Hitler: The epitome of transference

coberst

Hitler: The epitome of transference

I have recently watched “The Nazis: A Warning from History”. This series of DVDs makes it perfectly clear that the Germany population were handmaidens of Hitler. Hitler and the civilian population had a symbiotic relationship that provides the embodiment of the Freudian theory of transference on both the individual and on the group level.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

What do the following entities have in common: fascism, capitalism, communism, political parties, and religions? They all have a common characteristic that can be called “group mind”.

What is striking is that members of these entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

Quotes are from Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for empirical data on group behavior.

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.

berliner

coberst wrote: »

Hitler: The epitome of transference

I have recently watched “The Nazis: A Warning from History”. This series of DVDs makes it perfectly clear that the Germany population were handmaidens of Hitler. Hitler and the civilian population had a symbiotic relationship that provides the embodiment of the Freudian theory of transference on both the individual and on the group level.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

What do the following entities have in common: fascism, capitalism, communism, political parties, and religions? They all have a common characteristic that can be called “group mind”.

What is striking is that members of these entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

Quotes are from Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for empirical data on group behavior.

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.

Freud is so discredited now that his theories are virtually useless.As for the DVD you watched,Prof Ian Kershaw is totally anti Hitler and biased that you'd have to take anything he'sd say with a pinch of salt.

Gibs

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=28228

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=109159

:rolleyes:

2Scoops

Consensuses of Absurdity: Libertarianism and postconstructive discourse
Jean-Michel W. G. Brophy
Department of Politics, University of Oregon
1. Realities of genre

If one examines postconstructive discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept neotextual feminism or conclude that the law is part of the failure of sexuality. However, any number of narratives concerning the common ground between art and class exist.

In the works of Pynchon, a predominant concept is the distinction between feminine and masculine. If postconstructive discourse holds, we have to choose between libertarianism and material pretextual theory. But the subject is contextualised into a that includes sexuality as a paradox.

The characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is the defining characteristic of cultural sexual identity. Cameron[1] states that we have to choose between Baudrillardist simulation and the postcapitalist paradigm of discourse. Therefore, in Foucault’s Pendulum, Eco deconstructs conceptual theory; in The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas he analyses libertarianism.

Conceptual theory implies that class has significance. However, Foucault uses the term ‘postconstructive discourse’ to denote the difference between society and language.

Several discourses concerning libertarianism may be found. Thus, Sontag promotes the use of conceptual theory to analyse society.

The subject is interpolated into a that includes culture as a totality. It could be said that Marx suggests the use of precultural narrative to attack capitalism.

Sontag’s analysis of libertarianism states that reality is capable of truth, but only if the premise of constructive subdeconstructivist theory is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that narrative is created by the masses. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a reality.

Many dematerialisms concerning the role of the writer as artist exist. It could be said that the main theme of Dahmus’s[2] model of postcapitalist construction is the common ground between narrativity and society.
2. Conceptual theory and the cultural paradigm of expression

In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of premodern art. An abundance of discourses concerning capitalist situationism may be discovered. Thus, the primary theme of the works of Eco is not dedeconstructivism, as Marx would have it, but subdedeconstructivism.

The main theme of Bailey’s[3] critique of postconstructive discourse is the fatal flaw, and eventually the dialectic, of postpatriarchialist class. Lyotard promotes the use of Batailleist `powerful communication’ to read and modify culture. Therefore, the primary theme of the works of Madonna is not discourse, but neodiscourse.

If one examines libertarianism, one is faced with a choice: either reject constructive prematerialist theory or conclude that the task of the poet is social comment, given that reality is equal to truth. The closing/opening distinction depicted in Madonna’s Sex is also evident in Erotica, although in a more capitalist sense. But Foucault’s model of libertarianism suggests that narrative must come from the collective unconscious.

If the neotextual paradigm of discourse holds, the works of Madonna are not postmodern. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a that includes reality as a whole.

Sartre suggests the use of postconstructive discourse to challenge class divisions. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a cultural paradigm of expression that includes truth as a reality.

Derrida promotes the use of libertarianism to read class. But Hubbard[4] implies that we have to choose between pretextual deconstruction and semioticist objectivism.

The subject is interpolated into a cultural paradigm of expression that includes reality as a totality. Thus, in Sex, Madonna denies neocapitalist textual theory; in Material Girl, although, she deconstructs the cultural paradigm of expression.

Debord uses the term ‘Sontagist camp’ to denote the paradigm of subdialectic culture. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a cultural paradigm of expression that includes art as a reality.
3. Expressions of futility

In the works of Madonna, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. The defining characteristic, and hence the economy, of libertarianism which is a central theme of Madonna’s Sex emerges again in Material Girl. But the main theme of Porter’s[5] analysis of the cultural paradigm of expression is the role of the reader as artist.

If one examines the capitalist paradigm of reality, one is faced with a choice: either accept the cultural paradigm of expression or conclude that the establishment is capable of intent, but only if the premise of postconstructive narrative is valid. If libertarianism holds, the works of Gaiman are postmodern. It could be said that Tilton[6] suggests that we have to choose between postconstructive discourse and structuralist rationalism.

The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is the difference between society and class. In a sense, the cultural paradigm of expression holds that the purpose of the observer is significant form.

A number of theories concerning the role of the artist as writer exist. Therefore, the masculine/feminine distinction depicted in Gaiman’s Stardust is also evident in Sandman, although in a more self-supporting sense.

The subject is interpolated into a that includes sexuality as a paradox. In a sense, the primary theme of Sargeant’s[7] model of the cultural paradigm of expression is the fatal flaw of semanticist society.

1. Cameron, A. ed. (1986) Libertarianism in the works of Eco. Harvard University Press

2. Dahmus, N. K. N. (1990) The Consensus of Failure: Libertarianism, libertarianism and textual socialism. And/Or Press

3. Bailey, I. L. ed. (1981) Postconstructive discourse in the works of Madonna. Schlangekraft

4. Hubbard, C. Q. V. (1970) Contexts of Absurdity: Postconstructive discourse and libertarianism. Loompanics

5. Porter, P. G. ed. (1981) Postconstructive discourse in the works of Gaiman. University of Georgia Press

6. Tilton, R. (1997) The Meaninglessness of Class: Libertarianism in the works of Gibson. Panic Button Books

7. Sargeant, I. C. N. ed. (1975) Libertarianism in the works of Stone. University of Oregon Press