(Sorry I put this at a whole new post but for some reason I can’t respond at the original post for now)
I think that under this kind of historical analysis, it’s really important to keep a critical perspective centered on the way in which social macro-structures influence the whole worldview of people at a cultural, economic, politic and individual level by the forces of history itself. This processes, I believe, are the ones which ultimately allow the existence of tyrannic leaders who base their discourse on hate, for example.
This doesn’t mean that Hitler wasn’t objectively and at an individual level a psychopath (which he proves at Mein Kampf) nor that he wasn’t responsible for all he did, but my point is that we cannot understand the emergence of this kind of hate groups, even more at an explicitly institutionalized and socially popular level, as it did with Hitler, without taking into account the underlying characteristics of, not only German, but the whole European thought of the time.
This thought was characterized by a worldview based on centuries of colonialism, racial domination and barbarism hidden beneath the idea of the humanist and enlightened civilized European man. This process configured a culture at a social and symbolic level in which ridiculous ideas such as scientific racism emerged as a way of justifying consensual hate among the dominant groups of society.
Psychopaths will always exist, even more at a political level; but the way in which society assimilates him/her depends on the state of the different spheres of this society in the way history has configured them.
