Your Opinion, Please!

[H2O Man]

"Two interelated set of circumstances can lead to a tyrannical group dynamic. The first arises from the success of groups that have oppressive social values. It has been pointed out, for instance, that the worst atrocities occur when people believe they are acting nobly to defend against a threatening enemy. One might wonder: How do they come to hold those beliefs?"
-- "The Psychology of Tyranny"; Haslam and Recicher

Yesterday I brought my vehicle in for an oil change. With 40 minutes to wait, I walked to an old store that has sold newspapers and magazines for generations. I bought Time, Adbusters, and Scientific American Mind (which had the article that I quoted from above).

Time's cover story is "Iraq: is it too late to win the war?" It contains "exclusive" stories on how "we" misjudged the enemy, and on the "endless campaign to put down the insurgency."

Adbusters cover actually looks a lot like Time, but that is where the similarities end. Its cover features a confused looking George W. Bush, having make-up applied to attemp to hide the obvious anxiety his face shows. A banner on his shoulder reads, "A Crack in the Facade."

Inside I found a series of hard-hitting mini-articles, and an ad for a 24-hour moratorium on spending. One can participate in the November 25, 2005 "Buy Nothing Day" by simply not participating in consumer society.

The magazine asks people to join their network of 80,000 "charged up activists around the world" by sending a blank e-mail to:
<[e-mail]>

Scientific American Mind has a fascinating article by S. Alexander Haslam (University of Exeter, England) and Stephen D. Reicher (University of St. Andrews, Scotland), two professors of social psychology, on "The Psychology of Tyranny. They note that leaders like Stalin, Hitler, Amin, and Hussein "have powerful personalities, but their success as tyrants also requires social conditions that make their message acceptable."

My questions to you are: what, in your opinion, causes people to accept a dictatorship? And what does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship?

I'm hoping that people will put these issues into the context of Bush and that "endless campaign" to fight terrorists. But, perhaps more important, to consider the context of this weekend's march in Washington, DC, and some of the acrimonious threads that have graced the pages of DU in the days since.

There are not "right" or "wrong" answers. Hence, there is not reason for harshness if people disagree.

I'll start by saying that the relationship between human beings and tv has made us fertile ground for the "Reagan Revolution" that has mutated into the Bush-Cheney administration.

Your thoughts?

[cosmik debris]

1. November 25, 2005 "Buy Nothing Day"

Bound to be a failure. That is the high point of the xmas spending spree.

[Me.]

13. I Had Something Of The Same Thought

The day after Thanksgiving! A different day would have been better, though if they can get enough people to not go the the malls it would be quite a statement, we'd have news stories all over the place by retailers.

[H2O Man]

14. X-Mas spending .....

You raise a good point, a valid point. Certainly, it will not shut down North America. But, if it resulted in 80,000 people not going shopping, is it a failure? Or is it a success for every individual that participates?

I think that is an interesting question to consider when examining the relationship between the individual and the herd.

[jmowreader]

22. What happens if the 80,000 wouldn't have gone shopping anyway?

My mom hates crowds. Therefore, we never went shopping the day after Thanksgiving. I'm certain that other people do the same thing.

Throw together the crowd-haters, the religious-but-not-Christian who don't care about the "super special sales" on things that make good Christmas presents, and the people who can't afford to buy anything that day, and you'll probably come up with at least a couple hundred thousand people. If none of those people go to the store, and all of them claim to have celebrated Buy Nothing Day, is BND a success or a failure? I'd say it's a failure because the point was to change people's thinking, and "buying nothing" when you planned to buy nothing anyway isn't a change in thinking.

[Me.]

35. If You Want To Be Esoteric About It

then the idea of 80,000 people not shopping that day will produce a ripple affect that we cannot see. If the point is to say to the "money", without us you are nothing, you need us, then a longer, more visible, campaign to get people involved and a different day might be more effective. Good points on this have already been made, There will be less shopping this year because of the economy and the 80,000 will add to the weight of that. And of course, going back to the esoteric, an ides put out into the world always finds a place to light.

[marions ghost]

63. if it even puts a dent in the

after-Tgiving shopping spree, it will DEFINITELY send a message!

BUT MORE to the point is that you get people thinking about cutting down their spending for Christmas. It will have an after-effect. It involves supporting a group action which can be empowering. I think it's a good idea.

I only wish we had more recreational opportunities so people didn't go shopping out of a pure need to consume something. What about some cultural events that don't revolve around consuming? I guess what I'm saying is that we need to replace shopping as our national sport. Everyone likes that feeling of belonging, but now belonging has been defined as consuming.

[burythehatchet]

201. If you haven't already read it, there a book called

Crowds and Power by Elias Caneti what you would find very relevant to this discussion.

[crispini]

18. It's always been that day....

Adbusters has been running that campaign for years. I actually observe it. I don't like facing the post-Thanksgiving scrum.

[katinmn]

27. This is an annual thing, largely ignored last year, although

there were plenty of threads and discussions here on DU and other forums about it.

I think this year will be different because of economics.

High gas and heating fuel prices are going to take a huge toll on consumer spending.

[tavalon]

116. Not really

It's been going on for years and people do participate. It makes a small but noticeable difference, especially at Walmart where many of us do silent no shopping shopping protests.

I think I've been doing this one for about 5 years now, possibly more. Probably more since I can't quantify it any more.

[H2O Man]

119. Hence it is

possible that how we define "victory" and "defeat" can play a significant role in how we approach something. One of the things that I find the present culture has done is taught people that "you might as well not bother trying, because you are bound to fail." I think that this handcuffs many, many people.

[tavalon]

129. Yep, that's one of my main points these days

or to be more specific, counter points. It's not about the outcome, it's about the doing of the task.

I was in DC last weekend for a little protest march and on Sunday I went to the holocaust museum. I found a pretty t-shirt there with an interesting little quote that may become my sig line:

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -Dante-

[H2O Man]

137. Great quote.

The thread I put up earlier in the week about civil disobedience was based entirely on King's belief that the ends and the means are not distinct, that they are one in the same.

[rosesaylavee]

2. Fear is the key - remember pre-9/11 how bad *s ratings were?

And there was talk that Rumsfield was all talk and his heyday was long gone? Poof - 9/11 happens and everyone rallies around these two.

My vote is fear has been this admins best friend. And however tinfoil hat it is to say it, I would not be surprised if it comes out eventually that most of the fear hasn't been generated by this admin behind the scenes.

[H2O Man]

15. Fear.

Absolutely essential in getting people to accept the unacceptable. Can you take it a step further, as in how fear can open a door for people to actually participate in the dictatorship? Thanks!

[rosesaylavee]

20. Fear silences thinking clearly - Once a person is

"frozen" with fear, alternative thinking is pretty much gone. One goes into shock mode and responds to a situation out of reflex.

For example... "we have elected govt officials who know more than us and will work in our best interest. I will trust them blindly."

If I don't trust them, what is the alternative? Anarchy - no hope of leadership in the current system so I have to follow the assigned leader.

How'd I do?

[sojourner]

75. the thing about fear - in the populace - is that b/c it is a trigger for

flight or fight response, the thoughts and behaviors that accompany it are NOT rational. That instinctive response occurs in response to fear, and is a hard-wired aspect of our being.

Once it's triggered, messages that appeal to logic are difficult to hear, much less understand. So those of us who didn't succumb to fear wasted our breath on our rational messages -- nobody could hear us.

The behaviors that people will condone or even participate in may be far different from those that constitute the societal "norm" because the prime objective is safety. And societally speaking, there is safety in conformity. Anything "different" can be perceived as a threat...in a democracy the time taken to come to consensus, consider minority viewpoints, etc may be perceived as "weakening" the larger body. Prefered modes of action would be autocratic because of swiftness and certainty....(which in fearful state translate to "security")

I think we are seeing people "wake up" because their first fear (terrorists on US soil) has not come to fruition in the years since 9/11 AND because the horrors they saw on TV during Katrina provided a shocking counter to that which they feared -- the death of Americans due to natural disaster AND government incompetence in dealing with it.

I think of the time my kids (riding in the pickup camper back in the days when this was legal) freaked out when they came to believe that some ropes on the floor of the pickup were snakes. I saw the panic and pandemonium, got the ex to stop the truck, went into the camper to find out what was going wrong and couldn't get any communication from them -- just hysteria. Raising my voice didn't help...and because I didn't know what was wrong I thought time may be of the essence. I slapped my daughter's face and the "shock" allowed her to start coming to her senses. In a sense that's how I see what's happening today. I do think people are waking up - many of them, anyway. Not advocating we go 'round slapping people (LOL) -- that might work on the interpersonal level during a limited event but not in a situation of mass panic.

[H2O Man]

123. " ... a hard-wired aspect of our being."

Great point. Our brains are pretty much the same as our ancestors from long ago. Many of those things that were important for our survival on the savannas may not serve as good a purpose in today's world. We have to be conscious of the fact that our brain and nervous system are always a major factor in our behavior.

[rosesaylavee]

125. But slapping would be very carthartic, don't you think? n/t

[H2O Man]

120. Very good.

I hope you continue to add to this discussion! Thank you.

[me b zola]

83. Fear causes people to search for a protector

How easily Americans handed their civil liberties to their would be protectors after 911. We stopped questioning everything because we in essence gave complete control to the government. If I remember correctly, the first major bill that came up after the patriot act was the "economic stimuli's bill". America was lulled into believing that the republicans in charge wouldn't take advantage of our grieving and fear and so trusted that they were doing the right thing. Instead it was a huge give away to the uber-wealthy and the corporations. No one noticed, save the few who also opposed the patriot act, but they were/are brushed aside as the fringe un-American element.

The concept of people in fear giving total control to a tyrant is seen in all slices of life. The woman living with an abuser who has no where to turn and in her mind is safer with him than to leave him. The neighborhood grocer who plays along with the local thugs because he fears he could lose his business or harm will come to his family if he does not--hence the thug offers protection. The "journalist" who reports what she is told even when she knows it is not correct because if she does not she may lose her job. The silent agreement is that she will be "protected" as long as she goes along and doesn't make waves.

[porphyrian]

105. I think I can.

Under normal circumstances, very few sane and logical people would agree to be governed by a dictatorship. After all, it benefits very few and extracts a heavy toll on the rest. However, by introducing fear, a change occurs in the minds of the masses. Instead of comfortably reflecting on their condition as usual, they are thrust into a primal emotional reaction to the stimulus. How this manifests varies by the individual, however it leaves people open to certain forms of suggestion. An effective use of fear in this manner is to terrify a populace, then present an authority figure who promises to take care of everything and make it all better. If the authority figure is convincing enough, a job made simpler because the victim generally wants to take the most expedient path to normalcy and isn't thinking rationally, the victim will usually go along. This is not unlike the relationship between an abusive parent and their child. The abusive parent terrorizes the child, then later asks forgiveness, promising never to do it again. The child wants to believe the parent, and will often remain fiercely loyal to that parent, despite the abuse.

[H2O Man]

118. Very good.

I think your explanation covers why many people, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Bush/Cheney simply can not be trusted, continue to place trust in them .... much like a child that continues to hope their inadequate parent will become capable of meeting their needs.

[Arkansas Granny]

36. I've always thought that Bush's ratings had a lot to do with the

"War on Terror". When his ratings started to droop in 2002, he trotted out his expansion of the WOT by going after Saddam. If the WOT had been good for him in 2001, then another invasion couldn't hurt. Then there were the various "terror alerts" in the run up to election 2004. I believe he has used the fear of attack to keep his image of a firm and decisive leader in front of his followers. Unfortunately, there were too many who fell for this ruse.

You can look at various charts and time lines and see this happening. However, more and more people are starting to see through this charade. He will continue to have his supporters who are unwilling or unable to accept facts, but a lot of people are waking up into the nightmare that is George Bush.

[H2O Man]

135. Right.

Without fear, he could not have hoped for re-election in 2004. (I do not believe he was elected or re-elected. I do not think that if we were a healthy society, the nonsense that occured in 2000 could have happened. )

[libnnc]

54. yep. it's fear. hands down.

I've always thought that. What else would make half the population shut down their brains and reject common sense in favor of this administration?

I think first, it's fear. Then that coupled with positive reinforcement of that fear; i.e. instead of us having an FDR moment--the POTUS saying nothing to fear but fear itself--we had the administration playing on those fears and a complicit media reinforcing those fears with non-stop "Terror" coverage.

[JerseygirlCT]

190. Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency..

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I think you're correct.

[ohio_liberal]

3. Just my Opinion

what, in your opinion, causes people to accept a dictatorship?

Ignorance, apathy, fear. Some people just don't pay attention to what happens around them. Some others just don't care. And others are just afraid to do anything.

And what does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship?

I think it takes a truly outrageous act to bring people out of their cocoon, if at all.

[H2O Man]

16. "a truly outrageous act"

There is a scene in the book/movie "To Kill a Mockingbird," where a truly outrageous act makes the members of an angry crowd remember that they are individuals. Do you think people are more likely to respond to something that happens on the "big stage," or something in their own little world?

[ohio_liberal]

28. Big stage

This is why our media does such a fantastic job of keeping people ignorant. 20 years of not reporting or underreporting the atrocities has kept a lot of people fat and happy.

[peace frog]

4. I'll bite

what, in your opinion, causes people to accept a dictatorship? Fear and anger combined produce cruelty in humans, which is the perfect platform upon which a dictatorship can be built.

And what does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship? The widespread knowlege that the "leadership" being touted results in socially unacceptable conditions and behaviors.

JMHO of course.

[H2O Man]

21. While I wrote

that there aren't "right" answers, and intended to stick with that, you are among those hitting the nail on the head. "Knowledge" can serve to make groups work in positive ways. It's not as simple as "groups are dangerous and bad." Clearly, this administration does not want people united in groups opposed to its policies. Hence the divide and conquer tactics.

What would be important in motivating people to not merely refuse to cooperate with oppressive governments, but to organize in a way that offered opportunities to improve conditions in those individuals' lives? I'm not asking that rhetorically. I'm concerned with a few of the patterns I've seen, even here on DU, in regard to the weekend's rally.

[wildhorses]

5. I would think that

fear and apathy would cause people to accept a dictatorship. Whereas courage and compassion could motivate people to refuse to cooperate in a dictatorship. I also like the question authority approach.:shrug:

[H2O Man]

23. "courage and compassion"

In our society, real compassion is often viewed as a sign of weakness. Yet it is actually one of the greatest strengths.

If one accepts that compassion in and of itself can be viewed as a strength, should we use compassion in dealing with our enemies? Is that not a sign of strength that the dictators (hence their culture)lacks?

[wildhorses]

111. good question...

both of them

[AuntiBush]

194. Kindness is Often Confused as Signs of Weakness

Once one realizes they've been "had," most awaken to show their strengths.

And you ask:

What, in your opinion, causes people to accept a dictatorship?

A large, organized group (per se) studies human reaction in various demographic areas for years, maybe decades. Radars in and goes after their "weaknesses," like hatred, bigotry, prejudicial "fears."

So my answer is Fear of the unknown. "My dog barks at what he does not know." A born instinct, we humans have as well. Condition this early on into the minds of 1 generation raised in front of the tube, or violent games and wa-laa.

And what does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship?

Again, fear but this time the fear of losing a "freedom" they're already conditioned for from literal birth.

[Dez]

6. People can't think for themselves

and a politician comes along which will say things that 'seem' right, to these people. This politician says 'God' told him to go to war, and because they are brainwashed by their religion/religious leaders, they believe this man. People actually BELIEVE politicians! They don't realize how corrupt our political system is, just as the American family system is dysfunctional.. How could our politicians possibly be functional, when their family system isn't?

Our society is really twisted, compared to the rest of the world. I read somewhere last night, that the U.S has the highest rate of mental illness.. which makes sense. The family system broke down with the Industrial age. Americans work more hours than in other democratic nations .. and are more complacent with the political situation. It will take a huge disaster to turn this around, IMHO.

[H2O Man]

26. The family system!

In my career in social work, I tended to subscribe to the "family sysytems" school of thought. I think it is a key point.

However, just for discussion, even extended family systems can be prone to dictatorship. A fascinating example is when Spain invaded Central America, they were able to exloit the Native Americans quite easily. Knock of the top fellow and a couple others, and everyone underneath is willing to do what they are told.

The Dutch, French, and English thought they could easily have the same system of "God, gold and glory" in the New World. They wre surprised to find the woodland Native Americans were democratic, and thus difficult to exploit in the same style as the Spanish had done.

How would you apply the family systems to these two very different experiences?

[rman]

168. Question is: which kind of family, nurturing or authoritarian?

Specifically, authoritarian to the point of being abusive. You know, the dysfunctional family, the abusive spouse/parent(s).

Imagine society as a family and the government as the father or parents. Is the parent guiding and helping us to stand on our own feet - emotionally first and foremost?
I think oppressive governments cause emotional immaturity amongst the populace. That is what makes people susceptible to fear and promises of security.
In a speech Al Gore mentioned a research which shows that fear does indeed "cloud the mind"; it does hamper rational thought.

George Lakoff has a few things to say about the "nurturant parent" and the "strict father" models.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[AuntiBush]

196. Vulnerabilities

It still strikes me as severely "odd," that after an entire nation (US/us) suffers the worse Natl disaster, 9/11, on such a highly shocking level * & CO work so hard on taking away our last security, namely Social Security.

Again, preying upon people's fears during most vulnerable times.

Native Americans were so friendly, not educated to their new arrivals from afar. By the time they realized they were in trouble, their newfound friends were referred to as "invaders."

Stupid. No. Vulnerable through innocent ignorance. Yes. Maybe greed played a part w/grand offers of Gold. Whereas, woodland NA's were too democratic, with cultural democracy long, firm in place.

Edited to Add: Woodland Native Americans placed "family" & "community" first, and had they're surival needs in place for many generations. Not all Native American cultures, survival and family history is the same.

[raccoon]

51. I wouldn't put too much stock in that

"the U.S has the highest rate of mental illness.. "

While I agree there is a lot of mental illness in the US, in many countries--particularly Third World countries, probably there is a lot of mental illness that is undetected and unreported.

And as in the US, and everywhere else, a lot of people self-medicating their depression, bipolar disorder, etc., with alcohol or other drugs.

[H2O Man]

140. You raise a valid point,

though it is worth noting that some things we encounter in our culture -- a good example being eating disorders among females -- are really not found in other cultures. They will be, as we invade and spread our pathology into other lands. But there do seem to bebehaviors that qualify as mental disorders that seem to go hand-in-hand with our culture. They seem closely tied to a person's sense of self-worth, as well as sense of control.

[raccoon]

163. I hate to see the US spreading the thinness obsession into

other countries.

"They seem closely tied to a person's sense of self-worth, as well as sense of control."

That's definitely something to think about. A lot of advertisements carry the message, "to be worthwhile, good enough, etc., you must buy and use our product." (a person's sense of self-worth).

"But there do seem to be behaviors that qualify as mental disorders that seem to go hand-in-hand with our culture."

Any others you can think of, off the top of your head?

[H2O Man]

170. One thing that

often occures to me is that, even in terms of those mental illnesses such as the schizophrenic and bipolar disorders, our culture absolutely de-values the person with them. In a traditional society, a person might be recognized as "Gary," who is nice, honest, giving, who does plumbing quite well, and who is sometimes manic, sometimes depressed, and who lives near me. In our society, Gary is that crazy guy who has been in the psych ward a bunch of times, and who you can't trust to fix your pipes 'cause sometimes he's weird. Put him in a group home.

I'd speculate that their are degrees of anxiety and depression that are part of our highly competitive society, that would not be as common in pre-industrial society. I think that it was Fromm's "The Sane Society" that contained a fascinating discussion on rates of violence (to self and others) that seemed to indicate the United States was #1 in that area.

(The "top of my head" is getting tired! Old men should take naps in the afternoon. I can't blame society for this, however!)

[FizzFuzz]

192. just a thought or two

most mental illnesses do amount to the label "defective goods" in this society, and the sufferer, while encouraged to face the illness and use the various therapies offered in the curatively oriented society, will still be stigmatized, particularly if the illness impacts the person's work productiveness.

Compare this to the social esteem given to psychopaths and sociopaths. Of course, I'm not referring to those whose behavior strays so far out of bounds as to include murder, but the sub-criminal psychopath, who is skillfull at creating an attractive appearance, while lying cheating and etc to win status and power. This society is a macho one that values individuality, ruggedness, winning, even or maybe particularly, demonstrations of strength like winning at the expense of a weaker party.

Couple this tendency to look at the superficial, to value words and ignore actions, to avoid critical thinking, to admire base shows of strength, with an educational system that rewards conformity and a willingness to obey authority figures (and punishes those who do question the authority figure) --ironically, the rugged individualistic society prefers those who don't rock the boat, aren't TOO individualistic, and don't think about contradictions too deeply. Ruggedness is to be displayed at the cost of the "weaker guy", the figure no one wants to or can identify with.

Now, add to this mix a majority religion which values the same superficiality, conformity, passivity and willlingness to accept the interpretations of the powerful authority figure who mediates between the lowly mortal and the omnipotent, omniscient diety. Imbue that religious framework with fear of almighty retribution and social ostracism for failure to comply. Reward followers with a deep sense of virtue, which they manufacture themselves in response to their own acceptance and emulation of the given dogma attitudes/prejudices/mythical constructs of the religion.

Last, surround these people, many of whom are of only average intelligence, with relentless, emotionally compelling imagery and words designed to bypass and quiet critical thinking, and elicit desired consumer behavior in the shortest time possible. Attention spans shrink until only the most dualistic black and white, emotionally simplistic and primal messages get through, and gratification/closure/security is expected quickly and easily, especially if you do what the authority figure/expert tells you to do.

The result is a fearful, passive, unintellectual, impulsive populace that has no skill at looking beyond appearances, and that gets great feelings of self importance from power (even vicarious power, as in, "MY team beat yours--I support the winning team") and feelings of pride from beliefs of moral superiority and protection(I do what my pastor, the moral expert, tells me, I believe in the RIGHT religion, I am divinely blessed, I am protected from hell because I believe the RIGHT religion)

There, my thought or seven :)

[raccoon]

205. Good thinking! nt

[Me.]

7. Fear

and misery of living which leads to scapegoating. That is for the general population. For leadership, it's the quest for power. What happened in the house yesterday is an example. Why did the moderates lie down and allow the conservatives to have a temper tantrum and put a faux Delay in place/ This was their chance to bring the house more in line with their beliefs. Why didn't they do it?

Would you elaborate on "the relationship between human beings and tv has made us fertile ground for the "Reagan Revolution" that has mutated into the Bush-Cheney administration"

[H2O Man]

29. Fear

causes people to project their demons onto others. The most glaring example, in my opinion, is the republican tactic of pointing fingers at the homosexual community, as if gay marriage posed any threat to our culture .... when in fact we will not begin to heal our social wounds and move towards true democracy until the majority recognizes that gay marriage is every bit as important a social contract as the type republicans pretend to honor.

TV has created the most significant alterations in the brain, which create the type of thinking necessary for human beings to be removed from nature and placed in a concrete jungle. One of the magazines I bought yesterday has an article on this (some on related issues, too). However, the single best book is Jerry Mander's "In the Abscene of the Sacred." It should be read along with Erich Fromm's "To Have or To Be."

[G_j]

154. one of the more powerful messages in

Bowling For Columbine, I thought. The part where he noted the obsession with things to be afraid of on TV. But there are also the REAL scary things that they don't talk about, how will the billions of $$ worth of weapons we sell all over the world be used?, what about global warming? what will I do with my SUV when the oil runs out? What kind of world are leaving for our children? These are a whole lot of serious questions...pass the prozac :-(

There are many layers and nuances to American fear.

[sendero]

8. I think it is not as simple..

... ("it" being a society's willingness to accept tyranny) as one thing. But there are two easily identified factors IMHO:

1) people are really scared of terrorism. It is ridiculous IMHO, you have 100 times more likelihood of dying in an auto accident, but people area easily whipped into a state of panic over fear

2) I think there is a great deal of unspoken angst about our economy lurking just beneath the surface. People know something is wrong, they see their friends and families struggling to maintain a modest standard of living. It didn't used to be this way. And the Republicans, even though they ARE THE PROBLEM, have managed to convince large numbers of folks that the Dems are the problem. Their ability to do that is waning, but probably not fast enough.

[H2O Man]

30. One of my friends

was over the other evening. We have been friends since grade school, and he is one of the people I admire the most in life. He works in a local factory, as a machinist. He was the most unhappy that I have ever seen him. It is 100% related to how terribly he is being treated at work, for no good reason. He has always been a hard-worker. But the company is now treating people like him harshly.

This is not the long arm of coincidence wrenching itself out of socket: it's the harsh reality of working class people in America today. The truth is that business has studied group behavior, and many of the same strategies used for "control" in prisons are being used in factories.

Your point has to be recognized as one of the most important.

[sendero]

33. You don't have to treat workers like humans..

.... when their replacement is sitting in a rice field somewhere.

Seroiusly, it is economic issues that will torpedo the Republican machine. They talk a good game, but results are results, and the results for average Americans are all negative.

People are wising up to this, but the problem is that so much damage has already been done it could not be painlessly fixed even if we ran every venal puke out of Washington on a rail.

America is staring down the barrel of a gun they/we loaded.

[TahitiNut]

9. Creeping Fascism

Creeping Fascism

A few months after Tom Ridge stepped down as US Homeland Security chief, he set the record straight: the White House had repeatedly disregarded his advice and raised the government’s terror alert to orange, or “high,” without justification. Ridge wanted to “debunk the myth” that his department was needlessly frightening the American public with the alerts and told reporters “More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it . . . There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, ‘For that?’”

It’s no surprise that the Bush administration has fudged the terror warnings for its own benefit. Exploiting fears of terrorism is central to Bush’s presidency. His aides don’t even pretend otherwise, explaining to a Washington Post reporter in the 2004 election campaign that Bush’s strategy was “aimed at stoking public fears about terrorism, raising new concerns about Kerry’s ability to protect Americans and reinforcing Bush’s image as the steady anti-terrorism candidate.”

But beyond ensuring his re-election, Bush’s manipulation of his citizenry’s national security concerns has proven enormously politically expedient. Americans are regularly told by their government that they should be scared. For many, their identity is wrapped up in their sense of how safe they feel, and the “Other” may have to die so that they feel protected. Bush has deftly balanced his paradoxical assertions that Americans should be very afraid of terrorism, but that they’re safe with him. And as such, he has cultivated a large pool of malleable citizens who are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, no matter the circumstances. The shades of fascism in this equation are hard to deny. For though the US may not be a bona fide fascist state in the traditional sense, the current obsession with national security, militaristic rhetoric and imperial ambitions conform with any general theory of fascism. Other traits of Bush’s government fit the bill as well: hyper-nationalism, emphasis on machismo, rollback of personal freedoms, reliance on authoritarian and charismatic leadership, and framing day-to-day life as permanent war.

Bush claims that much of this is necessary because “The world changed on September the 11th.” But the reality is that Bush had an aggressive foreign policy waiting in the hopper long before the terrorists struck. His coterie of neoconservative hawk advisers were chomping on the bit to implement their decades-old vision of advancing US military and political hegemony over the globe. The threat of al Qaeda provided a fortuitous opening. With the inception of a “war on terror” the divisions between what’s allowed in peacetime and what’s allowed when the nation is at war have dissolved. Even better, a war on terror is a war without end. In December 2001, White House aides told Time magazine that they expect the war to endure for at least the next 50 years.

<snip>

[H2O Man]

32. That's it!

Thanks for posting that. It figures you would be familiar with it. I had not known of it until yesterday, but I'm glad I found it!

[marions ghost]

103. You must die so that I may live...

"For many, their identity is wrapped up in their sense of how safe they feel, and the “Other” may have to die so that they feel protected." (Adbusters)

This sentence from the Adbusters article gets at something for me about the reason that nice, otherwise 'good' Americans will support a ruthless war of aggression in their name and not lose a wink of sleep about the loss of thousands of innocents. (They might complain about the money spent, but not the bloodshed).

When threatened, even by an intangible enemy figure (and what could be more intangible than the mysterious Osama who disappears into caves and sends forth kamikaze pilots) --many people revert to a very primitive form of survival of the fittest. They lust for human sacrifice in the most elemental sense, simply put, "Others must die so that I may live." Even if it makes no sense to link Saddam with Al-Qaeda, they still must satisfy that deep urge for revenge. It's a symbolic act of power and control...especially necessary if feeling powerless in general.

---------------------------
You also have to look at our culture of polarization where everyone who is not the same as you is The Enemy. Someone can be villainized by the merest wink or snied remark or difference of opinion. The ends justify the means. Whoever is the best arm wrestler wins, not who has the best intentions. And we all know this happens in the progressive camp as well.

The other factor that comes to mind is the way we all have become bombarded with information from every direction these days. This information is often conflicting and manipulated. It can make people who are not used to 'sorting' as efficiently as others become prey to individuals who conveniently do that job for them (such as rightwing radio hate mongers and rightwing preachers). In some ways I am sympathetic with the Sheeple who really just want for things to be clear and simple. You just support the team, and everything will be OK. But we live in a very complex world. People need some help in coping with it.

[TahitiNut]

122. 'Win-Lose' paranoia in a 'Win-Win' world

There's 'win-win' and 'lose-lose' -- 'Win-Lose' (zero-sum thinking) is a delusion: paranoia.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
"We have met the Enemy and he is us."

[H2O Man]

141. Perhaps it is no

coincidence that both Buddha and Jesus taught a simple message: "Do not be afraid."

[LWolf]

10. Propaganda.

When they hear it over and over again; when it saturates every aspect of daily life, everybody just "knows it." Nobody questions it. After all, if everybody says it's so, it must be, right?

When dissenters are muffled, and the propaganda machine casts them as "fringe," "nut-cases," etc., dissent is obviously wrong, because "everybody knows better."

When questioning, independent thought, independent points of view, and active investigation and discussion are squashed beginning in kindergarten, to be replaced with passive receiving, and rote repeating, to "learn" successfully, you get whole generations of adults who nod their heads along with tv or radio pundits, listen to the "leaders" who obviously "know what they are talking about," because the listener sure doesn't, and place their trust in TPTB.

When that propaganda appeals to the worst human traits, those of greed, selfishness, narrow-mindedness and bigotry, it makes the listeners feel good to hear TPTB agree. It makes their ugliness something to enjoy, rather than to eradicate. It gives them a sense of tribe, of belonging.

[H2O Man]

34. Propaganda!

"Perception management" is being used on a scale that Americans are almost entirely unaware of. I really enjoyed your post. It reminds me of one of my favorite writings, which is actually the introduction to a book: Erich Fromm wrote about just what you are saying here in his introduction to A.S. Neill's classic, "Summerhill."

[tom_paine]

56. Yes, that more than anything lese propels us towards Totalitarianism

It is not the "perception managment" so much it is our collective ignorance of it.

Propaganda, whether it be TV ads for Coca-Cola or The Chris matthews Show is infinitely more effective on an unwitting populace than a witting one.

We can argue about the dumbing-down of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika, the Death of the Free Press or TV Nation, but what makes us vulnerable is the EVEN STILL pervasive attitude that "It can't happen here."

But it is exactly when we become so certain that it can't, we are most vulnerable to it happening.

Old Free America (1776-2000) wasn't perfect, not by a longshot. But people grew accustomed during the 60s and 70s to having the finest Free Press around, one in which they could get some of the truth some of the time, one which had rules about journalism and ethics.

Not perfect, but a damned sight better than anything which had come before.

It was the gradual and systematic destruction of the Free Press (the ethics and regiulations which ensured some degree of fairness and good journalism) which left Americans like the proverbial frog inthe gardually heated pot of water.

Same with the Constitution. We all grew up in egalitarian post-WWII America, and we supposed it would last forever...even as the Reagenites were tunneling under it and performing early feasibility tests in the Big Lie Machine.

Yeah, sure Reagan was "teflon", yeah sure Ollie North had a 96% approval rating.

But we didn't notice. By and large the American People still don't notice. They can see Chris Matthews (and he is actually relatively tame in his slavering, toadying worship of The Party and Der Bushler) practically drooling, they can see that more and more "journalists" are Bushevik hacks.

But they still believe the America of their childhood is still there. Put a white guy in front a a camera with a desk and a clock and they think "Walter Cronkite".

Everything depends on how quickly Americans realize that we have been Sovietized (by Free-Market worshippers, ironically).

If the great bulk of Americans fails to realize until enough minds have been programmed to be immune from fact and reason by the Bush Party Sub-Media, which has now nearly merged with the wretched remnants of the formerly Free Press, then we are sunk.

If not, there is some hope. Not alot because our voting systems are hopelessly rigged, but some.

Karl Jaspers, who witness the prevoious crueler and meaner version of the Bush Lie Machine in Nazi Germany, said it best:

"All over the world I dread the self-deception which we have experienced - that this could not happen here. It can happen anywhere. It is improbable only where the broad masses of the population are aware of the possible menace and thus will not be lulled into security; where they know the type of totalitarianism and will recognize it in its rudimentary stages and in each of its manifestations - this Proteus who keeps appearing in ever new masks, who slips eel-like out of our grasp, who does the opposite of what he says, who distorts the meaning of words, who speaks not in order to communicate or tell the truth, but in order to numb, to distract, to hypnotize, to intimidate, to dupe - who will exploit and evoke every fear, and will promise security and utterly wreck it at the same time."

And that is what we face. The numbers of Bush Sturtruppen are fed by the largest and most sophisticated Propaganda Machine the human race has ever seen. It destroys reason, but further, once it capturea a mind, that mind is almost always permanently immune from reason or from ANYTHING which is not "Party Approved".

It is a self-replicating beast with a very low incidence of "deprogramming". That's how Goebbels designed it in the 30s and how Rove, Ailes et al. have designed it today.

If enough of us become aware in time, we may be saved. If not, then this incarantion of Totalitarianism will progress as others have before to the Penultimate Phase and the Final Solution (which, for the Busheviks is likely to be kinder and gentler than the Nazis, but in reality it could be just as awful in it's own way).

[LWolf]

206. I'll look for that one.

"Perception management" is a highly developed skill and an essential tool for the conservative agenda. I spent a few years thinking that just speaking the truth was enough to counter that skewed perception, and that people must be able to see through it. It took too much time for me to realize that no matter how often propaganda is countered, perception doesn't change. The "perception management" team's first agenda is to build an extreme emotional reaction to the groups that are doing the countering; their words never have a chance to register, because they've already been id'ed and rejected.

[Solomon]

11. Willie Horton.

Works everytime. Willie's number 1. Osama got nothing on Willie.

[H2O Man]

37. I really believe

the administration came close to puling out the Willie Horton ads from Poppy Bush's scrapbook after the hurricane. There was an organized effort, I am fully convinced, to portray the black community in NO as a dangerous group of Willie's relatives, rather than as human beings. Guess who's coming to steal your dinner?

[ultraist]

12. Yes, it takes fear to coerce the population to go along

And, it takes an "Us vs. Them" mentality, which we saw the set up for, post 9-11.

IMO, it takes a gradual rise of consciousness within the populous to reject an oppressive regime. We are seeing it now. People are growing more and more uncomfortable with the rising death toll in Iraq, the rising poverty rate, a stagnating median income and the increasing deficit. As people become uncomfortable, they begin to question authority.

If there is a cause/movement for those people to turn to, such as the growing peace movement, that calls out the regime for what it is, people will start to step out of their cocoons. But, not until the movement because mainstream, will the masses feel safe enough to join in.

As we see more and more of the antiwar, anti Bush sentiment become mainstream and filter into our pop culture, we will see more people step out of their fear and turn away from the regime.

We saw this same phenomena with the Civil Rights movement. It became mainstream to listen to protest music and be pro Civil Rights.

[H2O Man]

42. Yes.

I am always amused by people who talk about "our" president, and what "we" should be doing as a united people. I recognize that I have very little in common with the Bush family; Barbara Bush doesn't care any more about me than she does any of those welfare people who are living high on the hog since the hurricane.

At the same time, I see what I believe are unnecessary divisions occuring on the democratic left. I recognize that many are temporary, and to be expected. Yet the best way to deal with them is to be aware of what is happening. I suspect that you are conscious of this, as on one of the threads that I found most troubling this week, I saw that you added a rational response that made clear people can disagree and still be respectful. I liked that.

[ultraist]

46. I certainly hope they are temporary!

You are probably right, but if we remain fragmented, we are are going to be very ineffective.

Thanks for the remark about my comment. Your ability and skill to disagree respectfully doesn't go unnoticed. ;)

[Armstead]

17. Seeming to offer a solution to problems

Hitler was a product of his times, in a country that had been crushed in a previous war, and saw itself being destroyed maliciously by the victors. Plus, "Germany" was still fairly new as a nation at the time. So he was able to provide both a positive image of Germany's potential while also tapping into the resentments and hatred against those who were seen as trying to undermine that.

Hitler also did a lot of "good" things for the people too, through social and economic programns that actually seemed liberal or socialist on the surface. And he brought order to chaos. That looked good to a nation that was reeling from economic problems.

Other dictators also rose because they seemed to offer solutions to dire problems. Napoleon was both a product of and reaction against the chaos that followed the French Revolution. The Commies in Russia were a reaction against an oppressive class system in Russia, and seemed at first like a popular revolt against that tyranny.

There are some obvious parallels to the present situation. But my optimistic side sees one crucial difference -- Most countrires that have fakken under the thumb of dictatorships did not have experience with a functioning democracy. For all outr faults, the US has a long tradition with a functioning democracy, which makes it much less likely for would-be dictators to get very far ultimately. When it looks like they are, the system usually kicks in and boots them out.

[H2O Man]

52. Historic context --

very important. The article on tyranny noted that some studies indicate that those who are used to working under a progressive system can be at high risk of accepting authoritarian rules to "correct" problems if their system begins to break-down. I am concerned that this willingness, even if only temporary, opens the door to a Bush-type leader. I think that it will take this country at least 35 years to repair the damage he has done to America.

[Armstead]

58. The puzzling thing about now is that people were happy before

Unlike eras that led to dictatorships, the overall mood was very upbeat in the 1990's. So it would seem to contradict the pattern I cited above.

However, I guess 9-11 was more important in enabling a crisis atmosphere.

But the optimistic way to look at that, in terms of action/reaction is that it's the GOP who have been in charge during the period of perceived crisis. So if people are going to look for a change, they'll look in the otehr direction for it.

[marions ghost]

143. do u mean H20 Man that it's the whole structure that is the problem?

--the article mentions that even progressives can resort to authoritarian rules to 'correct' problems. I have seen this happening in a local group that I am loosely associated with that really should be looking for new structures, but seems to be constantly falling back on the dominance and punishment methods of controlling even the most minor situations that crop up. These same people would be horrified at any comparison to the way things are run in this country. They think they are different.

WHAT WILL it take to get people out of the tendency to simply repeat what they've been taught? To break these habits they are not even aware of? These regressive behaviors I believe, eventually end up fossilizing any group, even those that attempt progressive change. They shoot themselves in the foot by the tendency to expediency and overcontrol. Don't give me 'leadership workshops' either -- people go to them but they still do not get it. If we can't even get past petty tyrants, how will we ever deal with the big ones?

[H2O Man]

145. Good questions.

I do not pretend that I know the answer, but I do know that even among progressive people -- and yes, even on DU -- there are times that I see a very negative potential. In the past couple of days, in discussions about some of the participants in the weekend's march in Washington, DC, I read a number of things that I found troubling. And I mean a potential to allow our thinking to be structured in an authoritarian manner.

[marions ghost]

156. Do u know

of any books that deal with this problem of the authoritarian structure and how to overcome it on any scale? Any readings in social psychology? Are there any examples of existing groups that function effectively with a different approach, or are our only models still the Hopi? I feel we may be in the infancy of understanding how this phenomenon works and how to fight against it. But I know what you mean--the quick judgment, the hard line, the heavy criticism, the worry about image rather than substance, the deafness to a different opinion, the call for extreme measures, the urge to punish...have I left any aspects of this constellation of authoritarian behaviors out?

[Octafish]

19. Fear and Knowledge.

The fear of death -- terror -- motivates people toward accepting totalitarianism like no thing else, observed famous ultra-conservatives Hitler and Rove.

The antidote to what ails us is knowledge and compassion, observed Dickens and Kennedy.

Gee. What's missing? Liberal leadership.

[Me.]

44. The Most Basic Fears

Pain (physical, mental & emotional) to self and loved ones, hunger, lack of shelter, water for drinking and bathing. The conditions at the convention center, sheer unadulterated misery.

[H2O Man]

53. You sound dangerous! (grin)

It is amazing that the same population that can look to Robert Kennedy can, after a couple assassinations and riots, then elect Richard Nixon.

[DemonFighterLives]

24. This is no small endeavor

One can only go back as far as their life takes them, but the 60's were a time when much changed. When our President John Kennedy was killed, people should have asked a few more questions. This is when the secret regime got it's foothold in my mind. While all the people cried, we were hoodwinked into believing some cockamamie (sp)story about what really happened. We were shoveled a whole load of BS and of course many questioned it, but many were killed and the whitewash basically worked.

Now the power is much greater and the lies have gotten more powerful with the complicit media. Whatever "they" want to sell us is picked up by the echo chamber and becomes common knowledge before you know it. The whole war without end is not what most people of the world want, but it is what is being fed us for the chance to enrich a few at the head of the charade. The only way it is going to change is when people demand the truth about Kennedy, 9/11, the bad elections of the last 5 years and other things. "These" people are ruthless and just "us" kindly asking them to leave will not work.
So with all that said, I don't have any answers. I'm looking for a Knight in shining armor to come forth and wield the truth. The only ones close right now are Gore or Dean or Conyers with a few others. They may have a chance to right the ship.
:donut:

[H2O Man]

68. For a variety of reasons

Americans were quite willing to accept what they perhaps suspected was not fully true in regard to JFK's assassination, until the Zapruder film was released. After seeing the film, their opinions began to shift.

In a similar vein, Michael Moore published a book, "Will They Ever Trust Us Again?", a book of letters from "the war zone." It's soldiers and relatives of soldiers, who express the horrors of the Bush war in Iraq. Yet for a number of reasons, it has taken the sight of Cindy Sheehan to get the message to click in the public's mind.

It would seem safe to venture that people in our culture process material that is presented visually, on a screen, in a very different manner than the printed word, or that which they hear.

[whatever4]

25. Thanks for asking :)

"causes people to accept a dictatorship?"

From me, I was raised non-Christian, so I feel like I've been the perpetual outsider looking in. Been a mystery all my life; I mean, had most of these folks been born in another nation, they'd have adopted THAT prevailing religion, but most folks absolutely refuse to see their conformity in this. They do not realize, very many, that their entire belief system is geograhicaly based, and is no more personally accepted, analyzed, or understood than any tribal witch doctor or nature worship. No difference.

It's what I think of when you ask this question, since the religious-right is one of the groups seeking to subvert our constitution and virtually all our rights. They're generally conformist. It seems to me that folks accept dictatorship when they believe the dictator in question agrees with them, and while the rule may not be fair to others, they believe it safer and more prudent to side with that dictator, since he's on their "side". Going with the majority, making sure they don't "stick out".

I guess I view following a dictator as basically being selfish, putting one's own desires (like using religion in law, wearing a burka or outlawing certain forms of contraception) over the desire to have a fair society/system of justice. Selfishness, a will to be with the winning group, the strongest side. And further, for some, a desire to forcefully MAKE others fall into line, and live their lives the "right" way. A willingness to set aside justice and democracy in order to attain some "higher" goal, which they agree with.

Now, I think I should probably add that I all this holds true only if the folks in question REALIZE they're following a dictator. In our case, in our nation, I think believing we're free, can vote, and have rights, was an assumption that allowed many to let the wool be pulled over their eyes. They didn't see. But, many did not want to see. In the end, after Iraq and Katrina, they've been forced to see, and many now realize our leaders have been breaking the law and lying, trying to dictate rather than represent. In effect, as you say, being dictators. They likely don't think of this as a dictatorship in those words, but are seeing dictatorship, and don't like knowing their opinions and their votes don't matter.

So, for some, they just didn't realize they were following a dictator. I don't know how many that is, but judging by how many supported the Iraq war initially, I think it must be many.

I guess there's intentionally following of a dictator, and then there's accidentally following. But, I'm sure not realizing, or not really WANTING to realize the regime is dictatorial is typical. Sure the heck is what happened here. Many lies lead to the following of BushCo by this nation. The fact that people fell for them, when I myself, though not having any special access to information, could easily see how the truth was being spun away and lies were being manufactured, well, all I can think is that people didn't really want to believe the truth. And that, too, was played upon and used by this farce of an admin. Not so much that they wanted a dictator or wanted to be lied to, but rather they just didn't want to face the truth, were helped along the way, and went a long, LONG way with the lies before they were finally shamed into it, especially by Katrina.


"what does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship?"

I'm even more cynical on this one. I believe it takes what our nation is basically seeing now; that the dictator in question does NOT agree with their "goals", and they realize they themselves are at risk of losing out. Again, anyone that follows a dictator I see as selfish, and I think it takes selfish motivations to pull them away. Sometimes realizing he dictator is truly too terrible, murderous, and the guilt sets in. Like when people see Iraqi children dead and bloody. For others, it's just the realization that they won't get what they want out of the dictatorial situation, that they aren't in the "favored" group.

[Mandate My Ass]

31. a sense of shared past glory and the assurance of future victory

A RWer by the name of Edward Luttwak, author of an interesting little book entitled Coup D'Etat: A Practical Handbook, which appears to have been followed to the letter throughout Nov. 00 till Jan. 01, gave this opinion in another book on military strategy. He said not only will people accept tyrannical erosion of individual rights, but also accept grave physical and economic hardship if their leaders can instill in them the rightness of their cause contrasted by the brutality and immorality of their enemy in the aftermath of an attack.

It also helps if the populace is undereducated, ill-informed and exposed to propaganda day after day.

[H2O Man]

70. "It also helps

if the populace is undereducated, ill-informed and exposed to propaganda day after day." Extremely important point. It defines the state of being mis-educated, and of being taught to accept lies on face value.

[Just Me]

38. I believe a pervasive sense of helplessness or disappointment,...

,...must be present. When a society's members feel insufficiently empowered to control their own destiny and/or protect their belief system, the social soil is ripe for accepting authoritarian rule.

Such pervasive social feelings of disempowerment makes people more vulnerable to manipulation,...especially via fear blended with a false comfort associated with having a "stong-man" in charge.

Just MHO.

[H2O Man]

71. Locus of control.

Is it enternal or external? That is huge. We give our power to others far too often. That's almost as true for the left as the right. The idea of "leaders" rather than representatives in government is but one example.

[CrackpotAmerica]

39. I was thinking of this:

Why not build a website with a database that holds products and brands of "good" companies.

There are similar ones out there, but what I would like to do is this:

The user can log on, compile a shopping list for themselves, and then submit it.

The database would then return "good" brands for the user to purchase at the grocery store. Also, maybe it could hold coupons from the various companies.

It would look like this:

User Product Brand Coupon

Milk Brand X Coupon A
Eggs Brand Y Coupon B
Bread Brand Z Coupon C

Etc. . .


Part of the problem is that it is very difficult to keep track of who one should or should not buy their products from. Maybe something like this would make it easier!

[CrackpotAmerica]

41. Oh yeah, Nominated! NT

[Me.]

45. That's A Fantastic Idea

and an excellent way to send a "message".

[CrackpotAmerica]

57. Thanks

Maybe over the weekend, I shall put a plan together and start a thread to find some tech help.

69. agree

consumers have immense power, a website that collected all the info would be something I would definitely use.

[H2O Man]

73. Great idea!

And others clearly agree! I know I pay attention to what other people say about different corporations. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating not simply not buying from the "bad" ones, but also buying from the "good" ones. Very important.

[CrackpotAmerica]

110. Great! I shall come up with a plan..

Please look for a thread entitled:

Let's Create A Liberal Shopper Website

on Monday or Tuesday.

Please spread the word about this as I will need some SQL programmers to help me out.


THx!

AGG

[buzzsaw_23]

40. To accept a dictatorship

there must be false uber nationalistic symbols and manufactured icons resulting in mass idolatry. A collective involvement in psychotic levels of obedience inculcated through repeated and loudly broadcast national mythologies. The creation and perpetuation of THE OTHER.

There's a few.

"To survive, the spectacle must have social control. It can recuperate a potentially threatening situation by shifting ground, creating dazzling alternatives- or by embracing the threat, making it safe and then selling it back to us"- Larry Law,

Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others.

-- Emma Goldman

[H2O Man]

74. Symbols

Very important. One of the most positive things that the "counter culture" did in the 1960s and early '70s was to deal with symbols in a creative, positive manner.

[fed-up]

43. Fear (propaganda), Trust (blind faith), Ignorance (too much TV) and EGO

Fear- Those that follow Bush have swallowed the bullshit and lies from shrub's endless propaganda machine. They believe their "fearless leader" will protect and save them from "the Boogey Man"/terrorists.

Trust- or Blind faith. They trust that the Bush Administration really is concerned about their welfare. To believe otherwise would cause a huge mental breakdown in their core belief system. (The number of Americans taking mood control drugs is increasing as people use pills to quiet those inner voices of doubt and anxiety)

Ignorance- Instead of getting off their duffs and doing some research into what really happened on 911 (and past US history) and what is really happening currently, they are happy to sit in front of the idiot box or radio and let someone else do their thinking. Our educational system has encouraged this style of learning (passive vs active).

Ego - People are too proud to admit that they might have been wrong in their choice of leadership or that they are being led down a very dark path.

Patriotism- To be a "true American" one must back their President and "fight for their country". To do otherwise makes them a "commie, pinko, fag" or "one of them"-the enemy.

I truly believe that those that control the media, control the masses.

[H2O Man]

76. Interesting.

In Jerry Mander's book "In the Absence of the Sacred" ( he also wrote "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television), he discusses the manner in which the tv effects the watcher's brain waves. Watching a tv screen is, for example, a very different experience than being on the computer. Those things you mention are thus implanted into the old grey matter in a very different way by the tv, than by the newspaper.

[raccoon]

47. When people perceive that a leader brings about better

economic times, or protects them from an enemy, real or imaginary, they support a dictatorship. A good propaganda machine, of course, is a great help.

I've read that if Hitler had died before 1938 or so, he would've been remembered as a great leader.

I believe part of the reason Germans accepted their Fuehrer had to do with the hyperinflation that Germany experienced in the 20's. I can see how that would be very demoralizing to people. Heck, the inflation of the '70's was demoralizing, and that was nothing compared to what Germany went through. The defeat of Germany in the First World War, of course, was demoralizing too.

The next question was easier. " what does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship?"

When their ass is in the fire, or about to go into it. When they, or their son/daughter, etc., are drafted to fight in an imperial war. When they try to declare bankruptcy and have to pay off creditors for the rest of their lives. When they've had health insurance all their lives and then lose it.

"I'll start by saying that the relationship between human beings and tv has made us fertile ground for the "Reagan Revolution" that has mutated into the Bush-Cheney administration."

About TV, I think it has been a detriment to the election process. In this TV-age, image and looks are everything. You've all heard about the Kennedy-Nixon debates and how Kennedy came across much more favorably than Nixon.

About the "Reagan revolution", I'm not sure. I think part of what happened after the '60s and '70s was a lot of people got "compassion fatigue." People who had been doing pretty well in the 60's were suffering in the '70s from high inflation and interest rates and job losses. It was a hell of a lot harder to hold your own, much less get ahead, than it had been in the past. So a lot of working Americans resented (fictional) "welfare queens."

Also, a lot of people perceived that equal rights for women and minorities had CAUSED these economic problems. To them, the fact that women and minorities had a shot at "good" jobs WAS the problem. The reality was, there were fewer good jobs and more people competing for them. Like now.

[H2O Man]

78. The Kennedy-Nixon debate

was perhaps one of two positive things that tv has done in presidential elections. The other was, of course, Gerald Ford's blowing it with Carter.

The televised Watergate hearings were important in getting America to realize what a crook Nixon & Co were. Yet in the overall, I think it has harmed democracy in far more significant ways than helped. The fact that something like 100 corporations can control what most Americans see on a daily basis, from "news" to entertainment (which are now blended), it is one of the single most damaging influences in our culture.

[raccoon]

112. Understand, I'm not saying it would've been better had Nixon

won in 1960. What I'm saying is, in the TV era, it's all about appearance rather than substance. From what I've read, the debates hurt Nixon because he didn't LOOK as good as Kennedy, not because of anything either or them said.

[H2O Man]

147. Right.

It was based on how JFK projected. In that case, of course, it worked well for democracy, because Kennedy was the better of the two.

However, in 1980, it was obvious that a person who had the ability to appeal to the subconscious images of a positive leader that John Wayne movies etc had implanted, could be elected. I think that Reagan was aware that he was largely playing a role, whereas today, Bush2 believes he is the role.

[elehhhhna]

48. Cause to Accept : Oppression of others to protect self. To reject:

Oppression of self.

ding ding I win.

[H2O Man]

79. Short and to the point.

We still have the willingness of many people to eagerly accept humiliating treatment, but to react with great indignation when treated with a little respect. The popularity of "reality tv" is but one example.

[lateo]

49. Scientific American Mind is one of my few subscriptions.

I absolutely love this magazine.

[H2O Man]

80. There are at least 7

very good articles in this edition alone.

[nanbrown]

50. good question

my first post here. waited my required 24 hours only to find out i can't post a topic without responding to others' topics. i read what will pitt wrote about the sept 24 demo two days ago, whom i met in north carolina a couple years ago or thereabouts, and wanted to add some thoughts, but suppose this is as good a place to begin as any.

why people accept dictatorships, reject them or begin to fight them is a complex question and has many answers. i'll begin speaking as an activist living in north carolina. so many affected by any tyrannical policy or gov't do not have much time to hear what is going on outside their own community, do not have internet access, are working more than one job, are undereducated not by their own fault and that does not imply lack of smarts, are struggling day to day just to survive both economically and socially, are lulled into the flavor of the week fads promoted by advertising and some music, are wanting what the fat cats have and are generally flat out afraid. some neighborhoods and rural areas have a more than 30% unemployment rate, houses are still wrecked by hurricane fran and floyd and gentrification threatens many neighborhoods. they have survived the demise of decent jobs, racism and classism and gender inequality in the workplace at the triangle's universities and nc state departments like the dept. of transportation, the mega-masters of poultry and hog agribusiness and a corrupt inbred white dixiecrat and republican political culture wherein people running for office change political parties to suit the districts in which they run.

i think people don't rise up against dictatorships - early that is - because they need popular education and i don't mean the kind you find in school. here in the US, we need discipline to rise up and commitment to continue. there has to be a focus. one primary focus now for us is the war on iraq.

a pal of mine has some great tutorials on his website about class, gender, race and power that i think help people understand how to resist and what they will be resisting. i hesitate to post a link after reading so much red baiting here. that is why i wanted to reply to will pitt's post - and will.

i'm an ex-dem unaffiliated voter in rural north carolina. i am a social anarchist in the tradition of howard zinn.

[Wind Dancer]

61. Welcome to DU, nanbrown.

Your post addresses many of the problems we face in NC. We have lost so many textile jobs by outsourcing yet the rural areas continue to vote against their own interests. Education is another huge problem this state faces especially in rural communities.

Are you referring to Stan Goff's site, Feral Scholar? I've used it on DU for a reference site many times.

:hi:

[nanbrown]

62. yes, Stan Goff's Feral Scholar

thanks for the welcome. Stan and i go back a ways. after i worked in AIDS activism, he and i met. he introduced me to many north carolina on-the-ground activists. his tutorials are very informative and ripe. they are popular ed at its best.

[Wind Dancer]

67. I agree completely.

I will PM you after you have more posts, don't want to hijack this thread.

[H2O Man]

81. Please add as much

as you want here. It sounds like an important resource that you two are discussing. I'm sure that other people, like myself, would be interested in hearing more about it.

[nanbrown]

97. Feral Scholar link

take what you need and leave the rest:

http://www.stangoff.com/

[H2O Man]

99. Thank you!

I'm glad you are here.

[Wind Dancer]

104. Delete!

nanbrown posted already.

[nanbrown]

107. PMing

email instead? where in north carolina are you located?

[newyawker99]

77. Hi nanbrown!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ready4Change]

55. Stress and effective Propaganda

Stress can take many forms. Economic, war, racial tensions. When people are under stress they can often be prompted into actions they otherwise would never consider. Nazis in Germany took advantage of the widespread poverty present in that nation in the years after WWI.

Effective Propaganda allows YOU to control what actions those stressed people take. Effective propaganda doesn't necessarily require media control, so long as your message can be promimently imposed on a large enough mass of stressed people. Early on the Nazis in Germany used handouts of leaflets and pamphlets, along with posters, to drive their message during a time that the days media, newspapers and radio, were declaring the Nazis as childish bigots. As they rose to power they took over the media outlets as well, and could maintain their tyranny from that point on until they were ousted by force.

[H2O Man]

85. Economic stress

is extremely important. The idea of limited resources, from a local to a global level, is central to much of the tension and violence we witness today.

59. dictatorship

what, in your opinion, causes people to accept a dictatorship?
Accepting a dictatorship? I am not sure I can see clearly on this issue. My parents were the ultimate rebels, and I always felt they were right. However you do need some code to grow up by, you cannot just rebel your whole life, it would be unproductive. YOu need to apply yourself to something. Anyway, do people generally accept a dictatorship, or is it forced on them. I think people will accept a dictator if they think that person can save them or protect them.

So the alternative would be I suppose - people will not cooperate with a dictator if they can see clearly that that dictator cannot save them, that in fact they are the losers. And that the people themselves must be in control.

So if you can teach people early how to take more control of their lives and care for others, then those people probably won't be as easily coaxed into accepting a dictator.

But if you have people that feel helpless, then a dictator can fill that void.

In our country, I feel the right wing is using religion to gain power, but are using that power for the rich. So those are two different causes, money and religion. Bush has been relying on the fear of terrorism, but that becomes mute when we see how we can't really attend to our own citizens, as in Katrina.

Also I feel a lot of immigrants are themselves very much against breaking any kind of law even if it is wrong. And since this country is taking in more and more immigrants, the idea of citizen activism isn't as widespread.

They say the current college students are not interested in politics, so I don't know how you could reach them.

Overall I think our democracy needs to operate from a more grass-roots level, instead of just "send us your donation". And we need more leaders involved in the community than just the congress persons or social workers.

[H2O Man]

87. Interesting.

I've always thought it odd, that if the mayor of a small town said, "We must send our high school football team to (the next town) to kill them," that mayor would be locked up. Or if the governor of NY said let's invade NJ, no one would respond favorably. If you or I met Hitler/Manson at a party, and he said, "I need you to kill a pregnant women as instructed by a Beatle album," we would recognize him as groos, sick, and dangerous.

But at some level, people give up their individuality, and listen to him when he says we must invade Iraq.

Some cultures are more inclined to produce a higher level of people who will follow a George Bush than others.

[jane_pippin]

60. A head lost in the clouds of the American Dream is a start if

one defines the "American Dream" as having things--and I know not everyone does, but many do.

People are busy with a job--or two, or three--kids, and the necessary mundane tasks of daily life. Most people just want to get home and relax for five minutes before they pass out and have to do it all over again the next day. Sure it's TV shows that play a part, but it's also advertising for things that promise to make life better. Everybody's so afraid of being a have-not that they don't even realize that's exactly what they are in terms of the way their government sees them. An iPod is cool, but it's not empowerment. Jingles are catchy, but they aren't soul stirring music.

I think there comes a point where people have been dictated to for so long--Buy this! Love that! Look at this!--that when a government becomes part of that chant--Go shopping or the terrorists win! Here, here's $300, buy yourself something nice and shut-up!--a lot of people don't even realize it.

I think that somehow the "pursuit of happiness" got perverted into "whoever has the most stuff wins" and it's sad because I think we're better than that as a species. ("Stuff" defined as not just material things, but whatever makes a person think they are better than their neighbor--"I have kids and you don't." or "My kids are in 8 billion after-school activities and yours are only in 7 billion." "My SUV has heated seats and a navigation system--how's your '89 Chevrolet Celebrity doin?")

I don't know. I just woke up and this is what came out when I saw your question. It's such a tangled web of things feeding off of each other it seems almost impossible to get a handle on. I don't know historically how it happened, but this is my take on what's going on here and now. It's a fear of losing something and a struggle to hang on to whatever that "thing" is.

[H2O Man]

89. It's strange:

this summer I went to a social gathering with ex-coworkers from the mental health clinic where I worked. Many of them seemed as burned out and stressed as my friends that work in factories. I'm retired due to injuries sustained in an auto accident; while I'm not keen on how I retired, I do think that the longer I've been away from the job, the more stark the "wear & tear" of the job appear to me. Good point. Thanks.

[jane_pippin]

121. It is. It seems that as things/life gets more "efficient "or "convenient"

it gets more cluttered and hectic. We worry about how busy we are, and we don't have time to worry how busy the political machine is working against the best interests of regular people.

"wear & tear" is right.

[H2O Man]

134. Do you know

the John Lennon song "Watching the Wheels"? I listen to that sometimes and laugh (not because I have any idea what it's like to be an ex-Beatle), because a lot of my old friends feel sorry for me, because I am pretty limited physically, and don't get out and about in what they believe is the real world. But if my 8 year old daughter wants me to read her a book, I'm not distracted, thinking about anything else on earth than the story her and I are sharing.

I'm very aware that the outside world moves at a pace that would flatten an old man like me. But I count my blessings, because I am not a participant in the rat race. I seriously wonder if life at the fast pace can be democratic.

[jane_pippin]

153. You know, I don't, but I do know where you're coming from.

I just graduated from college a year ago and I've avoided finding "real work" because putting on a suit every morning to go a cubicle and think up slogans for machine tools or hair gel just isn't what I consider a healthy way to spend my day. I have friends who have those kinds of jobs and I don't fault them for it or anything like that, but I know I'd be miserable if that's what I had to do right now.

Something has to give soon in this country. I hate to see people work so hard to be happy or comfortable, but never catch a break. I wonder right along with you.

[BrklynLiberal]

64. Obedience to Authority: The Study by Stanley Milgram

If you really want to be depressed about human nature, read this..

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted a study focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Crimes trials. Their defence often was based on "obedience" - - that they were just obeying orders whilst under the authority of their superiors.
The experiment began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question "Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

The results of the study were made known in Milgram's Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (1974).

<snip>

more....


http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgram_obedience_experiment.html

[H2O Man]

65. That's one of

the recommended "further readings" at the end of the S.I.M. article. Thanks for the link.

[newspeak]

72. yes, but

studies have also showed that it starts in the family unit as "the fear factor." Another words, if a child grew up in a family who shared views, children were respected and physical punishment was not used or sparingly used, that these children grew more altruistic. Those children who were indoctrinated in fear,(fear of father figure in particular) were more capable of committing such atrocities. A professor at Humboldt State studied altruism--why some people were willing to sacrifice their lives and families for others and why others actually participated in the atrocities. He was a baby in Nazi Germany, and his mother, before getting into the train car, thrust her baby in the arms of a young woman and told her to take my baby, save my baby. He became interested in why his foster mother (a young German woman) would sacrifice herself (for it was stiff punishment for abetting Jews) to save him?

[BrklynLiberal]

93. So it would seem that too many Americans, Neocons, BushCos, and

Dominionists in particular, were raised with this fearful father figure.

So now the question becomes, how does one overcome that ingrained fear of the dominant father figure who MUST be obeyed? - which also, by the way, is the basic tenet of the religion that is based on the feared, punishing, father-figure God.

[H2O Man]

96. I have a friend

who is in his 50s, college educated, liberal, and a great father to his children. He told me a while ago that he had gone to see a psychiatrist a couple years ago, because every once in a while, he would have haunting dreams of his angry father coming after him. His father died long ago, but that fear is still firmly implanted in his mind.

The issue you raise here is extremely important.

[newspeak]

66. three simple things

There are three things that allow certain ideas or beliefs to form in the subconscious mind. Think of it as a type of brainwashing.
1. An authoritarian figure is needed
2. repetition of the belief (can you say spin, spin, spin)
3. a cataclysmic event or a memorable event (think 9-11)

I say since the fourth estate is in bed with this administration and all three things have been realized, that is why we have so many kool-aid drinkers.

[H2O Man]

90. Very direct

and to the point. And very accurate. Thanks.

[Wind Dancer]

82. First thought!

One might choose to support a dictatorship if they felt safe and secure - PROTECTED! This administration and the Christian Right have focused on the "family structure' and George Bush is the protective father. There was an article written during the 2004 election I found insightful.

"In the conservative world view, which starts with a model of the family I call a "Strict Father" family, there’s an assumption that the world is a dangerous place, that there is competition, there will always be winners and losers, that children are born bad and have to be made good.

What is needed to deal with all this is a strict father who supports and protects the family, who raises children to know right from wrong, who raises his children to be able to take care of themselves in the world. He does it in only one way -- by strength and punishment. Only punishment works. Only shows of strength work. That is part of the family model that’s involved, and it’s also part of the politics involved. When you have fear in the country, fear evokes a strict father model. It’s to the conservatives’ advantage to keep people afraid, to keep having orange alerts, to keep having announcements that they have secret information that there might be a bombing somewhere in the country. As long as you keep people afraid, you reinforce the strict father model."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04003.html

I think using Orwellian language keeps individuals from actually knowing what is happening without researching facts themselves. With the poverty level being extremely high, people are working 2 to 3 jobs, single parents are struggling to make ends meet so they do not have time to do independent research.

The media's role is crucial in supporting a dictatorship. They must keep the public interested in events of no interest or social value. How could a dictator be supported without propaganda? Corporate controlled media sets the tone of what is newsworthy.

Just a few thoughts........

[newspeak]

88. BINGO

That's what Wilhelm Reich said about fascism. The family unit is headed by the feared, authoritarian father figure who controls the family, and the state controls the father with fear.

[H2O Man]

91. Great!

The "safety" is almost like the cotton womb that the heroin addict seeks. I think that the majority of republicans have numbed themselves to the pain of the real world. The media is novacaine.

[Beam Me Up]

84. Must tyranny have an identifiable face? Dog and pony show politics:

My assertion is we are already living under despotism. I'm not talking about *; he's the flack catcher. Love him or hate him it doesn't matter much to those who put * in power and have kept him there and continue to keep him there. * is damaged, very damaged. He may be able to set policy or do a few things within a limited sphere, but the real decisions, those are made by someone else. Cheney, Rumsfeld, a few others we might name. But behind them are yet others less publicly visible.

The United States of America does not have a working Democracy. George W. Bush is not the President of the United States although he does occupy that office. The United States has not had anything resembling a real Presidency, a man capable of genuine leadership and with enough personal and political power to make influential decisions for 5 years. The Regan era was another such time -- when the PTB learned that it was better to NOT have a strong sitting President. You get away with a lot more when you have the appearance of a Democracy. The question is, for me, when will they no longer even need to sustain this 'appearance'.

All that is needed for a bald faced dictatorship at this point is an economic (or other) emergency resulting in massive social dislocations (think the wake of the hurricanes--that level of disruption spread across the entire country). Could be economically based, such as a sudden drastic devaluation of the dollar or a sudden spike in fuel ($5 gallon and above) or a 'Terrorist Attack'™ with massive casualties broadcast 24/7 or another 'natural' calamity or some combination. "They" are very clear about what they want: Military control over the hydrocarbon energy markets emanating from the Middle East (and elsewhere in the world). All one has to do is ask oneself, 'Strtegically, what resources (e.g., the use of tactical nukes) do they need to accomplish this goal and what "justifications" do they need to affect acceptance of these resources.

The National Security State apparatus is endangering the United States and is endangering the whole world because it is run by a class of self-absorbed paranoid misanthropes. As far as they are concerned, it is all about themselves; the future of humanity be damned.

Edit to add: What is NEEDED is not only LEADERSHIP but VISION and IMAGINATION. How can humanity, much less Western Civilization, survive the coming problems if we are not lead by THE BEST that is in us individually and THE BEST our societies around the world have to offer? What we currently have is nothing short of a criminal class that must somehow be brought under control. We have LAWS. What we need is for them to work.

[H2O Man]

92. I found myself

smiling and nodding my head as I read your post. Thank you!

[Pacifist Patriot]

86. I think the works of Erich Fromm are very helpful in trying

to understand this phenomenon. Joseph Chilton Pearce is interesting too.

Freedom is scary stuff and most people prefer being a part of a mass than striking out on their own. In my opinion, mass media and public schooling have gone a long way toward making America a mass society rather than a community of individuals. People accept dictatorship because it is easy. It's a way of never having to grow up.

People escape from freedom by becoming either the oppressor or the oppressed.

[H2O Man]

94. Fromm is

so worth-while to read. It always makes me feel good to see people mention him on DU. Not only does he have uncanny insight into the difficulties posed by the human condition, but he is such a fantastic communicator. And you are right about the "escape from freedom" -- people do attempt to by either becoming the oppressor or the oppressed. We see it in our relationships to others in our immediate surroundinds .... and, at times, even hints of it on the internet forums.

I'm not familiar with Pearce. Can you tell me more about him?

[Pacifist Patriot]

100. Pearce is hard to define.

I really loved his book, The Biology of Transcendence.


http://www.wie.org/bios/joseph-chilton-pearce.asp

He is a self-avowed iconoclast, unafraid to speak out against the myriad ways in which contemporary American culture fails to nurture the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual needs and yearnings of our young people. Part scholar, part scientist, part mystic, part itinerant teacher, Pearce keeps in close touch with the most brilliant men and women in each field. He creates a unique synthesis of their work and translates the results into a common language.

World-renowned thinker, author, and advocate of evolutionary child-rearing practices, Pearce has expertise that spans a broad range of disciplines: psychology, anthropology, biology, and physics. He has been a seminal figure in the study of human consciousness and child development for over a quarter century.

[H2O Man]

101. I will look for

his book "The Biology of Transcendence." Thanks for mentioning it.

[BrklynLiberal]

95. This is the kind of thread that DU was invented for. Thank you H20 Man

[H2O Man]

98. I agree.

This is DU at its best.

I found one thread in particular troubling during the past 48 hours. I read it, but did not post on it. I told another friend that it reminded me, in a strange way (my mind works in a strange way!) of the fascinating Babylonian epos of Gilgamesh. And so I guess that this is my attempt to bring a drink from the well of Enkidu. (grin)

I enjoy this thread not because I started it, or because I have authored something wonderful from on high, but because it is a great example of the insight and wisdom found on the democratic left. Mighty proud to be part of this team.

[Wind Dancer]

106. Yes, thank you, H20 Man.

I agree, "This is the kind of thread that DU was invented for"

[antigop]

102. Don't have much to add to this thread except...

I have halfway through "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis.

That's one frightening book about how it COULD happen here.

[troubleinwinter]

108. "what, in your opinion, causes people to accept a dictatorship?"

Fear is a big aspect, but I also think that utter laziness is part.

-It's hard work to read.
-It's hard work to seek out and find important information that isn't spoon-fed from TV.
-It's hard work to analyze what is important and what is not.
-It is hard work to determine what is true and what is false.
-It's hard work to think independently.

=It's easier and more fun to go to the mall and buy a new sweater that makes you feel 'new'.
=It's easier to let others make decisions for you.
=It's easier to let others take responsibility.

[nanbrown]

115. permit me to take exception

just a couple disconnected thoughts follow.

fear, of course is a large factor across all sectors of society. fear is a coercive force for any human being. not everyone will become enlightened to not feed their private and collective fears. may i make note that fear within the black community can be very dominating - this said in katrina's aftermath and after speaking with displaced people in durham, north carolina.

your post assumes most people in the US are able to read well and critically and have extra money to buy books, magazines, and obtain internet access.

don't get pissed off, and i hate to be controversial in my third or fourth post by bringing in race, but your lists are presuming and assuming. to me, it has an sarcastic note of white privilege to it. it's hard for us white folk to see our incredible whiteness of being. part of the whole movement work is trying to deal with us white folks and privilege. it's been incredibly hard for me to see and adjust in order to be more effective working with others against megapower.

as to what is true and false, i am no absolutist. as to thinking independently, it takes a healthy ego, humility and knowledge. the little i have has mostly been taught to me or from plain old hard living experience. as to what is important and what is not - that's a whole new ball of wax.

[H2O Man]

126. Possibly then

laziness applies to some people in certain situations, but not to all as a rule. Is it possible that the increasing disconnect that people in our culture -- from childhood on -- have from the natural world, has changed the grey matter in such a way that more people are defining their lives in a way we might view as cogs in an unnatural machine? It may not be laziness in what is the classic definition, but rather a process where people's relationship to the world changes, as they have to do less for themselves? (Examples being gathering food and fire wood, etc)

[nanbrown]

177. laziness & grey matter evolution

H2O man - thought maybe that subject might get you to read.

my point is that most oppressed people while very angry and not stupid about who is doing the oppressing, are also frightened by history, marginalized and don't have the same access to information nor the time it takes to read critical information. they are not lazy because of a disconnect from the natural world. heck, i heat with wood requiring me to chop and split, grow some of my food and am still disconnected. in today's world, it's not hard to feel powerless and impotent. in fact, i would say african americans in my neck of the wood are less disconnected than most white folk. they are less likey to believe what any person in power is saying. part of my point is one of privilege.

but that said, my late mother saw clinton as a savior and bush as a hitler. she said so before the 2000 election and until the day she died though i did convince her that clinton was much like bush except on a few social and environmental issues, but not so very different.

[Lexingtonian]

109. Hmm.

My questions to you are: what, in your opinion, causes people to accept a dictatorship? And what does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship?

A combination of an extreme physical enemy external to the polity, even if not so in reality, and a psychologically existential danger, i.e. set of percieved enemies, internal to it. (On an individual level we would call this psychosis or schizophrenia. On a collective level we call it mass hysteria.)

I'll start by saying that the relationship between human beings and tv has made us fertile ground for the "Reagan Revolution" that has mutated into the Bush-Cheney administration.

The story and Republican extremism and their strategic behavior/efforts begin with Nixon and the insane situation posed by Mutually Assured Destruction, which begins with the Cuban missile crisis.

[H2O Man]

127. Well said.

Perhaps more than people recognize, things changed in 1960. People often say that 11-22-63 was a coup; I don't believe that. I think it was a realignment, that JFK was the attempted coup, and things were simply put back on track with LBJ/Nixon.

Growing up, we had a neighbor who suffered from a bipolar disorder. He was obsessed with a fear of communists, and when he was symptomatic, the color red scared him. He was, really, just an extreme example of the "normal" citizen who feared them reds.

[Me.]

113. Another Thing...

What allowed all of us, here, the ability to see beyond the hype when B*** and his henchman first started running? How did we know, right from the get go, that he was not going to be the usual crass, terrible republican president, but a tsunami of evil? Presumably, not every repug is stupid and without some degree of perception. Did they not see, or did expediency and hatred of Bill Clinton trump everything else?

[H2O Man]

128. There was a scene

in the movie "The Exorcist," where the old fellow was out in the desert on a dig (if I remember it correctly, all these decades later), and he finds something that he recognizes. He knows what beast approaches. That's how I felt when I saw George W. was running. I knew that it didn't matter what McCain said or did. The republicans were calling forth the lowest potential of their nature.

[Me.]

133. That Is The Best Description

of the B*** phenomenon!

[Gregorian]

114. I want to say two words. But it's a bit more than that.

Fear of one's own safety FROM the leader, as well as from the foe (real or not).

Ignorance. This is where the fear comes from. Either willful ignorance, or that which is spread by dissemination.

I could say hatred. But that is really fear.
I could say safety. But again it's back to fear.

Here's how I think-
I go back in time. Before television. And also before there were many people.

Before television, we still had dictators. But we weren't being lied to so fast and furiously. I think that's fairly important.

Before many people, (and I mean caves), we weren't affraid for our resources in order to survive. We might have even needed each other. Cavemen most likely didn't go around torturing each other. In fact, they probably were very friendly, in order to create groups that could facilitate survival. (Oh, what I'd give to live that way). Their fear was of big animals. Not humans.

So then, I ask what could have happened to make the changes we see today. Today being from the time we witnessed the first dictators. And I have to say that as I'm typing this there seems to come to my mind one thing. When we ask someone to do something for us, we also invite their evil side to participate.

I think it comes down to fear again. If we all behaved, we could live with anarchy. I used to think it could work. But after watching this administration, and the republicans who worship Bush, I have completely changed my mind. No way on earth would I want these people running around without a legal leash around their necks. It could be such a wonderful world. But for them, and other with problems. So, we are affraid of what would happen with anarchy, and we choose to have a leader. I immediately think of Satan tempting Christ with all of the riches of the world, for some reason. I think when people gain status as a leader, the taste of power is unreal. Only someone superhuman can deny themselves the urge to follow their every desire, and basest thought. So we end up with Vlads and Hitlers.

You would never know it from this, but I spend a hell of a lot of time thinking about this. I'd love to share my personal stories that have something to do with this, in a way. But I'll spare you. It's the same story all over the world. Lack of consideration leads to pain and suffering.

[newspeak]

124. when we talke about the use of TV today

Hitler didn't have televisions, but radio and newspapers "lockstepped" to his message, if not well, they were out! Steady stream of propoganda, while films of nationalism were bombarding the public. Germany was in a great depression, but those who put economic restraints on Germany after World War I didn't help. Hitler couldn't have started his aggressions without the help of the banking industry (those in Europe and the US) and other industrialists. Which means, those industries promoted his leadership. Hitler was appointed after Hindenburg stepped down, and I believe, was helped by said industrialists. When Hitler stated "if it was not for the Jews he would have had to find another scapegoat," blame is always used for the misery of others. In the US during the Depression, we had our Rush Limbaughs telling the people that it was their fault they couldn't find a job, or those immigrants are keeping you from your job. No fault ever came at the foot of the wealthy industrialists who amassed even more property during that time. Think legalized stealing. Isn't it true that the Nazi's claimed Jewish property for the state, a state that was in economic turmoil. Now who really put Hitler into his position and why? There were German citizens against Hitler because we know he killed the opposition, the labor leaders, some social church people, jounalists, homosexuals. I mean we must show the masses how we are the people of God. God is on our side! Is it starting to sound familiar?

[H2O Man]

131. You make several

important points. I'm working on a book about the human history in the northeastern part of North America. And, from all evidence available from the archaeological record, and from the oral histories I have been taught, indicate that while there was no doubt some violence between people(s) from time to time, organized violence on a large scale -- true warfare, as opposed to even "battles" -- seems to have happened only after agriculture created a surplus in goods and stratified society. It is interesting to think that, at least at one point, it wasn't the scarcity of resources that caused violence -- almost the opposite, it was control of accumulated "wealth" that was the fuse that set off the powder keg.

And, actually, the fact that you bring it back to pre-historic society indicates that you clearly do put a lot of thought into this. Part of being a healthy society is everyone sharing, from their own mind, and heart, and experience. We are, I believe, at a point where we cannot afford for people to believe they are not of sufficient value to share what they have to offer.... nor can we afford to have people who believe that their status makes their opinion of any more value than others.

[newspeak]

149. So here's the MO

for those that perpetuate tyranny in the name of freedom, God, whatever. A group of elitists, monarchies or whatever hierarchy perpetuates the obeyance-fear program to the masses (think, Skull and Bones who perceive the masses, that's us, as the "barbarians") so that they can acquire more assets; hence, more power. "Divide and Conquer" us, while they reap the rewards or steal the assets. Two instances where fear was used against the masses so that assets could be stolen: the Inquisition and the Third Reich. There's others, but I'll use those two. The church in order to gain assets and keep power used the "fear" of witches, heretics to gain the victim's property. For five hundred years the inquisition was a very lucrative business. You had to pay for your torturer, or the village did; then if you were found guilty (which was most of the time) your property was forfeit to the church. Judges and executioners had to be paid. What a great business, while keeping those unruly masses in line. I already mentioned Hitler before; the forfeit of property of crimes (made up charges) against the Reich, meant your property was forfeit. Forfeit to whom? I call it legalized stealing. I mean the only way it's legal is because those despots made rules to make it legal. So when are we the "barbarians" going to wake up to the biggest SCAM that's been perpetuated for a very very long time. It also goes in marketing and selling wars to the masses. We are DUPES!

[bloom]

117. have you seen this movie from 1946?

Despotism
By the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946

"Measures how a society ranks on a spectrum stretching from democracy to despotism. Explains how societies and nations can be measured by the degree that power is concentrated and respect for the individual is restricted. Where does your community, state and nation stand on these scales?"

It's really interesting - coming on the heels of WWII.

It lays out some of the precursors to despotism - respect & power issues - economic distribution (concentration of wealth and unequal tax burdens) and information (including the media and education - children being taught not to question).

You have to wonder if some of the people today used the movie for inspiration.

[H2O Man]

142. I'm not familiar with it.

It sounds good. I have to say that I think some folks in power today have made use of a lot of things learned in the WW2 era. Just not the right things!

[bloom]

159. You can watch it online

Another DUer pointed out the Movie/audio archives recently.

There are lots of interesting things.

[ReadTomPaine]

130. Woodwork

Is it a fear of power, or a hunger for it?

It’s a mistake to think people are just lead to fascism and dictatorship. More often then not, they are eager to join in, active enablers.

Fear plays a part for some, but that aspect better explains the passivity of a population towards authoritarian movements, rather than illuminate their rise or active support.

“How could anyone support Mussolini?” I would ask when I was a younger man. Or Hitler, or Franco. It seemed inconceivable to me that any sane person would do so. And yet, these men had tremendous popular support. One day, I got my answer from a survivor of dictatorship.

“These people, they come out of the woodwork” She told me. “They are your neighbors. Your coworkers. Your wife. Your son. You know them, and that’s a part of it all”

I asked her what she meant, and she elaborated.

“You think most people have the same thoughts in their head as you do, but you’re wrong. I lived for 20 years next to the family that turned us in. Our children grew up together and went to the same school. We used to vacation together. I was there when their daughter was born. Things changed so fast, almost overnight.”

She stopped and looked off, and I shuddered to imagine what she was seeing in her mind’s eye.

“Power does strange things to people. Even people you know. They get a taste and like a drug they want more and more. The darkness comes out of them, like a madness, and spills out over everything. I saw my children sent to die by the hands of people who wrapped their birthday gifts and changed their diapers. There was no hesitation, no doubt. They were happy to be part of it all.”

I remember asking an incredulous “How could someone you know do this? What on earth could they possible get out of this?” and I’ll never forget the look on her face as she answered.

“They got what they wanted all their lives. To be a part of something big, something powerful. And they got to prove it to me and my husband by taking our freedom and our family away from us. They wanted to prove they were important, bigshots. Who better to prove that to than a neighbor? People that you know.”

I really didn’t know what to say then, and I’m equally at a loss now except to say we are seeing it happen again.

[newspeak]

136. is it about power to the masses?

or is it about obeyance and misplaced ego or pride of turning your neighbor in? You know, "Little Jack Horner" syndrome. Patting yourself on the back for doing your "false" duty to an authoritarian authority. "Look at me I'm loyal and their not ", so they deserve punishment. You know, "I'm a good boy or I'm a good girl" because I obey, they deserve punishment because they're bad!

[ReadTomPaine]

146. Duty is the cover, power is often the motivator.

In actuality, it's a direct inversion of power to the masses, but to those who adopt the mindset and climb aboard the movement, it sure doesn't seem that way.

As enablers, they are given a pass regarding some of society's safeguards in return for their support of the movement. This is how the power-base grows, and this is how the intimidation spreads beyond direct application by police etc.

A person might not have freedom in a true sense, but they have powers over outsiders that they never dreamed before, as well as the tacit permission to act on their base desires. Claiming duty or loyalty is a way of creating justification for these actions, but for most this isn't about being good or just, it's about the sweet, buttery taste of power, esp. power over those you know.

[H2O Man]

144. This reminds me

of what historian Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." It's mentioned in the article in S.A.M. that I read this morning. It was funny, because I had thought about it about a week ago, when I read an article (from a speech) by Robert Kennedy, Jr, about the need to take back America. He described having Donald Rumsfeld as a neighbor, and his description of that Rumsfeld reminded me of nothing if not a Nazi who, in later years, would have old neighbors who would say, "He was a pleasant man."

I went to the trial of the St. Patrick's Four last week, in Binghamton, NY. People there had images of what we have done to children in the Middle East. It is the evil of holocaust.

[Binka]

152. A Hunger For It ....Not A Fear Of It...Beautiful Powerful Point

"Power does strange things to people. Even people you know. They get a taste and like a drug they want more and more. The darkness comes out of them, like a madness, and spills out over everything."

When the man I loved and married at 20 (1979) aligned himself with The Christian Right in Orange County CA (1985) I witnessed the birth of a beast. What became of the man I smoked pot with, the man who laughed and cried about his family and their wacky religious racism, the man I had three children with....well he became one of them.

Out of fear? No. Out of a hunger for power? Yes. He had recently gotten out of the Navy as a LT after seven years service and he was looking for better things. Which to him meant money. The Christian Right would give him that and more. Power! It was the power that changed him. It turned him into a jealous control freak. I would not comply. I could not abide with this abrupt change in our lives. He had no problem changing into an robot. In fact he loved the black/white basic premise.

Now I became a PROBLEM. A good and honest Christian man controls his family yet I was fighting him back. So by default I was BAD. The smear machine was swift and brutal. When I checked into a hospital for an eating disorder I developed during our marriage I was served with divorce papers. But there was a caveat delivered by my then husband and our Pastor if I would stop fighting and be a good Christian wife he would drop the divorce proceedings.

It did not go well. I told our esteemed Pastor that my husband was having sex with me when he thought I was asleep and that I had seen gay magazines in his briefcase. And that I was starving myself because I had no sense of self and this was all I could control. Not feeding me. I controlled that. Plus caring for three small children with NO help No input No love whatever from their father was destroying our family. What did this fucking Pastor do? He said I was lost beyond redemption.

Upshot my very wealthy husband stole the kids in a corrupt and ruthless fundie court system. I found myself 30 years old and sorta like on the streets. No actually really on the streets. I'll paraphrase a quote from the Woodwork post that ReadTomPaine wrote.

“He got what he wanted all his life. To be a part of something big, something powerful. And he got to prove it to me and my children by taking our freedom and my family away from me. He wanted to prove he was important, big shot. Who better to prove that to than a wife? Someone that you knew and fooled.”

[ReadTomPaine]

157. Thank you for sharing this.

:hug:

[Binka]

161. Ah Tom It Was Almost Twenty Tears Ago

But I cry at the very thought of it. I'm so glad I didn't understand it then. I might have done something very wrong to myself. Still understanding it 20 years later does not stop my tears. They flow in abundance tonight.:loveya: for your kind words.

[newspeak]

162. I hope your okay now?

Please tell me if you are still dealing with the eating disorder? You know my mom was in a very abusive marriage back in the 50's and 60's, when she went to the priest for help, he told her to encourage him to quit hitting her and pray for him. No help, no help at all!!!!

[Binka]

165. Eating Disorder Out Of The Question

I took up running in the early 90s and food is nothing but fuel now. Plus I had a really great counselor that helped me screw my head on right. Beautiful woman that Heather Rosenthal. Love you Helen!! Forever!

[H2O Man]

166. Betrayal.

That priest betrayed your mother. And that's worse than no help.

[newspeak]

173. yep

I think mom had it hard-came from a very religious family-divorce was unthinkable-and believe me her ex was a nut-you know when we talk about fear, I grew up with that fear until I turned 12 years old-something just snapped-I told my mom if she didn't leave him, I was leaving, going to live with my aunt. He'd come home drunk and i refused to obey him. It was like it was him or me. He couldn't hurt me anymore and then, I think he was afraid of me. Now that's strange. Something to reflect upon.

[passy]

132. No need to read Scientific American Mind just read 1984.

Some details are different from America 2005 but overall it's the same mind set.

[H2O Man]

148. It is.

The movie version plays on Showtime every so often. And you are absolutely right, it is the same mind set!

[nashville_brook]

138. Transactional Analysis of Tyranny:

you know the old Parent/Child/Adult thing? "i'm okay, you're okay?"

developmental psych for dummies: you are born into the Child role where you must affirm the Parent to survive. as you become an Adult it's dysfunctional to rely on Child/Parent roles because now is the time to grow up; think for yourself and see what in the world squares with Child/Parent as an Adult exercising freewill. Child/Parent roles are deterministic

People get stuck because we are hardwired for a MASTER/SLAVE relationship and almost everything in the world reinforces it. lower functioning people get stuck in three scripts:
I'm NOT OK -- you're OK (slave -- social condition for tyranny)
i'm NOT OK -- you're NOT OK (autistic -- ??)
I'm OK -- you're NOT OK (criminal -- tyranny finds helpful)
the ADULT framework is I'M OK -- YOU'RE OKAY. (less social conditioning for tyranny, but not totally out of the woods).

with this, you're spot on about TV priming the pump (social conditioning) for the Reagan Revolution. Here's why: post-Watergate TV and NEWS slowly transformed (via the work of the like of the Scaifes) economically. At some level it seems to be all about money, but regardless -- our PUBLIC/POLITICAL IDENTITY is only allowed to play the Parent and Child transactional game. We are sponges. We have no discernible HUMANITY. In our PUBLIC IMAGE "we are" helpless consumers of information with ADD. "We are" only allowed to "be in relation" to Paris Hilton and Britany Spears in The Media. We are NOT OK.

Since we don't control our PUBLIC IMAGE, the march on DC was an attempt to fight TYRANNY by short-circuiting the television. For some it was a ritual, to touch and see "the others." The OK.

The basic UNIT of Tyranny in America is the displacement of ADULTS in social/public TRANSACTIONS. Many are complicit. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just go back to sleep and trade our Adult-ness -- to abdicate our responsibility to act rationally. To have FAITH that our INTERESTs are safe in the able hands of the strong FATHER/PARENT (Reagan/Bush). After all, that's the right thing to do, isn't it?

Isn't it the "right thing to do to put your children in a big "safe" SUVs. it's just prudent.
Isn't it the "right thing to do to live waaaay out in the suburbs" in a "nice" (read white) neighborhoods.
Isn't it the "right thing to do to go to church" and if you don't understand what's going on in the world (and who has time, really), just defer to the ELDERS.

Some may have hoped (in their inner CHILD) that the March on DC would shoot to the heart of our distorted PUBLIC IMAGE by providing evidence to the MEDIA NOBILITY that we exist. We hoped to curry their favor in changing our PUBLIC IMAGE. That's why all the threads about A.N.S.W.E.R., because "isn't it the right thing to do to make sure we all look neat and clean and not too freaky or in any way that might get them to change their minds about us and communicate that to the world.

The social condition for tyranny is slavish, childish behavior and thinking. People who refuse this transaction -- who refuse to play the game -- are the front lines of the resistance.

[H2O Man]

150. Well said.

And very well thought out.

[buzzsaw_23]

139. Brute Force

This doesn't always have to come in the appearance of the jackboots at your door. It can be a bit removed as in the threat of imprisonment if you don't moderate your behavior within the dictates of the controllers.

Foucault has written some thought provoking essays on the institution as a form of social control and tacit coercion.

Now this force can also be leveraged in an abstract form such as rent and the threat of losing your shelter if you don't adhere to the mandates of the controllers. This is the most prevalent form of social control in the American suave technocratic dictatorship.

Of course it can also mean just raw brute force as those who live in places like East St. Louis
bear witness to almost daily.

[H2O Man]

155. Brute force

can be the federal government attempting to incarcerate people that it fears will make other people think, especially if a local jury acquits them.

[Binka]

158. Brute Force Through Financial Coercion

The velvet glove of brutality?

[H2O Man]

164. See what happens?

You get me started on an idea yesterday, and look at this!

[Binka]

167. Beautiful Pat I Am Laughing And Crying

So bah to your BS about a DU that does not want your wisdom. We are all here learning at your feet my friend. We are here!

[H2O Man]

171. Even better:

this is a wonderful group event. No one has a status above or below another. Some people are able to give great insight into the theories that most people have to pay college tuition to learn about. Others are bravely sharing things from their own experience. We have young and old, male and female, and a wide range of backgrounds. And, at over 150 posts, there are no arguments, no sharp tongues, no one attempting to pull rank, nothing but mutual respect. If I could take credit for that, I suppose I would. But I am "wise" enough to know the best thing possible is being a drop of water in this pool.

I can remember as a youngster, there were certain community meetings where Chief Paul Waterman would say there could be nothing harsh said, that we needed to only think and talk about the common good, and that the common good was the individual's best. This thread is like that.

[Binka]

172. the common good, and that the common good was the individual's best.

The Best.

[Binka]

175. Think The Missing Piece Meets The Big O.... Shel Silverstein

Great book one of Peyton's favorites!



Here is Pey! Watch out she is going to be DANGEROUS!

[Emit]

151. Couple of thoughts here

Thanks for this topic, as it involves lots of questions I've been trying to answer for some time myself.

Thanks for all the info, folks, and thanks H2O Man for starting the topic of discussion.

In addition to all the excellent points thus far, when talking about totalitarianism and fascism as it relates to Bush & Co., I think it is important to include Michael Ledeen in a 'know thy enemy' sort of way, that is. That guy, who happens to be Rove's only foreign policy adviser, is obsessed with fascism. From what I've gathered so far, Ledeen's interest in fascism relates to the inner mechanics of a movement (fascism as a movement of the people) rather than solely how a totalitarian government forces a totalitarian process upon its people. This is an important distinction, because it would seem, then, that Ledeen has been keenly interested in how to motivate the masses from within.

Couple this with the fanatical conservatives and Christian right who for a very long time now have been mobilizing to defeat 'evil' secular humanism.

I'm reading 'Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice' which is an interview of Renzo De Felize by Michael Ledeen. While this is mostly about Italian fascism, whereby the authors discuss fascism at that time as "an emerging middle class, of bourgeois elements who, having become an important social force, attempted to participate and to acquire political power...these elements asserted themselves as a class seeking to gain power and to assert its own function, its own culture, and its own political power against both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. To put the matter briefly: They wanted a revolution..."

De Felice continues: "...for fascism the consensus and participation of the masses in the regime had to be active. For fascism it was necessary that the masses feel mobilized and integrated into the regime, both because they had a direct relationship with the charismatic leader, and because they were participants in a revolutionary process. This revolutionary process was supposed to create a new moral community in Italy, with its own ideals, models of behavior and hierarchy..."

Later, in regards to the failure of the 'movement' De Felice states: "The greatest failure of the regime took place in the field of humanistic culture...."

What I can see similar to what we have going on here is that the fanatical Christians on the right for years now (30+) have been organizing and growing, with their main points of 'morality' relating to abortion and homosexuality and who attack the secularist left for all that they consider 'evil' in America. This is their 'moral cause' and basis for their 'revolution.' I think, too, it's an important part of what causes the current right to follow this corrupt administration, following it regardless of how fascist or totalitarian it truly is, because they firmly believe their 'moral' cause is right and just. The end justifies the means...

In other words, and I apologize if I'm not making sense (in a hurry-gotta get to work), fascism requires a perceived 'moral revolution' and Ledeen and other neocons have capitalized on this for some time now.

For example, in 'Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World,' Richard Heinberg, (which I read before the November 2004 election), writes about neo-cons, stealing the election in 2000, 9/11, etc. Here is what he writes about the neo-cons:

Neoconservatism is the intellectual offspring of Leo Strauss (1899-1973), a Jewish scholar who fled Hitler's Germany and taught political science at the University of Chicago. According to Shadia Drury in "Leo Strauss and the American Right," (Griffin , 1999), Strauss advocated an essentially Machiavellian approach to government. He believed that:

1. A leader must perpetually deceive those being ruled.
2. Those who lead are accountable to no overarching system of morals, only to the right of the superior to rule the inferior.
3. Religion is the force that binds society together, and is therefore the tool by which the ruler can manipulate the masses (any religion will do).
4. Secularism in society is to be suppressed, because it leads to critical thinking and dissent.
5. A political system can be stable only if it is united against an external threat, and that if no real threat exists, one should be manufactured.

Drury writes that "In Strauss' view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations."

Among Strauss' students was Paul Wolfowitz, one of the leading hawks in the US Defense Department, who urged the invasion of Iraq; second-generation students include Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas, Irving Kristol, William Bennett, John Ashcroft, and Michael Ledeen.

Ledeen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago" (1999), is a policy advisor (via Karl Rove) to the Bush administration. His fascination with Machiavelli seems to be deep and abiding, and appears to be shared by his fellow neocons. "In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, " writes Ledeen, "the leader may have to 'enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to him still..."

Machiavelli's books, "The Prince" and "The Discourses," constituted manuals on amassing political power; they have inspired kings and tyrants, including Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin. The leader, according to Machiavelli, must pretend to do good even as he is actually doing the opposite. "Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few will not dare oppose themselves to the many, who have the majest of the state to defend them ... Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone, for the vulgar is always taken by appearances..." It is to Machiavelli that we owe the dictum that "the end justifies the means."

In her essay, "The Despoiling of America," investigative reporter Katherine Yurica explains how a dominant faction of the Christian Right, which she calls "dominionism," has found common cause with the neoconservative movement. Dominionism arose in the 1970's as a politicized religious reaction to communism and secular humanism. One of its foremost spokespersons, Pat Robertson (religious broadcaster, former presidential candidate, and founder of the Christian Coalition), has for decades patiently and relentlessly put forward the view to his millions of daily television viewers that God intends His followers to rule the world on His behalf. Yurica describes dominionism as a Machiavellian perversion of Christianity. For the Christian right, neoconservatives like George W. Bush and John Ashcroft can do no wrong, because they are among God's elect. All is fair in the holy war against atheists, secular humanists, Muslims and liberals.

[H2O Man]

160. In his book "Worse Than Watergate,"

John Dean lists some of these same ideas, especially in pages 103-107 in regard to the neoconservatives. These are key to understanding that a tyrant isn't necessarily "forced" upon people; but rather, a Dick Cheney and his partner George, represent the quest for power of a willingly participating group in their quest for power.

[Binka]

169. The Weak Want A Taste They Will Blind Themselves To The Flaws

Allegiance to power is POWER to those that have none.

[despairing optimist]

174. I'm going to give the same answer to both questions: fear

Fear of loss (of life, personal safety, economic well-being, property) would make people acquiesce to a dictator. Of course ignorance and conditioning to accept authority unquestioningly would also play a role, but I think even independent-minded people who are running scared would surrender to someone who they believed would lead them to a more secure (i.e., predictable and stable) future.

And once again it would take fear for people to overcome their initial fears of loss so they could resist a dictator. In this case such people would fear even greater losses--perhaps freedom of movement, freedom to make personal choices at odds with social norms, freedom to pursue lines of thought or methods of scientific inquiry that would oppose the political interests of a dictatorship--that would transcend their baser fears and make opposition worth the risk. At any rate, such opponents of dictators would first need to value these issues more highly than they valued personal safety, economic well-being, and so on.

It would take a special kind of courage, one born of a greater fear than that for one's personal safety and the security of one's property, to impel people to oppose a dictator. That courage helped establish this country. The Founders knew that in time the people would grow accustomed to stability and risk surrendering the republic to a dictator, and separated the powers of government into three branches in hopes of creating a permanent tension between them that would resist any one faction's gaining control over all of them.

I'm not so sure the decline and fall of the republic can be dated only as far back as the Reagan Revolution. IMO, it began with the rise of our mass-consumer society and the depoliticizing of public life so that the political became subsumed under economic forces. And these forces are under the control of corporations that were granted the same rights as individual citizens about a century or so ago. While improving living standards for most people, the gains have been mostly on the corporations' terms. Who was it who said that American politics plays out in the shadow cast by Big Business? But my point is that Americans were bought off with dreams of prosperity and plentiful consumer goods long before the Reagan administration, with little regard for the social, political, and environmental consequences. So in order for the US to once again reach the point where the Founders were, to overcome their initial fears for personal safety and risk rising up against an oppressive regime, Americans must knowingly resist the trap of consumerism that has been laid for them by the corporate-political matrix. They need to value something more than things, and be willing to sacrifice their security to risk achieving a better society. Are we there yet? I think we're getting closer than we were yesterday, but I can't answer for anyone but myself. Everyone else will have to tell me.

[StefanX]

176. I think your lead-off remark about TV is very interesting

and I would like to pursue that line of thought.

It seems that the main characteristic of TV (and most other broadcast media) is that they are ONE-WAY communication (we get talked to, but can't talk back).

The web has done a lot to bring back the earlier dominance of TWO-WAY communication (we get talked to, and can talk back).

Back in the old days, a politician who made a crummy speech could expect to have tomatoes thrown at him. Nowadays, makeup can hide the "cracks in his facade" and all he has to do is read from the teleprompter and scurry off-stage -- never hearing the millions of boos from living rooms around the country.

This (along with other nefarious psy-ops manipulation such as sitcom laugh tracks) has certainly fucked with our built-in mechanisms for community, solidarity, give-and-take, organizing, problem-solving -- all the things that used to make humans so great. TV has messed with the world in our heads, and the community we build among us.

The web solves some of these problems by being more networked and two-way -- but it's a digital, long-distance medium which can bring new problems such as "viruality", alienation, trolling, etc.

As for the situation of the US (aside from its messed-up media), I see it as an empire or superpower confronted with serious structural threats: global warming, peak oil, asymmetrical warfare, etc. Along with the TV, we have to look at its sibling evil the car, and notice how it messed with our landscape, our bodies, our communities.

Which is all a way of saying that I'm pessimistic: Americans are too fat, too spoiled, too isolated, too frightened, too car-bound, too laugh-tracked and focus-grouped and photo-opped and tele-prompted to come out of this mess sitting pretty. The TV and the car are no longer our friends, and the world outside is getting more and more hostile and unpredictable politically and environmentally. To get out of a perfect storm like this, you need SOME sort of structural advantage -- and I think we've used all ours up. Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine and continental isolation are no longer valid when you've got Friedman reporting back from cabbies in Cairo and programmers in Mumbai that the world is flat, and Bush sitting on his hands when memos come in from the CIA saying that Islamic terrorists are about to use aircraft as missiles on US territory and Cheney just trying to squeeze out a few more million bucks for Halliburton -- with the icecaps melting and oil running out and hurricanes multiplying and Madrassas plotting and the beltway elite too verklemmt or bought to even TALK about it.

That whole mess is going to have to be dismantled, and there's no reason to expect it to be a soft landing instead of a massive catastrophe. Yes, I'm a pessimist, so take what I say with a grain of salt -- it's just the vibe I'm getting from all these horrible things happening at once.

[nanbrown]

179. verklemmt, so apt

StephanX - manifest destiny is so white and so much a part of philosophy of domination and oppression and is contained in pnac's doctrine - though it is no longer go west young man, go west. it's like watching a last ditch effort of barbarians in a horde; looting their way through resources and people - definitely sociopathic. i share your hard landing intuition.

[H2O Man]

185. Very well

thought out and said.

TV allows us to be passive, and to stare straight ahead, without moving our eyes. Without talking to others, or moving much at all, our brains go into an altered state. We absorb information on a level other than the conscious.

Your points on history are on target. If we want to know what tomorrow will be like, we need only look at yesterday: because each day is a consequence of that which came before. So if we look at things like manifest destiny, there is a consequence. When we look at the raping of the African continent, there is a consequence. When you pour industrial wastes in the water, there is a consequence. Sometimes that consequence is felt in the next community downstream; sometimes in the next community down the stream of time. But the laws of nature can indeed be harsh, and human society pays its dues.

The only thing that can change are people. People can change. We can wake up to our humanity, and change our thinking, our behaviors, and in fact our essence of being. And when one thing changes, everything must.

If people change, then the future can open up in ways we can not anticipate now. If we do not change, the laws of nature will lead us down another path.

[Qibing Zero]

178. Closed-mindedness and thinking one has absolute truth

This is just my opinion of course, but it's really telling in how it plays out.

Absolute truth is deviod of all skepticism. Anything that challenges absolute truth is immediately discarded. Why would you need to think, if you have the only answers you need? Logic and rational thought do not exist.

You only have to look at how blind and trusting the majority of the people were in just about every totalitarian state that has existed to see the power of it all. Blind faith in their leadership, blind patriotism toward their country, blind to the laws that are being passed and how they contradict everything they used to stand for, blind to the lies being told to them daily, blind to the lack of factual information they're getting from the top... it goes on and on.

Many of the dissenters are taken out of the equation. They disappear, they get taken away and it's okay because they're anti-whatever, or 'aiding the enemy'. The few people left that can think for themselves either resign themselves to the fact they can't do anything about it, or live in constant fear.

Here's how I see America's decline toward this today...



How America has come this far from freedom to near-fascism:

-People believe that God exists, that their bible is correct, and that the morals expressed within it are the only morals that exist. You have good and evil, right and wrong, etc., all on those set-in-stone terms.

-People believe that anything that contradicts their 'pure' belief is wrong. God exists. He created us as we are. He doesn't allow anything but the missionary position, and he only allows that after marriage between a man and a woman. Etc, etc.

-People believe that those morals are the very same thing a country should base it's foundation on, and they think that our country was based off of those same morals. This is not imposing things on other people, this is 'doing what is right'.

-People support leadership in the country based off of those morals. The Republicans say 'They're trying to kill babies, kill our religion, and allow our base institutions to become completely corrupt.' The Democrats do not speak directly to these people's base, and they do not invoke, say, the things Jesus said about the poor and helpless, against the Republicans. Because of this, these people support who they think best represents their morals.

-Pseudo-logic hits. If God is always right, and I follow him and his rules, and America is also based off of those rules, and George Bush believes in all of this too, then he's going to be working on the right side no matter what!

-Since America has all the right ideas, and so does Dear Leader, when he says we're facing an enemy and we need to attack, we damn well better go get 'em! Where's my 9/11 pillar of support to lean on any time we must 'sacrifice for freedom'? (AGAINST THE WAR? ARE YOU KIDDING?! THE COMMUNISTS BURNED THE REICHSTAG FOR GOODNESS SAKE!)

-Since everything in this chain of events is right, everything going against it is wrong. It can all be countered with either 'You're anti-American!' or 'Heathen!'.

-Regardless of what the leadership they supported does, everything is A-OK to these people. If something goes wrong, it's either a misunderstanding, or the leadership 'had the right interests in mind' in doing what they did.

-When logic and rational thought enter the discussion, whoever is using them is being mean and attacking the 'perfect' leaders.


Now, add all of that together to the facts that the people as a whole have become more lazy, less intelligent and knowledgable (especially as a result of the spoon-fed 'whatever the government wants you to hear' news, which the government and those that side with it will then attack as focusing on the few 'negative' things they're allowed to cover), and more content with their life as long as they aren't directly affected by anything, and what do you get? A recipe for tyranny and abuse of power. That's what we have today, and it's only getting worse.

[nanbrown]

181. ubernationalism

nationalism is on the rise and not only in the US.

as far as not being affected. suburbia is being affected already by inflation which is so underestimated by the CPI it's not funny. it's hitting where many ubernationalists already live. unfortunately, i have little hope for peaceful landings.

read mike davis

[H2O Man]

187. Well done.

Very impressive. One of your points that I think is of particular importance is when people think not only that their way is "right," but that it is the only way that is right. I think that it is hard for US citizens, despite the advantages we often enjoy, to be able to step out of the frame, and see the big picture .... which includes seeing that we are not the exact center of the universe.

Thanks for this post.

[mdelaguna2000]

197. ethnocentrism and complacency

Chiming in here. I agree that this is about this new cycle of the rise of nationalism, which promotes fear of other. It is also about "patriotism" and the perception of "our American" way of life being right, because that is our way of life. Somewhere along the lines, "American" gets linked to its leader. Like Bush, many Americans can't bring themselves to admit WE were wrong (those who supported him or his post 9/11 decisions). Bush isn't the only one who won't admit failure.

And many Americans are so complacent. Like many people, they don't want to face change or have to change their lives to commit time to bringing about change - like checking their government. How many people didn't even VOTE in the last election?????

This is tied to expectations, ethnocentrism, a sense of entitlement - to big houses, big cars, spending to the hilt, living a standard of life far beyond that expected for the middle and upper class in other industrialized nations. God forbid they should cease the pursuit of the material for an hour or two each day to become politically aware, or, actually take action after becoming politically aware.

I have many friends, even with liberal sympathies, who are so busy with life in suburbia that they have no idea of what this government is getting away with on a daily basis. In truth, they hate Bush, but not enough to do anything about it. How much more uphill is the battle for those who are neutral or even loosely support this dictator?

This regime relies on the comfort of middle/upper class voters, and/or their need to work so many hours and spend time raising their kids - relies on them to be too busy to serve as watchdogs in our democracy. And I am sympathetic to the needs of daily life for us working people. Lord knows I am guilty too - of too little action.

Gas may be the final thing that kicks it into gear, hopefully. For people to actually feel the impact of their government in their daily lives.

One other point - revolutions, while potentially supported by grass roots - are usually led by elites. This is true through history, at least according to an article I read by Jack Goody, a social historian. Grass roots (the proverbial "peasant revolt") usually lack the ability to fully organize and mobilize effectively. An interesting thought, perhaps relevant to today. A good example - the Zapotista movement - subcommandante Marcos is no peasant.

[Peace Patriot]

180. I think you are asking the wrong question. The question is not, have

Americans accepted tyranny (and how did that happen), or have the war profiteering corporate news monopolies convinced Americans to follow fascist leadership? (--not exactly your questions, but I am extrapolating.)

I think the answer to these questions is clearly "no"--and I can back that up with my own studies, for instance, of the issue polls, which show that the great majority of Americans oppose every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range--across the board in all polls, for well over a year now. These polls reveal the astonishing information the most Americans, in huge numbers, are still very progressive in their views.

I do think that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies--especially the TV and radio monopolies--have convinced many members of the great progressive American majority that they are in the minority, and have made them feel isolated and alone. But I don't think that that influence--or any other--has changed most Americans' fundamental views of justice, lawfulness, fairness, and good government, nor their desire for peace.

I think that the question that should be asked is: How has this great progressive American majority been disempowered and DISENFRANCHISED?

(--to which I think there is a very specific answer, and a practical remedy. See below.*)

I think that accepting tyranny comes mostly from physical deprivation and other kinds of injuries (psychic injuries; injuries to one's pride), both of which were prevalent in Germany during Hitler's rise; and, I do think it's possible here, and that conditions are being created to make it possible.

Some may be motivated by greed, opportunism, and desire for power, but there are those types in every society. What makes most people become silent colluders in tyranny is despair, which physical deprivation (hunger, abuse, illness, exposure) and psychological harm, create.

My direst prediction: Following Bush, we are going to have a one-term War Democrat, who will continue the Mideast war (even if they say otherwise in the "campaign"), who will get a military Draft (something Bush cannot do), who will probably throw a few sops to the vast majority (say, promising NOT to loot Social Security), and who will help the super-rich to consolidate their enormous financial gains, but whose primary function will be to start taking some of the rap for the incredible financial and foreign policy disasters of this regime, preparatory to the installation of Jeb Bush in '12. At which point our democracy will be over.

Jeb Bush will follow the Hitler/Stalin model much more so than his brother is able to. George Bush's handlers are just getting things in place--the Patriot Act, venomous tax cuts, trillions of dollars stolen from the poor, draconian measures like the bankruptcy bill, a fascist Supreme Court, a purged military and intelligence community, etc.--for that later regime.

Gradually, as more and more Americans slip into poverty--and into starvation and homelessness--and possible civil disorder erupts--Americans will be conditioned to accept anyone who can "make the trains run on time" (as they said once). That is, we will be conditioned to accept mere civil order--accompanied by a lot of cant about pride and superiority and patriotism--as America's poor are fed into the expanded imperial wars that will follow.

As with Hitler--legal forms and a sham democracy will be maintained, and poverty-stricken, desperate Americans will be inclined to accept this fakery, as the Germans were.

And this scenario doesn't even factor in the environmental chaos that we may be facing--with global warming, and predictions of maybe 50 years left for this planet, if current pollution and loss of forests, fresh waters, ocean fisheries, and general biodiversity continues at this rate. And it may be that this environmental doom is driving political events more than we realize (--desperate money-grabbing by the rich, to create safe enclaves for themselves; seemingly insane energy policy, which, in the short term, is aimed at maximum profit for oil barons and control of the last supplies; a quite accelerated effort by global corporate predators to gain control over DNA and genetic modification techniques, etc.).

I think that the tenure of the War Democrat--who will have to give at least lip service to progressive values--may be our last opportunity to regain public control over elections, and restore our right to vote. I think this should be our FIRST PRIORITY. Here's why...

---------

* My practical solution:

Although I think that many factors have gone into the Bush Cartel's stolen elections, the key factor now--and from now on--is Diebold's and ES&S's control of vote tabulation in the new electronic voting systems, using SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, which enables swift, massive, undetectable theft of millions of votes. These two far rightwing corporations now control who our candidates will be, and who will win.

If we are to have any chance to save our democracy, and our planet, we MUST change this. We need...

1. Paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level (--Canada does it in one day, although speed should not even be a consideration, just accuracy and verifiability)

or, at the least...

2. Paper ballot (not "paper trail") backup of all electronic voting, a 10% automatic recount, very strict security, and NO SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code! (...jeez!).


It's very simple, really. With transparent, verifiable elections, we can actually elect good leaders. Without them, we will get bad ones imposed upon us by those who wish to loot and kill.

Before the last election, I had decided to devote the rest of my life to achieving a Constitutional amendment banning all private money in political campaigns, and reclaiming some our public airwaves for political debate.

But the bad guys are many steps ahead of us. We now have a political system that is not just insanely filthy with corporate money, we have one in which the bad guys count the votes in secret. So, we are forced back to square one of democracy: re-achieving our right to vote itself. We cannot achieve campaign finance reform without the right to vote. In fact, we cannot achieve ANYTHING without that right.

Our leaders are stone deaf to us. This is why. They don't need us any more. They are not beholden to us, but rather to the secret vote counters.

So that's what we must do. We must throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor.'

We will be facing a Supreme Court that will make it very difficult to ban private corporate vote tabulation. But there are other venues of change, the most hopeful being the state/local jurisdictions, where the power over election systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some influence.

There is bipartisan corruption at that level (wrought by the billion dollar electronic voting industry), but the corruption at the federal level is even worse, and our influence at the federal level is absolutely nil (--until we regain the power of the vote).

(Note: Both Democratic and Republican election officials have signed contracts with these companies--these two biggest ones, and a few others--that include "trade secret," proprietary programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it; and they have also permitted no "paper trail" or wholly inadequate "paper trails"--all the result of serious corruption. The corruption reaches to the highest levels of the Democratic Party, where war profiteering corruption is also a factor. You wonder why the Democratic leadership has been silent about this egregiously non-transparent and fraudulent election system. "Follow the money!")

It's too soon to discuss what makes people support dictators. That element in our society is a small minority--and are of a type that has always been with us. They have just been given a BIG TRUMPET, which promotes their views far out of proportion to their numbers.

While we still have a great progressive American majority, and while we still have a chance to recover our right to vote, all our energies should be aimed at RE--ENFRANCHISING that majority, not in trying to figure out Bush's fascist followers, or the techniques used not to create a fascist majority but rather to give the impression of one. (Well, we might want to pay attention to the latter. Progressives need to learn why they feel that they are the only one.)

I feel great hope--because I am convinced that the American character is very strong, and that the great majority of my fellow and sister Americans are quite intelligent and perceptive. They have resisted the most sophisticated brainwashing campaign that any people has ever been subjected to--and, in overwhelming numbers, opposed Bush's war BEFORE the invasion, and every other Bush policy since then. They are not stupid. They are not uninformed (except as to Diebold and ES&S). They are DISENFRANCHISED!

[nanbrown]

182. spain

there is some hope on election machines. i believe spain uses ES&S and Diebold machines and they threw out their facist leader.

[marions ghost]

207. you would have to compare the 2 election systems as a whole

to really make any conclusions about that. How much deterrent exists to prevent tampering?

[mdelaguna2000]

198. Holy crap you paint a dire portrait of the future

...and a plausible one. I agree with you that taking back the right to vote, in an open and transparent system, is our only hope.

But how to get people even interested, even believing, that this is what threatens democracy? People outside of the internet, that is...

[Pobeka]

183. It is all about information control.

Almost every single person I know, would be as deeply offended and outraged by this administration as I am if they had the same information sources as I did for their whole lives.

I say this because when presented with smaller scenarios with un-variable information we generally reach the same conclusions.

But information sources do differ, and affect a persons views on the world, and create a filter for any possible future information.

One example we have is the evolution/creation debate. There are extreme fundamentalists whose world view is entirely based on the information source of the bible and radical evangelical preaching. And this world view has become a filter for automatic discrediting of any information that runs counter to their world view. This world view, in turn, can be used by political organizations for their own ends.

Another example is those damn commie liberals. My parents, bless their little hearts, are not able to overcome their 50 years of brain-washing that democrats are anti-american, anti-personal-responsibility, yada-yada. This has resulted from living in Indiana all their lives, reading only one newspaper which affects their political views. But their theological outlook is very metaphysical. They just loved Bill Moyers interviews with Charles Campbell and "The Power of Myth" series. They told me how much they respect Moyers and they think he's a very smart man. So I gave my dad a copy of Moyers' keynote speech about media consolidation last year. My dad's response -- "this is really negative". He could not get over the "Bush is GOP, GOP is good." And so he will continue to support maniacs that are destroying a future for his grandchildren.

Controlling the media does control information. And that is a very, very powerful thing to control. It is essentially all you need. When other countries do it, we call it propaganda. But it could never happen here, you know why -- because the media says it doesn't happen here.

[Me.]

184. This Is Why The Internet

has taken off like a house a fire. Don't know about people your parent's age but hopefully there is a chance with such a world of information at people's fingertips, folks will stray off-topic and discover different points of view and information. That is unless they find a way to control and censor that too. They are trying, to no success, so far.

[Pobeka]

188. I think the internet is their greatest fear.

Almost anyone can publish for free, and sources of information are essentially free for the end consumer.

That is why I think they will try to tax usage on the end consumer, because if the lower class finds out there really is a class war via information on the internet, then they are going to be forced to continue to steal elections by either vote suppression or vote-rigging.

[Me.]

202. Oh I Think They'd Love To Try It

and behind the scenes are doing what they can to put the skids on but they have a problem. They are so in the pockets of the corporations and corporations are beginning to make a great deal of money from the Internet. which is why I don't think they'll do the tax thing. I think they will try to work through servers and use the servers to put the brakes on. However, it may be too late, and with each passing day, as more and more scandals pile upon B***co, they may lose the window to control anything, much less the Internet. Not that they won't try, which is why we all have to be on our guard.

[genieroze]

186. November 25, 2005 is I'm to broke because of gas prices to

buy anything day.

[ReadTomPaine]

189. Kick back to page one... n/t

[Sapphire Blue]

191. Cultism/Collective Psychosis...

From the Article Library on George W. Bush's Insanity...

The Bush Cult

(excerpt)

It is a shattering experience to see through our imaginary projections and recognize that someone we thought was leading and protecting us does not have our best interest at heart. People who support Mr. George Bush resist and turn away from the irrefutable and readily available evidence that Bush is anything but a good leader, as if they are in denial with a capital D. Bush is saying one thing and doing totally the opposite, and many people are simply in denial of this and look away. It is truly as if people who support Bush are not only in denial, but are actually refusing to look and hence, blind to what to most of the world is very obvious. It is as if people who support Bush are under a hypnotic spell, and are suffering from a form of collective brainwashing. People who support Bush in his pathology are exhibiting nothing other than the groupthink of cultic behavior.

Followers of a cult unquestioningly give their power away to their leader’s version of reality. People in a cult have dis-connected from their discerning wisdom, which is the ability to discriminate between the opposites, between truth and lies, between good and evil. In a cult, any sort of reflection of the leader’s unconscious shadow is not only not allowed, but is severely punished. The cult leader is typically insulated from people who disagree with him, not even wanting to come in contact and have any connection with people who have a different point of view. People in a cult exhibit complete and total denial with regard to any evidence that contradicts the agreed upon belief of the cult. This perfectly describes people who are following Bush as their leader. People who follow Bush are completely in denial about his truly criminal behavior.

<snip>

There are always aspects of a cult that are kept hidden and secret, which is the mechanism that keeps its hierarchical power in place. In a cult, this inequality of power ensures that a form of abuse always gets unconsciously acted out. In a cult, the members identify with only one side of an inherently two-sided polarity, projecting out the marginalized shadow. Hence, people who disagree with the cult are seen to have fallen under the spell of the Devil. Members of a cult are convinced of the rightness of their point of view, which they consider non-negotiable. Hence, there is no room for the open dialogue and debate which is at the core of a true democracy. Cults will even suppress and distort science to serve their ends, just like the Bush Administration is doing for partisan political ends. And the cult leader is (arche)typically either identified with God or feels he has a special relationship with God. Cult leaders and their followers see themselves as agents of apocalyptic, end-time scenarios, which is one of the more disturbing aspects of Bush and his supporters from the religious right.

At their root, cults are based on a mass, collective unconsciousness which feeds and reinforces itself. The cult is of the nature of an infinitely-perpetuating negative feedback loop, fueled by its members’ (“the elect”) unwillingness and resistance to self-reflect, look in the mirror and see what they are doing. Because it is so insular and unable to integrate any reflections from the outside, a cult always becomes self-destructive and ultimately destroys itself. This is why it is an extremely dangerous situation if Bush and his cultic followers take over our country, as it will create endless, unnecessary suffering for all of us. Bush might not just take down our country but our very planet as well. Another name for cults is collective psychosis.

The Bush Cult: http://www.awakeninthedream.com/html/bush.html

(Other interesting articles are also available here)

[cassiepriam]

200. Bush reflects our dark side. He represents our worst pieces

as a country. Our greed and racism. Our apathy and ignorance.

[KoKo]

193. Quote from you:

I'll start by saying that the relationship between human beings and tv has made us fertile ground for the "Reagan Revolution" that has mutated into the Bush-Cheney administration.

Comfortable people...class differences, weariness with protests and dissention....much easier to "join a church, fit in and have the family in that church that you might not have outside," and a "laziness" of the generations that came behind that didn't remember or weren't so close to WWII with Depression Era Parents who told their stories and remembered what they lived through.

That's simplistic. But, maybe the reason comes down to "tiredness" with it all. You can only live "hyped" for so long before you have to come to some resolution. And, folks got older...and had other concerns. Baby Boomers were a huge force who worked their way through the system with HUGE ENERGY in NUMBERS and then settled down, blended in and went on ...because it was too much...all that angst and violence that happened towards the end of the Movement and Vietnam that went on and on and on. Jack Kennedy (with so much promis, assassinated), after that, MLK and Bobby Kennedy's death didn't help, either. I remember MLK and Bobby as being almost a death knell...as to wondering if things had gone too far. Then there was McGovern that sort of ended much of it. It's painful to remember it all thinking how we failed the first time to take "them" down...and we never succeeded. :shrug:

I wish I could be more pithy. But the Bush years have sort of muddled my memory and even my ability to draw consequences from actions.

Who knows. I don't. Just pieces that I lived through in some fashion trying to participate and cope. :shrug:

[blue neen]

195. What causes people to accept a dictatorship?

I would believe that a number of circumstances contribute to that acceptance. In a strange way, a feeling of power is a factor for those people who accept, even though it is totally false power. Like people blindly following George Bush, for instance. After 9/11 (I am loathe to use that term, but I must), everyone in this country was feeling powerless. Bush comes along strutting and preening and acting so cock-sure of himself. That behavior definitely appealed to men's testosterone. "Ooh, he's a powerful American, and so am I." It was the same way during the Iranian hostage crisis. Every man is riding around in his truck with a picture of Mickey Mouse giving the finger that says, "Hey Iran! F*ck You!"

Also, at times like that a woman's instincts are to protect her family. These clowns are acting like they have the "power to protect us." They actually didn't have that power and put us in greater danger, but at that time women wanted to believe that SOMEONE had the power to protect their families, which in turn gives them THEIR power back!

What does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship? Some people are just born motivated to rebel against a dictator or other ultimate authority figure. Obviously, many of us here at DU are like that--we've been calling bullshit on this administration since day one, even when Bush had astronomical approval ratings. Some people just have rebellious natures and will always question authority. Which leads me to my next point...

I believe people with high levels of intelligence are more likely to be of a questioning nature, because to them asking questions is second nature. They are not going to accept rote propaganda without thinking, "Hmm, this does not agree with what I've read or studied or have been taught in the past. I'm going to check into this some more." Of course many people have died over the years for being that way, but it would not have been humanly possible for them to be any OTHER way.

I believe other factors are also involved, but this post is already too full of ramble and not full enough of eloquence!

[cassiepriam]

199. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, OR WE WILL JUST GET ANOTHER DICTATOR

when * leaves. Until we take a look at how and why we let our country be taken over by sociopaths, there is a good chance it will happen again.

[H2O Man]

203. Yes, it is.

It will also infect our relationships on other levels .... not just the president or the governor .... but even how we relate to others on a forum such as DU.

[cassiepriam]

204. yes, it already permeated everywhere, ugly hatred and anger.

simmering just below the surface. We have all been
infected.

[mzmolly]

208. Well, to attempt an answer in very simple terms:

My questions to you are: what, in your opinion, causes people to accept a dictatorship?

Fear.

And what does it take to motivate people to refuse to cooperate with a dictatorship?

Hope.

:*