Posts by Kyle Morris7

Olivia Carter25 said:Well, that isn't quite accurate, considering that in America today you aren't really going to find anyone willing to admit they participated in Nazi activities, nor will you find anyone who will tell you that a relative of theirs was involved, even in places where almost everyone was part of it. So, they distanced themselves very skillfully from that authority once times became unfavorable...😉

I find myself agreeing with Walter Myers; I believe Nazism is a consequence of collective repression... and I agree with Nellie as well, regarding the ignoring of the shadow, which is essentially the same thing. And then there is what Walter Myers mentioned, that this is a result of the restrictive upbringing found in Protestant culture... repressed aggression had to manifest somewhere. And the Germans simply projected their own shadow onto the Jews. That is where all those schemes originated—that the Jews were "unclean" while the Aryans were "pure." If that isn't repression, then I truly don't know what is...

The Germans distanced themselves from authority, but it was done through force. It is a case that almost doesn't exist in modern history. Why I think so:
a) their leader committed suicide—which shows, in the end, that he was weak, and will anyone really accept a weakling as an authority figure?
b) the German military suffered total annihilation
c) a large portion of their territory was seized—likely forever
d) after the war, they endured a long period of occupation
e) they were subsequently drilled for decades on the fact that Nazism and all those who embraced it represented the greatest crime imaginable
All other modern major criminals remain authorities for two reasons. The first is because there was no coercion forcing the masses to renounce that authority, and the second is because some criminals aren't even perceived as criminals on a global scale (I am thinking primarily of Communist criminals)...
What Protestant culture? Why then haven't the other (or all) Protestant nations committed such crimes. Besides, half of the Germans are Catholic...

Walter Myers

It is sado-masochistic in the sense that there exists such a collective mentality where one must simultaneously be mistreated by a higher authority and mistreat someone weaker than oneself.

I wouldn't call it a collective mentality; rather, it is more like the natural hierarchy of the law of the jungle—the strong overpower the weak. This is a part of human nature, just as it is among animals. Sado-masochism is something else entirely, as it implies pleasure in both tormenting and enduring, which is a trait of a psychopath, not a collective...

Walter Myers4 said:If my memory serves me correctly, that sounds like Frahm’s theory regarding the masochistic and sadistic tendencies within the German psyche, which he argues were essentially forged by their Protestant cultural roots...

I can't quite recall which specific volume that was in... I have spent quite a bit of time wading through Frahm's work, yet this particular concept escapes me at the moment. A sadistic-masochistic temperament in Germans? It seems somewhat ambiguous... I find myself wondering which segment of the population would fall into the sadistic category and which would be the masochists...
Since we are discussing national character—or perhaps more accurately, the collective mindset of a people—one might argue that there exists a distinction between a dominant mentality and a subservient one. Those nations that have maintained long-standing hegemony over their neighbors tend to develop a certain masterly disposition, which stands in stark contrast, naturally, to those who occupy a more subordinate role...

Jonathan Hernandez4 said:http://www.susannealbers.de/04psycho-gruen-werk02.html

I’ve found a few texts here by that Swiss psychoanalyst, Arno Grün... they are written in German, and honestly, they are far too lengthy for me to attempt a full translation...

The core themes seem to revolve around identity—the actual process of developing one's own sense of self... things like authority, the testing of obedience, and how the only way to forge an identity is through initial identification with a parent, or an authority figure... then later, seeking out and identifying with a different authority... there is this idea of fighting against what is perceived as "bad," which the authority deems wrong... essentially being against parts of oneself that one wishes to suppress or conquer because those parts threaten the carefully constructed identity one has built...

It is all a bit convoluted, and I cannot quite summarize it properly in just a couple of sentences, but to my mind, it sounds rather plausible...

Unfortunately, my grasp of German is quite limited, so I am unable to offer much commentary... though, I must admit, I find this particular theory somewhat difficult to wrap my head around, primarily because I have always struggled to accept authority myself... once an authority figure disappoints me, I tend to walk away quite quickly, whereas in the case of a deranged—or perhaps just malicious—mob, it seems they never actually abandon their leader... I am thinking, for instance, of those people who still cling to leaders from fifty years ago, even when it is blindingly obvious that those figures were profoundly negative...
It occurred to me just now, reflecting on that last thought, that perhaps the key to understanding mass madness lies in the fact that they never truly abandon their chosen authority... The real question, I suppose, is why they refuse to leave, and why they choose to remain, quite voluntarily, within their own insanity...

Walter Myers4 said:I don't think things are ever quite that straightforward... more often than not, the ruling "elite" handpicks a leader—someone perhaps a bit more visible—simply because they believe he'll be the most efficient tool for advancing their own specific interests. To fulfill that particular role, a leader doesn't actually need to be the most capable person in the nation; in fact, quite frequently, the individual chosen is some marginal, almost laughable figure, someone who is much easier for those in power to manipulate and control.
So, to put it bluntly: the elite selects the leader and pulls his strings...
And that leader essentially serves the masses as a sort of entertainer, performing whatever little drama they want to see...

I find myself agreeing with this first part, though I suspect it mostly applies during peaceful times when there aren't massive societal upheavals occurring... because once you hit those moments of intense conflict, the sheer madness—or perhaps just the inherent darkness—of the masses becomes the primary driver. Whether it's one singular leader or the entire elite class pulling the levers, as you suggest, feels almost secondary at that point... after all, it's still just a tiny handful of people leading millions, and those millions follow them not necessarily because they've been deceived, but simply because it suits their own needs at the time...

Walter Myers4 said:why do you think they have more right to speak about moral dilemmas?

That wasn't quite my point, though I suppose I can see how it might have come across that way... what I am actually preoccupied with is the pathology behind the crime itself rather than the ethical quandaries surrounding it, and frankly, those professionals are trained for this level of scrutiny, whereas for the rest of us, psychology is merely a passing interest or a hobby...
Regarding Germany. Please, let’s not get bogged down in that specific detail, as it was intended solely as an illustration... My curiosity lies in the psychopathology of crime in a general sense, not focusing on any one particular nation or state... I will concede that much of the German populace may have been lagging behind at the time, but nations that lack, or perhaps never possessed, a significant number of great thinkers tend to be even further behind, so the end result remains essentially the same...

I believe the issue with mass psychology is that it effectively shuts down all rational impulse, reducing human behavior entirely to mere primal instincts.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that... if we were truly driven by pure instinct, we would be behaving almost identically to animals, which doesn't seem to be the case... I actually suspect the opposite is true—that it is fundamentally a matter of the mind... Even you (and urbannomad12) touch upon this in your own observations: things like humiliation, unfulfilled ambitions, the fear of loss, greed, and so on... none of those things could strictly be categorized as simple animalistic instincts...
Looking through your messages, I still sense a persistent belief that a single individual is the one who drives the masses into madness... If you feel inclined, I would be interested to hear your reasoning on why you believe one person can sway a whole crowd... Personally, I find myself leaning toward the contrary view, as I mentioned before: the masses select a leader who promises to fulfill their own latent ambitions... Whether that leader is later judged as a hero or cast as the sole villain depends entirely on whether he succeeded in satisfying those collective desires... The crowd simply finds it easier to point the finger at one man to absolve themselves of responsibility...

Neli said:It’s all about this "shadow" concept—people actually enjoy being manipulated because they hear a "leader" say the very things they wouldn't dare utter themselves, which then fuels hatred on all sorts of different grounds...

I find myself thinking that your opening sentence is actually a bit of a contradiction, if you don't mind me saying... I mean, the idea of people "loving" to be manipulated just doesn't sit right with me, because love and manipulation are fundamentally at odds, since manipulation is essentially a deception. But then again, the masses don't go looking to be deceived, nor do I believe they truly are. If I were to frame it differently, I would suggest that the crowd chooses and follows a leader who simply fulfills their specific desires and needs... which brings us back to the second half of your thought. There is always an inherent presence of both good and evil, and in these instances, the chosen leader becomes the vessel for that evil. To constantly harp on the theory of manipulation—a narrative we saw repeated endlessly during the American Civil War, and indeed during many other conflicts where entire communities participate in atrocities—is a flawed thesis, and perhaps even a dangerous one, because it shifts the entirety of the blame onto one or two individuals when, in reality, the responsibility lies with everyone involved...
One could argue that it isn't manipulation at all, but rather a product of immediate fear, ignorance, or a sense of vulnerability, but I don't think that's quite it either. If that were the case, the sentiment would dissipate once the fear subsided, but it doesn't... instead, we see the masses continuing to glorify criminals even after five, ten, or fifty years have passed...

urbannomad12 said:it's really about an individual who holds sway over a specific group of people and exerts their influence until, over time, those followers essentially become "brainwashed sheep" just following orders...
I recall reading in a certain book...

The first scenario you mentioned makes sense to me, at least to a certain extent... I suppose one can always find a few hundred unstable, disgruntled, or simply uneducated individuals out there. But the real conundrum arises when you have millions, or even hundreds of millions, actively supporting an atrocity. And it isn't merely a question of being underdeveloped or backward. If we were only talking about sheer lack of sophistication, then perhaps we could use Castro or Maddox as easy examples to explain away such things. However, how does one account for the collective madness seen in Germany during the Second World War? It certainly wasn't due to being behind the times, because back then, Germans were arguably one of the most traditionally, culturally, and economically advanced nations on the planet...

Is there perhaps a single psychologist or psychiatrist on this forum who might care to offer some professional insight regarding this matter... or are we all just mere amateurs here, playing at being therapists?

Prompted by the ongoing debates here regarding whether certain political figures should be branded as criminals or not, I find myself compelled to open this discussion on the underlying reasons why people tend to idolize and defend mass murderers...
In our legal system, there is a general consensus—well, perhaps not universal, but certainly the prevailing view among most Americans—that any individual who kills another person, or orders such a killing, is a criminal. Yet, when we look at various statesmen (it doesn't matter which ones specifically), individuals who have undeniably ordered the deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people, we see an enormous number of people consistently supporting them and hailing them as heroes. So, I wonder, who are these people who refuse to see them as criminals? Are they psychopaths? Is it pure egoism, where people simply cannot see past their own immediate interests? Are they just unrefined? Or perhaps they are criminals themselves, hiding behind a mask? Or maybe it is a combination of all these things... or am I simply holding humanity to an impossibly high standard?