Between 1985 and 1994 the transmission didn't copy. We were as close to yet as far away from analysis of the Nazi phase of psychoanalysis (whether or not we had all already, by rights, completely passed through it). Even or especially the very juxtaposition of names - "Nazi Psychoanalysis" - has yet to make the preliminaries of metabolization or the standard reception. What neither sinks in nor swims along the surface of received history is a loss in clarity of boundaries, a loss that counts as traumatic (although the point of impact is not trauma as such but the onset of panic attack). In other words, we're not talking the happening kind of trauma that keeps on repeating itself in building up an anxiety defense (as in our ongoing relations with the Holocaust) but the kind that goes the roundabout route of repression and displacement or, in other words, doubles as origin of identification (which is always a way of being what one at the same time not sees). But the two kinds of trauma and trauma transmission seem co-implicated on the projection screens of resistance. It's as though the unambivalence and unmournability of our relations with the Holocaust required only one kind of boundary. Admission of "Nazi Psychoanalysis," as something new and something historical, demands interrogation or patrolling not only of differences between good and evil but also of the border tensions between therapeutic and political modes of correctness or between the intrapsychic and interpersonal takes on conflict.

Excerpt 2
Not right away, but increasingly, Freud could be referred to only by work, not by name or specific recognizable terms, and more as work of therapy than as that of theory. But while Freud's books were the toast of the 1933 book warmings, at the institute the same works were available to members right to the finish line. Freud's portrait, however, was removed in 1938 from the spot it was in across the hall from the Hitler portrait, which then stared on out into space without other until 1945. In 1936 Felix Boehm got it from highest authority that psychoanalysis, clearly a useful therapy, should negotiate a merger with the other psychotherapeutic groups. Boehm approached the Jungians first. But while the president of the Jung fan club, Eva Moritz, informed Boehm that financial concerns were making her hedge, behind that scene all bets were off, Jung assured her, regarding any close contact with the ambivalently targeted science. He was having the time of his life hating Freud.

A directive from on high planned that the new center of reunified German psychotherapy would build and draw on the facilities, resources, and experience of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. Up there psychoanalysis met with way less phobicity than what was coming at them from the former colleagues who worked for the competition psychodynamic therapies. No doubt it was the sense of the history of psychoanalysis that the authorities were backing that informs the memorandum or manifesto Boehm and Müller-Braunschweig collaborated on for the new era of compromise formations. They started out advertising psychoanalysis's excellent war record and, for the meantime, emphasized the ongoing efforts of psychoanalysis, as witnessed by the opening of the outpatient clinic with its sliding scale, to make the cure of whatever symptomatology got in the way of socialization (in the way, that is, of going to war) accessible not only down the ranks but, even in peacetime or right on time for a more total war, across class lines (Lockot 141). By 1944, with the end in military sights, the German Institute was receiving mega funding: the amount set aside for the therapy center, which had been doubled for 43/44, was doubled again for 44/45. Was it the end coming soon that was to be therapeutically assuaged and, rather than learned from, lessened through radical subventions. The patience (and patients) of Germany had already passed the test once, the test of long-awaiting the next turn, turn, of a time for war.

The therapy institute was considered basic to the prep work for warfare. Once war started the Institute was awarded the status of "important to the war effort." The Nazi peacetime effort had divided the therapeutic labor of the institute among three deep approaches in support of the war steadfastness of the Germans, soldiers and civilians alike: psychological warfare, frigidity or sterility in women, and male homosexuality that in its final tally counted one promotion and two cure-all efforts. The three-part program was reshuffled for hitting the deck with war on. Psychological warfare was still the number one promotional. Preparedness for war would now be addressed up close, in more direct terms, given the prospect of war neurosis, which the Institute would counter and contain with research on the best treatment methods and with a steady supply of specially trained military psychologists.

Excerpt 3
We already know going into this that Nazi research-happiness is legend. It's Nazi Germany's equal time share in modernism. The Nazis were engaged in the all-out pursuit of whatever research project was out there, as long as it could be billed as a war-effort promotional. But this proviso represents, within any history of modernism, no exceptional or additional constraint, if , indeed, it is any constraint at all. Wernher von Braun, for example, is not a stray, projected, single-case overlap covering Weimar, Nazi, and U.S. aerospace projects. In other words, a circuitous, discontinuous "Dialectic of Enlightenment" or "Case of California" is not the only way to test the endurance of Nazism in our own time. There's also the direct hit or fit of continuity. Because within the limits and links of the one consideration given the total war service, Nazi research also mobilized psychoanalysis, and that means: one of the most protected and progressive sources of "our" modernism. But on the wider range of a more eclectic or more reunified rapport with psychotherapy at large, it was the model of intrapsychic reality (in contrast, for example, to the one taken only interpersonally), the model we saw first with Freud, that was pressed by Nazi researchers into areas of scientific inquiry where no psychological model had gone before.

Nazi psychoanalysis is the place where a more complete range of Freud's theorems can be tracked beyond that ranging doubled and contained within the alleged compatibility between psychoanalysis and the sociopolitical administration of what's out there. When Chasseguet-Smirgel refused to dismiss Nazi psychoanalysis as the kind of contradiction in terms belonging only to the category of aberration and discontinuity, she was able to project theoretical consequences for the transference within greater psychoanalysis. But really every other fundamental concept of psychoanalysis must also line up for rereading within the missing continuity and context.

With a thank-you note up front it's time to zap the historians of the Nazi era of German psychotherapy out of the running commentary and controversy, with one parting shot. Gudrun Zapp's ground-breaking 1980 dissertation, which was not replaced, for example, at least not item by item, within the later Lockot history, falls back again on the words and names that keep on getting in the way. It's the patch of resistance Zapp documented so well earlier, and much to the credit of Schultz-Hencke's more convincing auto-contextualization. When she quotes Bumke as he crosses this patch, his reactivity slips and slides until it opens up, down to the wiring, the force of the reception of psychoanalysis that is with him. Bumke states "that psychoanalysis - even if its claims were correct ­ on account of its content would right away encounter under any conditions intense resistance, and that the intensity of this natural resistance in turn explains the very forms in which it is given to express itself" (Zapp 215). But in her own introduction, Zapp leaves behind these chips from her workshop which are however still on her shoulder when she counts out loud the degrees of relevance of her study: "not only for an appreciation of the longer-lasting effects of National Socialism on the position of psychoanalysis in Germany, but also and especially because the motives leading to rejection of psychoanalysis which have crystallized in the course of this work are in part still valid today. The ability to accept psychoanalytic results presupposes an unusual degree of self-criticism. The insights mediated by psychoanalysis represent in the first place a lowering of self esteem, only in the second step or stage can they be received as helpful. But this cannot of course be expected when the resistance to self-discovery can base itself on prejudices that are distributed generally throughout society. The rejection of psychoanalysis during the reign of National Socialism cannot be grasped simply, therefore, as a historical error, but rather as an event that can - in modified form - repeat itself" (Zapp 6). The contributions that the historical documentations of the decade before made to the excavation of this uncanny era are self-evident and, from now on, need no longer bear repeating. They fell for the curse of the secretly buried, before in turn being buried alive. In other words, their theorization fell short of the material, even and especially of the very insights that the Nazi compromise formations manage to articulate if only between the lines, always with the slip showing, or on some stage of acting out. Almost ten years after the Hamburg Congress, the representatives of New York and German psychoanalysis that were summoned to contemplate power surges in and around their science of the transference in the immediate aftermath of the reunification of the Germanys, did not address the docu-history on exhibition in the foyer, the 1985 souvenir, which thus remained out of earshot of the lecture hall. Passing references could be made in overview openers or, in one case study example, along for the transference. What passed for knowledge so current it could go right on without reading left an opening wide for the author of The Case of California. Your West Coast respondent went for full-time reintroduction of the missing era of Nazi psychoanalysis.

The diplomatic buoyancy of the 1994 Congress, which caught New York delegates coming out with the equal guilt of Americans for the genocide of the Indians, and thus the equal rights of protection (and projection) for the German colleagues too, was short attention span. When the Californian finished you could hear the vacuum-packing suck-sounds of repression seal the very place or span of audition. Afterwards, on the sidelines, members of the audience sided with the response, and estimated the value of the reintroduction, even with regard to the "savings" psychoanalysis received, on all the sides of both world conflicts, following from Freud's original encounter, the first time around, with the mass epidemic of war neurosis. But when the letter of the broadcast was later read by one of those single-file cheerleaders, the feeling that now had to be shared was that the Californian response was really into blaming, first Freud, then the Jews. But it is appropriate to our age that excavation projects of this tall order must flash back to Freud's publication of Moses and Monotheism which at the time of reception by the requiring mind of nonreaders was, simply, same time and station of a double cross that the Jews were made to bear. The charge of splitting or self-hatred always gets signed on the first line of defense taken up against uncanny work.

Excerpt 4
Within media-war contexts that keep coming complete with their own pop-psychological reception of just how to relate to gadgets (namely by following, from trauma to love, the beat of identification), anti-Semitism makes ghost appearances on the season finales of ancient history by taking a spin around the metabolism of modern psychological warfare, a spin cycle with its own recent and primal history. What the U.S. experts were soon referring to, in short hand, as "psy war" was the group-sized legacy of an internalization, technologization, metabolization of trauma that first stood to analytic attention case by case during the World War One outbreak of war neurosis. Just look at German Expressionist cinema, the sensurround of shell shock and unacknowledgable losses: where there's doubling, monstrosity, and other literal limits of "assimilation," of "becoming image," the Jewish cemetery (in The Student of Prague) or ghetto (in The Golem) can serve as backdrop for the final suicidal showdown.

The Jews were special featured in the Rorschach Blitz of German total wars from the start, but on a continuum with philo-Semitism, which was the look the projection or propaganda had during the First World War. Before General Ludendorff's 1935 secondary elaboration of the German loss of the war as the melting plot of Jews and Catholics, his first second thought, right after the war, was that the British really beat the Germans when they jumped the gun and stole the fire from German propaganda initiatives by authorizing Jewish colonization of Palestine (Lasswell, Propaganda Technique 176). The World War One phase of German propaganda or idealism can be tracked in the work of Hanns Heinz Ewers, whose overlaps with psychoanalysis began in 1913 when he wrote the screenplay for Stellan Rye's The Student of Prague, the cinematic breakthrough of doubling that Freud picked up on in studies of the uncanny and, in the first place, of war neurosis. Ewers's 1920 novel Vampir understands or follows the heart beat of the war, the lust for blood that the philo-Semitic alliance uniting Germans and Jews against the anti-Semitic nations, America and Russia, had brought to consciousness. Under this double cover Vampir also documents Ewers's own propaganda efforts on behalf of the German cause while landlocked inside the United States. The problematic blood bonding with vampirism was the line Ewers gave his public between the wars, which is when the novel appeared. But the portion that belongs to Ewers's stay in the States in 1915 gives evidence for a German propaganda move that protected, I mean projected, the Jews. That Ewers later befriended Hitler, who commissioned Ewers to write the hit novel Horst Wessel, belongs to a metabolism of projection that isn't only historicizable within vaster eras of intolerance. What changes with World War One, with the German defeat in World War One, is a change of art, of the art of war: the German military complex was now convinced that war would henceforward be won or lost only on group-psychological grounds. While observing the German cutting of losses in preparation for the Second Coming of world war Frankfurt School theorists recognized a specular reversal or disconnection between the psychoanalytic discourse and the culture of its resistance. In the German psy war, the live transmissions of psychological warfare were beginning to choose and pick up their frequencies where the more transferential work of propaganda had left off getting us off.

Anticipating or projecting more double take, talk, think along the lines of resistance I have already tripped up and over, a preemptive warning label might fit in here: this genealogical recontextualization of phantasm delegations and their institutional relays is not about laying the blame on Freud (or, better yet, on the Jews). Nor do I subscribe to any of the brands of new historicism, whether the German revisionist kind or the kinder and gentler version practiced in U.S. English departments. It might be more to the point to reconsider Freud's early model of the transference neurosis in the contexts I am excavating or deconstructing as the emergency of a side effect of treatment that at the same time inoculatively gets the psyche reorganized for the cure. At this discursive or institutional intersection the transference neurosis that my analysis-in-progress would construct covers contamination by and containment of the aberrant discontinuities and reactions that continue to give rise to the Nazi regime, the regimen to this day of "not seeing" the continuity that was there. Only the reconstruction of a "Nazi Psychoanalysis" can lead to a resettlement of symptoms within the suffer zone of a future cure. In addition, then, to the application of psychoanalysis to those symptomatic returns of a Nazi past that keep coming under the category of aberration and discontinuity, I have proposed staying with the direct connection between one of the most protected and progressive sources of our modernism and the outbreak of National Socialism, the connection lying therefore within the institution, discourse, and history of what I'm calling greater psychoanalysis but which precisely cannot be separated from psychoanalysis "itself."