← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 10905 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2003-11-03
2003-11-03 16:39 | User Profile
[url]http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/11201_hitler.html[/url]
Hitler was hypnotized during the World War I - 11/03/2003 15:55
This sensational viewpoint has been stated by writer and historian David Lewis in his new book ?A Man Who Created Hitleræ.
The author cites unknown facts of conducting psychological and hypnotical tests over Shilkgruber resulted in developing his perception himself as an exceptional person. The tests were made by German leading psychologist Edmund Foster in November 1918.
The future Furer was hypnotized in the military hospital where he was brought in October 1918 in a difficult psychological condition: he persuaded himself that he had lost his eyesight after the gas attack. Hitler considered himself to become completely blind although the doctors claimed his eyesight was normal.
Dr Foster understood the patients problem and decided to cure him with hypnosis. He told Hitler that he had become blind indeed, but as God made him an exceptional person he could obtain eyesight again by his will power.
Professor was able to make the patient to believe in himself and Hitler recovered his eyesight.
It impressed him so much that for the rest of his life he believed in his extraordinary abilities.
Admund Foster was killed by Gestapo in 1933 when he tried to publish outside Germany the psychological portrait of Chancellor Hitler and tell about the psychological tests he underwent.
2003-11-03 18:15 | User Profile
The book sounds like silly, sensationalistic garbage. Proving that some was hypnotized a year ago without stuff liked sworn statements and video can be very difficult indeed. Proving that some one was hypnotized in 1918 who has been dead 60 years is likely impossible. Assuming (and it sounds like nothing but wild conjecture to me) that Hitler was hypnotized in 18 demonstrating that it had impact upon his future life at all sounds like, at best, an amazingly hard thing to demonstrate.
Of course when it comes to certain subjects (like attacking anyone that objects to jewry) evidence standards go from very low to non-existent. As a result, you often see rumour from openly hostile sources, third hand hearsay and "mental profiling" by learned doctors who just happen to be jewish and never met their subject presented as rock solid evidence. When I hear wild stories from such sources about Hitler (or anyone else hated by the current order) and toilet training, deviant sex, drug abuse, satanic possession hypnotizism etc I can't help to note that if such "research" was presented about anyone not hated by jewry it would likely never be published for fear of law suits and dismissed as third rate babble by the world at large if it was.
Of course the reason such mindless crap is so prevalent is that attacks by such "researchers" are very reflective of two common methods of critiques favoured by jews and those enthralled with their anti-social ethos. The first is to medicalize those that fundamentally reject to days pseudo intellectual fads and societal taboos.
I have noted that jews and "anti-racist" militants very much are in favour of the stance that those who disagree with them are by definition insane or under the influence of super natural evil. Such a notion is not just positively medieval and the sign a vacuous and dishonest intellect but is designed to end debate by provoking a Pavlovian response of rejecting those rejected by jewry and the current order for fear of social ostracism or worse.
The second is to engage in Freudian inspired psychological ruminations because such discourses provide the appearance of empiricism without the substance of real scientific inquiry. Such an approach lacks any meaningful basis of falsifiablity (read Carl Popper's classic the Logic of Scientific Discovery if you haven't already) yet has the veneer of serious thinking rapped around it to impress the rubes.
Both of these methods also have the added benefit of meeting critics with ritualistic denunciations of the naysayer being a "nazi" which usually ends meaningful debate. Both methods also are designed to scrupulously avoid any consideration of any perspective that is not explicitly accepted by the current order.
From time to time the usual shrill cries "hate" and the less harsh means of forcing conformity don't work so the establishment is forced to resort to naked oppression or violence as honest debate is as anathema to them as sunlight is to roaches. That's why contradicting jewish opinion results in prison terms in most countries. In countries where no formal law prevents such inquiry job loss/expulsion from school and government harassment is a common punishment. Also common is state sanction of violence (ex. Zundel) or murder & arson (ex. Joe Rowan and the IHR) not being investigated. Given near uniformity of poor debate skills and indefensible positions held by "anti-racists" I suppose nothing more can be expected.
2003-11-04 01:57 | User Profile
One of the most common parlor tricks used in America when there is a scenario where one publicly objects NWO ideals is the Media saying/printing lines like "How can one think like that, let alone say it, in 2003"?? So it's not necessarily open words, but indeed, thoughts that are considered equally lethal.
2003-11-04 03:07 | User Profile
Hello, perun 1201,
Your link is to Pravda.
Can this be understood as Russian humour?
2003-11-04 13:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Hello, perun 1201,
Your link is to Pravda.
Can this be understood as Russian humour?[/QUOTE]
Some of the time, yes you can. However, many of its articles and editorials are useful. If you're implying that I believe or support what this article saids, then you're wrong. In fact at Skadi I stated that probally not much of this is to be believed!