Philosopher King; Sample

Hitler: Philosopher King 

Chapter 1 (draft). The Philosopher King.

In the teaching of the history of the first half of the 20th century, it seems to have become the fashion to describe the Great War, the “Seminal Catastrophe”, as starting with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of the crumbling Austrian empire in 1914, and ending after the deliberations at Yalta in 1945. The astonishing development in technology over the 19th century indeed created a conflagration in 1918 where the pomp and ceremony of the British scarlet and Prussian blue battledress of Waterloo in the previous century were replaced by the grim modern efficiency of Bergman and Vickers machine guns, this “slaughter of the innocents” continuing while the generals realised the implications of this paradigmatic change in the nature of warfare. It was as if the British squares, victorious a century earlier at Waterloo, simply dug trenches and fought in the same way, as if the hundred years of technology hadn’t happened.

The global conflagration of the Great War were a particular shock after nearly a century of peace had supported men in their complacency of Hegel’s phenomenology of spirit, made manifest in the contractual freedom provided by the state, and at the next level, between the nation states, such that war was a thing of man’s barbaric past. 19th century humans believed they were living in an enlightened, diplomatic world, where war had been eradicated just as had human sacrifice and cannibalism. The shock of the seminal catastrophe was that the grim realities of war became the nightmare of the future.

It is true that there was a pause between 1918 and 1945. The shocked young but proud German Empire declared fifty years previously through the humiliation of the French in their own Palace of Versailles was itself humiliated in that same setting by the temporarily victorious allies. Or rather the representatives of Germany’s liberal political intelligentsia were, after the generals and political hawks had deserted the field as soon as defeat became inevitable.

It is also true, as school children will attest, that notwithstanding its capitulation and unconditional surrender, Germany was starved with a continuing blockade, suffered a number of revolutions and was then crippled through the punitive war reparations imposed at Versailles by the allies as punishment. Finally, it is true that the resentment and disbelief in this outcome fermented and suppurated as Bismarck’s proud and victorious empire, built on a nation, the epitome of philosophical and artistic endeavour and realisation of Hegel’s phenomenology of spirit suffered the ignominy of being a pariah state debased and diplomatically shunned from 1918.

But notwithstanding the legitimacy and intuitive persuasiveness of these accounts, the collective insanity that seemed to sweep over the whole of the German nation with the Hitler phenomenon seems to require additional explanation. The closest psychiatric diagnosis to the phenomenon of NSDAP Germany would be “group hysteria”[i]. Although this is usually confined to small isolated groups of highly strung usually young people in isolated setting, there is an argument that it emerges wherever a crowd becomes adulatory to a powerful and charismatic leader or performer. But to emphasise the extremity of the collective delusion, the racist, grandiose and murderous delusions of Hitler and the NSDAP which are understandable and even common in small sects, political or religious; these were adopted, believed, embraced by and then fought for by a whole nation, and perhaps the most educated, civilised, cultured and urbane nation globally at that time. This phenomenon requires an explanation additional to the historical and structural accounts adumbrated above.

This book constructs such an explanation as a hypothesis; an account to bridge this conceptual gap. It argues that Hitler and the NSDAP as a phenomenon were different. Hitler and his NSDAP were not just another political party lead by another charismatic demagogue. Hitler and the NSDAP were a product of a unique moment in the cultural and philosophical evolution of human kind. If part of the tragedy of the Great War was the Generals catching up with the paradigm shift in the potentials for human violence brought about by progress in the technology of killing; this thesis argues that the Hitler and NSDAP phenomenon was brought about by humanity as a whole catching up with the paradigm shift in the human condition brought about by the prodigious developments in philosophy and culture over the turn of the 19th and 20th century. Hitler and the NSDAP were able to opportunistically surf the tsunami of these new ideas as they crashed through western cultural givens and beliefs, allowing Hitler and the NSDAP to create their New Order in its wake.

The success of the German Wermacht in the first half of the 39-45 war was not a surprise. The states to the east capitulated easily and sensibly under the very real threat of a militarised NSDAP Germany that had been preparing for war for nearly a decade, and which was keening for violence rather than (like everybody else) desperately trying to avoid it following the catastrophe of the Great War, still very present in living memory. The sweep east through Poland first, and then north and west, around through France through the invention of the fast moving Blitzkrieg technique was the master craftsmanship of the culturally militaristic Prussian state that had amalgamated as the new German Empire.

This master craftsmanship from the Prussian people was the outcome of centuries of combination combining militaristic breeding and culture set up by Frederick the Great on the one hand with the intelligence of world’s most educated population on the other. The myriad small states that had comprised the former Holy Roman Empire each had its own university and cultural centre, such that there were more per head of population than anywhere else. That Germany in the late 1930s would conquer was not in question. That they would go to war at all, however was counter intuitive following their experience in the first. Why this sophisticated, educated cosmopolitan population, would firstly elect and then jubilantly follow a small aesthenic, vagrant, uneducated, and widely ridiculed leiderhosen wearing Austrian private (first class) is the core question. The hypothesis in this book proposes an explanation as to why they did.

In attempting to provide an explanation; a theory for this, the Hitler phenomenon, this book combines two arguments, the first about a philosophy, and the second about a person.

The Philosophy

Firstly, the philosophy. The argument is that hand in hand with the leaps forward of science and technology and the industrial revolution of the 19th century, a quieter, but no less fundamental revolution in ideas was taking place in philosophy and social theory. Hegel’s magisterial and optimistic accounts of the unveiling and evolution of a human spirit with successively greater syntheses of facts and arguments, captured a zeitgeist of scientific and cultural development to some extent crystallised, as he saw it, by the enlightened Napoleonic code. Hegel’s historicist sweep was translated Marx as a “young Hegelian” into the language of materialism and social inequality, such that revolution became a developmental stage in this evolution of humankind, or of “spirit”. There was indeed a wave of peasant and popular revolutions across Europe in 1848 based upon these ideas, which were more or less successfully repressed by the incumbent governments of the nation states. In the subsequent peace, a question arose of why the Evolution of the Spirit had stalled. Why people were indeed diverted from their material interests by “bread and circuses”.

The answer to this was a third Copernican revolution, this time a revolution in psychology. Copernicus had proposed the original heresy that the earth was not the centre of the universe. The second purported Copernican revolution was a reversal in the way that we perceive things, outlined by Kant. This was more esoteric, but equally fundamental. Kant demonstrated that all we can know are sense impressions, “phenomena” rather than the real world out there, and that we see or perceive the Platonic ideal and then fit the sense data into this rather than the other way around. Important in this account was his statement that the “thing in itself” (ding an sich); the actual physical world is unperceivable and un-knowable. The significance of this revolution was to amplify Descartes’ initial scepticism about the reliability of a common sense realist perspective that the external world is reliable and real. Kant went a step further by arguing that we have no idea what it is like because we never perceive it. All we have to go on is out internal sense perceptions – and these are based upon prejudices and previous experience. So, we can only “believe” science rather than know it. There are no facts, only opinions or impressions.

The hypothesis in this book argues that there was then a third Copernican Revolution, which provides the philosophical component of the Hitler phenomenon. As a named movement, “postmodernism”, it was not to be recognised and described until several decades after Hitler’s death, but this hypothesis argues that its implications wwere an “unthought known”; that is something that is being culturally enacted, although not yet intellectually articulated. It is proposed that the cultural implications of postmodernism were applied politically on a local, then national, then global stage by Hitler and the NSDAP with devastating efficacy.

Postmodernism can be argued to have emerged from three different directions. Firstly, Darwin’s origin of Species dethroned man from being anything other than just another animal. The trauma to human-kind’s narcissistic belief that they were somehow above the animal kingdom; that they were put by God to have dominion over them was shattered. Darwin’s account was in essence that we were simply apes that had evolved smaller teeth and larger cerebral hemispheres. Such an account of the nature of the human animal also challenged any Hegelian, enlightenment and science and technology driven optimistic notion of a cultural evolution and progress of human kind.

Secondly, Freud’s account of the unconscious brought together the emerging conviction in thinkers that as humans, we are not even in control of our own minds. In particular, Weber’s account of domination as obedience to authority presented this as an internal psychological process. We obey the law because we choose to; or because we choose to accept the legitimacy of the person laying down those laws, and that this conformity to authority is laid down in experience. Thus Engel’s account of “false consciousness” and the power of ideology, explained why the workers in Capitalism’s “dark satanic mills” acted as if they were better off being exploited and accepting their lot. Thus Schopenhauer’s silent determining “will to life” hides beneath man’s thoughts, decisions and perceived freewill. In the same way as Copernicus’ original heresy was that the Earth goes around the sun rather than that the Earth is the centre of the universe, human kind are not the centre of their own minds wishes and actions, but these are controlled by other dark forces; instinctual (sexual, destructive according to Freud); habitual (as with Weber’s internalised obedience to authority) or manipulated and fabricated by powerful elites with vested interests (Engels and Marx’s accounts of ideology as why workers accept their disadvantageous status quo). In the United States, this malleability of human wishes and attitudes was fuelling the advertising of the American Dream and persuading Americans to buy things they didn’t need as the first consumerist society built up speed. In Europe, Hitler and the NSDAP were planning to utilise the same manipulation of human values to enact a political, social and cultural “coup de foudre”.

The third contributor to this psychological Copernican revolution had been emerging, but coded or frankly disavowed, and this was the emergence of a post Judeo-Christian morality and ideology. For centuries, philosophers had challenged the hegemony of the dominant western monotheistic religions, although most choosing to veil this to keep their heads and their jobs (with some notable exceptions such as Voltaire). By the end of the 19th century, the devout Kierkegaard has carried out a meditation and analysis of the ethics of Abraham’s near filicide; committing the heresy of subjecting an epochal moment in Judeo-Christian mythology to modern ethical critique, concluding that religious belief required a “leap of faith”, but simultaneously detaching religion from rationality. More directly, Nietzsche has declared Judeo-Christian morality to be against nature; a “slave morality” of resentment and cunning rather than a more open, healthy, natural contest of naked, raw power. “Morality is no more than a signpost of the emotions” he declared, thus morality is entirely relative, and entirely mutable. Together, at the turn of the last century, these ethical, cultural and philosophical tropes were fermenting a heady brew of ideas that undermine the ideological givens of centuries. Lyotard[ii] would later term this the “collapse of the metanarratives” as he defined postmodernism.

Hitler’s Mein Kampf has been ridiculed as being a verbose and self serving vanity project, but within it is are two things, firstly his belief and value set, laid out and clear, and to which he would remain consistent and faithful; but secondly, there is an intuitive grasp of the potential of the implications of these ideological Copernican revolutions, and (this hypothesis thesis argues) an intuitive adoption of the implications and political possibilities of postmodernity. For example, in his discussion of the “big lie”, he argues that in effect, people can be made to believe anything if it is in a clear and consistent message, sufficiently frequently repeated, even after its falsity has been demonstrated. 

The 14-18 war was the first war fought with modern weaponry. The 39-45 war was the first to deploy a post modern philosophy. Hitler and the NSDAP in the 1920s and 30s seized the philosophical finding of the mutability of ideology and combined it with the new the solubility of millennia old ethical and belief frameworks, particularly the Judeo-Cristian. They created a new morality, a new history and a new religion, and used it in the single minded pursuit of the only thing of value that survives the caustic post-modern challenge. Power.

This book propounds a thesis that the philosophy adopted by Hitler in his role as Fuhrer-King was firstly the rejection of all traditional belief and morality enabled by the post-modern realisation of their contingent status, and the adoption of entirely instrumental ones in the pursuit of power.

In the exploration of the nature and implications of post modern and post structural thinking, a consensus emerges about the centrality of power[iii]. As a critical and analytical tool, the medium of power as it is exerted and manifest within systems can be used to explore social structures. For example in the operation of capitalism, as mentioned above, the importance of ideology is in the enactment and maintenance of the power of the bourgeois mill owners over their exploited and impoverished workers, so that the workers, ideologically blinded to their true interests, continue to use company loans to buy essentials in the company shop, and to be relatively content in this situation, while compounding their exploitation and the power that the mill owner has over them.

The difference between the capitalist and the postmodernist, is that for the capitalist, power is exerted to increase his wealth. For the postmodernist, within Foucault’s analyses and following Nietzsche’s dictum of “will to power”, power for its own sake as the only legitimate and real currency is the goal.[iv] This focus on power as an application of post-modernism is argued in this hypothesis to be the philosophy that the Fuhrer-King adopted, and that became the strategic power behind the throne. Thus he was able single-mindedly to negotiate and strategise his way through local, revolutionary and then national politics

This post modern philosophy, however, was also the cause of the reversal and downfall of the Hitler phenomenon. Operation Barbarossa in 1941, was embarked on at the point at which, if Germany had consolidated its gains it, might now be the benign political and executive lead in a German European Union rather than the cultural lead in a fragmented compromise EU. Nietzsche decries the pursuit of freedom as “a bird that flies higher the closer you get to it”. Power is the same. The regime and ideology built on the pursuit of power needed more; after overcoming the Polish Eagle and the French Rooster, it needed to trample the Russian Bear so simply over-reaching itself.

Thus, the power of a post modern philosophy that rejects traditions and extant cultural givens and assumptions and builds in their place new ideologies and moralities is that it can bewitch whole educated and sophisticated nations. These new ideologies can be synthesised and manufactured to be entirely instrumental to further the interests of the power elite. The weakness of a post modern philosophy is its essential emptiness and meaninglessness. Following the dissolution of the metanarratives, values, over-arching aims there is nothing else to strive for. No Jerusalem; no Republic; no Utopia. The only thing that Hitler and the NSDAP could use their achieved power for was to get more power.

Bullock’s authoritative nearly contemporary biography of Hitler[v] ends with the desperate question of what it was all about; what it was all for. What was the nature of the ideology that had cost a trillion 1945 dollars and 60 million lives. He struggles for an answer. However an interesting character ideosyncracy of the Furher-King was that the ascetic vegetarian Hitler had a passion for slabs of chocolate and large quantities of cakes and pastries, fed to him by the doting motherly wives of the Wagners and the Bechsteins. Bullock’s incredulous and even more desperate conclusion to his question was that it was all simply to obtain “more cakes for Arians”.

The King

Having described the philosophy, the second factor in the Hitler “philosopher king” phenomenon is the man. In Plato’s republic, he (in the voice of Socrates) argues that “philosophers [must] become kings”[vi]. Hitler was probably no philosopher himself. Biographically, there is a blurring of history between his own propaganda and the manufacture of his personality cult. The latter had him reading the German canon of Goethe, Kant, and Hegel between whiz-bangs in the trenches on the one hand, and that of his contemporary and posthumous biographical and political detractors and opponents emphasising his lack of education and culture on the other. The reality was probably more complex in that Hitler probably was an Aspergic savant, so that there was an acute intelligence and even genius in several narrowly defined areas, although he was in no way the well rounded and well read German Intellectual that the personality cult proposed lay behind his enigmatic three quarters photographic profile. The hypothesis of this book is that the specific structure of Hitler’s personality with its Asperger traits was the spark that combined with the petrol of the rigorous and nihilistic potential of postmodern philosophy that was overwhelming thinking in the first half of the last century. The NSDAP phenomenon derived from a combination of this savant/genius leader with this high octane philosophy.

In Hitler’s upbringing and development, there is no trauma one can point to that provides an explanation of how this particular man was able to rise to the top of the German political hierarchy, still less is there a pinpointable reason that explains his behaviour and attitudes while in power leading to his becoming an anathema. He was the son of a petit bourgeois Austrian civil servant; he loved his mother, lost a brother, was a lazy teenager and dropped out for several years living in poor men’s houses, moving around trying to avoid the Austrian draft. His dreams seemed to move from operas in Lintz to that of being another artistic hero in the prevalent romantic tradition; a misunderstood artist whose talent went unrecognised by the academies, disinherited in favour of his sister and eeking out a living copying postcards which he sold, lecturing his fellow hostel dwellers about current affairs. There were some oddities about his choices; he chose not to obtain proper work, or learn a profession; as well as moving to Germany to avoid the draft, he was a Germanophile, overjoyed at the declaration of war in 1914, and quickly joined the German Army, for which as an Austrian he required a special dispensation.

As a soldier he was a loner, out of kilter with the cynicism of his peers that developed as the war that was to be “over by Christmas” dragged on and took more lives. Hitler maintained the exuberant nationalistic fervour from the day he joined up; an odd man as a soldier; friendless and rootless, lecturing his weary and traumatised comrades at arms about their lack of patriotism. This oddness is a manifestation of the key to his personality that combined with the philosophical context described above.

The oddness was because Hitler was probably Aspergic; with what the eponymous neurologist Dr Asperger, who described the condition, connoted to be autistic psychopathy[vii]; a particular character constellation that combined aspects of autism with normal and even demonstrably higher IQ. At the time of writing, experts recommend that the various different types of autism, including Aspergers’ are grouped together as being within the Autistic Spectrum[viii]. Characteristic of these disorders is an inability (in the less severe) or a disinterest (in the more severe) in social engagement and relations. People with Aspergers’ are often on the more mild end of the spectrum, so one reads heart rending accounts of their repeated attempts as they grow up to engage in social relationships, but getting it wrong and not knowing how to get it right; not understanding what they are doing wrong, so they end up isolated and lonely, and, given the uncivilised brutal (Nietzschian) morality of the playground, their isolation is compounded by the trauma of being teased and bullied because of their isolation.

There is another element of people with Aspergers’ that is described however, and this is that they can have savant areas; intellectual skills and abilities that are supra normal. There is a criticism of neurological explanations of things which is that the brain is so complex in its physiology and function that attributions of aspects of human experience to neurological factors is facile, and comprises a new mythology, “neuro-mythology”. So there iss a “neuro-mythological” explanation that people with Asperger’s have savant areas, namely that being successful at social interaction is actually a very complex and involved process, taking up a lot of brain function; literally a lot of brain cortex area. People with Aspergers’ who do not have these social abilities and skills utilise the areas of brain differently; for example in the development of their savant areas.

The second limb of the hypothesis on which this book rests is that Hitler was an Aspergic savant-genius in several rather narrow areas, which will be discussed more below, but which included recent military and political history on one hand and leadership broadly defined on the other. On the broader questions of value, ethics, relationships, the emotional and kinship bonds and cultural assumptions that comprises the fabric of societies and social groupings, he was a completely empty vessel. But this was also a strength, in that he was able to reinvent a structure of ethics, value and assumptions, these being completely instrumental in his post modern pursuit of power. He was unencumbered by relationships, emotional and kinship bonds, or societal expectations that would have held him back, or given him pause in his pursuit of his aim.

The line of argumentation that Hitler was Aspergic derive from several angles, the most obvious being that there must have been something psychiatrically wrong with him to enact the policies and have the views that he did. That he was a psychopath[ix], or that he was “mad” in some way. This will be discussed in more detail below, but he was not medically psychotic. Neither was he (unlike some dictators) personally psychopathic, there being little evidence that the personally was involved in violence notwithstanding the things that were done in his name, and aside from activity in the 14-18 war. So he was not “crazy” or “mad” in both the common uses of the term, and in the expert understanding. He was a professional politician who had a partner and was a home owner; ran a (rather ostentatious) car and paid (some of) his taxes. So he was not “mad” but there must have been something wrong with him. Maybe this was Aspergers’.

The arguments in favour of his having Asperger’s include the rigidity (consistency) of his attitudes and political strategy and aims, there being a remarkable consistency (even down to the wording) of his policy as stated in the “25 points” in about 1920, just after joining the NSDAP when it had fewer than 100 members and was a tiny regional political group; and the drafting of the notorious Nuremberg laws depriving Jewish people of their citizenship in about 1935.

In this account, Hitler is also argued to be a savant in leadership. Leadership is one of those disciplines that is evanescent and difficult to define, but is central and economically extremely important in social groupings. Leadership as a discipline has a long tradition, although prior to the last century, it was mainly concerned with the post hoc exploration of the lives and activities of great political leaders, for example Carlyle’s study of Fredrick the Great. Particularly from the second half of the last century, it has been explicitly taught as the proliferation of MBA courses attest. Hitler has to be declared to be a leadership genius; in his achievement of Chancellorship with a party that had 30 or 40 members a mere decade before; in the innovation of his political campaigns and  strategies, then in his manipulation of other national leaders when he obtained a place on the world stage.

People who met Hitler were met with a steady gaze and felt a spiritual connection. On Hitler’s side, it was likely that this was a conscious orchestration of how he would talk to people, rather than their being warm and having normal emotional valence, they were a conscious performance, like the staged and practiced performances of his demagogic oratory. He would practice his rhetorical flourishes in front of the mirror and was obsessional about photographs of him that were allowed to be published for example. His extreme awkwardness in any other context than where he was the centre of attention and holding forth on the lengthy exposition of his own opinions and perspectives are characteristically Asperger like. Further evidence include his famed temper tantrums where he would become completely incandescent, earning the name “tappischfesser” (carpet eater);such catathymic outbursts being a characteristic of Asperger mood and emotional regulation..

The final argument in favpour of his being Aspergic was that he did seem to have savant areas. There are accounts of Hitler being very interested in military history, particularly the campaigns of the two Fredricks and the (then fairly recent) glorious Franco-Prussian war of 1873, where Bismarck’s master diplomacy, he knitted together the men of Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia to comprise a German Empire, declared over the vanquished French in their own proud palace of Versailles.

Machiavelli’s book, the Prince, has been morally criticised for its articulating and detailing the perceived necessary brutality of real politique; from the best known notion that the end justifies the means, to his advocacy of cruelly and brutally treating several unfortunate criminals to establish the prince’s credentials; that it is better to be feared than loved[x]. But Machiavelli’s Prince is an acknowledged masterpiece. It has never been ridiculed as Hitler’s Mein Kampf has been. However, in the Kampf, Hitler (among some more tedious and self serving passages) sets forward some gems of political genius, for example his exposition of the “Big Lie”, and his analysis of the political success and survival of Jewish people as an ancient race. This, in combination with his intuitive virtuoso grasp and use of charisma and demagoguery; his political connivance, manipulation, threat and extortion of individuals, and his strategic intuition support the contention that he was a savant in the area of leadership.

These arguments are discussed more below, but for the current summary, it is this combination of savant intelligence with a tabula rasa in terms of emotional and cultural sensitivity that enable his wholesale adoption of the new post modern philosophy, and his complete abnegation of morality and values as it seemed instrumentally advantageous to do so.

The philosopher king

The distilled argument in this book is that in the first part of the 1900s had developed a philosophy articulating the fluidity and relativity of culture and morality that later has come to be known as post modernism; that secondly, this cultural abolitionist philosophy was wholeheartedly adopted by Hitler as an Aspergic with an undeveloped personal sense of morality and social emotional ties and sensitivities.

Thirdly, the question of how this came to be adopted by the German people as the most educated on earth answered in terms of the combination between Hitler’s savant command of leadership and propaganda combined with the intoxicating new state/race supremacist religion that he created. In the context of a modern industrial state; “instrumentally rational” in the Weberian sense, that is with a (very) well developed rational bureaucratic structure to problem solve in a completely value free manner, instructions from above[xi], another characteristic of the Prussian psyche contributed as a critical factor. For the previous century and a half the Prussian people had been bred to be part of the military, and to obey in a militaristic manner. Armies obey orders, and since Fredrick the Great’s time, the whole state was in or closely linked with the military, so the whole country obeyed orders. 

It was this obeisance in combination with the two more important factors of the savant/leader with the new amoral atheistic a-theoretical and a-cultural philosophy that combined to enable the awkward puny white vagrant to bewitch and take over the most educated and cultured nation on earth, then to lead it into a self immolatory aimless war.

To summarise the following chapters in the book, chapter two looks in more biographic detail at the man himself, then chapter three engages in a more detailed discussion of him as a psychiatric case. Chapter four outlines the cultural and historical context of the time in which he was living, and which provides the political backdrop to his professional life and work which is described next, in chapter five.

The next two chapters are more theoretical; chapter six looks in more detail at the philosophical dimension of the books thesis, then chapter seven argues for Hitler being a leadership savant by looking at the issue of leadership in general, at charisma specifically, and then more specifically as aspects of Hitler’s leadership style. Chapter eight sketches out the culture of the NSDAP state in the context of earlier arguments; the “leistungstaat” or power state being one that had invented its own religion, ethics and values, taking advantage of the cultural vacuum left by the post modern philosophical sweep.

In Hitler, two forces came together, the man, with an Aspergic-savant genius for leadership and politics, and a philosophical zeitgeist with the potential to dissolve generations of culture, morality and ideology.. 


[i] Group hysteria reference
[ii] Lyotards report on post modernism
[iii] Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punish: the birth of a prison. London, Penguin.
Foucault, Michel (1998) The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, London, Penguin.
[iv] Nietzsche will to power
[v] bullock
[vii] Asperger psychopathy paper
[viii] Autistic spectrum reference
[ix] Psychopathic God reference
[x] Mach – the prince
[xi] Weber M (1978). Economy and Society. University of California Press


Popular posts from this blog

We're off!! ...Introductory free offer