Why is it impossible to play cards with young boys? – Because they will cheat. Why will they cheat? – Because they desperately want to win. They know that they are weaker than the adult males, so they are impatient to prove that they can be much stronger.


 To want something desperately means to want it by any price.  Here comes cheating.  And at this point it really doesn’t matter if you won dishonestly and, therefore, didn’t win at all. The appearance of winning has swallowed the fact of loosing.  Appearance swallowed the essence. Action movies’ fighting gestures look much more real than effective blows.  Victory is performance. In comparison with the fact of victory – its “mechanism”, “how it was achieved” is just a matter of technicality.  Reduced to the technicality truth is dissolved in the radiance of victory, between the giant red lips of the Babylon Whore.


The question of victory/defeat and winning/loosing is in human history connected with the question of life/death and freedom/slavery, with the situation of hunting/being hunted and with the social nature of our individual destinies. It made this performative aspect of competition/rivalry so exaggeratedly marked in our psyche. What is important is the fact that “I” won (orally or sexually satiated, alive, free, in control, loved, worshipped), not how “I” achieved triumph. Victory always implies its own authenticity. To claim genuineness is victory’s prerogative.


To become psychologically adult, to play by the rules, to respect others –weakens our yearning for winning and spoils our narcissism.  To become interested in other things instead of victories is almost impossible for the creatures of our species.  Many people stay boys in their old age.


Bush (BJr) wanted to win desperately and over-big. What Afghanistan’s sand and rocks could do for him? He shifted the war with al Qaida to war in Iraq – for Bushmerican commanders to win a conventional war over a weak country, and for Bushmerican oil-porations (oil-corporations) to get cheatingly-cheap oil for many years ahead was the chance to pump their self-image up, to demonstrate to the world that “we” are the richest and the strongest than all, and to boost the flagriotic morale among the pop-pulation (population with pop-public opinions). BJr is a cheater-in-chief. Big cheaters cheat on a large scale, in fact, globally.      


The main reason for BJr’s cheating was to prove to himself that he is able to do big things: to act globalistically, to have his own initiative instead simply responding to the enemy’s actions, to kill massively, to torture with impunity and to squeeze super-profit from the planetary resources “formally” belonging to other nations. Boys are too young to be sure of themselves. From this natural inferiority complex comes a desperate unconscious desire to prove to the whole world that they are not worse, in fact, that they are better than adult males.  After 9/11 an adult president would go after the Middle East’s terrorist organizations, but for BJr’s intuition this, probably, would mean to follow the terrorists’ initiative.  Who says we must fight those who attacked us if a much easier and a much richer target is available for our cannons and pockets? It is humiliating for boys to follow – they want to have their own game.


Cheating is a sport without limitations. A lost war can be easily named as a war that is won. In complicated situations it becomes a matter of interpretation.  Expertly analyses can be used as cheating’s tuxedos and bowties. If you cannot win, you can make the situation look so complicated that it will not be easy to understand you won or lost. The endless prolongation of war is one tactical move belonging to the strategy of dressing war up.


During eight Bushmerican years the whole country and the world were forced to play cards with the teams of young boys: Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein,  BJr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, war propagandists, torture lawyers and torture specialists, CEOs and profiteering advisers responsible for financial collapse that began in October 2008, etc. Boys don’t simply like to compete and fight. They compete and fight to prove that they are actually capable of doing it (because they are really not sure that they can). BJr needs wars to prove that he is able to fight and loves it. People like Cheney don’t just like to make profit according to the existing rules and logic. They want to make profit on their own conditions, by their own extraordinary “creative” efforts. The invention of dangerous events is a much stronger proof that you are not afraid and that you are a real master.


Only global wars or global financial risks that “I” “myself” initiate are a radical proof that “I” am not afraid of anything and that “I” am on top of the game. In this sense financial collapse is the economic equivalent of Iraq war, and banks’ bad loaning is the equivalent of deployment of torture. Only the riskiest and the boldest military and financial operations can prove that “I” am the Einstein of military strategy or profit making.


   These three photos of BJr as a child can give us a hint about his emotional trauma and a psychological complex formed by it.

We see how strained, even worried his gaze is, as if he expects trouble from what he sees – from the adults. There is no fear in his gaze – what he expects is not perceived by him as a physical menace but rather as a mental danger. He looks as though he is psychologically burdened by being assessed by adults and judged by them. He even perceives a simple act of taking pictures as an act of such judgment that his gaze tries, without him being conscious of it, to ward off. In two of the pictures he looks at the             photographer as though the latter is miles away and not just standing near by.

Could from this psychological distantiation from the gaze of judging adult come

             his future global strategic ambition?

              To appreciate the contrast, look how relaxed and positive Barack Obama

              is as a child.  



Compare the two father-son pictures: the Bushes and the Obamas. Describe the difference.