Gustave Gilbert -- a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail -- kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the Nazi prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. This quote was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering -- head of the German Luftwaffe during World War II -- in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess: We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that 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 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." "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."
I wasn't providing it to show that Bush said so, I was merely answering thecabbage's post about why 'fear-mongering' is an important tool to whip the nation into frenzy. Drawing a parallel, that's all. And since I am a history buff, I thought people would find that interesting. However, if we apply that standard to how some right-wingers on this board (and in the political arena as well, with prominant right-wing figures such as O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, and others are calling anyone opposed to Bush's policies 'guilty of treason', 'anti-American', and other rediculous, irresponsible labels, which are obviously a necessity to silence the 'other side' when you don't have a legitimate counter-argument) accuse anti-war people, liberals, and even a traditional conservative like myself of being 'terrorist sympathizers' or 'terrorist allies', or 'providing aid and comfort to the enemy', then you can clearly start to see the parallel.
Thanks FB for the find, I think you got your answer right there basso. The Goering quote was intended to show that misleading the masses and garnering their support is a rather easy task, because the majority of the 'common people' are ignorant enough of the facts to be driven by mere emotions (like sheep), and therefore "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders". Even in a democracy? Yup.
Is the president of the United States the only member of his party? Doesn't the president of the U.S. hire people to 'do his bidding'? In that sense, the people who directly work for him (i.e. Rove for example, or others from his cabinet) DO speak for him. Please refer again to FB's post.
Thacabbage, Tigermission and others have hit upon this already but I think its a mistake to equate Islam causing terrorism or even using Islam as a cover for terrorism. I think what we're seeing now is Islam used as an organizing tool for a variety of groups throughout the world the same way that Marxism had been used for many of the independence struggles after WWII. For instance why would groups as disparate as the IRA, FARC, ANC and PLO all subscribe to Marxism when they were in very different parts of the world and came out of different cultures. Saying they were part of an international Marxist struggle gave them an ideological framework where they could broaden the appeal of their own struggle worldwide and also cooperate with each other. I think we're seeing the same thing with Islam being used now to allow groups from regions as disparate as Chechnya and the Phillipines to broaden their struggle and also get outside cooperation because traditionally those places have not been known for a very fundamentalists brand of Islam. By subscribing to fundamentalists Islam though allows them to market their struggle to Muslims throughout the world and also tap into aid and other resources. If Chechens didn't give their struggle an Islamic slant it would be very unlikely that Saudis or other Muslims would care that much about it or be willing to send money or aid. IMO Islam isn't a motivation but is a marketing and organizing ideology.
o'reilly, hannity, and coulter are prominent blowhards, albeit in the case of coulter a BHILF, so ascribing their views to the administration or to repubicans at large, is nonsense. one needs to make a disctinction however between dissent and actively wishing for america to lose. Fiengold disagrees with current US policy and has put forward a different plan. i think it's mis-guided, but i wouldn't characterize him as being un-patriotic, or actively wishing for US defeat. others, like certain left-wing commentators, and certain posters here, certainly cross the line.
They are becoming one. Or at least making moves in that direction. Putin was elected (that makes them Democratic) and Russia does stradle the line between Europe and Asia. Do you consider Russia an Eastern democracy?
Again nobody on this board has wished for Americans to lose. McCarthyism at work again. Your logic for that has been dispelled since you yourself supported the same goal as Al Qaeda in supporting Bush's re-election. Try singing a new tune.
You don't think those are considered the most 'prominant' right-wingers in the media? Tell me who is more prominant than those three names I listed above. Oh, I forgot to include 'The Weekly Standard', which is the neocon outfit, as well as the American Enterprise Institute and Project for New American Century (the most prominant thinktanks that have strong influence on the current administration, with many of their active members actually employed by the President in various branches of government). The only one I left out was Rush Limbaugh, who is definitely a 'blowhard' but you can't deny his popularity among many right-wingers. BTW, I consider myself a moderate right-winger, although I do find myself more and more in agreement with liberatarians such as Tucker Carlson or traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan. I agree a distinction should be made, but the problem basso is that how do you define what people are thinking? If someone is anti-war and believes what we are doing there is 'immoral' (you will be surprised how many Christians are against this war, true not nearly as many as those supporting it, but there is a considerable religious minority out there that oppose it based on principles, not practicality) how do you go about investigating whether or not that person is 'rooting for us to fail'? I think it's a dangerous thing to do because you know for a fact that people will claim to be mind-readers and will accuse the 'other' side of being 'anti-American' and 'the enemy within' (Coulter already claimed this, along with Hannity) in order to stifle dissent, at which point we would have another 'McCarthyist' era upon us, and we start dissending towards fascism.
I believe "The Enemy Within" was coined by this guy: I don't understand the rush to stifle dissendent in D&D. With the support of the War dropping to its lowest level, basso is almost the last man standing in D&D, who doesn't mind tossing labels around at will. We need to keep the forum entertaining.
