Ponerology in Action: Claiming Political Ponerology is Anti-Semitic

[Laura]

So, you are saying Hitler was squeaky clean? He just wanted to "get rid of undesirable elements" as in ship them to Africa or something and it was all those nasty Zionists who did the Holocaust? Is that what you are implying?

 

[Buddy]

That there were pro-Zionist elements within the NSDAP, there is no doubt about that : it's called infiltration.

There's no telling what all a person could have found by surveying the NSDAP in that period. The average age of the members was 31 years old.1

None of these works you quote mention A. Hitler's letters to Zionist mogols, in which he categorically refused to even discuss the matter with them or even to meet them. Nevertheless, as time went by, he had to compromise, in order to find a way to settle down the Jewish question for good.

I personally don't think any letters are important. Just because Jews weren't the first victims of the death camps, doesn't mean that Hitler had to be convinced to go Holocaust on the Jews.2 The historical record is clear: Hitler was psychologically twisted, and blamed Jews for just about everything that he saw wrong.3

Hope this doesn't distract from the discussion.


Citations
--------------------------------------------------------------

[1]
One of the most popular theories was that the Nazi party was driven by an influx of youth who remember suffering hunger from the allied embargo years.
This psychological study was based upon a developmental event in the early lives of Germans that is given some credulity by historians: the "Nazi Youth Cohort" thesis of Peter Loewenberg. This study claims that "the rapid political ascendance of the Nazi party (NSDAP) in the period from 1928 to 1933 was marked by a particularly strong support from youth" who were deprived of food during the 1917-1919 Allied embargo.1 Citing low German birth weights and excess infant mortality during the period, Loewenberg feels this "single traumatic event" accounts for "the influx of German youth to the ranks of National Socialism, the political decline of the Weimar Republic, and the Nazi seizure of power."2 The problem with this thesis is the figures don't add up. While Loewenberg cites the census of 1933 as showing 31 percent of Germans were "youthful," these figures in fact were for those 18 to 30 years of age.3 Children born in 1917-18 were actually only 11-12 years of age in 1929 when the Nazis received their most uncoerced votes. Even those up to 5 years of age during the embargo years would still be from 12-17 in 1929, too young to join the Nazi party. And in fact most German youth didn't join the Hitler Youth, which managed to attract only one percent of the young people belonging to religious and political youth organizations in 1932.4 Therefore, the WWI famine, however severe, cannot be a main cause of the Nazi takeover,5 since the average age of membership of the Nazi party was in fact over 31 years.6

References:

1. "The Psychohistorical Origins of the Nazi Youth Cohort." In Peter Loewenberg, Decoding the Past: The Psychohistorical Approach. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1996, pp. 240-283.

2. Ibid., p. 249.

3. Ibid., p. 251.

4. Bernt Engelmann, In Hitler’s Germany: Everyday Life in the Third Reich. New York: Schocken Books, 1986, p. 44.

5. Ibid., p. 253.

6. Hans Mommsen, The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989,, p. 351.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2]
Careful historical studies showed Germany was "a safe haven in late-nineteenth-century Europe [where] when German Jews looked toward France, they saw the startling antisemitism unleashed by the Dreyfus Affair and when they looked eastward, they saw pogroms and thousands of Jews fleeing toward Germany's safer political climate."1 The reason "why so many Jews failed to leave Germany [was] they really couldn't believe that this Germany, which they loved [and] felt gratitude toward" would ever harm them.2 In fact, earlier antisemitic movements in Germany were tiny, and "most historians believe that the Nazis had no deep roots in German history and that antisemitism in Germany was not essentially different from that of some other nations..."3 Careful studies of Nazi party members have even found that most were not antisemitic when they joined; "most people were drawn to antisemitism because they were drawn to Nazism, not the other way around."4 Kershaw's recent careful studies conclude "that antisemitism was not a major factor in attracting support for Hitler..."5


Death Camps

The earliest death camps, in fact, were set up to kill children who were useless eaters, the same term applied to the Germans themselves by their parents when they were children at the turn of the century. Long before the Holocaust of Jews began, medical officers sent questionnaires to parents and guardians of children in mental hospitals and homes for delinquent children, asking them if they would give their consent to killing them. So powerful was the unconscious group-fantasy at that time that "bad" children were polluting the German nation that most parents and guardians agreed to the killing of their "useless children."6

The doctors, including pediatricians, spontaneously set up a Reich Committee "to exterminate ‘undesirable' children, which drew up standards that read exactly like the child care manuals at the end of the nineteenth century, asking whether the child had been "late in being toilet trained" or had used "dirty words" or were "slow learners;" if they were, they were exterminated in gas chambers and crematorium ovens.7
Over 70,000 of these "useless eaters" were murdered by doctors to "cleanse the German national body"8 before the war began.9 So proud were these doctors of their murder of "bad children" that they actually made a popular film of the killings, which was shown in theaters.10 At the same time, throughout Germany, "midwives and nurses were instructed to report births of defective infants...including ‘racially undesirable' ones...Thousands were killed by injection or deliberate starvation."11

Jewish annihilation plans only came later, actually during the summer months of 1941 when, "convinced that the military campaign was nearly over and victory was at hand, an elated Hitler gave the signal to carry out [the] racial ‘cleansing' [of the Jews.]"12
Initially, for many years, Jews were to be resettled, part of Hitler's "grandiose program of population transfers"13 --90 percent of which were ethnic Germans and others and only 10 percent were Jews--a "massive upheaval of humanity"14 that restaged upon five million people 15 the experiences of having to leave home endured during childhood by most Germans as their parents endlessly moved them around to wetnurses, relatives, schools and work sites.

In 1940 Hitler and Himmler had rejected the "physical extermination of a people out of inner conviction as un-German and impossible."16 It was only by the summer of 1941, in victory and afraid of running out of Bad Boys to kill in the East, that Hitler would approve of "the mass murder of all European Jews...in the form of deportation to death camps equipped with poison gas facilities"17 like those used for murdering the 70,000 German children killed earlier.

Christopher Browning points to mania and success as the source of the Holocaust when he concludes, "Hitler [only] opted for the Final Solution in the ‘euphoria of victory' of midsummer 1941."18 Jews were the ultimate Bad Boys, symbols of liberalism, freedom and prosperity in the stock market, and so finally must be totally eliminated for Germans to return to the "pure" authoritarian family atmosphere of 1900 where only Good Boys survived.


References:

1. Marion A. Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 13.

2. Ron Rosenbau, Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil. New York: Random House, 1998, p. 335.

3. John Weiss, Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1991, p. vii.

4. Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Attalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Collins, 1998, p. 199.

5. Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck, The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 240.

6. Götz Aly et al., Cleansing the Fatherland: Nazi Medicine and Racial Hygiene. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, pp. 29-55.

7. Ibid., pp. 55, 188-189; Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995, pp. 39-61.

8. Götz Aly, ‘Final Solution’: Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews. Dondon: Arnold, 1999, p. 30.

9. Götz Aly et al.., Cleansing the Fatherland, p. 46.

10. Ibid., p. 27.

11. George Victor, Hitler: The Pathology of Evil. Washington: Brassey’s, 1998, p. 171.

12. Christopher R. Browning, The Path to Genocide: Essays on Launching the Final Solution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 111.

13. Ibid., p. 9.

14. Ibid., p. 20.

15. Götz Aly, ‘Final Solution’: Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews. London: Arnold, 1999, p. 7.

16. Christopher R. Browning, The Path to Genocide, p. 25.

17. Ibid.

18. Eberhard Jäckel, "The Holocaust: Where We Are, Where We Need to Go." In Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck, Eds., The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 25.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3]
When Adolf Hitler moved to Vienna in 1907 at the age of eighteen, he reported in Mein Kampf, he haunted the prostitutes' district, fuming at the "Jews and foreigners" who directed the "revolting vice traffic" which "defiled our inexperienced young blond girls" and injected "poison" into the bloodstream of Germany.1

Months before this blood poison delusion was formed, Hitler had the only romantic infatuation of his youth, with a young girl, Stefanie.2 Hitler imagined that Stefanie was in love with him (although in reality she had never met him) and thought he could communicate with her via mental telepathy. He was so afraid of approaching her that he made plans to kidnap her and then murder her and commit suicide in order to join with her in death.

Hitler's childhood had been so abusive-his father regularly beat him "with a hippopotamus whip," once enduring 230 blows of his father's cane and another time nearly killed by his father's whipping3 that he was full of rage toward the world. When he grew up, his sexual feelings were so mixed up with his revenge fantasies that he believed his sperm was poisonous and might enter the woman's bloodstream during sexual intercourse and poison her.4

Hitler's rage against "Jewish blood-poisoners" was, therefore, a projection of his own fears that he might become a blood-poisoner. Faced with the temptation of the more permissive sexuality of Vienna, he wanted to have sex with women, but was afraid his sperm would poison their blood. He then projected his own sexual desires into Jews- "The black-haired Jewboy lies in wait for hours, satanic joy in his face, for the unsuspecting girl"5 and ended up accusing Jews of being "world blood-poisoners" who "introduced foreign blood into our people's body."6

As is usually the case with delusional systems, Hitler's projection of his fears of his own poisonous sexuality into Jews and foreigners helped him avoid a psychotic breakdown and allowed him to function during his later life. He admitted this quite specifically in Mein Kampf, saying that when he "recognized the Jew as the cold-hearted, shameless, and calculating director of this revolting traffic in the scum of the big city, a cold shudder ran down my back . . . the scales dropped from my eyes. A long soul struggle had reached its conclusion."7 From that moment on, Hitler became a professional anti-Semite, ordering Nazi doctors to find out how Jewish blood differed from Aryan blood, having his own blood regularly sucked by leeches to try to get rid of its "poison,"8 giving speeches full of metaphors of blood poisoning and of Jews sucking people's blood out and, eventually, ordering the extermination of all "world blood-poisoners" in the worst genocide and the most destructive war ever experienced by mankind.

The success of Hitler's ability to use anti-Semitism to save his sanity was dependent, of course, upon there being millions of followers who shared his fantasies about poisonous enemies infecting the body of Europe. Much of Europe at that time shared Hitler's experience of a severely abusive childhood,9 and many shared his fantasy that the ills of the modern world were caused by the poisonous nature of Jews.10 When he used metaphors of blood in his speeches, saying the world was a constant warfare of one people against another, where "one creature drinks the blood of another," and that Jews were spiders that "sucked the people's blood out," he was cheered on by millions who shared his fantasies.11

Hitler was also known to have carried a dog whip everywhere he went, the same whip he and millions of German children were beaten with by their fathers.12

Hitler seemed also to see himself as Phallic Leader. As Hitler put it, "The crowd is a woman...after a speech I feel as if I had a sexual release."13


References:

1. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p. 59.

2. Norbert Bromberg and Verna Volz Small, Hitler's Psychopathology. New York: International Universities Press, 1983.

3. Alice Miller, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1983, p. 152; George Victor, Hitler: The Pathology of Evil. Washington: Brassey's, 1998, p. 29.

4. Bromberg and Small, Hitler's Psychopathology, pp. 137 and 280.

5. Victor, Hitler: The Pathology of Evil, p. 128.

6. Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 388.

7. Ibid., pp. 59-60.

8. Bromberg and Small, Hitler's Psychopathology, p. 281.

9. Lloyd deMause, Foundations of Psychohistory. New York: Creative Roots, 1982, pp. 48-59; Lloyd deMause, "Schreber and the History of Childhood," The Journal of Psychohistory 15(1987):426-7; Aurel Ende, "Battering and Neglect: Children in Germany, 1860-1978." Journal of Psychohistory 7(1980): 249-79; Aurel Ende, "Bibliography on Childhood and Youth in Germany from 1820-1978." Journal of Psychohistory 7(1980): 281-7; Aurel Ende, "Children in History: A Personal Review of the Past Decade's Published Research." Journal of Psychohistory 11(1983): 65-88.

10. Robert Wistrick, Hitler's Apocalypse: Jews and the Nazi Legacy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985; Edward Timms, Karl Kraus, Apocalyptic Satirist: Culture and Catastrophe in Habsburg Vienna. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

11. Bromberg and Small, Hitler's Psychopathology, p. 24.

12. Martin Broszat, Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany. Oxford: Berg, 1987, p. 4.

13. George Victor, Hitler: The Pathology of Evil. Washington: Brassey’s, 1998, p. 105.

Primary Reference: "The Emotional Life of Nations", Lloyd deMause, Chapter 6: War as Righteous Rape and Purification

 

[abstract]

When you strip the ideology away and look at their actions coldy and analytically, they're naked and unattractive - to say the least.

That's one of the issues, isn't it? Most people can't see past idealogy, they're too busy with their own lives. a lot of people have trouble distinguishing ignorance, and intentional evil, if that makes any sense, dudes.

I guess i'll explain...take psychiatry for instance. People can't distinguish the psychologist who perscribes brain drugs and doesn't really know any better, and the people who MAKE said drugs.

I have to ask myself when i recieve information from people outside of "us" (if you can get that as well) do they know? Or do they just think they know? My 2 cents.

 

[suumcuique]

So, you are saying Hitler was squeaky clean? He just wanted to "get rid of undesirable elements" as in ship them to Africa or something and it was all those nasty Zionists who did the Holocaust? Is that what you are implying?

It is not my intention to discuss that particular issue on this forum, nor, for that matter, anywhere else on the web, since I am currently staying in a country where the public prosecution decides what is historically true and what his historically false.

Back to so-called ponerology, judging from what I have read about it and the excerpts I read on the web, I suppose I could get away with it by saying that it is based on a psychotic view of the human being, but it would be too easy, and, besides, I would show as much bias and narrow-mindedness as the author does about the motives of human actions and about the concept of normality, whose criteria, incidentally, have greatly varied in space and time, and which, anyway, should be replaced by that of normativity, which is to that of normality what ethics (the conformity of a person's thoughts and acts to his very nature) is to morality.

Just as a book was written a few years ago by a psychiatrist on the various pathological tendencies of French kings through history, so a whole enclyclopedy would need to be written to cover the pathologies of current political schemers. Now, the question - one of the questions - is : can, for example, Charles V, the maddest of the French kings if I may put it in this way and T. Blair, a modern adept of human sacrifices, be put on the same level? From a purely psychiatric perspective, it may be possible. From a higher standpoint, it would be absurd, not to say aberrant. To realise this, all one should need to do is to ask the following simple question : did they act in the interests of their people, of their country - which is the least that can be expected from the head of a country - or not? Obviously, the latter did not ; not only he did not, but his policies contributed to the political and economical decline of Great Britain and to the spiritual and moral waning of the Brittish people. As far as Charles VI is concerned, whose last years of life were marked by an alternation of periods of lucidity with periods of madness, he still always managed to prevent his Bavarian wife, the queen Isabeau, from turning France into a political brothel ; if France did not flourish during his reign, at least it did not experience Isabeau's own anal regression. Incidentally, aristocratic extravagance and sense of grandeur are often perceived as idiotic and 'morally and politically incorrect' by bourgeois minded individuals, and, in this respect, one cannot help suspecting that 'normality' is used as a synonym for 'mediocrity' in 'Ponerology'. If the term 'normality' is to be used, then it should be part, not of a two-part, but of a three-part equation : infra-normality - normality - supranormality (or whatever Latin prefix you chose that conveys the same idea) .

Charles VI is certainly a borderline example. However, there are historical cases of statesmen who, while showing some pathological tendencies, were able to rule to the best interests of their country and of their people, as far as possible. For example, Augustus' pathological fear of thunder did not prevent him from being one of the greatest administrative geniuses of history. Diseased tendencies can be found in very human being - especially in our age, given the heavy heredity of most of the indivuals who are born in it - as well as healthy ones. When the former prevails upon the latter, an individual can legitimately be called a psychopath. In other types of individuals, however, the latter reigns supreme and check the former.

To go back over some of the comments you made in your previous post, all three adjectives - 'Christian', 'Marxist', and 'left-wing' - refer to 'conspirationists', just as, in "it was a lovely, wooden, and clean house", all three adjectives refer to 'house'. I should however have said 'Marxist oriented' instead of simply 'Marxist', since some of these conspirationists are not even aware of their marxistness.

When stating that "In conjunction with part of the elite, a group of psychopathic individuals hiding behind the scenes steers the leader, the way Borman and his clique steered Hitler", the author must be referring, either to 'Hitler's Traitor', or to other books based on the same evidence. Now, that evidence is, to say the least, flimsy. More evidence exists that Canaris was THE actual traitor. Anyway, Borman, as Reich leader and as the head of the Party Chancellery, was not, by definition, "behind the scenes".

Terminology is essential. It's at the heart of the cultural fight. To use the propagandistic terminology created by the adversaries, as do most current right-wingers, means to be defeated even before having started to fight, insofar as words are weapons. Each time current ploutocrats and the Kabbalists who are behind them heard the ludicrous statement that Bush was a new Hitler, they must have had a laugh. Since it is precisely the illusion they want people to entertain, in order to bring even more discredit on National Socialist Germany. In that sense, they will always remain prisoners of the image, made out of magic, of A. Hitler as 'pure evil' that they created in order to show themselves as the 'good guys' and to maintain their pseudo-legitimacy, no matter how hard they try to replace it with the MI5/CIA-engineered so-called 'Muslim peril'.

 

[suumcuique]

Citations
--------------------------------------------------------------

[1]
One of the most popular theories was that the Nazi party was driven by an influx of youth who remember suffering hunger from the allied embargo years.
This psychological study was based upon a developmental event in the early lives of Germans that is given some credulity by historians: the "Nazi Youth Cohort" thesis of Peter Loewenberg. This study claims that "the rapid political ascendance of the Nazi party (NSDAP) in the period from 1928 to 1933 was marked by a particularly strong support from youth" who were deprived of food during the 1917-1919 Allied embargo.1 Citing low German birth weights and excess infant mortality during the period, Loewenberg feels this "single traumatic event" accounts for "the influx of German youth to the ranks of National Socialism, the political decline of the Weimar Republic, and the Nazi seizure of power."2 The problem with this thesis is the figures don't add up. While Loewenberg cites the census of 1933 as showing 31 percent of Germans were "youthful," these figures in fact were for those 18 to 30 years of age.3 Children born in 1917-18 were actually only 11-12 years of age in 1929 when the Nazis received their most uncoerced votes. Even those up to 5 years of age during the embargo years would still be from 12-17 in 1929, too young to join the Nazi party. And in fact most German youth didn't join the Hitler Youth, which managed to attract only one percent of the young people belonging to religious and political youth organizations in 1932.4 Therefore, the WWI famine, however severe, cannot be a main cause of the Nazi takeover,5 since the average age of membership of the Nazi party was in fact over 31 years.6

References:

1. "The Psychohistorical Origins of the Nazi Youth Cohort." In Peter Loewenberg, Decoding the Past: The Psychohistorical Approach. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1996, pp. 240-283.

2. Ibid., p. 249.

3. Ibid., p. 251.

4. Bernt Engelmann, In Hitler’s Germany: Everyday Life in the Third Reich. New York: Schocken Books, 1986, p. 44.

5. Ibid., p. 253.

6. Hans Mommsen, The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989,, p. 351.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2]
Careful historical studies showed Germany was "a safe haven in late-nineteenth-century Europe [where] when German Jews looked toward France, they saw the startling antisemitism unleashed by the Dreyfus Affair and when they looked eastward, they saw pogroms and thousands of Jews fleeing toward Germany's safer political climate."1 The reason "why so many Jews failed to leave Germany [was] they really couldn't believe that this Germany, which they loved [and] felt gratitude toward" would ever harm them.2 In fact, earlier antisemitic movements in Germany were tiny, and "most historians believe that the Nazis had no deep roots in German history and that antisemitism in Germany was not essentially different from that of some other nations..."3 Careful studies of Nazi party members have even found that most were not antisemitic when they joined; "most people were drawn to antisemitism because they were drawn to Nazism, not the other way around."4 Kershaw's recent careful studies conclude "that antisemitism was not a major factor in attracting support for Hitler..."5


Death Camps

The earliest death camps, in fact, were set up to kill children who were useless eaters, the same term applied to the Germans themselves by their parents when they were children at the turn of the century. Long before the Holocaust of Jews began, medical officers sent questionnaires to parents and guardians of children in mental hospitals and homes for delinquent children, asking them if they would give their consent to killing them. So powerful was the unconscious group-fantasy at that time that "bad" children were polluting the German nation that most parents and guardians agreed to the killing of their "useless children."6

The doctors, including pediatricians, spontaneously set up a Reich Committee "to exterminate ‘undesirable' children, which drew up standards that read exactly like the child care manuals at the end of the nineteenth century, asking whether the child had been "late in being toilet trained" or had used "dirty words" or were "slow learners;" if they were, they were exterminated in gas chambers and crematorium ovens.7
Over 70,000 of these "useless eaters" were murdered by doctors to "cleanse the German national body"8 before the war began.9 So proud were these doctors of their murder of "bad children" that they actually made a popular film of the killings, which was shown in theaters.10 At the same time, throughout Germany, "midwives and nurses were instructed to report births of defective infants...including ‘racially undesirable' ones...Thousands were killed by injection or deliberate starvation."11

Jewish annihilation plans only came later, actually during the summer months of 1941 when, "convinced that the military campaign was nearly over and victory was at hand, an elated Hitler gave the signal to carry out [the] racial ‘cleansing' [of the Jews.]"12
Initially, for many years, Jews were to be resettled, part of Hitler's "grandiose program of population transfers"13 --90 percent of which were ethnic Germans and others and only 10 percent were Jews--a "massive upheaval of humanity"14 that restaged upon five million people 15 the experiences of having to leave home endured during childhood by most Germans as their parents endlessly moved them around to wetnurses, relatives, schools and work sites.

In 1940 Hitler and Himmler had rejected the "physical extermination of a people out of inner conviction as un-German and impossible."16 It was only by the summer of 1941, in victory and afraid of running out of Bad Boys to kill in the East, that Hitler would approve of "the mass murder of all European Jews...in the form of deportation to death camps equipped with poison gas facilities"17 like those used for murdering the 70,000 German children killed earlier.

Christopher Browning points to mania and success as the source of the Holocaust when he concludes, "Hitler [only] opted for the Final Solution in the ‘euphoria of victory' of midsummer 1941."18 Jews were the ultimate Bad Boys, symbols of liberalism, freedom and prosperity in the stock market, and so finally must be totally eliminated for Germans to return to the "pure" authoritarian family atmosphere of 1900 where only Good Boys survived.


References:

1. Marion A. Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 13.

2. Ron Rosenbau, Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil. New York: Random House, 1998, p. 335.

3. John Weiss, Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1991, p. vii.

4. Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Attalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Collins, 1998, p. 199.

5. Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck, The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 240.

6. Götz Aly et al., Cleansing the Fatherland: Nazi Medicine and Racial Hygiene. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, pp. 29-55.

7. Ibid., pp. 55, 188-189; Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995, pp. 39-61.

8. Götz Aly, ‘Final Solution’: Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews. Dondon: Arnold, 1999, p. 30.

9. Götz Aly et al.., Cleansing the Fatherland, p. 46.

10. Ibid., p. 27.

11. George Victor, Hitler: The Pathology of Evil. Washington: Brassey’s, 1998, p. 171.

12. Christopher R. Browning, The Path to Genocide: Essays on Launching the Final Solution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 111.

13. Ibid., p. 9.

14. Ibid., p. 20.

15. Götz Aly, ‘Final Solution’: Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews. London: Arnold, 1999, p. 7.

16. Christopher R. Browning, The Path to Genocide, p. 25.

17. Ibid.

18. Eberhard Jäckel, "The Holocaust: Where We Are, Where We Need to Go." In Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck, Eds., The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 25.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3]
When Adolf Hitler moved to Vienna in 1907 at the age of eighteen, he reported in Mein Kampf, he haunted the prostitutes' district, fuming at the "Jews and foreigners" who directed the "revolting vice traffic" which "defiled our inexperienced young blond girls" and injected "poison" into the bloodstream of Germany.1

Months before this blood poison delusion was formed, Hitler had the only romantic infatuation of his youth, with a young girl, Stefanie.2 Hitler imagined that Stefanie was in love with him (although in reality she had never met him) and thought he could communicate with her via mental telepathy. He was so afraid of approaching her that he made plans to kidnap her and then murder her and commit suicide in order to join with her in death.

Hitler's childhood had been so abusive-his father regularly beat him "with a hippopotamus whip," once enduring 230 blows of his father's cane and another time nearly killed by his father's whipping3 that he was full of rage toward the world. When he grew up, his sexual feelings were so mixed up with his revenge fantasies that he believed his sperm was poisonous and might enter the woman's bloodstream during sexual intercourse and poison her.4

Hitler's rage against "Jewish blood-poisoners" was, therefore, a projection of his own fears that he might become a blood-poisoner. Faced with the temptation of the more permissive sexuality of Vienna, he wanted to have sex with women, but was afraid his sperm would poison their blood. He then projected his own sexual desires into Jews- "The black-haired Jewboy lies in wait for hours, satanic joy in his face, for the unsuspecting girl"5 and ended up accusing Jews of being "world blood-poisoners" who "introduced foreign blood into our people's body."6

As is usually the case with delusional systems, Hitler's projection of his fears of his own poisonous sexuality into Jews and foreigners helped him avoid a psychotic breakdown and allowed him to function during his later life. He admitted this quite specifically in Mein Kampf, saying that when he "recognized the Jew as the cold-hearted, shameless, and calculating director of this revolting traffic in the scum of the big city, a cold shudder ran down my back . . . the scales dropped from my eyes. A long soul struggle had reached its conclusion."7 From that moment on, Hitler became a professional anti-Semite, ordering Nazi doctors to find out how Jewish blood differed from Aryan blood, having his own blood regularly sucked by leeches to try to get rid of its "poison,"8 giving speeches full of metaphors of blood poisoning and of Jews sucking people's blood out and, eventually, ordering the extermination of all "world blood-poisoners" in the worst genocide and the most destructive war ever experienced by mankind.

The success of Hitler's ability to use anti-Semitism to save his sanity was dependent, of course, upon there being millions of followers who shared his fantasies about poisonous enemies infecting the body of Europe. Much of Europe at that time shared Hitler's experience of a severely abusive childhood,9 and many shared his fantasy that the ills of the modern world were caused by the poisonous nature of Jews.10 When he used metaphors of blood in his speeches, saying the world was a constant warfare of one people against another, where "one creature drinks the blood of another," and that Jews were spiders that "sucked the people's blood out," he was cheered on by millions who shared his fantasies.11

Hitler was also known to have carried a dog whip everywhere he went, the same whip he and millions of German children were beaten with by their fathers.12

Hitler seemed also to see himself as Phallic Leader. As Hitler put it, "The crowd is a woman...after a speech I feel as if I had a sexual release."13


References:

1. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p. 59.

2. Norbert Bromberg and Verna Volz Small, Hitler's Psychopathology. New York: International Universities Press, 1983.

3. Alice Miller, For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1983, p. 152; George Victor, Hitler: The Pathology of Evil. Washington: Brassey's, 1998, p. 29.

4. Bromberg and Small, Hitler's Psychopathology, pp. 137 and 280.

5. Victor, Hitler: The Pathology of Evil, p. 128.

6. Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 388.

7. Ibid., pp. 59-60.

8. Bromberg and Small, Hitler's Psychopathology, p. 281.

9. Lloyd deMause, Foundations of Psychohistory. New York: Creative Roots, 1982, pp. 48-59; Lloyd deMause, "Schreber and the History of Childhood," The Journal of Psychohistory 15(1987):426-7; Aurel Ende, "Battering and Neglect: Children in Germany, 1860-1978." Journal of Psychohistory 7(1980): 249-79; Aurel Ende, "Bibliography on Childhood and Youth in Germany from 1820-1978." Journal of Psychohistory 7(1980): 281-7; Aurel Ende, "Children in History: A Personal Review of the Past Decade's Published Research." Journal of Psychohistory 11(1983): 65-88.

10. Robert Wistrick, Hitler's Apocalypse: Jews and the Nazi Legacy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985; Edward Timms, Karl Kraus, Apocalyptic Satirist: Culture and Catastrophe in Habsburg Vienna. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

11. Bromberg and Small, Hitler's Psychopathology, p. 24.

12. Martin Broszat, Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany. Oxford: Berg, 1987, p. 4.

13. George Victor, Hitler: The Pathology of Evil. Washington: Brassey’s, 1998, p. 105.

Primary Reference: "The Emotional Life of Nations", Lloyd deMause, Chapter 6: War as Righteous Rape and Purification

Leaving aside some of these gossips (have you actually checked the references of the references?), this article only proves the point I tried to make yesterday : what is seen as normal and natural by a given people may be held as pathologic and diseased by another given people. What's wrong, in a European context, with carrying a whip? In the old days, any gentleman farmer from Prussia to France would carry a whip, when inspecting his estate. Until the late Middle Ages, children were considered as animals, to be properly trained. Given the current state of youth, of which libertarian theories implemented for the past fifty years in the Marxist-ruled European and American educational system are directly responsible, is it wise to lecture people from the old school on how to deal with children? Now, these libertarian theories turn out to derive to a greater or lesser extent from the research of the Frankfurt School, whose main representatives, as is known, were all Jewish.

As evidenced by K. McDonald in 'The Frankfurt School's Program of Ethnic Warfare', "The Frankfurt School attempted to develop an ideology that patologized National Socialism. Because national Socialism was first and foremost a movement of ethnic cohesion, it is not surprising that the ideology of the Frankfurt School callled into question all of the sources of cohesion of Western societies : Family, religion, culture, and race/ethnicity. (...) According to the Frankfurt School ideology, Europeans who identify with family, nation or race suffer from a psychiatric disorder. In the ideal Frankfurt School world, European nations would become therapeutic states. They would be dedicated to rooting out the remnants of adherence to traditional cultural forms of family, nation, religion and race in their citizens. And they would do so in the interests of promoting mental health."

The author who quotes Hitler saying that "The crowd is a woman..." does not seem to be aware that the crowd, the 'demos', was always considered as a feminine element in the traditional European world-view and philosophy. Nor does he seem to have read Aristotle.

 

[Laurentien2]

Thank Buddy for the history lesson, what jumped into my eyes is this paragraph,

Death Camps
The earliest death camps, in fact, were set up to kill children who were useless eaters, the same term applied to the Germans themselves by their parents when they were children at the turn of the century. Long before the Holocaust of Jews began, medical officers sent questionnaires to parents and guardians of children in mental hospitals and homes for delinquent children, asking them if they would give their consent to killing them. So powerful was the unconscious group-fantasy at that time that "bad" children were polluting the German nation that most parents and guardians agreed to the killing of their "useless children."

immediately upon reading it, I couldn't stop making the parallel to this article:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200528-Buy-our-insurance-or-go-to-jail

Now, just replace the word children in the first paragraph whit the word poor, is this what we are going to ears loud and clear in a near future.

 

[Buddy]

Leaving aside some of these gossips (have you actually checked the references of the references?),

Some of them. I am still checking others.

...this article only proves the point I tried to make yesterday : what is seen as normal and natural by a given people may be held as pathologic and diseased by another given people.

Unless I'm mistaken, if something is held to be "pathologic and diseased" and the evidence it is based on is sound from the point of view of psychological health, then one must take a serious look at what is seen as "normal and natural." In the death camps it was normal and natural to swing little jewish boys by their feet into a pit, laughing and shooting him at the same time. It was normal and natural to take babies and toddlers by their feet and bash their brains out on a wooden post, or in German homes, drown them in a toilet.
Just because something is seen as normal and natural in a given context, doesn't imply that it must be accepted as such and can't be addressed.

Given the current state of youth, of which libertarian theories implemented for the past fifty years in the Marxist-ruled European and American educational system are directly responsible, is it wise to lecture people from the old school on how to deal with children?

What is this "current state of youth" that you have not qualified in the least? All youth, everywhere, in every respect, from every point of view?

The author who quotes Hitler saying that "The crowd is a woman..." does not seem to be aware that the crowd, the 'demos', was always considered as a feminine element in the traditional European world-view and philosophy. Nor does he seem to have read Aristotle.

What the author is aware of is the macrosocial version of a traumatized individual restaging traumatic experiences through fusing with internal and social alters that were created as a result.

Lloyd deMause calls his historical perspective: Psychohistory. Mainstream book publishers refused to touch it for a long time, but the research effort was herculean and today, psychohistorians are in much greater numbers.

It is helpful to look at an issue from as many points of view as possible.
Of course, none of this addresses 4Density influences or psychopathology directly, but that just adds to the evidence base. Why pull out a psychopath card, when you can put a tranced-out doped up idiot in a position where he can put his finger on a nuke button?

For an overview on restaging, here's a paper on The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma from the Circumcision Reference Library:
_http://justice4mothers.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/article_thecompulsiontorepeattrauma_vanderkolk.pdf


More interesting Citations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not every American president has been able to resist the call for war. Studies have suggested a relationship with the kind of childhood the president has experienced.1 Jimmy Carter was unusual in being able to draw upon his having had fairly loving parents, in particular a mother who encouraged his individuality and independence, a very unusual quality for a parent in the 1920s.2 It is no coincidence that when I once collected all the childhood photos I could find of American presidents I noticed that only those of Jimmy Carter and Dwight Eisenhower (another president who resisted being drawn into war) showed their mothers smiling.

Ronald Reagan's childhood, in contrast, was more like that of most presidents: a nightmare of neglect and abuse, in his case dominated by an obsessively religious mother and a violent, alcoholic father who, he said, used to "kick him with his boot" and "clobber" him and his brother.3 The result, as I have documented in my book, Reagan's America, was a childhood of phobias and fears "to the point of hysteria," buried feelings of rage and severe castration anxieties (the title of his autobiography was Where Is The Rest of Me?). As an adult, Reagan took to carrying a loaded pistol, and once considered suicide, only to be saved by the defensive maneuver of taking up politics and becoming an anti-communist warrior, crusading against imaginary "enemies" who were blamed for the feelings he denied in himself.4

George Bush's childhood, though not as chaotic as Reagan's, was also full of fear and punishments. Psychohistorian Suzy Kane, interviewing George's brother, Prescott, Jr., discovered that Bush's father often beat him on the buttocks with a belt or a razor strap, the anticipation of which, Prescott, Jr. recalled, made them "quiver" with fear.5 "He took us over his knee and whopped us with his belt," Prescott said. "He had a strong arm, and boy, did we feel it."6 As he admitted to Kane, "We were all scared of him. We were scared to death of Dad when we were younger." Childhood classmates of George described his father as "aloof and distant...formidable and stern...very austere and not a warm person." "Dad was really scary," George himself once admitted.7 As a result, a desperate need to please was George's main trait as a child, and a depressive personality with an overwhelming need to placate became his trademarks as president.

Saddam Hussein, like so many dictators, had an unbelievably traumatic childhood.8 His mother tried to abort him by hitting her abdomen with her fists and cutting herself with a kitchen knife, yelling, "In my belly I'm carrying a Satan!" She gave the infant Saddam away to his uncle, a violent man who beat the boy regularly, calling him "a son of a cur" and training him to use a gun and steal sheep. Saddam committed his first homicide at eleven. His political career centered on the murder of his fellow countrymen, and he particularly enjoyed watching the torture and execution of officers who had fought with him. Saddam would obviously make an ideal enemy to whom America could delegate the task of starting a new war so that we could remain guiltless.

Saddam Hussein, for his part, saw the coming war [in Iraq] in terms of the typical childhood traumas he and his countrymen had experienced. For instance, most male Iraqis endured a bloody, terrifying circumcision around the age of six, and Saddam used metaphors that reflected fears of bloody castration, saying that it was Iraq's mission to "return the branch, Kuwait, to the root, Iraq" and vowing Americans would be made to "swim in their own blood."9 It was his mission, he said, to return to Iraq "the part that was cut off by English scissors."10


Citations
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. The best single study is Glenn David, Childhood and History in America. New York: Psychohistory Press, 1976. For bibliography of psychobiographical studies, see Henry Lawton, The Psychohistorian's Handbook. New York: Psychohistory Press, 1988, pp. 161-176.

2. See Paul H. Elovitz, "Three Days in Plains," and David Beisel, "Toward a Psychohistory of Jimmy Carter," in Lloyd deMause and Henry Ebel, Eds., Jimmy Carter and American Fantasy: Psychohistorical Explorations. New York: Two Continents, 1977, pp. 33-96.

3. Ronald Reagan, Where's the Rest of Me? New York: Karz Publishers, 1981, pp. 9 and 11.

4. See extensive psychobiography of Reagan in Lloyd deMause, Reagan's America. New York: Creative Roots, 1984, pp. 36-50.

5. Suzy T. Kane, "What the Gulf War Reveals About George Bush's Childhood." The Journal of Psychohistory 20(1992): 149-166.

6. Barbara T. Toessner, "Obedience, Diligence, and Fun: Bush's Extraordinary Family Life." Jacksonville, Florida, Times Union, January 15, 1989, p. A3. See also J. Hyams, Flight of the Avenger: George Bush at War. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991.

7. Gail Sheehy, Character: America's Search for Leadership. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1988, p. 160.

8. Anna Aragno, "Master of His Universe." The Journal of Psychohistory 19(1991): 96-108; Peter Waldman, "A Tale Emerges of Saddam's Origins That Even He May Not Have Known." The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 1991, p. A10; Gail Sheehy, "How Saddam Survived." Vanity Fair, August 1991, pp. 31-53; J. Miller and L. Mylroie, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf. New York: Times Books, Random House, 1990.

9. Rafael Patai, The Arab Mind. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1983; The Wall Street Journal, Febrauary 7, 1991, p. A1; The New York Times, January 7, 1991, p. A1.

10. The New York Times, October 11, 1994, p. A13.

Primary Reference: The Emotional Life of Nations, Lloyd deMause
Chapter 2--The Gulf War as a Mental Disorder

"He's going to get his ass kicked!"
---- George Bush

 

[suumcuique]

Thank Buddy for the history lesson, what jumped into my eyes is this paragraph,

Death Camps
The earliest death camps, in fact, were set up to kill children who were useless eaters, the same term applied to the Germans themselves by their parents when they were children at the turn of the century. Long before the Holocaust of Jews began, medical officers sent questionnaires to parents and guardians of children in mental hospitals and homes for delinquent children, asking them if they would give their consent to killing them. So powerful was the unconscious group-fantasy at that time that "bad" children were polluting the German nation that most parents and guardians agreed to the killing of their "useless children."

immediately upon reading it, I couldn't stop making the parallel to this article:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200528-Buy-our-insurance-or-go-to-jail

Now, just replace the word children in the first paragraph whit the word poor, is this what we are going to ears loud and clear in a near future.

Speaking of history lessons, National Socialism wanted so much to get rid of the poor, whose number, incidentally, skyrocketed during the Weimar republic, that it managed to give a job to 6 millions unemployed Germans within four years, solving in the process the unemployment issue.

As to the prophylactic mesures that article refers to, you may want to broaden your horizons and read, for example, M. Grant's work, an American eugenist who lived decades before National Socialism appeared.

Laws forbidding marriage between people of different races were common in America from the Colonial period through the middle of the 20th century. By 1915, twenty-eight states made marriages between "Negroes and white persons" invalid; six states included this prohibition in their constitutions.

In the early 1900's, the eugenics movement supplied a new set of arguments to support existing restrictions on interracial marriage. These arguments incorporated a "scientific" brand of racism, emphasizing the supposed biological dangers of mixing the races – also known as miscegenation. Influential writers like Madison Grant, a leading eugenicist, warned that racial mixing was "a social and racial crime." He said that acceptance of racial intermarriage would lead America toward "racial suicide" and the eventual disappearance of white civilization.

According to Grant, the mixture of "higher racial types," such as Nordic whites, with other "lower" races would inevitably result in the decline of the higher race. In his immensely popular book The Passing of the Great Race (1916) Grant cautioned: "The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a negro is a negro… When it becomes thoroughly understood that the children of mixed marriages between contrasted races belong to the lower type, the importance of transmitting in unimpaired purity the blood inheritance of ages will be appreciated at its full value."

Grant's proclamations on the perils of race mixing mirrored warnings by Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, leaders of the American eugenic bureaucracy at the Eugenics Record Office. In turn, American political leaders like Vice President Calvin Coolidge repeated similar sentiments as scientific fact. Said Coolidge: "Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend."

To prevent further pollution of the country's collective "germ-plasm" and a subsequent contamination of the white race, eugenicists argued for even tighter restrictions against racial mixing. Their efforts focused on new legal definitions of who could qualify to receive a marriage license as a "white" person.

Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 stands out among anti-miscegenation laws that can be traced to eugenic advocacy. To fashion a successful legislative strategy, three local Virginia eugenicists – John Powell, Earnest Cox and Walter Plecker – consulted with Madison Grant and Harry Laughlin. Powell, a celebrated pianist and composer, was the founder of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, an elitist version of the Ku Klux Klan dedicated to maintaining "Anglo-Saxon ideals and civilization in America." Like The Passing of the Great Race, Cox's book White America emphasized white supremacy and the dangers of racial mixing. Plecker was registrar at the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the Virginia Board of Health. His ideas on racial interbreeding as the source of "public health" problems appeared in state-published pamphlets distributed to all who planned to marry.

When The Racial Integrity Act became law, it included provisions requiring racial registration certificates and strict definitions of who would qualify as members of the white race. It emphasized the "scientific" basis of race assessment, and the "dysgenic" dangers of race mixing. Its major provision declared: "It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. …the term "white person" shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons…."

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay7text.html

Actually, Eugenism dates back to ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and Sparta, and hints at the need for prophylactic measures can even be found in the Rig-Veda. Our ancestors wanted the best to live and to develop. On the contrary, it looks like the impostors who have been managing Western countries for a few decades do their best to enable, though vaccines and other kind of poisons called 'medicine', the worst to survive. A 'new man' is definitively coming. He doesn't exactly look like the Nietzschean blond-haired blue-eyed "beast of prey", does he?

 

[suumcuique]

Leaving aside some of these gossips (have you actually checked the references of the references?),

Some of them. I am still checking others.

...this article only proves the point I tried to make yesterday : what is seen as normal and natural by a given people may be held as pathologic and diseased by another given people.

Unless I'm mistaken, if something is held to be "pathologic and diseased" and the evidence it is based on is sound from the point of view of psychological health, then one must take a serious look at what is seen as "normal and natural." In the death camps it was normal and natural to swing little jewish boys by their feet into a pit, laughing and shooting him at the same time. It was normal and natural to take babies and toddlers by their feet and bash their brains out on a wooden post, or in German homes, drown them in a toilet.

All I can say in this respect is that, as far as I'm concerned, I would never post onto a forum a description of my private sexual fantasies.

Given the current state of youth, of which libertarian theories implemented for the past fifty years in the Marxist-ruled European and American educational system are directly responsible, is it wise to lecture people from the old school on how to deal with children?

What is this "current state of youth" that you have not qualified in the least? All youth, everywhere, in every respect, from every point of view?

Does it really need to be qualified or is it that you live on a desrt island, or even that you belong yourself to that 'youth'?

The author who quotes Hitler saying that "The crowd is a woman..." does not seem to be aware that the crowd, the 'demos', was always considered as a feminine element in the traditional European world-view and philosophy. Nor does he seem to have read Aristotle.

What the author is aware of is the macrosocial version of a traumatized individual restaging traumatic experiences through fusing with internal and social alters that were created as a result.

That's what I thought : this smacks of psycho-analytical mumbo-jumbo. More seriously, every single individual was more or less traumatised as a child, for the simple reason that childhood as such is a 'trauma'. You get over it or you don't.

Lloyd deMause calls his historical perspective: Psychohistory. Mainstream book publishers refused to touch it for a long time, but the research effort was herculean and today, psychohistorians are in much greater numbers.

It is helpful to look at an issue from as many points of view as possible.
Of course, none of this addresses 4Density influences or psychopathology directly, but that just adds to the evidence base. Why pull out a psychopath card, when you can put a tranced-out doped up idiot in a position where he can put his finger on a nuke button?

For an overview on restaging, here's a paper on The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma from the Circumcision Reference Library:
_http://justice4mothers.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/article_thecompulsiontorepeattrauma_vanderkolk.pdf

 

[go2]

I am going to post a rather long excerpt from Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of Dictators. Lenni Brenner was a Marxist Jew whose family was murdered in the Nazi death camps. They were selected for extermination by the Judenrate and certain Zionist collaborators. The following testimony of Adolf Eichman reveals the deep affinity between the deviants of the Nazi SS and the Zionist leadership. This testimony indicates the psychological deviants of either Nazi or Zionist political and German or Jewish racial identity are willing to collaborate in their mutual exploitation of normal humanity of their group. The deviant psychopathic identity takes precedence over racial or political identity.

To ignore the reality that most political, religious, and corporate entities are fronts or masks allowing psychopaths to predate normal mankind is to deprive psychologically normal people of essential knowledge of this phenomenon. The knowledge of psychopathic exploitation of human affiliations leaves us defenseless against those who claim to be affiliated, yet secretly care only for their own predatory desires and satisfactions.

This deception allows the deviants to exploit well meaning, but naïve people’s participation in political, religious, and corporate activities. It is necessary to attend to this hygienic task of removing or excluding deviants from power within a human group, before any human affiliation can authentically represent its members. This heretofore obscure analysis sheds light on the phenomenon of well meaning and normal people destroying each other century after century.

Oh, of course, I am aware that the numbers of the dead have been changed in recent years based on some legitimate research, but I think that concentrating on that is a red herring. The numbers were still enormous, and many of the Jews themselves were still involved in the holocaust - collaborators and helpers and traitors. Much of the spin put on the Holocaust is mainly to cover up THIS fact, not necessarily what happened, etc.

....Werner Senator, a leading German Zionist, once remarked that Zionism, for all its world Jewish nationalism, always politically assimilates to the countries within which it operates. No better proof of his remark exists than the political adaptation of the ZVfD to the theories and policies of the new Nazi regime. Believing that the ideological similarities between the two movements – their contempt for liberalism, their common volkish racism and, of course, their mutual conviction that Germany could never be the homeland of its Jews – could induce the Nazis to support them, the ZVfD solicited the patronage of Adolf Hitler, not once but repeatedly, after 1933.

…..Prior to the Nazis, German Zionism was no more than an isolated bourgeois political cult. While the leftists were trying to fight the brownshirts in the streets, the Zionists were busy collecting money for trees in Palestine. Suddenly in 1933 this small group conceived of itself as properly anointed by history to negotiate secretly with the Nazis, to oppose the vast mass of world Jewry who wanted to resist Hitler, all in the hope of obtaining the support of the enemy of their people for the building of their state in Palestine. Smolar and their other Zionist critics saw the ZVfD as merely cowardly, but they were quite wrong. Any surrender theory explains nothing of the pre-Hitler evolution of Zionist racism, nor does it go far in explaining the WZO’s endorsement of their stance. The truth is sadder than cowardice. The plain fact is that Germany’s Zionists did not see themselves as surrendering but, rather, as would-be partners in a most statesmanlike pact. They were wholly deluded. No Jews triumphed over other Jews in Nazi Germany. No modus vivendi was ever even remotely possible between Hitler and the Jews. Once Hitler had triumphed inside Germany, the position of the Jews was hopeless; all that was left for them was to go into exile and continue the fight from there. Many did, but the Zionists continued to dream of winning the patronage of Adolf Hitler for themselves. They did not fight Hitler before he came to power, when there was still a chance to beat him, not out of any degree of cowardice, but out of their deepest conviction, which they had inherited from Herzl, that anti-Semitism could not be fought. Given their failure to resist during Weimar, and given their race theories, it was inevitable that they would end up as the ideological jackals of Nazism.

...By 1934 the SS had become the most pro-Zionist element in the Nazi Party. Other Nazis were even calling them “soft” on the Jews. Baron von Mildenstein had returned from his six-month visit to Palestine as an ardent Zionist sympathiser. Now as the head of the Jewish Department of the SS’s Security Service, he started studying Hebrew and collecting Hebrew records; when his former companion and guide, Kurt Tuchler, visited his office in 1934, he was greeted by the strains of familiar Jewish folk tunes. [16] There were maps on the walls showing the rapidly increasing strength of Zionism inside Germany. [17] Von Mildenstein was as good as his word: he not only wrote favourably about what he saw in the Zionist colonies in Palestine; he also persuaded Goebbels to run the report as a massive twelve-part series in his own Der Angriff (The Assault), the leading Nazi propaganda organ (26 September to 9 October 1934). His stay among the Zionists had shown the SS man “the way to curing a centuries-long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question”. It was really amazing how some good Jewish boden under his feet could enliven the Jew: “The soil has reformed him and his kind in a decade. This new Jew will be a new people.” [18] To commemorate the Baron’s expedition, Goebbels had a medal struck: on one side the swastika, on the other the Zionist star.


.....In 1953 the Ben-Gurion government prosecuted an elderly pamphleteer, Malchiel Gruenwald, for having libelled Rezso Kasztner as a collaborator for his dealings with Eichmann in 1944. The trial had considerable international coverage throughout 1954. Eichmann must have followed it in the press, for he described his relationship with Kasztner at length in taped interviews he gave to a Dutch Nazi journalist, Willem Sassen, in 1955, parts of which were later published in two articles in Life magazine after his capture in 1960. Gruenwald had denounced Kasztner for having kept silent about the German lies that the Hungarian Jews were only being resettled at Kenyermezo. In return, he was allowed to organise the special convoy, which ultimately became a train to Switzerland, and place his family and friends on it. Further, Gruenwald claimed, Kasztner later protected SS Colonel Becher from being hung as a war criminal by claiming that he had done everything possible to save Jewish lives. Eichmann described Kasztner as follows:
This Dr Kastner [many sources Anglicise Kasztner’s name] was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps – if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price of 15,000 or 20,000 Jews – in the end there may have been more – was not too high for me. Except perhaps for the first few sessions, Kastner never came to me fearful of the Gestapo strong man. We negotiated entirely as equals. People forget that. We were political opponents trying to arrive at a settlement, and we trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarettes as though he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigarette after another, taking them from a silver case and lighting them with a little silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.

.....Dr Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel . As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the SS and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders who were fighting what might be their last battle. As I told Kastner: “We, too, are idealists and we, too, had to sacrifice our own blood before we came to power.” I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. He was not interested in old Jews or those who had become assimilated into Hungarian society. But he was incredibly persistent in trying to save biologically valuable Jewish blood – that is, human material that was capable of reproduction and hard work. “You can have the others” he would say, “but let me have this group here.” And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. [19] André Biss, Joel Brand’s cousin, who worked with Kasztner in Budapest, and who supported his policy, nevertheless corroborated Eichmann’s statement in part in his book, A Million Jews to Save, when he described who boarded the famous train which reached Switzerland on 6 December 1944: Then came the most numerous group, Kasztner’s pride – the Zionist youth. These were composed of the members of various organisations of agricultural pioneers, of extreme right-wing “revisionists” who already possessed immigration certificates, and a number of orphans ... Lastly came those who had been able to pay cash for their journey, for we had to collect the sum the Germans demanded. But of the 1684 in the train 300 at the most were of this category ...

…..That one Zionist betrayed the Jews would not be of any moment: no movement is responsible for its renegades. However, Kasztner was never regarded as a traitor by the Labour Zionists. On the contrary, they insisted, that if he was guilty, so were they. Kasztner certainly betrayed the Jews who looked to him as one of their leaders, despite Judge Chesin’s opinion:There is no law, either national or international, which lays down the duties of a leader in an hour of emergency toward those who rely on leadership and are under his instructions. [32]

....However, by far the most important aspect of the Kasztner-Gruenwald affair was its full exposure of the working philosophy of the World Zionist Organisation throughout the entire Nazi era: the sanctification of the betrayal of the many in the interest of a selected immigration to Palestine.

 

[Buddy]

The deviant psychopathic identity takes precedence over racial or political identity.

Indeed, go2. You said it much better than I did. Thanks.

 

[Tigersoap]

All I can say in this respect is that, as far as I'm concerned, I would never post onto a forum a description of my private sexual fantasies.

I think it is more than troubling how you equate the murder of a child to sexual fantasies.
It is quite pathological and in line with the character from what you've shown us so far.
Maybe another forum, in your native language where your ideas are better accepted would be a better place for you.
Bon voyage.

 

[Buddy]

All I can say in this respect is that, as far as I'm concerned, I would never post onto a forum a description of my private sexual fantasies.

I think it is more than troubling how you equate the murder of a child to sexual fantasies.
It is quite pathological and in line with the character from what you've shown us so far.

Good observation, Tigersoap. I think it's significant to see that suumcuique's reaction to that verbal description is the same as the physical reactions of the fascists to the physical reality itself.

In other words:

The beatings and tortures were, as is so often the case with sadism, often sexualized:

The SS camp commander stood close to the whipping post throughout the flogging...his whole face was already red with lascivious excitement. His hands were plunged deep in his trouser pockets, and it was quite clear that he was masturbating throughout...On more than thirty occasions, I myself have witnessed SS camp commanders masturbating during floggings...

ref:
Klaus Theweleit, Male Fantasies, p. 301.

The first chapter of Klaus Theweleit’s book Male Fantasies vol 1, entitled Men and Women, is an examination of origins and manifestations of fascism. Theweleit argues that Freud’s concepts of psychoanalysis, such as the Oedipus complex, castration anxiety, repression and the unconscious, cannot sufficiently describe the types of fascist men that were members of the Freikorps in Germany in the intra-war era because their hypre-violent mysogyny expressed a more primal alienation. The Freikorp members’ pursuit of the “bloody mass” originated in their prepersonal, symbiotic phase of infancy. Theweleit builds his argument by profiling members of the Freikorps and then putting them on the couch for psychoanalysis that has been informed by post-Freudian theories.
Source:
_http://hiddentranscripts.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/book-review-of-klaus-theweleit%E2%80%99s-book-male-fantasies-vol-1/

 

[henry]

suumcuique, your choice of Charles VI of France indicates that you do not have the slightest idea of what Lobaczewski discusses in his book. Charles VI was mentally disturbed; Lobaczewski is discussing psychopathy. They are two different things. The pathology that he is analysing is different from the pathology of a figure like Charles VI. Until you can recognise the difference, there is no point in discussing the matter.

As you say, "Terminology is essential. "

 

[suumcuique]

suumcuique, your choice of Charles VI of France indicates that you do not have the slightest idea of what Lobaczewski discusses in his book. Charles VI was mentally disturbed; Lobaczewski is discussing psychopathy. They are two different things. The pathology that he is analysing is different from the pathology of a figure like Charles VI. Until you can recognise the difference, there is no point in discussing the matter.

As you say, "Terminology is essential. "

Are you trying to say that someone mentally disturbed is not a psychopath?