Even on their own doorstep (or in their own lifts) False Allegations exist. To nobody's surprise. They get confused, mistaken, exaggerate, have false memories, want money, sell media stories - so many reasons to make things up.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-38316252?ocid=social...mp;ns_source=twitter

That poor 'victim' of that depraved man hunger to hurl himself himself in to that lif on a pre planned attack on his computer was a selfies of him in another lift (London eye) which proof this attack had been coming for a long time.

You will be believed!
This man has had a lucky escape take this back a couple of years and the guilty verdict would of so easily slammed the big iron door in his face.

You couldn't make it up,,, OH YES YOU CAN, he's behind you.

Surely it has now crossed the line and people must, must, MUST be aware that some allegations are totally true, some are totally false but the vast majority are inaccurate, mistaken, confused or exaggerated for reasons of mental instability or greed or memory flaws or media influence or helpful police contribution - but that this extraordinary, absurd witch hunt has to stop? One would think that the NHS Savile reports would have killed off the madness but no (nobody had time or inclination to read them). But now we have the football coach insanity costing us all an absolute fortune and occupying police time better used elsewhere (stopping terrorist strikes; saving migrant lives; preventing fresh sex abuse).

It seems to me that the only discipline able to account for why the UK’s paedophile psychosis has proven so indestructible for so long is psychoanalysis. The Henriques report, the NHS Savile reports and so on can’t kill it because they’re appealing solely to fact and reason. The paedophile psychosis appeals to something totally different: enjoyment.

I’m sorry I keep prattling on about psychoanalysis at such length, but I have yet to find a more perspicuous analysis of why otherwise level-headed people end up eagerly lapping up crazy, hallucinatory accusations of the most lurid kind.

In psychoanalysis, enjoyment most certainly doesn’t mean “pleasure.” Pleasure has limits and a relatively narrow bandwidth: too much of something nice rapidly becomes unpleasurable. Too little is equally unpleasurable because it's unsatisfying. It’s a kind of Goldilocks phenomenon: the pleasurable 'something' has to be just right – not too much, not too little.

Enjoyment (which is the inadequate but only translation of the French term “jouissance”) is very different. Whereas pleasure attracts, enjoyment drives. And it can drive people beyond the safety limits of pleasure, which is why Freud titled one of his most important works “Beyond the Pleasure Principle.”

He’d discovered this drivenness in patients who seemed addicted to their torment, who seemed to actively prefer endless anguish and misery to happiness; patients who not only refused to relinquish their grievances years and years after they’d originally developed, but actively repeated the pain deriving from seminal but long distant events, over and over again. Enlightening them about the origins of their suffering had no ameliorative effects whatsoever.

Freud believed they were getting something hugely important out of being ‘ill,’ something that psychotherapy was overlooking: the deliriously irrational, self-destructive but addictively exhilarating thrill of enjoyment (a condition was most rigorously explored by Freud’s most important and, arguably, most brilliant successor, Jacques Lacan). Enjoyment, when we allow it free reign, shatters the distinctions between pleasure and pain, and leads us to derive a crazy kind of pleasure-in-pain.

Most of us intuitively know there’s something potentially crazy in all of us, and we seek to regulate this inherently excessive enjoyment by observing various laws, customs and conventions so that we don’t allow ourselves to be engulfed by it (Lacan described it very vividly: it “begins with a tickle but ends in a blaze of petrol”).

And here’s where the problems begin. A life utterly devoid of jouissance/enjoyment is an empty, joyless drudgery. We try to get close enough to whatever it is that ignites our personal forms of jouissance to feel the thrill, but not so close that it drives us onto a path that we may never get off once we’re on it and can only end in self-destruction. We want the tickle, not the blaze of petrol.

But while we’re following our rules and conventions, we’re on the lookout for people who seem to have avoided the sacrifice of full-on enjoyment what we believe we’ve made. And when we find them, or have them presented to us, we tend to resent them. Deeply.

At the risk of sounding like Basil Fawlty, this is exactly how Nazi Germany started: the Nazis portrayed the Jews as obscene, secretive beings who were deriving limitless enjoyment from their obscure rituals and from subverting and polluting Aryan racial ‘purity’. This “Jew” was an entirely imaginary construct peddled mercilessly by Nazi ideologues.

The relentlessly peddled “paedo” of victim culture occupies, it seems to me, exactly the same structural position: a figure of caliginous evil ruthlessly and rapaciously enjoying the pure bodies of children and youths without a shred of pity or compassion. And because victim culture has so ceaselessly encouraged the mass paedo-obsession our culture is now afflicted by, this imaginary figure appears plausible to many – because deep within themselves, at a disavowed level, they can imagine similar forms of rapacious enjoyment.

“Get the paedos!” often means either “Let’s pin our unwanted and dangerous desires on a scapegoat!”or “Let’s get drunk on the horrific enjoyment we attribute to those we call ‘perverts' by ruthlessly destroying a scapegoat!” Any morality based on either of these is malignant; any morality based on both is pure obscenity.

Flamboyantly expressed disgust, from a psychoanalytic point of view, is a deeply implausible alibi because disgust, all too often, bears the imprint of the very desire it appears to be repudiating.

One publicly acceptable way of accessing this dangerous, disavowed paedophilic desire is by lapping up the most lurid and improbable media-fanned child abuse scandal stories, typically purveyed in the absence of any credible corroboratory evidence. I think these stories function as a form of publicly acceptable pornography: misery porn. They permit the extraction of obscene enjoyment beneath a veneer of piety and revulsion.

This dangerous and destructive enjoyment, in short derives from obedience to a dominant (but deeply perverse) ideological narrative about children and paedophilic rape which pits an icon of evil against an icon of imperilled purity and innocence.

The key to any progress, any release from this malignant madness, I believe, resides not only in exposing the more deranged claims of the False Accusations/Child Salvationist industry as bunkum through relentless fact-checking and hard evidence, but in fostering a form of enjoyment that derives from disobeying, or at least remaining sceptical about, sweeping dominant fictions of evil predators and defenceless.

As another Brian posts here, from now on I’ll announce myself as Brian R (Brian Rothery) unless JK allows me to re-register as Brian R.

OK Pete, once again you’ve given me a headache.

As distinct from pleasure, we have Jouissance, which from your descriptions is very difficult for me to understand.

Jouissance has a sexual element. Or basis?

How does it relate to untranslatable schadenfreude for which there is no word in the English language? Pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune. Not necessarily sexual.

Is Jouissance a part of overall schadenfreude? Sexual version?

Elsewhere you clearly refer to the workings of the Superego. Obtaining obscene/sadistic pleasure from both breaking one’s own official rules and making your victims suffer - social workers and soldiers in Abu Ghraib. Petty Stasi type officials.

You also clearly explain disavowal and projection – it’s not me harbouring these disgusting fantasies but you the pedo.

All of the above are fully understandable to me except Jouissance

What exactly is jouissance? And I think that Enjoyment has to go as it appears inadequate to describe what you intend.

I could go on using your own excellent writings but I need a stiff drink.

Sorry about the headache, Brian, and I hope you took pleasure from your stiff drink rather than the jouissance-drenched ‘enjoyment’ I was trying to articulate; if it was the latter, you may be snoring beside a couple of empty bottles of single malt right now, rather than relaxing beside a small empty tumbler (I can picture you in the latter scene, I hasten to add, but not the former)

I think part of the reason why ‘jouissance’ is so difficult to put into meaningful words is that it arises in what Lacan referred as “the Real” – that dimension of our lives that radically resists translation into words. The words we use to describe ourselves and others always fail, they always leave something out. It’s this remainder that can’t be domesticated or tamed by language that psychoanalysts refer to as ‘jouissance’ when it’s associated with our bodily sensations (“neurophysiological arousal” in the parlance of contemporary neuroscience, “drive” in Freudian language).

And yes, these forms of bodily arousal can be recruited into the human erotic system, even though they may actually be painful; orgasm provides a transient release. I can only inadequately describe it as a form of destructive exhilaration that pays no heed to safety limits, a tension that seeks some form of orgiastic release.

Schadenfreude isn’t quite the same thing; schadenfreude can make sense. It may not be pleasant, but neither is it entirely incomprehensible for someone to derive secret pleasure in a rival’s misfortune, or to nurse envious resentment at his or her success (as Gore Vidal once put it, “Every time a friend succeeds, something inside me dies.”)

Jouissance is its own peculiar reward, and is quite capable of propelling someone to their own figurative or literal death when allowed free reign. Jouissance is at work when someone spends years making repeat suicide attempts, or refusing to eat until they become so ill that their blood electrolytes go haywire and threaten to stop their heart, or when someone regularly downs a litre of Vodka before lunchtime, and so on.

I agree that ‘enjoyment’ is an inadequate term, because in the Anglophone world it carries connotations of simple pleasure, which it most certainly isn’t when it kicks in in full force. For English-speaking psychoanalysts, it’s the closest word in the Anglophone lexicon to jouissance, but it means something different in psychoanalysis to its conventional meaning: pleasure can be open and simple, whereas enjoyment (in psychoanalysis) always implies something obscene, something darkly secretive.

Yet because we’re linguistic creatures, animals who speak, we’re all haunted by this elusive remainder that resists taming by words (we often feel at least partially pacified when we’ve been able to put a disturbing experience into words). The best we can achieve is a relationship to it that maintains a safe distance: too close, and that litre of Vodka beckons, or the self-made noose over the hall bannister. Too far away, and life feels empty and futile.

One small clue that we’re engaging with a jouissance-inducing experience: simple pleasures are normally experienced as just that – pleasurable – from the first moment (a slice of strawberry cake, an ice-cold lemonade on a hot summer’s day, etc.) But jouissance-experiences typically induce an initial recoil - that first ever taste of whisky, or that first ever drag on a cigarette, for example. And yet … there was something there that made us come back for more, and more, and more.

Observing laws and rules is one way of parcelling up this enigmatic force into safe little chunks. But it has insidious ways around our efforts at self-protection: it can contaminate supposedly law-bound practises and agencies. I’ll cite political correctness as an example: in their efforts to police everything that might cause someone, somewhere, ‘offence’, its advocates can barely conceal their exhilarated glee when they accuse someone of violating one its innumerable interdictions; “RACIST!” “SEXIST!” "ISLAMOPHOBE!" This betrays an obscene excess in the hearts of those who think they have a duty to prevent obscenity.

Or take the cop who, with his colleagues, decides that the written law isn’t strong enough to deter criminals, and so intimidates an actually innocent defendant with the prospect of terrible terms of imprisonment: plead guilty to this accusation and go to prison (or pay your accusers off), or we’ll hit you with these vastly more serious accusations (although we won’t tell you at this stage that the evidence we have is minimal to non-existent and certainly wouldn’t stand up for a moment in court).

From a psychoanalytic point of view, enjoyment, as distinct from pleasure, is excessive (usually recklessly so), insatiable, compulsive, often cruel and always obscene – but obscene in the psychoanalytic sense.

In psychoanalysis, nudity isn’t obscene (although it may be inappropriate if it occurs during Prime Minister’s Questions or in the middle of the local Waitrose).

Obscenity arises when a written law or an ethical code is secretly broken in the name of that law or ethical code.

Here is an example of jouissance-enjoyment that appears to me to be a disturbingly accurate portrayal of our crazy Child Abuse Inquisition that, tellingly, appears to have no limits: