Yes Vam. And, given a choice, I prefer the latter (below) based on rhetoric alone and currently feel happier and more relieved than I did for the previous 8 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVMbtSOkhSA&feature=PlayList&p=A623119C3589CEE7&index=0&playnext=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g4rjbJVa1w On Oct 11, 7:23 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
