My partner and I negate the resolution on the basis of Schizoanalyzing the meaning of “US interests”. We reserve the right to clarify.

Contention 1: The Oedipal Complex is the normative process that furnishes material yielded by the psychic impulses

(Freud, Sigmund. 1913. The Interpretation of Dreams)

According to my experience, which is now large, parents play a leading part in the infantile psychology of all later neurotics, and falling in love with one member of the parental couple and hatred of the other help to make up that fateful sum of material furnished by the psychic impulses, which has been formed during the infantile period, and which is of such great importance for the symptoms appearing in the later neurosis. But I do not think that psychoneurotics are here sharply distinguished from normal human beings, in that they are capable of creating something absolutely new and peculiar to themselves. It is far more probable, as is shown also by

occasional observation upon normal children, that in their loving or hostile wishes towards their parents, psychoneurotics only show in exaggerated form feelings which are present less distinctly and less intensely in the minds of most children. Antiquity has furnished us with legendary material to confirm this fact, and the deep and universal effectiveness of these legends can only be explained by granting a similar universal applicability to the above-mentioned assumption in infantile psychology.

Contention 2: the Mirror stage and Oedipus are formative of the function of I

Subpoint A: (Hawaii.edu, 2013)

Lacan proposes that human infants pass through a stage in which an external image of the body[,] (reflected in a mirror, or represented to the infant through the mother or primary caregiver[,]) produces a psychic response that gives rise to the mental representation of an "I". The infant identifies with the image, which serves as a gestalt of the infant's emerging perceptions of selfhood, but because the image of a unified body does not correspond with the underdeveloped infant's physical vulnerability and weakness, this imago is established as an Ideal-I toward which the subject will perpetually strive throughout his or her life.

AS AN INFANT, THE HUMAN LIVES IN A COMPLETELY DUALISTIC WORLD OF GOOD VS. BAD; THE INFANT IDENTIFIES ITSELF FIRST IN A SERIES OF ASSOCIATONS OF GOODS AND BADS, THE FIRST GOOD BEING THAT OF THE MOTHER, CREATING AN IDENTIFICATION BASED ON THE OEDIPAL COMPLEX.

Subpoint B: (Lacan, Jacques. 1966. Ecrits: A selection. The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I)

We only have to understand the mirror stage as an identification, in the full sense that analysis gives the term: namely, the transformation that takes place in the subject when he assumes an image – whose predestination to this phase-effect is sufficiently indicated by the use, in analytic theory, of the ancient term imago. This jubilant assumption of his specular image by the child at the infans stage, still sunk in his motor incapacity and nursling dependence, would seem to exhibit in an exemplary situation the symbolic matrix in which the I is precipitated in a primordial form, before it is objectified in the dialectic of identification with the other, and before language restores to it, in the universal, its function as subject. This form would have to be called the Ideal-I, if we wished to incorporate it into our usual register, in the sense that it will also be the source of secondary identifications, under which term I would place the

functions of libidinal normalization. But the important point is that this form situates the agency of the ego, before its social determination, in a fictional direction, which will always remain irreducible for the individual alone, or rather which will only rejoin the coming-into-being

of the subject asymptotically, whatever the success of the dialectical syntheses by which he must resolve as I his discordance with his own reality.

Contention 3: Oedipalization has created led to the heterogeneity of society and microfascism

Subpoint A: (Leary, Timothy. 2001. “Your Brain is God”)

I was ovulated, fertilized, and born in the 20th century. I can't wipe out my whole personal background, or the fact that almost everyone I talk to today is brain-damaged by our education. I think American Education makes us hopeless symbol addicts. It's designed to produce docile automatons.

The religious experience is that ecstatic, jolting, wondrous, awe-struck, life-changing mind-boggling confrontation with one or all of the eight basic mysteries of existence. The goal of an intelligent life, according to socrates, is to pursue the philosophic quest – to increase one's knowledge of self and world. Now there is an important division of labor involved in the philosophic search. Religion, being personal and private, cannot produce answers to the eight basic questions.

Link – The oedipal complex being the means by which we achieve our identity, transcends all social convention. The failings of education and religion are in fact the failings of the oedipal complex; Society is the entrenchment of the self, created by the oedipal complex, through the means of dialectics1. Therefore, Oedipus has crippled us as a species and made us incapable of anything other than mediocrity and microfascism.Subpoint B: (Unknown. 600 BC. The Tao Te Chin)

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;When harmony is lost, there remains love;When love is lost, there remains justice;But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,The beginning of confusion;Belief is a colourful hope or fear,The beginning of folly.

The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

THUS, WHEN THERE IS A LACK OF HARMONY AND FLOWING IN OEDIPALIZED, CAPITALIST SOCIETY, AND THE LACK OF THE BODY WITHOUT ORGANS, ORDER AND CONVENTION COMES INTO PLAY CREATING MICROFASCISM IN ITS MOST EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.

Contention 4: De-Oedipalize; become the body without organs(Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. 1980. A Thousand Plateaus)

Why not walk on your head, sing with your sinuses, see through your skin, breathe with your belly: the simple Thing, the

Entity, the full Body, the stationary Voyage, Anorexia, cutaneous Vision, Yoga, Krishna, Love, Experimentation. Where psychoanalysis says, "Stop, find your self again," we should say instead, "Let's go further still, we haven't found our BwO yet, we haven't sufficiently dismantled our self." Substitute

forgetting for anamnesis, experimentation for interpretation. Find your body without organs. Find out how to make it. It's a question of life and death, youth and old age, sadness and joy. It is where everything is played out.

There is an essential difference between the psychoanalytic interpretation of the phantasy and the antipsychiatric experimentation of the program. Between the phantasy, an interpretation that must itself be interpreted, and the motor program of experimentation.5 The BwO is what remains when you take everything away. What you take away is precisely the phantasy, and signifiances and subjectifications as a whole. Psychoanalysis does the opposite: it translates everything into phantasies, it converts everything into phantasy, it retains the phantasy. It royally botches the real, because it botches the BwO.

Link: US Interests are an expression of man's social character, crystalized by dialectics and created by Oedipus. The consideration of the US interests in any kind of debate (such as this resolution) is an entrenchment of the oedipal complex and our furthering into microfacsism.

Clarification/answers, in chronological order

Clarification on C1:

The Oedipal Complex is best understood by means of linguistics rather than by sexual desire. The mother is the primary caregiver, and when the infant is first born, the infant lives in a world of only pleasure or pain. The infant associates the mother with good and the father (the big Other) with bad, for trying to take away attention from the mother on the infant. This process is crystalized in the dialectical process of Otherization. The Oedipal complex is often associated with a sexual desire for the mother because of a developing child's association with everything pleasurable with a juvenile sexual pleasure that is not understood and not easily repressed at such a young age. Individuals who do not undergo oedipalization in any way (it could be with a non-maternal source; such as the child with two father) end up not developing the proper ability to attach linguistic meaning because of a lack of self; the result is schizophrenia.

Clarification on C2:

The mirror stage is the process by which the infant is able to identify himself. It is called such because it is often associated with an infants ability to recognize itself in a mirror. The infant's first real mirror, the means by which an infant recognizes itself, is in the gaze of the mother. How the mother treats the Infant becomes the infant's basis for identity. “my mother doesn't love me; there must be something wrong with me” or “my mother loves me very much; I must be great”. Either way, or even a splice between the two, translates to the mother's association with the ideal-self and thus the oedipal complex.

Clarification on “Microfascism”

Microfascism is contrasted to macrofascism. Hitler is the macrofascist; Moussolinni is the macrofascist. The Third Reich itself, etc. The macrofascist is bigger than the self; microfascism, however, is the essential character of the self. It is the fascistic personalities and tendencies inherent in all oedipalized people and our necessity to seek order. To put it in the words of “Andrew Jackson Jihad”:

“But there's a bad man in everyoneNo matter who we areThere's a rapist and a Nazi living in our tiny heartsChild pornographers and cannibals, and politicians tooThere's someone in your head waiting to fucking strangle you”

Clarification on “Dialectics”/“otherization” (Hegel):

The crystallization of dialectic otherization(Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1807. “The Phenomenology of Spirit”)

Self-consciousness has before it another self-consciousness; it has come outside itself. This has a double significance. First it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as an other being; secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for it does not regard the other as essentially real, but sees its own self in the other. It must cancel this its other. To do so is the sublation of that first double meaning, and is therefore a second double meaning. First, it must set itself to sublate the other independent being, in order thereby to become certain of itself as true being, secondly, it thereupon proceeds to sublate its own self, for this other is itself. This sublation in a double sense of its otherness in a double sense is at the same time a return in a double sense into its self. For, firstly, through sublation, it gets back itself,

because it becomes one with itself again through the cancelling of its otherness; but secondly, it likewise gives otherness back again to the other self-consciousness, for it was aware of being in the other, it cancels this its own being in the other and thus lets the other again go free.

Clarification on “BwO”:

The BwO is unachievable. Its essence is that is must be attempted to actualize, but never can. This creates a process of becoming the BwO instead of being the BwO. Being is an expression of self while becoming is an expression of the lack of a self and incompleteness. The BwO is disordered.

(Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. 1980. A Thousand Plateaus)

Why not walk on your head, sing with your sinuses, see through your skin, breathe with your belly: the simple Thing, the Entity, the full Body, the stationary Voyage, Anorexia, cutaneous Vision, Yoga, Krishna, Love, Experimentation.