independent cannons

i’m reading “jokes” by freud, where i came to this part:

I will begin with the most forcible and at the same time the plainest example of the whole group. Once again it is a Jewish joke:

Itzig had been declared fit for service in the artillery. He was clearly an intelligent lad, but intractable and without any interest in the service. One of his superior officers, who was friendlily disposed to him, took him on one side and said to him:
— Itzig, you’re no use to us. I’II give you a piece of advice: buy yourself a cannon and make yourself independent!

This advice, which may raise a hearty laugh, is obvious nonsense. Cannons are not to be bought and an individual cannot make himself independent as a military unit – set himself up in business, as it were. But it is impossible to doubt for a moment that the advice is not mere nonsense but joking nonsense – an excellent joke. How then is the nonsense turned into a joke?

Not much reflection is needed. We can infer from the authorities’ comments indicated above in the introduction that there is sense behind joking nonsense such as this, and that it is this sense that makes the nonsense into a joke. The sense in our example is easy to find. The officer who gives Artilleryman Itzig this nonsensical advice is only making himself out stupid to show Itzig how stupidly he himself is be having. He is copying Itzig: “I’ll give you some advice that’s as stupid as you are.” He enters into Itzig’s stupidity and makes it clear to him by taking it as the basis of a suggestion which would fit in with Itzig’s wishes: if Itzig possessed a cannon of his own and carried out military duties on his own account, how useful his intelligence and ambition would be to him! In what good order he would keep his cannon and how familiar he would make himself with its mechanism so as to meet the competition of the other possessors of cannons!

Sigmund Freud 1905 Jokes and Their Relation to The Unconscious

“independent cannons” of Kobanê:

^^^ correction to the article: She should have said “guerilla” instead of “peshmerga”. Because “guerilla” refers to PYD (Muslim) that fights ISIS in Syria with these tanks, sacrificing themselves to protect civilians; whereas “peshmerga” refers to PDK (Barzani) that owns a proto-state in Iraq, does not fight even escapes ISIS, abandoning civilians, and also allies with the ruling party of Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan, who not-so-covertly supports ISIS against PYD (relations between ISIS and Turkish army have become evident, although it’s only reflected in the leftist media of turkey), and the Turkish President entered the anti-ISIS coalition —at the last moment— only in condition that the coalition does not help PYD, in condition that they don’t bomb the siegers of Kobanê, solely against PYD and the kurdish revolutionary initiative of Rojava (it’s because PYD of western kurds shares the ideology and leadership of PKK of northern kurds, who fought against Turkish army since the 90s, though in a ceasefire now). The author of this article by not distinguishing between “guerilla” and “peshmerga” obviously thinks “kurds are kurds”, which is the totology that underlies the nation-state paradigm of the last century.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s