Is anyone here disputing the facts? The question raised by Adriano still
stands, is anyone who makes a mistake, ipso facto, “delusional”?
John
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2019, at 12:02, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First, Hitler said before that, repeatedly, that he would not open a war on
two fronts. Second, he received military memoranda before operation Barbarosa
which he chose to ignore, in fact he said that he would not pay any attention
to them.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:59 AM adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am not arguing anything.
In the case of Barbarossa in 41, Hitler was razor blade close crushing the
two fronts. Hitler invaded when convinced that the sealion operation was
useless.
If you look at the military facts that is pretty clear.
Did he lose?
yes, but if anybody who makes a mistake is "delusional" "psycho pathological
nut" etc. the terms lost grip since we are all some such
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
Er selbst bevorzugte undurchdringlich Klarheit
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:02 PM Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, you would argue that Hitler was acting rationally in starting a war
against the Soviet Union, for example ? It would not have anything to do
with delusional thinking ?
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:41 AM adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
no, i see nothing psychologically strange in hitler.
he was a political leader, in many respects a murderer, while it almost
impossible to understand whether he hurt 'facetoface' any peson. there is
a story in Austria about a niece, noone establiushed anything.
It is true that I had and have a low opinion of politicians, & Hitler was
one, with almost catastrphic results for germany (division of the country,
status of almost paryah among the nations etc.)
but a psychopath? I see nothing but a form of medicalized insult in the
term
equally if one see salafis or talibs as psychopaths there is no insight
into anything.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
Er selbst bevorzugte undurchdringlich Klarheit
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:09 AM Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hitler was, or seemed lucid for the most part, at least when he was not
on drugs. Would you say that something must have been wrong with him
psychologically ? I am not going to go into diagnoses or anything like
that, neither of us is a psychiatrist.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:38 PM adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
well, maybe, maybe, I give you a maybe,
since I have no idea what is opposed to "literally insane", possibly
"metaphorically insane"? or what?
if the dude is a psychopath there are elaborate testing methods to watch
out for the pathology.
what I fear is that the term psychopath becomes a way of insult, rather
than attempt to capture the reality of the criminal, or of the crime.
If someone is a psychopath there are symptoms, (e.g. schizoid delirium,
perceptual delusions, and many others)
from what I read of the Breivik interrogations, none was found, he was
lucid and clear. One may despise his opinions or political views, but a
psychopath, no....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
Er selbst bevorzugte undurchdringlich Klarheit
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 8:32 AM Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hm... the acts these persons committed would themselves seem to be
evidence of psychopathology. I do not see how these acts could be
rational, even given their extremist political goals. It is not clear
how these goals are even furthered by the actions they took, and might
even be offset by them. Also, their self-descriptions attempting to
rationalize it should not be taken at face value - we should not be
inclined to believe Breivik when he claims that he is Hitler more
automatically then we would believe him if he claimed that he was
Napoleon. Certainly, the extremist ideology they were exposed to played
a role, and given the magnitude of the crimes it is difficult to
believe that there was no organization and planning. But of course
nobody is claiming that Breivik is literally insane - if he were he
would be in a mental hospital and not in prison.
O.K.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 4:48 PM adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
for the record, Breivik on Utoya killed some5 scores of people who
were members of teh youth league of the labour organizations.
that Breivik is far more cretinous than 'unabomber' I have seldom any
doubt. his killing was a political act,in standard terminology the
usual nazi thug killing people of the left. I fail to see why that is
psychopathological, unless one thinks that any political fight is
psychopathology which defeates the argument's bones. Albeit for some
difficult to swallow, this is the form of political combat in europe
now, from Donbass to oslo
(Breivik also killed many by bombing the government wing in Oslo,
quite like McVeigh who bombed the federal building of Oklahoma city)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
Er selbst bevorzugte undurchdringlich Klarheit
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:12 AM Lawrence Helm
<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In regard to Anders Breivik, he said a lot of things about his
motives, but what he did was kill a bunch of people, most of whom, if
looking at their photos means anything, were Norwegian, or at least
Northern Europeans. He didn’t seek out just the people whose
ethnicity or immigration status he was opposed to. He killed people
indiscriminately in order to publicize his manifesto . . . which is
what Ted Kaczynski did as well although Kaczynski killed or tried to
kill people involved in the technology he was opposed to.
“Two teams of court-appointed forensic psychiatrists examined Breivik
before his trial. The first team diagnosed Breivik with paranoid
schizophrenia[20] but after this initial finding was criticized,[21]
a second evaluation concluded that he was not psychotic during the
attacks but did have narcissistic personality disorder.[2 [from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik]
Like Kaczynski, Breivik believed he knew best what his nation needed
to do. Can you believe you are smarter than everyone else and not be
narcissistic? Perhaps you can if you really are. Milton at an early
age believed that he could write an epic that would be the greatest
of his age. In the opinion of critics, he achieved his goal; so was
he narcissistic? Does believing that you are the greatest poet of
your age by definition mean that you must be narcissistic?
I didn’t read Breivik’s manifesto, but I did read Ted Kaczynski’s,
and didn’t think Kaczynski was narcissistic. What he believed didn’t
sound so very different from the arguments of Al Gore. . . but of
course Al Gore may have been . . .
“Since his imprisonment, Breivik has identified himself as a
fascist[29] and a Nazi,[30] who practices Odinism[30][31] and uses
counterjihadist rhetoric to support ethno-nationalists.”[ibid]
Perhaps we could be permitted to say that in these modern times a lot
of people have spent a lot of time putting names to the activities of
people who kill other people indiscriminately in order to get a
population at large to harken to their ideas; which ideas when you
read them seem fairly mundane. I’m sure there are many Norwegians
who object to non-integrating immigrants, but if any of these
Norwegians feel murderous, one might think they would choose as their
victims, these non-integrating immigrants and not an indiscriminate
number of their well-integrated fellow citizens.
General Sherman’s “march to the sea” was innovative when he did it.
While U. S. Grant and Robert E. Lee were killing each other’s forces
by the thousands, Sherman took his army into the south in order to
destroy, not its people, but the resources the South needed to
continue fighting.
Since that time, various nations during wars have attempted to do the
same thing through bombing, e.g., “During World War II, it was
believed by many military strategists of air power that major
victories could be won by attacking industrial and political
infrastructure, rather than purely military targets.[15] Strategic
bombing often involved bombing areas inhabited by civilians and some
campaigns were deliberately designed to target civilian populations
in order to terrorize and disrupt their usual activities. . . The
effect of strategic bombing was highly debated during and after the
war.[23][24][25][26] Both the Luftwaffe and RAF failed to deliver a
knockout blow by destroying enemy morale. However some argued that
strategic bombing of non-military targets could significantly reduce
enemy industrial capacity and production[27][28] and in the opinion
of its interwar period proponents, the surrender of Japan vindicated
strategic bombing.[29 [from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II]
With these as examples, can we apply terms to individuals and
applicable national leaders who engage in this sort of killing in
such a way as to exclude it as a pathological social epidemic?
Suicide, when there was a rash of them triggered by such stressors as
The Sorrows of young Werther, has been termed an example of
psychiatric epidemiology. So why not see indiscriminate killing of
others as another form of psychiatric epidemiology?
John Berryman’s father committed suicide and years later John did the
same thing: ‘In "Dream Song #143", he wrote, "That mad drive [to
commit suicide] wiped out my childhood. I put him down/while all the
same on forty years I love him/stashed in Oklahoma/besides his
brother Will". In "Dream Song #145", he also wrote the following
lines about his father:
he only, very early in the morning,
rose with his gun and went outdoors by my window
and did what was needed.
I cannot read that wretched mind, so strong
& so undone. I've always tried. I–I'm
trying to forgive
whose frantic passage, when he could not live
an instant longer, in the summer dawn
left Henry to live on.[2][from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Berryman]
Might we perhaps conclude that we are a species with very few
instincts and so need to be taught all that we need to know to
function in society. If we are taught as John Berryman, that suicide
is an acceptable way to solve one’s problems, then we are at the very
least influenced by this teaching and some percentage of people so
taught will sometime later on use this method.
Lawrence
Virus-free. www.avast.com
