Thank you, OM ! The quotes are grim reminders of ourself and of irrational power structures rooted in our mass ignorance.
I see all this sing - a - song ga - ga paen to BO as being symptomatic of much the same, albeit a ' feel good ' one. What we need be doing is not to suspend our critical eye and to continue to ask : BO ... who ? What has he done ? What is he doing ? What does it bode for our future ? There are some positives, in terms of what he's said he represents. But, at the end of the day, we are still to find out if did it all lead to causing more trust, goodwill, security, hope, transparency, fraternity, simplicity, joy and happiness ... ? Did it take us closer to reconciliation of people who are merely different, who merely have different perspectives, who are either violent ( for reasons of their own ) or are facing the violent ( for no rhyme or reason ) ? Did we end up changing the world, its global power structures, thoughts, beliefs and attitudes, resource management priorities and poverty management practices ? Did we come to strengthen and orient our global institutions towards voices of the different, small, poor and weak people among us ? Have we better assured ourselves from all the violence potential in the arms stockpiles, ideology wars, global warmimg, military - industrial - economic cliques ... ? Have we brought the interests of the common global citizen to our collective fore ? The day we have some positive answers and evidence to back up, that would be the day to let BO know how we see his life and his work ! The rest is either religious fervour or political subtlety. On Oct 11, 5:15 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > PEACE: > > “They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them of their > blindness.” - John Milton, 1642. > > The Third Reich was very effective in many ways. I think we have much > to learn from their rhetoric which, when analyzed, can be quite > instructive. Much of it points directly to the methodology used > globally ever since. Without an understanding of how leaders > manufacture consent, we are doomed to repeating the human frailty of > susceptibility to nationalistic appetites and we will never have the > clarity of mind, emotion and will to be able to demand the peace which > is our absolute right. – OM > > From a conversation with Herman Goering (a German politician, military > leader and a leading member of the Nazi Party) in his cell at the > Nuremberg trials 4/18/1946 found in ‘Nurenberg Diary’, a book by > Gustave Gilbert who was an intelligence officer and psychologist > granted free access by the Allies to all prisoners held in the > Nurenberg jail: > > ======www.snopes.com===== > > “Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged “Why > would some poor slob on a farm risk his life in a war when the best he > can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, > the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor > in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, > after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy > and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it > is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a > Communist dictatorship.” > > “There is one difference,” I [Gilbert] pointed out. “In a democracy > the people have some say in the matter through their elected > representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare > wars.” > > [Goering] “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the > people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is > easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and > denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country > to danger. It works the same way in any country.” > > ====== > > JOSEPH GOEBBELS - a German politician and Reichsminister of Propaganda > in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. > > "...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. > Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and > repetitious. The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no > success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind > constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them > over and over." – Joseph Goebbels > > “During a war, news should be given out for instruction rather than > information." – Joseph Goebbels > > "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will > eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such > time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic > and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally > important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, > for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, > the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." – Joseph Goebbels > > “Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for > every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its > roots in the street.” – Joseph Goebbels > > "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of > public opinion." – Joseph Goebbels > > ===== > > Quotes from the movie “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the > Media” www.IMDB.Com > > Noam Chomsky: The point is that in a military state or a feudal state, > or what you would nowadays call a totalitarian state, it doesn't much > matter what people think, because you've got a legend over there that > you can control what they do. But when the state looses legend, and > you can't control people by force. And when the voice of the people > can be heard you have this problem, it may make people so curious and > so arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil > rule. And therefore you have to control what people think. > > Noam Chomsky: Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. > So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're > in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. > Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech. > > Noam Chomsky: There's maybe twenty percent of the population that is > relatively educated, more or less articulate, that play some kind of > role in decision making. They're supposed to participate in social > life either as managers, or cultural managers, like say, teachers, > writers and so on. They're supposed to vote. They're supposed to play > some role in the way economic, political and cultural life goes on. > Now they're consent is crucial. It's one group that has to be deeply > indoctrinated. Then there's maybe eighty percent of the population > whose main function is to follow orders and not to think. > > Noam Chomsky: When the state looses the bludgeon... you have to > control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to > resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda. > > Noam Chomsky: There's nothing more remote from what we have been > discussing than a conspiracy theory. If I give an analysis of, say the > economic system, and I point out that GM tries to maximize profit and > market share - that's not a conspiracy theory; that's an institutional > analysis. It has nothing to do with conspiracies. That's precisely the > sense in which we've been talking about the media. The phrase > "conspiracy theory" is one of those that's constantly brought up, and > I think it's effect simply is to discourage institutional analysis. > > Noam Chomsky: Suppose I get on "Nightline". I'm given two minutes and > I say Quaddafi is a terrorist or Khomeini is a murderer... I don't > need any evidence, everybody just nods. On the other hand, suppose you > say something that just isn't regurgitating conventional pieties... > Suppose you say "The biggest international terror operations that are > known are the ones that are run out of Washington", or suppose, you > say "What happened in the 1980s is the US government was driven > underground", suppose I say "The US is invading South Vietnam," as it > was, or "The best political leaders are the ones that are lazy and > corrupt", "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war > american president would have been hanged.", "The Bible is one of the > most genocidal books in the total canon.", "Education is a system of > imposed ignorance", "There is no more morality in world affairs, > fundamentally, then there was at the time of Genghis Khan..." People > will, quite reasonably, expect to know what you mean. Why did you say > that ?... You'd better have a lot of evidence... But you can't give > evidence if you're stuck with concision. That's the genius of this > structural contraint. And in my view, people from Nightline and so on, > if they were smarter, if they were better propagandists, they would > let dissidents on, let them on more in fact. The reason is, that they > would sound like they're from Neptune. > > Noam Chomsky: What sems to me a - in a sense - very terrifying aspect > of our society, and of other societies, is the equanimity and the > detachment with which sane, reasonable, sensible people can observe > such events. I think that's more terrifying than the occasional Hitler > or LeMay or other that crops up. These people would not be able to > operate were it not for this apathy and equanimity. And therefore I > think that it's in some sense the sane and reasonable and tolerant > people who share a very serious burden of guilt, which they very > easily throw on the shoulders of others who seem more extreme or more > violent. > > Noam Chomsky: It means you have to develop an independent mind, and > work on it. Now that's extremely hard to do alone. The beauty of our > system is that is isolates everything. Each person is sitting alone in > front of the tube, you know. It's very hard to have ideas and thoughts > under the circumstances. You can't fight the world alone. Some people > can but it's pretty rare. The way to do it is with organization. So of > course there's an intellectual self defence, will have to be in the > context of political and other organization. > > Noam Chomsky: Modern industrial civilization has developed within a > certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern > industrial civilization has been individual material gain... Now it's > long been understood - very well - that a society that is based on > this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist - with > whatever suffering and injustice it entails - as long as it's possible > to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, > that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an > infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either... the general > population will take control of its own destiny and will concern > itself with community issues guided by values of solidarity, and > sympathy, and concern for others, or - alternatively - there will be > no destiny for anyone to control. > > Noam Chomsky: The way things change is because lots of people are > working all the time. They're working in their communities, at their > workplace, or wherever they happen to be, and they are building up the > basis for popular movements which are going to make changes. That's > the way everything has ever happened in history, whether it was the > end of slavery or the democratic revolution, anything you want, you > name it, that's the way it worked. You get a very false picture of > this from the history books. In the history books there's a couple of > leaders... > > question from the audience: Refering back to your earlier comment > about escaping from or doing away with capitalism ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
