Eric Fromm's book 'Fear of Freedom came to mind.Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear.
As 'freedom from' is not an experience we enjoy in itself, Fromm suggests that many people, rather than utilising it successfully, attempt to minimise its negative effects by developing thoughts and behaviours that provide some form of security. These are as follows:
Authoritarianism: Fromm characterises the authoritarian personality as containing a sadist element and a masochist element. The authoritarian wishes to gain control over other people in a bid to impose some kind of order on the world, they also wish to submit to the control of some superior force which may come in the guise of a person or an abstract idea.
Destructiveness: Although this bears a similarity to sadism, Fromm argues that the sadist wishes to gain control over something. A destructive personality wishes to destroy something it cannot bring under its control.
Conformity: This process is seen when people unconsciously incorporate the normative beliefs and thought processes of their society and experience them as their own. This allows them to avoid genuine free thinking, which is likely to provoke anxiety.
Freedom in the 20th century
Fromm analyses the character of Nazi ideology and suggests that the psychological conditions of Germany after the first world war fed into a desire for some form of new order to restore the nation's pride. This came in the form of National Socialism and Fromm's interpretation of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler had an authoritarian personality structure that not only made him want to rule over Germany in the name of a higher authority (the idea of a natural master race) but also made him an appealing prospect for an insecure working class that needed some sense of pride and certainty. Fromm suggests there is a propensity to submit to authoritarian regimes when nations experience negative freedom but he sounds a positive note when he claims that the work of cultural evolution hitherto cannot be undone and Nazism does not provide a genuine union with the world.
Fromm examines democracy and freedom. Modern democracy and the industrialised nation are models he praises but it is stressed that the kind of external freedom provided by this kind of society can never be utilised to the full without an equivalent inner freedom. Fromm suggests that though we are free from obvious authoritarian influence, we are still dominated in our thinking and behaviour by ideas of 'common sense', the advice of experts and the influence of advertising. The way to become truly free in an individual sense is to become spontaneous in our self-expression and behaviour and respond truthfully to our genuine feelings. This is crystallised in his existential statement "there is only one meaning of life: the act of living it". Fromm counters suggestions that this might lead to social chaos by claiming that being truly in touch with our humanity is to be truly in touch with the needs of those with whom we share the world. This is the meaning of a truly social democracy and the realisation of the positive 'freedom to' that arises when people escape the malign influence of totalising political orders.
Discussing the nature of the apparent freedom of Western democracies, Fromm suggests that Fascism may arise anywhere a people devolve their thinking on authorities rather than doing it themselves: "The right to express our thoughts ... means something only if we are able to have thoughts of our own". In this he echoes Alexis de Tocqueville, who in his 1840 book Democracy in America stated "It is vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."
and to be frank imo as important today.
Last edited by alexa; Jun 22 2012 at 12:44 AM.
There you go Wikipedia again. The greatest source for Kosher information on the web. But who needs Wikipedia we already have the jewish controlled newspapers, Hollywood, and television jews networks. Remember Fox Jews filmed Russian Riots in Athens Greece. The backdrop worked anyway.
Back to the Democracy issue with Hitler.
Now whose policy is followed today? -- that of the Jewish minority, which doesn't think like you and I do. You thought the majority was supposed to prevail in a democracy? Wrong. Political control in a democracy, as Aristotle observed, is vested in those who control television. This is part of what certain Americans are getting at with the 'ZOG' formulation that all the pseudo-sophisticated college-educated folk laugh at (as TV has taught them to).
No, the quote was taken from wiki for simplicity but the book I knew. Furthermore I have it right by my side and it was published in 1942. We are talking about someone observing and writing at the time, not some 'the winner writes false story' as you delude yourself with. Hitler had a problem with the need for morality, conscience and freedom. He has admitted it above. He wanted to rationalise and remove these constraints.
That is the sort of society you promote. That of authoritarian sadist-masochistic people. Of course Fromm did not know when he wrote how bad this was going to turn out - but authoritarian sadomasochism he definitely saw. Hey, I have the book by me now.
Now all you are doing in your talk of democracy being anything to do with Jews is just parroting or trying like Hitler to rationalise his psychotic sadomasochism which Fromm speaks of here
The Fear of Freedom, pages 197-198 published 1942The last rationalisation for his sadism, his justification of it as a defence against the attacks of others, finds manifold expressions in Hitler's writings. He and the German people are always the ones who are innocent and the enemies are the sadistic brutes. A great deal of this propaganda consists of deliberate conscious lies. Partly, however, it has the same emotional 'sincerity' which paranoid accusations have. These accusations always have the foundation of a defence against something found out with regards to one's own sadism and destructiveness. They run according to the formula: it is you who have the sadistic intention. Therefore I am innocent. With Hitler this defensive mechanism is irrational to the extreme, since he accuses his enemies of the very things he frankly admits to be his own sins. Thus he accuses the Jews, the Communists and the French of the very things that he says are the most legitimate aims of his own actions. He scarcely bothers to cover this contradiction by rationalizations. He accuses the Jews of bringing the French African troops to the Rhine with the intention to destroy, by the bastardization which would necessarily set in, the white race and this 'in turn rise personally to the position of master'. Hitler must have detected the contradiction of condemning others for that which he claims to be the most noble aim of his race, and he tries to rationalize the contradiction by saying of the Jews that their instinct of self-preservation lacks the idealistic character which is to be found in the Aryan drive for mastery.
and look, here is John Sholtes all these years later wanting to try the same again and still acting the victim even though we know what this sadism led to
Last edited by alexa; Jun 22 2012 at 04:38 PM.
I saw a neat little program on the History channel where the U.S. intelligence hired the top man in psychology to put together a group of experts to analyze him and determine his future moves.
They discovered that Hitler liked to have women urinate on him while he lay on his back....well ya get the picture.
He also thought that he had a purpose because he was the only one of the brothers born to his mother that survived childhood.
His mother was a neat freal that kept a perfect house and the young, weak little Adolph from any harm.
His father was a sadistic, child beating drunk.
Last edited by politicalcenter; Jun 22 2012 at 04:59 PM.
The truth is neither right or left...it is the truth.
The problem with marriage is that we heterosexuals are not honoring marriage sufficiently- not with homosexuals wanting to get married.
Every child a homosexual couples has is a desired child.
And they are generally not hard to spot. They go around praising each other constantly, and absolutely love people like Hitler for no other reason.
I generally ignore them, it is generally a waste of my time to talk to coprophagiastic individuals such as that. Other then a few digs at their total inability to do any kind of research or use logic.
Quote by Adolf Hitler:
BERLIN, RHEINMETALL-BORSIG WORKS
SPEECH OF DECEMBER 10, 1940
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully, because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have wrought enormous changes.
By 1940 he had destroyed synagogues.
Entire Jewish districts were either turned into prisons, or depopulated.
Libraries worth of books.
But no, nothing was destroyed. Nothing to look at here, move along please. Move along.
See what I mean about racists? Coprophagiastic inbreds, all of them