Originally posted by Wachstum - If you really take the time to meditate, or at least think deeply about the visions i tried to paint in
my first post, you will understand, that these cruelties can hardly be committed by some sane minds. Actually, there are psychological studies that
allege Hitler, Goebbels and the german population some complex psychic disorders.
Such deeds are be committed by people with sane minds, in some respects, the saner the better. Hitler obeyed his own interpretation of the laws of
nature, namely, the right of the strong to rule over the weak. In his view, Aryan blood was manifest within Germany but the strong natural leaders
were compromised by a Jewish conspiracy to undermine that society - a role enacted by the "untermenschen" in a number of racial and physical
He most famously applied his view to the Jews and the East, but, interestingly he also applied it to the German people during the fall of Berlin. His
"natural" view was that if the Germans were not strong enough to decide their fate via subjugation of the untermenschen then the German people were
not worthy to continue. His orders to destroy the infrastructure of Germany (ignored by Albert Speer) were as much a punishment of the German people
as a scorched Earth policy against the invading armies.
He saw no point in Germany as the pinnacle of the Aryan nation, continuing if the war was lost; basically, Germany would not deserve survival!
A sane mind is a haven for the ultimate objectivity required to follow through with a principle that is applied with such rigour. It is not useful to
suggest that such thoughts are the workings of a mad-man. Fascism was (and is) an attempt to objectify social policies to a classified hierarchy of
society - this is no different to capitalism or communism.
The key differences between Fascism and the others is the notion of "worth" and of an inherent compatibility between those social classes deemed as
acceptable, as opposed to the worth of their function in society. As an example, this implicitly supports the use of forced labour by undesirables as
a pragmatic process but the labourers can never redeem themselves since they are inherently classified as socially unacceptable.
In the "ideal" version of capitalism and communism the worker is to be lauded for the labour that is performed regardless of the nature of their
inherited social standing.
Either way, sanity is no barrier to the objectivity of the mind and with it, the ability to create such heinous social systems.
** BTW, It is worth remembering that scientific racialism was advocated by an American, Lothrop
, who actually introduced the term "under man" as a way of classifying "the man who measures under the standards of capacity and
adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives."
Stoddard believed social progress was impossible unless it was guided by a "neo-aristocracy" made up of the most capable individuals and
reconciled with the findings of science rather than based on abstract idealism and egalitarianism.
One might regard this as indicative of sanity
but look where it led...
Just as an example, this point of view may be creeping back
[edit on 7-6-2009 by SugarCube]