Because everyone is responsible for the views of their grandfathers?
Your questioning is indeed on track.
'So it is that psychoanalysis has much difficulty extracting itself from an infinite regression: the father must have been a child, but was able to be one only in relation to a father, who was himself a child, in relation to another father.'
(Anti_Oedipus, p. 274)
Musk's desire to control is the symptom we'll schizoanalyze. It resonates with paranoia.
'If we are able to define this difference as that which separates paranoia and schizophrenia, it is because on the one hand we have distinguished the schizophrenic process ("the breakthrough") from accidents and relapses that hinder or interrupt kit ("the breakdown"), and because on the other hand we have posited paranoia no less than schizophrenia as independent of all familial pseudo etiologies, so as to make them bear directly upon the social field: every name in history, and not the name of the father.'
(AO, p. 276)
Shortly thereafter, a substantial clue manifests:
'Why these words, paranoia and schizophrenia, which are like talking birds and girls' first names? Why do social investments follow this diving line that gives them a specifically delirious content (recreating history in delirium)? And what is this line, how can we situate schizophrenia and paranoia on either side of it?
....
Elias Canetti has clearly shown how the paranoiac organizes masses and "packs." The paranoiac opposes them to one another, maneuvers them.* The paranoiac engineers masses, he is the artist of the large molar aggregates, the statistical formations or gregariousnesses, the phenomena of organized crowds. He invests everything that falls within the province of large numbers.
*Elias Canetti, Crowds and Power (New York: Viking Press, 1960), p. 434: "His mind was dominated by four kinds of crowds: his army, his treasure, his corpses and his court (and, with it, his capital). He juggled with them ceaselessly, but only succeeded in increasing one at the expense of another....Whatever he did there was always (one [italics]) crowd he managed to preserve. In no circumstances did he ever cease to kill....The heaps of corpses piled up in every province of his empire." '
(AO, p. 279)
Musk's most recent fascism and mass killings are non-members of Twitter who are prevented from reading current posts of Twitterists. It would not have been so salient had it occurred (after [italics]) the 2024 elections.
theatlantic.com
