PDA

View Full Version : Hitler: The epitome of transference


coberst
02-26-2008, 06:38 AM
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.

rendova
02-26-2008, 07:27 AM
Interesting post.

In High School, we watched the Nazi movie Triumph of the Will directed by the great German director Leni Reifenstahl, in my Modern European History class.

The movie held us absolutely transfixed as it detailed a tremendous Nazi Party Rally and the huge crowds massed, chanting "Sieg--HEIL!!" in unison, with the searchlights and huge swastikas and eagles in the background.

After the movie, during discussion, many of us (in fact, most of us) confessed that we had felt like jumping out of our chairs to similarly pay tribute to the Fuhrer--the spectacle was that powerful.

And of course, I consider Hitler the greatest, most spellbinding speaker of the modern age.

He did not convert his followers. He discovered them.

primitive man
02-26-2008, 09:21 AM
i always said that the german people ALLOWED him to live and rule. just like americans let corporations dictate polititicans. don't like it? pick up a gun. and DO something.

mikezila
02-26-2008, 09:38 AM
i always said that the german people ALLOWED him to live and rule. just like americans let corporations dictate polititicans. don't like it? pick up a gun. and DO something.
one of the 1st things the Nazi's did was collect the guns. the Germans gave them up willingly because they were told that it was for their own good.

sound familiar?

rendova
02-26-2008, 10:35 AM
Expounding on this topic...
When I was very young, we lived next door to an ex-American GI, European theater, and his German war bride, their kids, and the bride's parents, an elderly German couple who the whole neighborhood referrred to as Oma and Opa.

The elderly couple seemd kindly, tho they spoke very little English. Oma baked cookies and gingerbread for us kids and Opa gave me a German shepherd puppy to play with ( he bred them and his dogs were among the most beautiful, well-trained animals I've ever seen. But they only responded to commands in German). Oma was plump and Opa looked almost sinister with his pince-nez and he'd all but click his heels together when you saw him out in the yard. He looked like a Wehrmacht Herr Feldmarschall and a not very fun-loving one at that.

Not to digress TOO much, but anyhoo---Mom and the bride would koffeklatsch frequently and got to know each other quite well. This woman spoke good English and was quite Americanized, but....after they had gotten to know each other fairly well, the talk turned to the War and of course, Hitler.

This woman insisted neither she nor or family had followed the Fuhrer. They had despised him, she said, and were glad when their country lost the War.

When Mom repeated this nonsense to Dad later that evening, he laughed.

"Sure they did", he replied. "They hated him so much they still thought they were winning the war even when there were Soviet tanks perched on their very doorstep."

Napsterbater
02-26-2008, 10:45 AM
Expounding on this topic...
When I was very young, we lived next door to an ex-American GI, European theater, and his German war bride, their kids, and the bride's parents, an elderly German couple who the whole neighborhood referrred to as Oma and Opa.

The elderly couple seemd kindly, tho they spoke very little English. Oma baked cookies and gingerbread for us kids and Opa gave me a German shepherd puppy to play with ( he bred them and his dogs were among the most beautiful, well-trained animals I've ever seen. But they only responded to commands in German). Oma was plump and Opa looked almost sinister with his pince-nez and he'd all but click his heels together when you saw him out in the yard. He looked like a Wehrmacht Herr Feldmarschall and a not very fun-loving one at that.

Not to digress TOO much, but anyhoo---Mom and the bride would koffeklatsch frequently and got to know each other quite well. This woman spoke good English and was quite Americanized, but....after they had gotten to know each other fairly well, the talk turned to the War and of course, Hitler.

This woman insisted neither she nor or family had followed the Fuhrer. They had despised him, she said, and were glad when their country lost the War.

When Mom repeated this nonsense to Dad later that evening, he laughed.

"Sure they did", he replied. "They hated him so much they still thought they were winning the war even when there were Soviet tanks perched on their very doorstep."
Haha, what a great story, Ren!

coberst
02-26-2008, 10:46 AM
He did not convert his followers. He discovered them.

Very good point.

Freethinker
02-27-2008, 09:41 AM
one of the 1st things the Nazi's did was collect the guns. the Germans gave them up willingly because they were told that it was for their own good.

sound familiar?

No. Not at all.

That's the only instance of a nation of people being asked to give up all their guns that I have ever heard of.

mikezila
02-27-2008, 10:43 AM
No. Not at all.

That's the only instance of a nation of people being asked to give up all their guns that I have ever heard of.
England, Canada, parts of the U.S....but you're focusing on the wrong part.

"they did it willingly because the they were told it was for their own good"-that plays on both sides.

Decka
02-27-2008, 10:53 AM
Saddam had almost the same regime set up in Iraq as Hitler did in Germany.. not in military force, but in fear and facism...

primitive man
02-27-2008, 11:31 AM
:bike:

Napsterbater
02-27-2008, 01:53 PM
England, Canada, parts of the U.S....but you're focusing on the wrong part.

"they did it willingly because the they were told it was for their own good"-that plays on both sides.
Canadians giving up all their guns? o.O