What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Please pardon the length of this thread's beginning post, but I found my study of this subject so interesting that I am providing my take on what I found out. This is my own personal study, not some borrowed report here. Reading this completely through I think is worth it. To the administrators of this forum, please bear with me here as I think this subject deserves some attention in light of today's politics. Sorry for the lengthy beginning. I promise not to make a habit of this.

Rating the worst dictators in history would be a debate and a subject by itself. I've selected the following: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and Saddam Hussein. There are plenty more to choose from. Hussein and Castro were included even though they are probably not be as bad as some others, but I think that they qualify for the list because they are bad guys, and dictators, and they are fresh in our minds as being part of current history.

This was a study of the childhood environments, conditions, and personality types, and it turned out from my research that there were indeed common characteristics and environments that produced such dictators, from their childhood on. I've categorized these factors as follows:

1 - Dysfunctional family and troubled childhood that extends into adulthood. This includes troubled spousal relationships and other relationships as adults.
2 - Rejection and/or hate for religious belief, sometimes despite training as a child. As they grow into adulthood, they have a hatred or unresolved resentment toward certain groups, races, or religion.
3 - They perceive injustice from childhood and develop a burning desire to dominate, gain power, and right the wrongs toward society and to them as they view it. Typically there is a hate for business and private enterprise, as it is viewed as unfair and the cause of much injustice and suffering, and religion is also viewed as a failure, so government and they are the hope of righting the wrongs and creating their vision of utopia on earth.

I've summarized the main points of each of their lives to illustrate the above. I've tried to capture the main point without including much detail. Obviously, there is much more supporting information available for anyone wishing to research the subjects.

HITLER - Hitler's mother was his father's third wife and 23 years younger than his father. Hitler's father was very strict and evidently beat Adolph. He did okay in early years of school, but later quit trying, did poorly, and portrayed a generally rebellious attitude. He tried being an artist, was rejected by art schools, and never excelled at anything much until becoming involved in political movements. As an adult, he was a womanizer, with Eva Braun becoming his main girlfriend and eventually his wife. She once attempted suicide in jealosy of the other women in his life. Although described in primary school as deeply religious and even a prospect to become a monk, he obviously made a U-turn by the time he was an adult. He acquired a hatred for Jews and other groups that he felt did not fit in with his scheme of developing a superior race, which was based on evolutionary theory known as "eugenics," an idea founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.

STALIN - Stalin was his mother's 4th child in less than 4 years, with the previous 3 dying. Stalin contracted smallpox at the age of seven, survived, but the scarring caused other kids to call him "pocky." Stalin was expelled from school once. A half brother had experienced prison time. Stalin himself was of course later arrested several times for his political activities. Included in Stalin's troubled personal life, Stalin's second wife committed suicide following an argument with Stalin during a party, and left him a scathing personal note. Stalin's mother was deeply religious and sent Joseph to a local church school. Later, he attended a theological seminary, but while there began his involvement into his revolutionary activities and organizations. He studied the works of Charles Darwin, became an atheist, and one could say his approach to life and political power followed the "survival of the fittest" theory.

MAO TSE-TUNG - Mao was a rebellious teenager; his father wanted him to be a farmer as he was, but Mao rebelled and left home at age 13 for more advanced schools. A look at Mao as an adult shows a very demanding personality, who had several wives and mistresses and displayed abnormal personal traits. Mao could be described as non-religious to atheistic. His faith was completely placed in the state, and as the leader of the state, he was the final arbitor of all things for everyone, bar none, so religion was highly suppressed, disallowed, or eliminated from public life.

POL POT - Childhood not well documented, but for much of the time, did not live with his parents. At the early age of six, he was sent to the city for school and later to a boarding school. He was apparently only a mediocre student and was failed and held back from advancement at least once. He did win a scholarship to study radio engineering in Paris, but never proceeded with it, and instead pursued his political activities. Pol Pot's first wife spent much time in a hospital due to some mental condition. His second wife was about 30 years younger than him. Pol Pot himself was a paranoid personality, understandable given his elimination of enemies and political opponents. At one point in his childhood, his parents sent him to a large Buddhist monastery. He also attended a Catholic primary school, but there is no evidence he had any religious belief later in life. In fact, he along with the Kmer Rouge aggessively attempted to stamp out any opposition to his regime, his plan for utopia, including any religion.

CASTRO - Fidel was an illegitimate son of a sugar plantation owner, was rebellious in childhood, and at only 13 years old, he helped organize a strike of sugar workers against his own father's plantation. A former classmate described him as "different," and was called "loco" by some. He had an interest in politics and read alot about Stalin, Napoleon, and Mussolini. His first marriage did not go well, and a custody dispute spurred him to kidnap his son from his divorced wife so that he could be raised as a model communist (interesting parallel with the Elian Gonzales case). An illegitimate daughter of Castro fled Cuba and is one of his most avid opponents. Castro threatened his parents that he would burn the house down if they wouldn't send him to school, so Fidel attended a Jesuit boarding school in Havana. Later in life, he was described as indifferent to religion and actually was excommunicated by the Catholic Church for political acts against Cuban priests.

HUSSEIN - Hussein was born into a family in a small village and lived in a mud hut. Not much is known, but his father either died or abandoned the family. His step-father turned out to be abusive and a thief. At age 10, Hussein moved in with his mother's brother. Poor school grades hindered him getting into a military academy, and he then became involved in radical movements. The shadowy personal life of Hussein as an adult is no secret. He had a wife that was apparently selected by parents when he was young, but had mistresses, one of which came to be regarded as his "second wife," even though perhaps not officially with a marriage certificate. Under Hussein's rule, any religions or leaders that defied his absolute rule were denied rights, imprisoned, or eliminated.

One observation I would like to make here. Such personalities can be found in abundance in every culture, but obviously there must be conditions whereby such people can gain an audience and eventually gain political power. I think such potential dictators with their inherent politics can only gain traction in a society that also has more of a preponderence of the mindset similar to that of the potential dictator. This mindset would include a general feeling of failure and personal feeling of powerlessness, unfairness, and resentment, coupled with an increased lack of faith in God or religion. Such a collective mindset then takes on an increased hope that "government" can right the wrongs and create some kind of system that is more fair. Business and free enterprise becomes more demonized and viewed more as unfair, thus something needs to be done to correct it. An important component in this cultural mindset is the condition of the family unit, whereby children grow up in happy, balanced conditions, so that they can grow into being happy adults without some axe to grind, and they are happy to work and bear the fruits of their own labors. Also a belief in God rather than a belief in government is important in keeping a culture away from dictators, at least that has been true for the first 200 years of this country. If too many people in our culture begin to have more axes to grind, then the seeds of some ruthless dictator or government gaining traction becomes a very real danger.

What prompted my little study was the current political climate, with many extremists rejecting the norm of past generations, even going so far as leftist liberals calling George Bush a Nazi. It aroused a curiosity to see if history had shown certain personality types to be more prone to becoming ruthless dictators if they gained power. Of course, I think Bush being compared to Hitler is utterly preposterous and in fact I think the opposite political scenario is more likely, and I think my study into the subject strongly supports my view. It is my firm belief that the extreme leftist mindset presents by far the most dangerous fertile ground to produce another ruthless dictator. It is the unhinged personalities with dysfunctional backgrounds, commonly with poor and immoral personal relationships, coupled with a lack of religious faith, then add to this an acquired strong belief that government can and should solve all problems, perhaps even creating some kind of utopia. As I've said before, the dangerous dictators have big axes to grind. And when I say a lack of religious faith, I would include the Osama Bin Ladens of the world and perhaps even certain hardline Muslim rulers because they may appear to use religion, but their true faith is in a governments power, not God. Some people may not be truly religious at all, but may want to appear to be religious in order to fool and use other people. Usually the nature of their own personal lives betray their true natures.

One final observation. I would assert here that when people vote for a candidate, a look at their "personal" lives, their family relationships, their moral beliefs, is not only good and proper, but it is paramount to making good choices in our leaders. It is at least as important as their public stances on issues, probably more so. Usually one follows the other, but not always. The troubling part to this subject is when cultural morality is on the downward slide and families are increasingly dysfunctional, the risk of electing dysfunctional and dangerous personalities increases accordingly.