Posted on 02/22/2003 3:51:48 AM PST by Republican_Strategist
This article presents findings from fieldwork in Africa (1998, 1999) and Germany (1994-2000). It includes a detailed discussion of Hitler’s views about propaganda and his use of this instrument to seduce the masses.
The aim of my fieldwork was to collect impressions that could illuminate questions stimulated by competing interpretations of German behaviour. How did Hitler manage to incite a whole population to follow him? As Alan Jacobs puts it: ‘Why do people join political, religious, professional, or social movements, of whatever size, and surrender so completely, giving up, in the extreme, everything; their fortunes, their, critical thinking, their political freedom, their friends, families, even their own lives? What causes people to create a system or perhaps merely follow a system that creates Auschwitz, the Lubianka, the killing fields of Cambodia…’ (Jacobs, 1995, 1).
...In this article a further view is offered, in which social identity theory with its emphasis on the group[3] is linked with a more individual based analysis. It suggests that ordinary Germans were ideal targets for seduction by Hitler. They went along with him, enthusiastically, although in many cases with ambivalence, because of his flattering message about themselves and Germany’s future. They were also caught up in the social dynamics he created. It was attractive to share the passions of the group, to be swept up in its enthusiasm. At the same time, it was disagreeable, and increasingly dangerous, to remain isolated from that enthusiasm and group feeling (to say nothing of the dangers of active opposition).
Hitler was obviously very competent at putting into practice what he calls the ‘correct psychology’ of seduction at the beginning of his career as ‘Führer.’ He writes on page 165 of his book Mein Kampf (Hitler, 1999, italics added): ‘The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and hence to the heart of the broad masses.’ Two pages later, he continues: ‘The broad mass of a nation does not consist of diplomats, or even professors of political law, or even individuals capable of forming a rational opinion; … The people in their overwhelming majority are so feminine by nature and attitude that sober reasoning determines their thoughts and actions far less than emotion and feeling. And this sentiment is not complicated, but very simple and all of a piece. It does not have multiple shadings; it has a positive and a negative; love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie, never half this way and half that way, never partially, or that kind of thing.’
For a long time, notwithstanding the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, I accepted the conventional wisdom that Communism and Nazism were opposites — one on the extreme left, the other on the extreme right.
Perhaps enough time has passed to permit examination in realistic terms of these approaches to social organization, concentrating on essential characteristics and demonstrated aspirations as opposed to clichés. Decades of observation, as well as ceaseless consideration given to the core issues, compel me to look upon these seemingly opposite systems as mirror images, aspiring to a similar outcome, applying identical methods, achieving comparable subjugation of people under their control, spreading the same hopelessness in their paths. While such conclusions have certainly been reached by others, it may be less obvious that Fascism (Nazism) and Communism (Bolshevism) all share their philosophical foundations as well.
Gleichschaltung operated at once on structural and cultural levels. Structurally, the first victim was federalism: within days of Hitler's accession, the states had to cede authority to the central government. Next, the leadership and membership of every kind of organization had to become politically and racially correct. With the task of implementing structural changes assigned to a variety of agencies, as early as March 1933, a separate Cabinet Department was created for Josef Goebbels to oversee every aspect of the cultural scene, making certain that it was politically correct. Specific terms aside, the reality of all these regimes is the great flattening which is in full progress from day one. Since it is not possible to raise anyone's natural level by fiat, the alternative is to force everyone down.
It is astonishing and frightening how little time it took both in Russia and in Germany to accomplish this task. Indeed, it should be noted that demolishing what centuries had built does not require even a single generation.
The next ingredient had to do with groups. While it may appear contradictory to identify groups in a society having just experienced Gleichschaltung, contradictions do not represent obstacles in a totalitarian structure. The identity of groups was as necessary as the levelling had been in order to maintain positive and negative imaging. This constant dichotomy of egalitarianism and group hatred provided a manipulative tool as simple as it was ingenious. Hitler used race and nationality, Lenin and Stalin mostly class — the outcome was the same.
One may fairly hold that the DEMOCRATIC Party is dangerous because of:
This is the same left wing myth in America that Republicans and conservatives are racists. The real racists in suits from Klan Sheets to $4,000 Suits worn in the Senate are the DemonicRats.
Thanks for posting this thread. It is very timely with the Islamofacists in charge of Iran, Iraq and Syria. They and their supporters in America are Facists.
Democrats = INTERNAL THREAT / DOMESTIC ENEMIES.
Very correct. The conservatives grossly underestimated the charisma of Hitler and the ability of his propaganga machine. Stalin ruled via brute force and massive fear. Hitler ruled with brutality but mostly with his grandiose promises to the people.
The young boy in Cabaret singing "The Future Belongs to Me!" fairly well sums up the attitude of the Germans of the 1930s.
You’re all a bunch of Fascists! At least that's what the left keeps calling everyone who attempts to reason from the classical conservative perspective. But the issue of who is a Fascist can't be addressed by any measure from the modern philosophical left because their fundamental tenet is the lie. For them, that’s the first principle of the art of war. They use it, they excuse it, and they in fact worship at its feet. They are the masters of deception, the political prestidigitators of the modern age. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. And one of the truly clever feats of magic the left has perpetrated was convincing John and Jane Q. Public that Fascism is necessarily a product of the popular definition of the "far right."
Fascism: Any program for setting up and centralizing an autocratic regime with severely authoritarian politics exercising regulation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible oppression of opposition. —Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
Writing in The New Australian on January 24th, 1999, James Henry noted that, "The state of American education being what it is, the vast majority of people are totally incapable of recognizing a fascist economic program, even when it is used to slap them in the face. This is because they have not been taught that fascism means state direction of the economy, cradle to grave ‘social security’, complete control of education, government intervention in every nook and cranny of the economy — and the belief that the individual belongs to the state."
. . .any similarlities with the goals and modus operandi of our current Left are not coincidental. . .
>>
Conservative elements, both Catholic and Protestant, were shocked by the Nazi attacks on the churches and the Christian religion....<<Homosexuality and the Nazi Party ...While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.
From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews, it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."
The probable reason for Hitler's attack on Christianity was his perception that it alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement. But Christians stumbled before the flood of evil. As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300).
Instead of using "Conservative" which implies "conserving the status quo", we should be using the word
Restorative
As in, we wish to restore individual liberty and personal responsibility as embodied in the original and only interpretation of the Constitution for the United States of America. We have no desire to conserve the status quo, which is nigh on democratic socialism. We desire to Restore this country to what it is supposed to be.
>>>>
RestorativeAs in, we wish to restore individual liberty and personal responsibility as embodied in the original and only interpretation of the Constitution for the United States of America.<<<<
How right you are. The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism. Robert W. Fogel Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Robert Fogel is a Nobel prize winning economist from the University of Chicago.
Fogel's argument is that American history has seen several Great Awakenings driven by religion and based on the notion of EGALITARIANISM and that we are in the middle of the Fourth Great Awakening.
FIRST GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1730 to 1800 and led directly to the American Revolution. Movement was driven by anger over corruption and immorality of British administration.
SECOND GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1800 to 1880 and focused on the egalitarian concept of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY and stress on INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. This movement led to Indians rights, temperance (against alcohol), universal education, abolition of slavery and voting rights for all adults.
THIRD GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1890 to 1960 but was based on the egalitarian concept of EQUALITY OF CONDITION. Basic human problems were taken to be the failure of society, not the individual. Poverty was taken to be not the wages of sin, but caused by society. Led to the welfare state, diversity, income tax, regulation of big business, unions, and immigration restrictions.
FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING. Started in 1960 to present. Major shift from THIRD to FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING is the return to egalitarian concept of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY and stress on INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. This change in direction runs counter to the entire Liberal agenda based on idea that society is responsible and not the individual.
What brought about the crisis that has led to the FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING? As Fogel points out, between 1890 and 1990, the increase in available wealth to the top 10% of w age earners in this country increased by a factor of four, that is, their actual wealth was multiplied four times. At the same time, the increase in available wealth to the bottom 10% of wage earners actually increased by a factor of 20! But while the multiplication of wealth has been astounding, problems such as crime, drugs, teen pregnancy, and single-parent households all INCREASED! Obviously material resources have not and will not solve the problems.
Enter the FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING. While church membership in the U.S. actually grew in the 1940s and 1950s, it fell off afterwards. Between 1970-2000, church membership in established denominations actually DECREASED by 25%. At the same time the enthusiastic religions more than doubled in the U.S. (and grew by an astounding 250,000,000 in South America and Asia).
The Moral Majority initiated the current religious awakening but was found to be too narrow in focus and intolerant. The CHRISTIAN COALITION has proven to be more flexible and political in nature, and therefore more successful. In Fogel's opinion, the Christian Coalition will dominate American politics for the next 50-60 years if they:
(1) understand they are a POLITICAL MOVEMENT~
(2) can form coalitions on key issues to move their agenda~
(3) can produce real gains for their adherents based on the concept of personal responsibility.
The LIBERALS (Fogel calls them Social Gosplers of the THIRD AWAKENING) will fight a rear guard action, especially in public education and the universities,
The truth is 'out there'; but it is not 'out there'.
Do think Conservatives in Media should take this as a challenge as well; this is a myth that should never have been allowed to become one. . .
>>>
The deep Nazi antipathy to Christianity and civilization, which, in much of Europe, meant practically the same thing, is particularly illuminating. Hitler despised these things: he said that, "Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." In fact, Hitler and the Nazis wanted nothing less than the "re-barbarization" of the German people. The esteemed German historian Hajo Holborn wrote that "Anti-Semitism was the major instrument in this policy of barbarization. Through the vilification, torture, and mass murder of the Jews the ruthlessness was produced that Hitler wanted to inculcate in his followers." <<<I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust;but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible"
Hitler stands out, because his approach to solving problems was, you might say, "over-enthusiastic." He made a production out of it.
Where Stalin's forte was to kill millions by simply mowing them down, under the cover of having bothered to establish a world-wide media hegemony.
Stalin [has] had many friends willing to be his alibi, not to mention the millions vouching for his "fine character" --- most of those supporters being in high places in the West.
In the U.S.A., look around, you can still see them on the curb, protesting [too much] for Stalin.
When their depravity recognizes no difference between Stalin and Hitler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.