Dr Jerold Post was the first to make a physcoanalysis framework profiling of Adolf Hitler through the CIA post.This was the first disciplined study of a political leader.
William Donovan of the OSS HQ was the one to approach william Langer ,a Harvard physchologist.Hitler was able to direct his own physchological needs for the people of germany that lead to the systematic fiefdom by hitler.Langer studied the private person hitler.Freuds study made that a childs future or mode of thinking.
He found that Hitler had a wounded childhood.A very saddistic father violent with his children that results in his confusion and arrogant nature.Second method of profiling was in Edward Bloch who was a doctor to hitlers family.Adolf hitler was close to his mother and suffered from oedipus syndrome which facitilated saddistic nature.Hitler was awkward about women The magnitude of his weakness which was as a result of his childhood.As a result of this perversions was for his jew doctor who could not control the death of his mother.Hitler was a weak frail boy and his thre brothers had died.In his juvenile way he thought that he was special and under divine protection"A messiah complex" a savior of the german , an epitomy of the christ :a fighter .This occurs as a sudden burst of anti-Semitism.A discriminatory attitude that catapulted hitler to presecute jews.
Langer made the predictions about Hitler in 1942:
that 1)Hitler would simply never give up and would not submit to allies or try an effort for dilution.
2)Langer made a prediction that hitlers messiahic attitude would result in an effort by his own german army to conspire and kill him.
3)Langer also made a revelation that as a result of this attack Hitler would become more of a loner and repulsive towards his german people not trying to use the propoganda and trying a resurrection of his political career.
It may seem an anomaly for the rest.But the greatest wizards of mass holocaust have been found to have similar attributes analogous over space and time.A hitler a saddam hossain ,a harry S truman a stalin have always remained or suffered similar conditions in childhood.The string that tied them was a fear was always indecision, uncertainty, and weakness; All Historians agree that the worst moments of their authorative Presidency stem from this need for instant decision in complex matters and an unfortunate tendency of shooting from the hip.They all wanted to compensated for this boyhood weakness through a severe action of struggle.This profiling linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and arguing they all suffered from the same affliction. All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".
The notion of political conservitism was clear in their minds.a number of different epistemic motives (dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity; cognitive complexity; closed-mindedness; uncertainty avoidance; needs for order, structure, and closure), existential motives (self-esteem, terror management, fear, threat, anger, and pessimism), and ideological motives (self-interest, group dominance, and system justification) are all related to the expression of political conservatism. Relations between resistance to change and acceptance of inequality. Although we believe that the two core dimensions of political conservatism—resistance to change and acceptance of inequality—are often related to one another, they are obviously distinguishable. Vivid counterexamples come to mind in which the two dimensions are negatively related to one another. For instance, there is the “conservative paradox” of right-wing revolutionaries, such as Hitler or Mussolini or Pinochet, who seem to advocate social change in the direction of decreased egalitarianism. In at least some of these cases, what appears to be a desire for change is really “an imaginatively transfigured conception of the past with which to criticize the present” (Muller, 2001, p. 2625). There are also cases of left-wing ideologues who, once they are in power, steadfastly resist change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism, such as Stalin or Khrushchev (see J. Martin, Scully, & Levitt, 1990). It is reasonable to suggest that some of these historical figures may be considered politically conservative, at least in the context of the systems they defended.
a small note to those who may think why I shifted from making a study of Mahabharata to european history study.The ideas are provided as intercepts.Vyasas duryodhana suffers from similar maligning features.He looses to the pandavas in the childhood ,a closely guarded very secure child in the hastinapur castle, suffers from similar voidness which he wants to suffice through his total authoratian values,does not submit even at the very end and undergoes no least or no pangs of contempt.
A high poltical conservatism where he lets only himself or his close proteges to rule the empire according to his will unlike the pandavas.
The literal frankesteins of civilizations as visualized by vyasa have talked of similar physchological traits compared to the contemporary landscape of the society.A hitler or a duryodhana posess or acquire simlar traits through childhood that result in their being self assasinators.
All this behaviors address the basic
No comments:
Post a Comment