I'd like to add some discussion to the piece on Tony Blair, who like Bush, seemed to believe what he was doing was out of good Christian morality to wipe out "evil" in the middle east. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/185048-Clinically-insane-Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil has the comment:
I've been reading G.M. Gilbert's book The Psychology of Dictatorship. Gilbert was one of the psychiatrists for the Nuremberg war criminals, and the book, which was published in 1950, was the culmination of his research into the Nazis themselves, with whom he interacted on a daily basis for a year, and his subsequent theorizing and analysis of history and other sources. He makes some very interesting points, from a ponerological point of view. He identifies several groups at work in a revolutionary movement: the fanatics, idealists, opportunists, militarists, and groups with common interests.
He makes several observations. The group naturally selected for high intelligence (all except Streicher scored above average on IQ, Goering with an IQ of 138), but like Lobaczewki mentioned, they didn't show any evidence of the highest, creative, intelligence, or of any moral strength. Paranoids and schizoids were overrepresented in the group, and Goering was the only psychopath he identified (note, I'm not finished the book, so this may be an incorrect assumption on my part). He observers that in such a group, chances are that there's only room for one full-blown aggressive psychopath, because of the infighting and power struggles that inevitably arise with such individuals. (He didn't include Bormann in his analysis, who is also likely a psychopath, but it's also likely that there was an intense power struggle between Georing and Bormann for control of influence on Hitler.) Most of the subordinates are weak-willed, dependent individuals with special talents in areas like propaganda, economics, administration, etc. (i.e. where psychopaths would get bored and not excel). The ideology and the power of the group give them freedom of expression of their twisted drives and desires. I'd guess that this dynamic repeats at each level, such that each psychopath manipulates a larger group of others.
But the point he makes is that most of the followers, even in the high up ranks, truly BELIEVE the ideology. While Goering was an opportunist, Hitler and others were fanatics. So in relation to the articles about Bush and Blair, I'd say that it's possible they truly believe it. Perhaps they've even been given "confirmation" of one sort or another (take Hitler's "visions" for example, and you catch my drift). Psychopaths both take advantage of the beliefs, and actively foster them.
I've been reading G.M. Gilbert's book The Psychology of Dictatorship. Gilbert was one of the psychiatrists for the Nuremberg war criminals, and the book, which was published in 1950, was the culmination of his research into the Nazis themselves, with whom he interacted on a daily basis for a year, and his subsequent theorizing and analysis of history and other sources. He makes some very interesting points, from a ponerological point of view. He identifies several groups at work in a revolutionary movement: the fanatics, idealists, opportunists, militarists, and groups with common interests.
He makes several observations. The group naturally selected for high intelligence (all except Streicher scored above average on IQ, Goering with an IQ of 138), but like Lobaczewki mentioned, they didn't show any evidence of the highest, creative, intelligence, or of any moral strength. Paranoids and schizoids were overrepresented in the group, and Goering was the only psychopath he identified (note, I'm not finished the book, so this may be an incorrect assumption on my part). He observers that in such a group, chances are that there's only room for one full-blown aggressive psychopath, because of the infighting and power struggles that inevitably arise with such individuals. (He didn't include Bormann in his analysis, who is also likely a psychopath, but it's also likely that there was an intense power struggle between Georing and Bormann for control of influence on Hitler.) Most of the subordinates are weak-willed, dependent individuals with special talents in areas like propaganda, economics, administration, etc. (i.e. where psychopaths would get bored and not excel). The ideology and the power of the group give them freedom of expression of their twisted drives and desires. I'd guess that this dynamic repeats at each level, such that each psychopath manipulates a larger group of others.
But the point he makes is that most of the followers, even in the high up ranks, truly BELIEVE the ideology. While Goering was an opportunist, Hitler and others were fanatics. So in relation to the articles about Bush and Blair, I'd say that it's possible they truly believe it. Perhaps they've even been given "confirmation" of one sort or another (take Hitler's "visions" for example, and you catch my drift). Psychopaths both take advantage of the beliefs, and actively foster them.
