At the moment, my mind is racing. As I get older (and I’m on the upside of 75), it becomes more of a challenge to organize one’s thinking and write academically, and this post will be particularly difficult because it involves a comparison and contrast between two nations in two different time periods, a discussion of an unusual form of mental illness (Folie à deux), and a movie review. About the only thing missing here is my mother’s recipe for Sauerbraten, though I’ll include it as a footnote if I remember.
Where to begin?
Let’s start with Folie à deux.
Folie à deux
Strictly speaking, Folie à deux is a madness shared by two people, though it can be used to describe a madness common to different groups of people (i.e., a shared madness.) There are four recognized subgroups:
- Folie imposée – Delusional belief of a psychotic person is imposed on another person or persons.
- Folie simultanée – The simultaneous development of an identical delusion between two individuals with psychosis who may be closely associated
- Folie communiquée – A normal person suffers from a delusional belief of a psychotic person after resisting it for a long time and then maintains it despite the separation.
- Folie induite – A person who is already psychotic adds new delusions from another closely associated individual with psychosis.
Enough of the diagnostic criteria, however.
I was first exposed to this disorder when I had a patient in Myrtle Beach around 1978. He was a male in his early thirties. He came in to the ER with his mother with some Schedule III or IV substance abuse issue (maybe Darvon?) But while an inpatient, he had convulsive-like episodes which his mother described as “flashbacks from ‘Nam.” At first, we wondered whether this was from drug withdrawal, because he was taking more than fifty Darvon a day and got cut off unexpectedly and abruptly from his supply. However, we were not convinced they were genuine seizures, because (1) they only occurred when his mother was present, and (2) during the “seizures,” he would throw half-hearted punches in the direction of his mother. If she was on the right side of his bed, he would “punch” in that direction. If she moved to the left side of the bed, he would punch in that direction.
We had a conference with the attending physician and he said the patient and his mother shared a common psychiatric illness called Folie à deux. According to the doctor, this usually affects two people (hence the word deux) and each of the two affected people “take turns” being schizophrenic, until one of the two dies, in which case the remaining partner becomes permanently schizophrenic. This psychotic “dance” is all subconscious. It’s not like the pair decide that one will be mentally ill on odd-numbered days and the other on even-numbered days. It just works out that they rotate as they do, like two planets locked in a tragic, unnatural orbit. And in the almost half century since this was explained to me, the clinical description may have changed as it appears in the current DSM, so that is an important caveat to keep in mind when diagnosing your distant relatives.
THE MOVIE REVIEW
Next, let me describe the movie that Deena and I watched last night. The movie, from 2005, was called “Sophie Scholl – The Final Days.”
Historians or people with a fascination of Nazis Germany (and Hitler and company are undeniably captivating figures) will likely know what the White Rose Resistance was. There were five students and one professor in Munich, Germany in 1942 who formed a resistance group to combat the lies of the Third Reich, including their policies towards Jews, liberals, homosexuals, the free press, etc. Somehow, this group became larger than life and the news of a German resistance movement spread like wildfire across Germany and even Europe, itself!
These university students drew on German history, philosophy, psychology and religion to identify the sins of the Reich and the dangers that lie ahead. They secretly published thousands of leaflets which they surreptitiously delivered to other universities. Unfortunately, they were caught early in 1943. Six of the young ringleaders were beheaded, including Sophie Scholl.
I was attracted to this event because I am interested in journalism, and it seemed somehow romantic, in spite of a tragic ending: Young people facing death for pointing out the lies, cruelties, madness, mocking and immorality of World War II Germany. But there is a strange and personal twist of fate to this story:
Seven years ago, I happened to meet and correspond with the nephew of Sophie Scholl. His name is Manuel Aicher. His father Otl (Otto) married one of Sophie’s sisters after Sophie was executed, though Sophie was a good friend of Otl while she lived in this life. For anyone interested, this is Manuel’s webpage (www.manuel-aicher.com/index.html). Manuel is an attorney and a leading genealogist in Germany. For a number of years, Manuel’s firm would note when a German citizen died leaving a sizeable estate, and then research the deceased relatives, offering to represent them in German probate court for a fair percent of the inheritance. I researched him closely after being approached by his firm, and determined that he was legit. Manuel was able to secure for me almost one year’s salary (tax free.) In the several years it took to resolve the will, he and I became acquainted. He is now retired.
The movie related the last two weeks of Sophie’s life. Sophie, her brother Hans and friend and fellow resistance companion Christoph Probst were arrested for distributing “treasonous” handouts at the Uuniversity in Munich. In a matter of days they were interrogated, tried and executed. The movie is not overly graphic so you do not see Hans tortured or either of them beheaded by the guillotine. What you do see it the suspense and fear in the eyes of the government officials. There is the cat and mouse game as Sophie is questioned. “How much does the interrogator know that he is not revealing to me.” His government appointed defense attorney was a former Soviet Commissar trying to avoid the guillotine, himself, so he was sure to offer the court absolutely no exculpatory evidence or appeal for mercy. Then, there is the woman who is Sophie’s cellmate. She tries to befriend Sophie. Is this truly what it seems, or is she a Nazis plant posing as a prisoner to gain incriminating evidence on Sophie?
There are tender moments in the movie. Sophie, during her twenty-two years of life, seems to not have given much thought to God. But as her doom approaches, she turns to faith. Fortunately, the chaplain of the prison who meets with her only minutes before her death is able to comfort her in her time of need, and they share a touching prayer together.
This is an excellent movie, available on Amazon Prime and I encourage you to watch it and draw your own conclusions (don’t just take my word for it!)
RED FLAGS
There are some red flags I noticed too. Sophie is accosted by a Nazis official for being of child bearing age and not having any children. It seems–at least to him–that she is less than a loyal patriot and not committed to the National Socialist Cause. I couldn’t avoid thinking about the comments of the Republican Party’s Vice-President candidate that have been in the news this past weekend criticizing Kamala Harris for not having children, either. Is she somehow a disloyal American for the choice she made?
Then, there were numerous slurs by Nazis officials directed at “Democrats,” “liberals” “socialists” and so on. Obviously, those who made these comments in 1943 did not have American politics in mind, but it seems like Hitler and company did not care for democracy (the last federal election in Germany was in March 1933 when Hitler came to power.) After that date, the Christians and others in Germany did not “have to vote any more.”
Now, this movie was released in 2005, ten years before “45” threw his hat into the ring to run for President, so it is not a matter of art imitating life. And while I am not demonizing Donald Trump, this suggests to me at least that our country is close to parroting the Nazis party line in some regards, such as setting up Antifa or liberals as the boogey man (as the Nazis did), threatening the free press (as the Nazis did), suggestions of holding military tribunals to try political opponents such as Liz Cheney, Adam Kretzinger, Admiral Michael Mullen, et al. for treason and so on. We seem to be travelling on parallel tracks and this troubles me. Is this coincidence or a case of Folie à deux? A divine plan or a shared madness?
According to retired USMC General John F. Kelly who also served as President Trump’s Chief of Staff longer than any other Chief of Staff (July 31, 2017 – January 2, 2019), Trump confessed a certain admiration for dictators and other authoritarians (including Hitler.) Trump denied this categorically, but why would a four-star General lie about his Commander-in-Chief? Of course, if you had to, anyone might think of something good that Hitler did. He loved his German Shepherd, Blondi. He was thoughtful to his secretaries if you’ve seen the movie Downfall (https://tv.apple.com › clip › downfall.) But this does not balance the scales against millions of people murdered during the Holocaust.
Henk de Berg, an academic from the UK explains the similarities in a new book called book called Trump and Hitler. Both Hitler and Trump were (are) performance artists. They love to make wild statements, insult people, tell stories and talk of the glorious past. They both have scapegoats on which to blame their country’s ills: With Hitler it was the Juden. With Trump, the Ausländers. Both are populists and they try to reduce complex political or economic problems into simple statements, which cannot possibly suffice. Both survived assassination attempts, and both apparently believe that God spared their lives for a reason. The Lutherans in Germany back in the days that Hitler was in power were in a pickle. Many Lutherans supported Hitler. It was God’s will that they obey. Hitler’s base came from the same people that MAGA depends on. They were honest people, but should have avoided the dystopian Newspeak to draw their own critical conclusions. People like Dietrich Bonhoeffer did, and while Hitler could put on quite an electrifying rally, what Bonhoeffer noticed backstage was troubling. Bonhoeffer once said that “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.” Perhaps words like this resonate in me because they come from someone who also paid with his life doing what he believed was God’s will.
Events will continue to become increasingly more chaotic as the free world finds itself on the eve of the next world war. This is no time for authoritarians to have their fingers on the nuclear button.