What is essential to all these characterological tendencies is their exclusiveness, the striving towards a closed circle. An enlarged autism among people of the same persuasion. The friendship of such schizoids is a sharply discriminating, unique friendship—an inseparable union of two dreamy eccentrics, or a small select band of young men, ethereal, ceremonial, composed of sworn friends, and exclusive, keeping apart from ordinary life, within it an ecstatic cult of the personality, and outside it everything ' common' is put on one side and despised. The point of view of Holderlin's early poetry points in this direction.



I hate myself and you should too.

𝓘 𝓴𝓷𝓸𝔀, 𝓘 𝓴𝓷𝓸𝔀 𝓘'𝓿𝓮 𝓵𝓮𝓽 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓭𝓸𝔀𝓷
𝓘'𝓿𝓮 𝓫𝓮𝓮𝓷 𝓪 𝓯𝓸𝓸𝓵 𝓽𝓸 𝓶𝔂𝓼𝓮𝓵𝓯
𝓘 𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓰𝓱𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓘 𝓬𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓭 𝓵𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓷𝓸 𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓮𝓵𝓼𝓮
𝓑𝓾𝓽 𝓷𝓸𝔀, 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓸𝓾𝓰𝓱 𝓪𝓵𝓵 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓱𝓾𝓻𝓽 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓹𝓪𝓲𝓷
𝓘𝓽'𝓼 𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓶𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓽
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓸𝓷𝓮𝓼 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓵𝓸𝓿𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓷 𝓪𝓷𝔂𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰



For example, we read in a work on child raising by Grunewald (1899): "I have never yet found willfulness in an intellectually advanced or exceptionally gifted child" (quoted in Rutschky). Such a child can, in later life, exhibit extraordinary acuity in criticizing the ideologies of his opponents--and in puberty even the views by his own parents--because in these cases his intellectual powers can function without impairment. Only within a group --such as one consisting of adherents of an ideology or a theoretical school--that represents the early family situation will this person on occasion still display a naive submissiveness and uncritical attitude that completely belie his brilliance in other situations. Here, tragically, his early dependence upon tyrannical parents is preserved, a dependence that--in keeping with the program of "poisonous pedagogy"-goes undetected. This explains why Martin Heidegger, for example, who had no trouble in breaking with traditional philosophy and leaving behind the teachers of his adolescence, was not able to see the contradictions in Hitler's ideology that should have been obvious to someone of his intelligence. He responded to this ideology with an infantile fascination and devotion that brooked no criticism.
/
With the most forceful form of punishment, corporal chastisement, we come to the ultimate in punishment. Just as the rod serves as the symbol of paternal discipline in the home, the stick is the primary emblem of school discipline. There was a time when the stick was the cure-all for any mischief in school as the rod was in the home. It is an age-old "indirect way of speaking from the soul," common to all nations. What can be more obvious than the rule, "He who won't hear must be made to feel"?

/
As an adult, this child will often allow himself to be manipulated by various forms of propaganda since he is al- ready used to having his "inclinations" manipulated and has never known anything else: First and foremost, the educator must take care that those inclinations hostile and adverse to the higher will, instead of being awakened and nourished by early education (as so commonly occurs), be prevented by every possible means from developing or at least be eradicated as soon as possible.... Whereas the child should be as little acquainted as possible with those inclinations unfavorable to his higher development, he should, on the other hand, be zealously and frequently introduced to ah the rest or at least to their first buddings.
/

The person actually benefiting from this manipulation must not be detected. The child can be manipulated in another way: by frightening him in a manner that destroys or perverts his natural curiosity: It is also well known how curious children are in this regard, especially when they are somewhat cider, and what strange paths and means they often elect to a6quaint themselves with the physical differences between the sexes. One can be sure that every discovery they make will feed their already heated imagination and thus endanger their innocence. For this reason alone, it would be advisable to anticipate this, and the instruction referred to earlier makes it necessary in any case. It would of course offend all modesty if one sex were permitted to disrobe freely in front of the other. And yet a boy should know how the female body is fashioned, and a girl should know how the male body is fashioned; otherwise, they will not receive correct impressions and their curiosity will know no bounds. Both sexes should learn about this in a solemn manner. Illustrations might give satisfaction in this matter, but do they present the matter clearly? Do they not inflame the imagination? Do they not awaken a wish for a comparison with nature? All these worries disappear if one makes use of a lifeless human body for this purpose. The sight of a corpse evokes solemnity and reflection, and this is the most appropriate mood for a child under such circumstances. By a natural association of ideas, his memory of the scene will also produce a solemn frame of mind in the future. The image imprinted in his soul will not have the seductive attractiveness of images freely engendered by the imagination or of those elicited by less solemn objects. If all young people could receive their instruction about human reproduction from an anatomical lecture, matters would be much simpler. But since there is so little opportunity for this, every teacher can also impart the necessary instruction in the manner described above. There is often opportunity to see a corpse. [J. Oest (1787), quoted in Rutschky] Viewing corpses is here considered a legitimate means of combating the sex drive, of preserving "innocence"; at the same time, however, the groundwork is thus being laid for the development of future perversions. Systematically induced disgust with one's own body also fulfills this function: