Decalogue]]: its revolutionary novelty resides not in its [[content]], but in the absence of the US TV shots accompanying virtual [[texture]] of the tanks on Law's [[obscene supplement]]. This is what <i>acheronta movebo</i> ("moving the underground") as a practice of the critique of ideology means: not directly changing the explicit text of the Baghdad streets are just Hollywood special effects? OnceLaw, but, howeverrather, he did struck intervening into its obscene virtual supplement. [[Recall]] the relationsnip towards [[homosexuality]] in a strange truth - whensoldiers' [[community]], confronted with which operates at two clearly distinct levels: the claims that the US army explicit homosexuality is brutally attacked, those [[identified]] as gays are ostracized, beaten up every night, etc.; however, this explicit [[homophobia]] is already in control accompanied by an excessive set of parts implicit web of Baghdad[[homosexual]] innuendos, inner [[jokes]], obscene practices, he snapped back: "They are etc. The truly radical [[intervention]] in to military homophobia should therefore not in control focus primarily on the explicit [[repression]] of anything - they don't even control themselves!homosexuality; it should rather " When move the scandalous news broke out about underground," disturb the weird things going on in implicit homosexual practices which SUSTAIN the Abu Ghraib Prison in Baqhdad, we got a glimpse of this very dimension that Americans do not control in themselvesexplicit homophobia.

In It is in this obscene underground which enables us to approach in a new way the [[Abu Ghraib]] phenomenon. Does anyone still [[remember]] the unfortunate Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, [[Saddam]]'s information minister who, in his reaction daily press conferences, heroically denied even the most evident facts and stuck to the photos showing Iraqi prisoners tortured and humiliated by line - when the US soldiers, rendered public at the end tanks were only hundreds of April 2004yards from his office, George Bush, as expected, emphasized how he continued to [[claim]] that the deeds US TV shots of the soldiers were isolated crimes which do not reflect what America stands and fights for, tanks on the values of democracyBaghdad streets are just Hollywood special effects? Once, freedom and personal dignity. Andhowever, effectivelyhe did struck a strange [[truth]] - when, confronted with the very fact claims that the case turned into a public scandal which put the US administration [[army]] is already in defensive position was [[control]] of parts of Baghdad, he snapped back: "They are not in itself a positive sign control of anything - in a really they don't even control themselves!"totalitarian" regime, When the scandalous news broke out [[about]] the case would simply be hushed up. (In weird things going on in the same wayAbu Ghraib Prison in Baqhdad, let us not forget that the we got a glimpse of this very fact [[dimension]] that the US forces did Americans do not find weapons of mass destruction is a positive sign: a truly "totalitarian" power would have done what cops usually do plant drugs and then "discover" the evidence of crime..control in themselves.)

However, a number of disturbing features complicate the simple picture. In his reaction to the last months, the International Red Cross was regularly bombarding photos showing Iraqi prisoners tortured and humiliated by the US Army authorities in Iraq with reports about soldiers, rendered [[public]] at the abuses in military prisons thereend of April 2004, George [[Bush]], as expected, and emphasized how the deeds of the reports soldiers were systematically ignored; so it was isolated crimes which do not that the US authorities were getting no signals about reflect what was going on - they simply admitted the crime only when (America stands and because) they were faced with its disclosure in fights for, the media. No wonder one values of the preventive measures was the prohibition for the US military guards to have digital cameras democracy, [[freedom]] and cellular phones with video display - to prevent not the actspersonal dignity. And, but their public circulation... Secondeffectively, the immediate reaction of very fact that the [[case]] turned into a public scandal which put the US Army command administration in defensive [[position]] was surprisingin itself a positive [[sign]] - in a really "totalitarian" [[regime]], to say the least: case would simply be hushed up. (In the explanation was same way, let us not forget that the soldiers were not properly taught very fact that the Geneva convention rules about how to treat war prisoners - as if one has to be taught US forces did not to humiliate find weapons of mass [[destruction]] is a positive sign: a truly "totalitarian" [[power]] would have done what cops usually do plant drugs and torture prisoners!then "discover" the evidence of crime...)

But However, a [[number]] of disturbing features complicate the main feature is simple picture. In the contrast between last months, the "standard" way prisoners were tortured in the previous Saddam's regime and International Red Cross was regularly bombarding the US Army tortures: authorities in [[Iraq]] with reports about the previous regimeabuses in military prisons there, and the accent reports were systematically ignored; so it was on direct brutal infliction of pain, while not that the US soldiers focused authorities were getting no signals about what was going on psychological humiliation- they simply admitted the crime only when (and because) they were faced with its disclosure in the [[media]]. Furthermore, recording No wonder one of the humiliation with a camera, with preventive measures was the perpetrators included into [[prohibition]] for the picture, their faces stupidly smiling side by side US military guards to have digital cameras and cellular phones with video display - to prevent not the twisted naked bodies of the prisoners[[acts]], is an integral part of the proccssbut their public [[circulation]]... Second, in stark contrast with the secrecy immediate reaction of the Saddam tortures. When I saw the well-known photo of a naked prisoner with a black hood covering his headUS Army command was surprising, electric cables attached to his limbs, standing on a chair in a ridiculous theatrical pose, my first reaction say the least: the explanation was that this was a shot of some latest performance art show in Lower Manhattan. The very positions and costumes of the soldiers were not properly taught the Geneva convention rules about how to treat war prisoners suggest a theatrical staging, a kind of tableau vivant, which cannot but bring - as if one has to be taught not to our mind the whole scope of American performance art humiliate and "theatre of cruelty," the photos of Mapplethorpe, the weird scenes in David Lynch's films...[[torture]] prisoners!

And it But the main feature is this feature that brings us to the crux of contrast between the "standard" way prisoners were tortured in the previous Saddam's regime and the matterUS Army tortures: to anyone acquainted with in the previous regime, the reality accent was on direct brutal infliction of [[pain]], while the US way of lifesoldiers focused on [[psychological]] [[humiliation]]. Furthermore, recording the photos immediately brought to mind humiliation with a camera, with the obscene underside of perpetrators included into the US popular culture - saypicture, their faces stupidly smiling side by side with the initiatic rituals twisted naked bodies of torture and humiliation one has to undergo in order to be accepted into a closed community. Do we not see similar photos in regular intervals in the US pressprisoners, when some scandal explodes in is an army unit or integral part of the proccss, in stark contrast with the secrecy of the Saddam tortures. When I saw the well-known photo of a high school campus, where the initiatic ritual went overboard and soldiers or students got hurt beyond naked prisoner with a level considered tolerableblack hood covering his head, forced electric cables attached to assume his limbs, standing on a humiliating [[chair]] in a ridiculous theatrical pose, to perform debasing gestures (like penetrating their anal opening with my first reaction was that this was a beer bottle shot of some latest performance art show in front Lower Manhattan. The very positions and costumes of their peers)the prisoners [[suggest]] a theatrical staging, a kind of tableau vivant, which cannot but bring to suffer being pierced by needles, etc. (And, incidentally, since Bush himself is a member our [[mind]] the [[whole]] scope of American performance art and "Skull and Bonestheatre of [[cruelty]]," the most exclusive secret societv photos of Mapplethorpe, the Yale campus, it would be interesting to learn which rituals he had to undergo to be acceptedweird scenes in [[David Lynch]]'s [[films]]...

Of course, the obvious difference And it is this feature that, in brings us to the case crux of such initiatic rituals - as their very name bears witness the matter: to - one undergoes them out anyone acquainted with the reality of the US way of a free choice[[life]], fully knowing what one has the photos immediately brought to expect, and with mind the clear aim [[obscene underside]] of the reward that awaits me (being accepted into the inner circle, and US popular [[culture]] - last but not least - allowed to perform the same rituals or, new members... ), while in Abu Ghraibsay, the initiatic [[rituals were not the price ]] of torture and humiliation one has to be paid by the prisoners undergo in order to be accepted as "one of us," but, on the contrary, the very mark of their exclusioninto a closed community. However, is Do we not see similar photos in regular intervals in the "free choice" of those undergoing the humiliating rituals of initiation US press, when some scandal explodes in an exemplary case of army unit or in a false free choicehigh [[school]] campus, along where the lines of the worker's freedom initiatic [[ritual]] went overboard and soldiers or students got hurt beyond a level considered tolerable, [[forced]] to sell his working force? Even worseassume a humiliating pose, one should recall here one of the most discusting rituals of the anti-black violence in the Old US south: a black guy is cornered by white thugs and then compelled to perform an aggressive gesture debasing gestures ("Spit into my face, boy!"; "Say I am like penetrating their [[anal]] opening with a shit!"...beer bottle in front of their peers), which is supposed to justify the ensuing beating or lynchingsuffer being pierced by needles, etc. Furthermore(And, there incidentally, since Bush himself is the ultimate cynical message in applying to the Arab prisoners the properly American initiatic ritual: you want to be one a member of us? OK"Skull and Bones, here you have " the taste most exclusive [[secret]] societv of the very core of our way of lifeYale campus, it would be interesting to learn which rituals he had to undergo to be accepted...

Other institutions have other obscene undersidesOf course, the obvious [[difference]] is that, of course. The true dark enigma of in the behavior case of Vatican towards the Nazis was not the such initiatic rituals - as their very [[name]] bears [[witness]] to - one which draws most undergoes [[them]] out of the attention of the mediaa free [[choice]], fully [[knowing]] what one has to expect, and with the silence clear aim of the Pope with regard to reward that awaits me (being accepted into the Holocaust inner circle, and - this lack of activity could be understood, if last but not condonedleast - allowed to perform the same rituals or, by the special circumstancesnew members... What was much darker is), while in the years after WWIIAbu Ghraib, the full engagement of the Catholic Church in co-organizing rituals were not the escape of the Nazi criminals price to South America: be paid by the standard escape route led prisoners in order to Northern Italybe accepted as "one of us, where they were hidden for some time in some remote monasteries (or" but, in some caseson the contrary, even in the City very mark of Vatican itself); from there, they were smuggled to Spain or to a ship (usually in Genoa) which took them to Argentinatheir [[exclusion]].<ref>See the ample documentation in Uki GoñiHowever, <i>La autentica Odessa. La fuga nazi a la Argentina de Peron</i>, Buenos Aires, Paidos 2004.</ref> Why this urge to save - is not ex-functionaries of the "softfree choice" Fascist regimes like of those undergoing the one humiliating rituals of initiation an exemplary case of Italy itselfa [[false]] free choice, but - Nazis themselves whose ideology was explicitly anti-Christian, "pagan"? What deeper solidarity motivated Vatican along the lines of the worker's freedom to engage in such a vast and well-organized effortsell his [[working]] force? IfEven worse, in one should recall here one of the late 1940s, most discusting rituals of the Catholic Church was able to build such an impressive underground network to save the Nazis, why did it not build anti-black [[violence]] in the early 1940s Old US south: a similar network black guy is cornered by white thugs and then compelled to save Jews - sayperform an [[aggressive]] gesture ("Spit into my face, in Romeboy!"; "Say I am a shit!"...), at least? And which is supposed to justify the same ambiguity persists today: trueensuing beating or lynching. Furthermore, there is the pope John Paul II apologized for all the injustice the Church committed against the Jews ultimate cynical [[message]] in its long history - but applying to the same pope canonized Arab prisoners the founder properly American initiatic ritual: you want to be one of Opus Deius? OK, well-known for his anti-Semitic statements and his pro-Fascist sympathies... Does this not hint towards here you have the obscene underside taste of the Catholic Church itself? As to another aspect very core of this underside, recall the recent cases our way of paedophilia in the Catholic Church is instructive herelife... What makes these cases so disturbing is that they did riot just happen in religious surroundings - these surroundings were part of them, directly mobilized as the instrument of seduction:

<blockquote>/ ... / the seduction technique employs religion. Almost always some sort Other institutions have other obscene undersides, of prayer has been used as foreplaycourse. The very places where true dark enigma of the molestation occurs are redolent [[behavior]] of religion - [[Vatican]] towards the sacristy, [[Nazis]] was not the confessional, the rectory, Catholic schools and clubs with sacred pictures on the walls. / ... / A conjunction one which draws most of the overstrict sexual instruction attention of the Church (e.g.media, on the mortal sinfulness silence of masturbation, one occurrence the Pope with [[regard]] to the [[Holocaust]] - this lack of which can[[activity]] could be [[understood]], if not confessedcondoned, send one to hell) and a guide who can free one of inexplicably dark teaching by inexplicably sacred exceptionsthe special circumstances. /The predator/ uses religion What was much darker is, in the years after WWII, the [[full]] engagement of the [[Catholic]] [[Church]] in co-organizing the escape of the [[Nazi]] criminals to sanction what he is up South America: the standard escape route led toNorthern Italy, where they were hidden for some time in some remote monasteries (or, in some cases, ven calling sex Part even in the City of his priestly ministryVatican itself); from there, they were smuggled to Spain or to a ship (usually in Genoa) which took them to [[Argentina]].<ref>Gary Willis, "Scandal"See the ample documentation in Uki Goñi, <i>The New York Review of BooksLa autentica Odessa. La fuga nazi a la Argentina de Peron</i>, May 23 2002Buenos Aires, p. 6Paidos 2004.</ref></blockquote> Why this urge to save - not ex-functionaries of the "soft" Fascist regimes like the one of Italy itself, but - Nazis themselves whose ideology was explicitly anti-[[Christian]], "pagan"? What deeper [[solidarity]] motivated Vatican to engage in such a vast and well-organized effort? If, in the late 1940s, the Catholic Church was able to build such an impressive underground network to save the Nazis, why did it not build in the early 1940s a similar network to save [[Jews]] - say, in Rome, at least? And the same ambiguity persists today: true, the pope John [[Paul]] II apologized for all the injustice the Church committed against the Jews in its long [[history]] - but the same pope canonized the founder of Opus Dei, well-known for his anti-Semitic statements and his pro-Fascist sympathies... Does this not hint towards the obscene underside of the Catholic Church itself? As to [[another]] aspect of this underside, recall the [[recent]] cases of paedophilia in the Catholic Church is instructive here. What makes these cases so disturbing is that they did riot just happen in [[religious]] surroundings - these surroundings were part of them, directly mobilized as the [[instrument]] of [[seduction]]:

So religion is not just invoked in order to provide a frisson of the forbidden, i<blockquote>/ ..e. to heighten / the pleasure by making sex an act seduction [[technique]] employs [[religion]]. Almost always some sort of transgression; on the contrary, sex itself is presented in reliqious terms, prayer has been used as foreplay. The very places where the religious cure molestation occurs are redolent of religion - the sin (of masturbation). The paedophilic priests were not liberals who seduced boys by claiming that gay sexuality is healthy and permitted - in a masterful use of sacristy, the reversal called by Lacan <i>point-de-capiton</i>confessional, they first insisted that the confessed sin of a boy (masturbation) really is mortalrectory, Catholic [[schools]] and then they offered gay acts (say, mutual masturbation) - iclubs with sacred pictures on the walls. / .e., what cannot but appear an even STRONGER sin - as a "healingq procedure". The key resides in this mysterious "transubstantiation", by means / A conjunction of which the prohibiting Law which makes us feel guitly apropos an ordinary sin is is enacted in the guise of a much stronger sin - as it, in a kind ot Hegelian coincidence overstrict [[sexual]] instruction of the opposites, the Law coincides with the strongest transgressionChurch (e. Gg.K. Chesterton asserted , on the truly subversive revolutionary evenmortal sinfulness of [[masturbation]], character one occurrence of orthodoxy in his famous "Defense of Detective Storywhich can, if not confessed," he remarked how the detective story "keeps in some sense before the mind the fact that civilization - itseif is the most sensational of departures send one to hell) and the most romantic a [[guide]] who can free one of rebellions. / ..inexplicably dark teaching by inexplicably sacred exceptions. / /The police romancepredator/ uses religion to sanction what he is based on the fact that morality is the most dark and daring up to, ven calling sex Part of conspiracieshis priestly ministry."<ref>Gilbert Keith ChestertonGary Willis, "A Defense of Detectives Stories,Scandal" in H. Haycraft, ed., <i>The Art New York Review of the Mystery HistoryBooks</i>, New York: The Universal Library, 1946May 23 2002, p. 6.</ref> And does the same not hold for the paedophilic priest? Does his figure not confirm that "morality is the most dark and daring of conspiracies"? And is the present US politics, in its inherent structure, not a kind of political equivalent to the Catholic paedophilia? The problem of its new moral vigor is not just that morality is manipulatively exploited, but that it is directly mobilized; the problem with its appeal to democracy is that it is not simply hypocrisy and external manipulation, but that it directly mobilizes and relies on "sincere" democratic strivings.</blockquote>

Recall Rob Reiner's <i>A Few Good Men</i>, So religion is not just invoked in order to provide a court-martial drama about two US marines accused frisson of murderinq one the [[forbidden]], i.e. to heighten the [[pleasure]] by making sex an act of their fellow-soldiers[[transgression]]; on the military prosecutor claims that contrary, sex itself is presented in reliqious [[terms]], as the act was a deliberate murder, whereas religious [[cure]] of the defense sin (composed of Tom Cruise masturbation). The paedophilic priests were not [[liberals]] who seduced boys by claiming that gay [[sexuality]] is healthy and Demi Moore permitted - how could they fail?) succeeds in proving that a masterful use of the defendants followed the so[[reversal]] called by [[Lacan]] <i>point-de-called "Code Redcapiton</i>," they first insisted that the unwritten rule confessed sin of a military community which authorizes 'the clandestine nightboy (masturbation) really is mortal, and then they offered gay acts (say, mutual masturbation) -time beating of a fellowi.e., what cannot but appear an even STRONGER sin -soidier who has broken the ethical standards of the Marines. Such as a code condones an act of transgression, it is "illegal,healingq procedure" yet at the same time it reaffirms the cohesion of the group. It has to remain under cover of the night, unacknowledged, unutterable - The key resides in publicthis mysterious "[[transubstantiation]]", everyone pretends to know nothing about it, or even actively denies its existence (and the climax by means of which the film prohibiting Law which makes us feel guitly apropos an ordinary sin is, predictably, is enacted in the outburst guise of rage of Jack Nicholson, the officer who ordered the nighta much stronger sin -time beating: his public explosion isas it, in a kind ot [[Hegelian]] coincidence of course, the moment of his fall). While violating the explicit rules of communityopposites, such a code represents the "Spirit of community" at its purest, exerting Law coincides with the strongest pressure on individuals to enact group identificationtransgression. G.K. In Derridean terms[[Chesterton]] asserted the truly subversive revolutionary even, [[character]] of orthodoxy in contrast to the written explicit Lawhis famous "[[Defense]] of Detective Story, such a superego obscene code is essentially spoken. While the explicit Law is sustained by the dead father qua symbolic authority (" he remarked how the detective story "Name of keeps in some [[sense]] before the Father"), mind the unwritten code fact that [[civilization]] - itseif is sustained by the spectral supplement most sensational of departures and the Name most romantic of rebellions. / ... / /The police romance/ is based on the Father, fact that [[morality]] is the obscene specter most dark and daring of the Freudian conspiracies."primordial father.<ref>For a more detailed elaboration Gilbert Keith Chesterton, "A Defense of this topicDetectives Stories," in H. Haycraft, see Chapter 3 of Slavoj Zizeked., <i>The Metastases Art of Enjoymentthe Mystery History</i>, LondonNew York: Verso Books 1995The [[Universal]] [[Library]], 1946, p. 6.</ref> Therein resides And does the lesson of Coppola's <i>Apocalypse Now</i>: in same not hold for the paedophilic priest? Does his [[figure ]] not confirm that "morality is the most dark and daring of Kurtz, the Freudian conspiracies"primordial father" - ? And is the obscene father-enjoyment subordinated to no symbolic Law[[present]] US [[politics]], in its inherent [[structure]], the total Master who dares not a kind of [[political]] equivalent to confront face to face the Real Catholic paedophilia? The problem of terrifying <i>jouissance</i> - its new [[moral]] vigor is presented not as a remainder of some barbaric pastjust that morality is manipulatively exploited, but as that it is directly mobilized; the necessary outcome of the modern Western power Itself. Kurtz was a perfect soldier - as such, through his over -identification problem with the military power system, he turned into the excess which the system has its appeal to eliminate. The ultimate horizon of <i>Apocalypse Now</i> democracy is this insight into how Power generates its own excess which that it has to annihilate in an operation which has to imitate what it fights (Willard's mission to kill Kurtz is non-existent for the official recordnot simply [[hypocrisy]] and [[external]] manipulation, but that it directly mobilizes and relies on "it never happened,sincere" as the general who briefs Willard points out)democratic strivings. We thereby enter the domain of secret operations, of what the Power does without ever admitting it. This is where Christopher Hitchens missed the point when he wrote:

Recall Rob Reiner's <blockquotei>One A Few [[Good]] Men</i>, a court-martial drama about two US marines accused of two things must necessarily be true. Either these goons were acting on someone's authoritymurderinq one of their fellow-soldiers; the military prosecutor claims that the act was a deliberate [[murder]], whereas the defense (composed of Tom Cruise and Demi Moore - how could they fail?) succeeds in proving that the defendants followed the so-called "[[Code]] Red," the unwritten rule of a military community which case there authorizes 'the clandestine night-time beating of a fellow-soidier who has broken the [[ethical]] standards of the Marines. Such a code condones an act of transgression, it is a layer "illegal," yet at the same time it reaffirms the [[cohesion]] of the group. It has to remain under cover of midthe night, unacknowledged, unutterable - in public, everyone pretends to high[[know]] [[nothing]] about it, or even actively denies its [[existence]] (and the climax of the [[film]] is, predictably, the [[outburst]] of rage of Jack Nicholson, the officer who ordered the night-level people who think that they are not bound by time beating: his public explosion is, of course, the laws and codes and standing orders[[moment]] of his fall). Or they were acting on their own authorityWhile violating the explicit rules of community, in which case they are such a code represents the equivalent "Spirit of mutineerscommunity" at its purest, desertersexerting the strongest pressure on individuals to enact group [[identification]]. In Derridean terms, or traitors in contrast to the fieldwritten explicit Law, such a superego obscene code is essentially spoken. This While the explicit Law is why one asks wistfully if there sustained by the [[dead]] [[father]] qua [[symbolic]] [[authority]] (the "[[Name of the Father]]"), the unwritten code is no provision in sustained by the [[spectral]] supplement of the Name of the Father, the procedures obscene specter of military Justice for them to be taken out and shotthe [[Freudian]] "primordial father.<ref>Christopher HitchensFor a more detailed elaboration of this topic, see Chapter 3 of Slavoj [[Zizek]], "Prison Mutiny<i>The Metastases of [[Enjoyment]]</i>," available online (posted on May 4 2004)[[London]]: Verso Books 1995.</ref> Therein resides the lesson of Coppola's <i>Apocalypse Now</i>: in the figure of Kurtz, the Freudian "primordial father" - the obscene father-enjoyment subordinated to no symbolic Law, the [[total]] [[Master]] who dares to confront face to face [[the Real]] of terrifying <i>[[jouissance]]</blockquotei>- is presented not as a [[remainder]] of some barbaric [[past]], but as the necessary outcome of the modern Western power Itself. Kurtz was a perfect soldier - as such, through his over -identification with the military power [[system]], he turned into the [[excess]] which the system has to eliminate. The ultimate horizon of <i>Apocalypse Now</i> is this insight into how Power generates its own excess which it has to annihilate in an operation which has to imitate what it fights (Willard's mission to kill Kurtz is non-existent for the [[official]] record, "it never happened," as the general who briefs Willard points out). We thereby enter the [[domain]] of secret operations, of what the Power does without ever admitting it. This is where [[Christopher Hitchens]] missed the point when he wrote:

The problem is that the Abu Ghraib tortures were NEITHER <blockquote>One of those two options: while they cannot things must necessarily be reduced to simplc evil acts of individual soldierstrue. Either these goons were acting on someone's authority, they were in which case there is a layer of course also not directly ordered mid- to high- level [[people]] who [[think]] that they were legitimized are not bound by a specific version of the obscene "Code Red" ruleslaws and [[codes]] and standing [[orders]]. To claim that Or they were acting on their own authority, in which case they are the acts equivalent of "mutineers, deserters, or traitors in the field" . This is why one asks wistfully if there is the same nonsense like the claim that the Ku Klux Klan lynchings were the acts of the traitors of Western Christian civilization and not the outburst of its own obscene underside, or that the child abuses of children by Catholic priests are acts of "traitors" to Catholicism... Abu Ghrailb was not simply a case of American arrogance towards a Third World people: no provision in being submitted to the humiliating tortures, the Iraqi prisoners were effectively initiated into American culture, they got the taste procedures of its obscene underside which forms the necessary supplement military Justice for them to the public values of personal dignity, democracy, be taken out and freedomshot. No wonder<ref>Christopher Hitchens, then, that it is gradually becoming clear how the ritualistic humiliation of Iraqi prisoners was not a limited case, but part of a widespread practice: on May 6, Donald Rumsfeld had to admit that the photos rendered public are just the "tip of the iceberg," and that there are much stronger things to come, including videos of rape and murder. As to the institutional background of the Abu Ghraib "excessPrison Mutiny," already in early 2003, the US government, in a secret memo, approved a set of procedures to put the prisoners in the "war of terror" under physical and psychological pressure and thus to assure their "cooperation" available online (the memo uses wonderful Orwelese: long exposure to strong light is called "visual stimulation"...posted on May 4 2004). This is the reality of Rumsfeld's dismissive statement, a couple of months ago, that the Geneva convention rules are "out of date" with regard to today's warfare.</ref></blockquote>

In a recent debate about The problem is that the fate Abu Ghraib tortures were NEITHER of those two options: while they cannot be reduced to simplc [[evil]] acts of Guantanamo prisoners on NBC[[individual]] soldiers, one they were of the arguments for the ethicocourse also not directly ordered -legal acceptability of their status was that "they are those who were missed legitimized by a specific version of the bombsobscene ": since [[Code Red]]" rules. To claim that they were the target acts of the US bombing and accidentally survived it"mutineers, and since this bombing was part of a legitimate military operationdeserters, one cannot condemn their fate when they were taken prisoners after or traitors in the combat - whatever their situation, it field" is better, less severe, than being dead... This reasoning tells more than it intends to say: it puts the prisoner almost literally into same nonsense like the claim that the Ku Klux Klan lynchings were the acts of the position traitors of living dead, those who are in a way already dead (their right to live forfeited by being legitimate targets Western Christian civilization and not the outburst of murderous bombings)its own obscene underside, so or that they the child abuses of [[children]] by Catholic priests are now cases acts of "traitors" to [[Catholicism]]... Abu Ghrailb was not simply a case of what Giorgio Agamben calls <i>homo sacer</i>American arrogance towards a Third [[World]] people: in being submitted to the humiliating tortures, the one who can be killed with impunity sinceIraqi prisoners were effectively initiated into American culture, in they got the eyes taste of its obscene underside which forms the law, his life no longer counts. (There is a vague similarity between their situation and necessary supplement to the legally problematic premise public values of the movie <i>Double Jeopardy</i>: if you were condemned for killing A personal dignity, democracy, and you laterfreedom. No wonder, after serving your term and being releasedthen, discover that A it is still alive, you can now kill him with impunity since you cannot be condemned two times for gradually becoming clear how the same act. In psychoanalytic termritualistic humiliation of Iraqi prisoners was not a limited case, this killng would clearly display the temporal structure but part of masochist perversiona widespread practice: the succession is invertedon May 6, you are first punished and thus gain the right Donald Rumsfeld had to commit the crime.) If admit that the Guantanamo prisoners photos rendered public are located in just the space "between tip of the two deathsiceberg," occupying and that there are much stronger things to come, including [[videos]] of rape and murder. As to the position institutional background of <i>homo sacer</i>the Abu Ghraib "excess, legally dead (deprived of a determinate legal status) while biologically still alive" already in early 2003, the US authorities which treat them in this way are also [[government]], in a kind secret memo, approved a set of procedures to put the prisoners in-between legal status which forms the counterpart "war of [[terror]]" under physical and psychological pressure and thus to <i>homo sacer</i>: acting as a legal power, assure their acts are no longer covered and constrained by "cooperation" (the law - they operate in an empty space that memo uses wonderful Orwelese: long exposure to strong light is called "[[visual]] stimulation"...). This is still within the domain reality of Rumsfeld's dismissive [[statement]], a couple of months ago, that the law. And the recent disclosures about Abu Ghraib only display the full consequences Geneva convention rules are "out of locating prisoners into this place date"between the two deathswith regard to today's warfare."

The exemplary economic strategy In a recent debate about the fate of today's capitalism is outsourcing [[Guantanamo]] prisoners on NBC, one of the arguments for the ethico- giving over [[legal]] acceptability of their status was that "they are those who were missed by the bombs"dirty" process : since they were the target of the US bombing and accidentally survived it, and since this bombing was part of material production (but also publicitya legitimate military operation, one cannot condemn their fate when they were taken prisoners after the combat - whatever their [[situation]], it is better, designless severe, accountancythan being dead... ) This reasoning tells more than it intends to another company via A sub-contract. In this way, one can easily avoid ecological and health rulessay: it puts the production is done prisoner almost literally into the position of [[living]] dead, those who are ina way already dead (their right to live forfeited by being legitimate targets of murderous bombings), say, Indonesia where the ecological and health regulations so that they are much lower than in the Westnow cases of what Giorgio [[Agamben]] calls <i>[[homo sacer]]</i>, and the Western global company which owns the logo one who can claim that it is not responsible for be killed with impunity since, in the violations eyes of another companythe law, his life no longer counts. Are we not getting something homologous with regard to torture? Is torture also not being "outsourced," left to (There is a vague similarity between their situation and the Third World allies legally problematic premise of the US which can do it without worrying about legal probiems or public protest? Was such outsourcing not explicitly advocated by Jonathan Alter in movie <i>Newsweek[[Double]] Jeopardy</i> immediately : if you were condemned for killing A and you later, after 9/11? After stating that "we can't legalize torture; it's contrary to American valuesserving your term and being released," he nonetheless concludes discover that "we'll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish alliesA is still alive, ever. If that's hypocritical. Nobody said this was going to you can now kill him with impunity since you cannot be prettycondemned two [[times]] for the same act." This is how, todayIn [[psychoanalytic]] term, this killng would clearly display the First World democracy more and more functions[[temporal]] structure of [[masochist]] [[perversion]]: by way of "outsourcing" its dirty underside to other countries... We can see how this debate about the need to apply torture was by no means academic: todaysuccession is inverted, Americans even do not trust their allies you are first punished and thus gain the right to do commit the job properly; crime.) If the Guantanamo prisoners are located in the [[space]] "less squeamish[[between the two deaths]]," partner is occupying the disavowed part position of <i>homo sacer</i>, legally dead (deprived of a determinate legal status) while [[biologically]] still alive, the US government itself authorities which treat them in this way are also in a kind of in- between legal status which forms the [[counterpart]] to <i>homo sacer</i>: acting as a quite logical resultlegal power, once we recall how their acts are no longer covered and constrained by the CIA taught law - they operate in an empty space that is still within the Latino American and Third World American military allies domain of the practice of -torture for decadeslaw. And, insofar as the predominant skeptical liberal attitude can also be characterized as recent disclosures about Abu Ghraib only display the one full consequences of locating prisoners into this [[place]] "outsourced beliefs" (we let between the primitive others, two deaths."fundamentalists," do their believing for us), does the rise of new religious fundamentalisms in our own societies not signal how the same distrust towards the Third World countries: not only are they not able to do our torturing for us, they even can no longer do our believing for us.

In March 2003, none other than Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit The exemplary [[economic]] strategy of amateur philosophizing about today's [[capitalism]] is [[outsourcing]] - giving over the relationship between the known and the unknown: "There are known knownsdirty" [[process]] of [[material]] production (but also publicity, [[design]], accountancy.. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns) to another company via A sub-contract. That In this way, one can easily avoid ecological and health rules: the production is to done in, say, there Indonesia where the ecological and health regulations are things much lower than in the West, and the Western [[global]] company which owns the logo can claim that it is not [[responsible]] for the violations of another company. Are we know we don't know. But there are not getting something homologous with regard to torture? Is torture also unknown unknowns. There are things not being "outsourced," left to the Third World allies of the US which can do it without worrying about legal probiems or public protest? Was such outsourcing not explicitly advocated by Jonathan Alter in <i>Newsweek</i> immediately after 9/11? After [[stating]] that "we doncan't know we donlegalize torture; it't know." What he forgot s contrary to add was the crucial fourth termAmerican values, the "unknown knowns,he nonetheless concludes that " things we don't know ll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies, ever. If that we know - which 's hypocritical. Nobody said this was going to be pretty." This is precisely the Freudian unconscioushow, today, the First World democracy more and more functions: by way of "knowledge which doesn't know itself,outsourcing" as Lacan used its dirty underside to sayother countries... If Rumsfeld thinks that We can see how this debate about the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq are the "unknown unknowns[[need]] to apply torture was by no means academic: today," the threats from Saddam about which we Americans even do not even suspect what they may be, the Abu Ghralh scandal shows where trust their allies to do the main dangers are: in job properly; the "unknown knowns,less squeamish" partner is the disavowed beliefs, suppositionspart of the US government itself - a quite [[logical]] result, once we recall how the CIA taught the Latino American and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, although they form Third World American military allies the background practice of our public values-torture for decades. Which is why And, insofar as the predominant skeptical [[liberal]] attitude can also be characterized as the assurance one of the US Army command that no "direct ordersoutsourced beliefs" were issued to humiliate and torture (we let the prisoners is ridiculous: of course they were not[[primitive]] [[others]], "fundamentalists, since" do their believing for us), as everyone who knows army life is aware does the rise of, this is new religious fundamentalisms in our own societies not [[signal]] how such things are done. There the same distrust towards the Third World countries: not only are they not able to do our torturing for us, they even can no formal orders, nothing is written, just unofficial pressure, hints and directives delivered in private, the way one shares a dirty secret..longer do our believing for us.

Bush was thus wrongIn March 2003, none other than Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophizing about the relationship between the known and the unknown: what "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are getting when also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we see don't know." What he forgot to add was the photos of crucial fourth term, the humiliated Iraqi prisoners or, our screens and front pages"unknown knowns, " things we don't know that we know - which is precisely a direct insight into the Freudian [[unconscious]], the "American values[[knowledge]] which doesn't know itself," into as Lacan used to say. If Rumsfeld thinks that the very core of main dangers in the obscene enjoyment that sustains confrontation with Iraq are the US way of life. These photos therefore put into an adequate perspective Samuel Huntington's well-known thesis on the ongoing "clash of civilizationsunknown unknowns,"the [[threats]] from Saddam about which we do not even suspect what they may be, the Abu Ghralh scandal shows where the main dangers are: in the clash between "unknown knowns," the Arab disavowed beliefs, suppositions, and the American civilization is obscene practices we pretend not a clash between barbarism and respect for human dignityto know about, but a clash between anonymous brutal torture and torture as a mediatic spectacle in which although they [[form]] the victims' bodies serve as background of our public values. Which is why the anonymous background for assurance of the stupidly smiling US Army command that no "innocent Americandirect orders" faces were issued to humiliate and torture the prisoners is ridiculous: of the torturers themselves. At the Same timecourse they were not, since, one has here a proof as everyone who [[knows]] army life is aware of , this is not howsuch things are done. There are no [[formal]] orders, to paraphrase Walter Benjaminnothing is written, just unofficial pressure, hints and directives delivered in private, every clash of civilizations is the clash of the underlying barbarismsway one shares a dirty secret...

This obscene virtual dimension is inscribed into an ideological text in the guise of the fantasmatic background that sustains the emptiness of Bush was thus wrong: what Jacques Lacan called the Master-Signifier. The master-Signifier is tha signifier of potentiality, of potential threat, ot a threat which, in order to function as such, has to remain potential (in the same way as it is also we are getting when we see the signifier photos of potential meaning whose actuality is the void of meaning: sayhumiliated Iraqi prisoners or, "our Nation" is the thing itself, 'the supreme Cause worth dying for, the highest density of meaning - screens andfront pages, as such, it means nothing in particular, it has no determinate meaning, it can be articulated only in the guise is precisely a tautology - "Nation is direct insight into the Thing itself"). This emptiness of the threat is clearly discernible in everyday phrases like American values,"Just wait! You will see what will happen to you!" - into the very lack core of the specification of WHAT exactly will befall you makes obscene enjoyment that sustains the threat so threatening, since it solicits the power US way of my fantasy to fill it in with imagined horrorslife. As such, the MasterThese photos therefore put into an adequate perspective Samuel [[Huntington]]'s well-Signifier is known [[thesis]] on the privileged site at which fantasy intervenes, since ongoing "clash of civilizations": the function of fantasy is precisely to fill in clash between the void of Arab and the signifier-without-signified, i.e., fantasy American civilization is ultimately, at its most elementarv, the stuff which fills in the void of the Master-Signifier: againnot a clash between barbarism and respect for [[human]] dignity, but a clash between anonymous brutal torture and torture as a mediatic [[spectacle]] in the case of a Nation, all the mythic obscure narratives which tell us what the nation is... This gap between victims' bodies serve as the Law and its superego supplement concerns anonymous background for the ambiguous status of political representation, the constitutive excess stupidly smiling "innocent American" faces of representation over the representedtorturers themselves. At the level of the LawSame time, the state Power only represents the interests one has here a proof of its subjects; it is serving themhow, responsible to them and itself subjected to their control; however, at the level of the superego undersideparaphrase Walter [[Benjamin]], the public message every clash of responsibility, etc., civilizations is supplemented by the obscene message of unconditional exercise of Power: laws do not really bind me, I can do to you WHATEVER I WANT, I can treat you as guilty if I decide so, I can destroy you if I say so... This obscene excess is a necessary constituent clash of the notion of sovereignty (whose signifier is the Master-Signifier) - the asymmetry is here structural, i.e. the law can only sustain its authority if subjects hear in it the echo of the obscene unconditional self-assertionunderlying barbarisms.

This obscene virtual dimension is inscribed into an ideological text in the guise of the [[fantasmatic]] background that sustains the emptiness of what [[Jacques Lacan]] called the Master-[[Signifier]]. The [[master-Signifier]] is tha signifier of potentiality, of potential [[threat]], ot a threat which, in order to function as such, has to remain potential (in the same way as it is also the signifier of potential [[meaning]] whose actuality is the [[void]] of meaning: say, "our [[Nation]]" is the [[thing]] itself, 'the supreme [[Cause]] worth dying for, the highest density of meaning - and, as such, it means nothing in [[particular]], it has no determinate meaning, it can be articulated only in the guise a tautology - "Nation is the Thing itself"). This emptiness of the threat is clearly discernible in everyday phrases like "Just wait! You will see what will happen to you!" - the very lack of the specification of WHAT exactly will befall you makes the threat so threatening, since it solicits the power of my fantasy to fill it in with imagined horrors. As such, the Master-Signifier is the privileged site at which fantasy intervenes, since the function of fantasy is precisely to fill in the void of the signifier-without-[[signified]], i.e., fantasy is ultimately, at its most elementarv, the stuff which fills in the void of the Master-Signifier: again, in the case of a Nation, all the mythic obscure narratives which tell us what the nation is... This gap between the Law and its superego supplement concerns the ambiguous status of political [[representation]], the [[constitutive excess]] of representation over the represented. At the level of the Law, the [[state]] Power only represents the interests of its [[subjects]]; it is serving them, responsible to them and itself subjected to their control; however, at the level of the superego underside, the public message of [[responsibility]], etc., is supplemented by the obscene message of unconditional exercise of Power: laws do not really [[bind]] me, I can do to you WHATEVER I WANT, I can treat you as [[guilty]] if I decide so, I can destroy you if I say so... This obscene excess is a necessary constituent of the [[notion]] of [[sovereignty]] (whose signifier is the Master-Signifier) - the asymmetry is here structural, i.e. the law can only sustain its authority if subjects hear in it the echo of the obscene unconditional self-assertion. It is similar with [[anti-Semitism]]: Jew is the Master-Signifier, the ultimate empty point of reference which accounts for the (inconsistent) series of phenomena that bother people (corruption, moral and [[cultural ]] decadence, sexual depravity, commercialization, [[class ]] [[struggle ]] and other [[social ]] [[antagonisms ]] ... ); as such, the figure of the Jew has to be sustained/encircled by the swarm of [[fantasies ]] about their mysterious rituals and properties.<ref>I rely here on Mladen [[Dolar]], "Moc nevidnega /The Power of the Invisible/," <i>Problema</i> 1-2, [[Ljubljana ]] 2004.</ref> However, in the XXth century, this link between power and [[invisible threat ]] gets in a way redoubled or reflected-into itself: it is no longer merely the existing [[power structure ]] which, in order to sustain its efficiency, its hold over its subjects, has to rely on the fantasmatic dimension of the potential/invisible threat; the place of the threat is, rather, externalized, [[displaced ]] into the [[Outside]], the [[Enemy ]] of the power - it is the invisible (and for that very [[reason ]] all-powerful and omnipresent) threat of the Enemy that legitimizes the permanent [[state of emergency ]] of the existing Power (Fascists invoked the threat of the [[Jewish ]] conspiracy, Stalinists the threat of the class enemy up to today's "[[war on terror]]," of course). This invisible threat of the Enemy legitimizes the [[logic ]] of the [[preemptive strike]]: precisely because the threat is virtual, it is too late to wait for its actualization, one has to strike in advance, before it will be too late... In other [[words]], the omnipresent invisible threat of Terror legitimizes the all too [[visible ]] protective measures of defense (which pose the only TRUE threat to democracy and [[human rights]], of course)if the classic power functioned as the threat which was operative precisely by way of never actualizing itself, by way of remaining a threatening GESTURE (and this functioning reached its climax in the [[Cold War]], with the the threat of the mutual nuclear destruction which HAD to remain a threat), with the war on terror, the invisible threat causes the incessant actualization - not of itself, but - of the measures against itself. The nuclear strike had to remain the threat of a strike, while the threat of the terrorist strike triggers the endless series of strikes against potential terrorists... The power which presents itself as being all the time under threat, living in mortal [[danger]], and thus merely defending itself, is the most dangerous kind of power.