[Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20

Steve Hovland shovland at mindspring.com
Fri Feb 25 05:39:53 UTC 2005

I think the motivations of the Reich were mostly
economic.  Some Nazi's admitted that they targeted 
the Jews because they had a lot of money.  The 
killing of mental and physical defectives as well as 
homosexuals and gypsies says something about 
social ideals, but not religion.  Most of the pseudo-
religious stuff seems to be associated with the
inner circle of the SS.

Steve Hovland

-----Original Message-----
From:	Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
Sent:	Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:34 PM
To:	The new improved paleopsych list
Subject:	Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20

I found this:

I am doubtful about the veracity of the book, based on that essay. It 
sounds like the author, Pauwels, was a provocative and speculative 
writer, not an historian.

I did find this:

and I recall that Hitler did have great fascination with the occult. 
That article supports that.  I am not certain what role occultism 
played, in spite of that website. There is ambiguous evidence, even on 
that site. (Nice emphasis on how 'science' causes wars . . . eugenics!) 
I haven't read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich since I was in 8th 
grade, and so I don't remember what Shirer says about that. Anyone else 
want to elucidate?

PS: both sites seem to be characterized by special pleading, and that is 
generally a bad sign.

Steve Hovland wrote:

>If you can find it, an old book called "The Morning of the Magicians"
>had quite a lot about Nazi occultism- the Thule stuff, expeditions
>to Tibet.  Just before he was executed one SS man muttered 
>some kind of strange prayer and went to his death placidly.
>Steve Hovland
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
>Sent:	Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:40 PM
>To:	The new improved paleopsych list
>Subject:	Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20
>Yes, it is clear that Nazism tried to undermine legitimate religions and 
>was positively hostile toward religious figures. Recall the famous quote 
>by Niemoeller, and observe that it was often religiously committed 
>people who opposed Nazism (Niemoeller was far too rough on himself; he 
>was an early opponent of Nazism, as were many other pastors.)
>The cult was, IMHO, a maneuver to reduce religiousity, to replace 
>Christianity with something that could be induced to support 
>irreligiousity. Have you read The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom? She 
>points out that there was a terrible erosion of religious devotion in 
>Germany in the late 1920s. Her brother, studying in Germany, wrote 
>extensively to her about it. The dialog she reports between herself and 
>the Nazi lieutenent is breathtaking. One cannot be truely educated about 
>the 20th Century without digesting that book.
>BTW, the story behind the family that hid the piano player (that movie) 
>was that they were committed Catholics who saved him from the Nazis at 
>the risk of their own lives. The movie hid that vital bit of data. Thank 
>you, anti-religious fanatics of Hollywood.
>Finally, a young Mormon lad named Huebner was beheaded by the gestapo 
>for publishing anti-nazi tracts (he secretly used the church duplicating 
>machine - remember those old things you hand cranked with a special 
>carbon-like master?). Religiousity played an oppositional role in Nazi 
>Germany, and the loss of religiousity caused people to lose their 
>bearings. Corrie Ten Boom and her sister clearly did not lose theirs; 
>Huebner did not lose his, and Martin Niemoeller certainly did not lose his.
>Steve Hovland wrote:
>>Lynn, are you familiar with the cult aspects
>>of Naziism?  
>>Steve Hovland
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:	Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
>>Sent:	Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:51 AM
>>To:	Alice Andrews; The new improved paleopsych list
>>Subject:	Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20
>>Marty Seligman (learned helplessness theorist, Learned Optimism, 
>>Authentic Happiness, former APA president) - an atheist - mentions that 
>>as a key to true happiness. He reviews literature that religious people 
>>are generally happier and more fulfilled, more resilient. Czentmyhali 
>>(spelling!) at U Chicago finds that kids involved in something greater 
>>than themselves are much more likely to experience "flow" and periods of 
>>greater happiness. Religion is clearly an adaptive force. BTW, I don't 
>>want to hear arguments that religion is behind most wars. That is a 
>>pretty tired argument that was thoroughly debunked by the 20th Century.
>>Alice Andrews wrote:
>>>Hi Gerry,
>>>Thanks for the note...
>>>There was an interesting article somewhere--maybe Frank sent it 
>>>in?--about teenagers and the possiblity that what they were missing 
>>>was 'religion' or 'spirituality' or a 'sense of purpose and meaning 
>>>beyond them.' Do you remember reading that on paleo some time ago? I 
>>>can't find it...But it seems apropos to your missive. (If anyone knows 
>>>it and can send out again, I'd appreciate!)
>>>Thanks and cheers,
>>>Hi Alice,
>>>Thanks for the rec re: Nesse's  "Evolution and the Capacity for 
>>>Commitment".  Although I still haven't read it I'm familiar with its 
>>>contents.  The issue of 'commitment' especially for young people is 
>>>something that definitely needs addressing and maybe requiring our 
>>>youth to make a firm political commitment to a particular party will 
>>>carry over to their demonstrating less risky behavior with drugs, sex, 
>>>employment, family or whatever.  Yet isn't our youth already 
>>>politically brainwashed into political awareness or have they flicked 
>>>away that duty as well?  I no longer hang out with our country's young 
>>>but when I did I found that very few had their head screwed on 
>>>correctly and many were adrift;  from what I hear now they still 
>>>continue on their aimless flow.  When I wrote my original answer my 
>>>thoughts were on "my generation", not the others.  Thanks for your post.
>>>I'll add the book to my list.
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Alice Andrews <mailto:andrewsa at newpaltz.edu>
>>>To: The new improved paleopsych list <mailto:paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
>>>Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:30 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20
>>>Hi Gerry,
>>>Randy Nesse edited a book called "Evolution and the Capacity for 
>>>Commitment"; do you know it? It's wonderful... if you don't. (His 
>>>'Commitment in the Clinic' chapter is superb, btw.) Anyway, I think 
>>>the book addresses your question. The word 'commitment' itself 
>>>addresses the question. We have evolved mechanisms for detecting 
>>>commitment and for detecting possible defection in others. People who 
>>>tow the party line, etc. are considered committed. We seek out such 
>>>people because it is proximately and ultimately adaptive to do so. 
>>>Befriending, supporting, trusting, etc. the uncommitted would have 
>>>been-- and still is, a risk (or threat). Such risks could have been 
>>>very costly over our evolutionary history and can be still today. Of 
>>>course, sometimes such risks (siding with someone who seems to be 
>>>sitting on the fence, uncommitted, a rebel) can be to one's advantage. 
>>>But 'ancient-brain' doesn't know this--and probably 'statistics-brain' 
>>>doesn't know this either!
>>>Anyway, enough late-night babbling! It's a good book and might answer 
>>>your question...
>>>All best!
>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>   From: G. Reinhart-Waller <mailto:waluk at earthlink.net>
>>>   To: The new improved paleopsych list
>>>   <mailto:paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
>>>   Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM
>>>   Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20
>>>   >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative
>>>   dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance,
>>>   a threat to shared assumptions that define a group
>>>   against another.
>>>   This is absolutely amazing!  Why would any audience
>>>   reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal
>>>   or conservative camp?  Please explain the threat you
>>>   feel is apparent.  This I need to hear!
>>>   Gerry
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>   paleopsych mailing list
>>>   paleopsych at paleopsych.org <mailto:paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
>>>   http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>>>paleopsych mailing list
>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>>>paleopsych mailing list
>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>><< File: ATT00025.html >>  << File: ATT00026.txt >> 
>>paleopsych mailing list
>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> << File: ATT00000.html >>  << File: ATT00001.txt >> 
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
 << File: ATT00005.html >>  << File: ATT00006.txt >> 

More information about the paleopsych mailing list