Strange Machiavellian continuity...: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Strange Machiavellian continuity... » Strange Machiavellian continuity...

Strange Machiavellian continuity...

Page: 1 2

Strange Machiavellian continuity...

Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Location: Erdschweinhöhle

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 266

Posted 01/07/08 - 07:52 AM: Subject: Strange Machiavellian continuity...	#1
I ran across this quotation from Hermann Goering, from an interview during the Nuremberg trials. It's utterly frightening how the simple principle he expresses manifests itself so plainly in America right now. It seems to hold irrespective of the morality or justification of a war -- what it comes down to is that people are very malleable and their fear can be exploited. In our case in the USA, the 9/11/01 attack isn't the issue that keeps war justified -- it's the argument that we're under constant threat of another attack. Certainly patriotism is questioned among opponents, which is what has kept the Democratic party so paralyzed. it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1415

Posted 01/07/08 - 09:29 AM:	#2
It's not entirely that cut and dry. The strategy works at first, but as America seems to be demonstrating you either have to constantly tighten the reigns or people get bored of the same line eventually. Germany couldn't deviate from its course because they were in an authentic war. On the other hand, America has had mini dictatorships before. During the cold war, for instance. It's still retains some measure of authenticity and sanity. It will be interesting to see what the next administration will bring to the country. As for the principle itself, that is merely the way most people react to things, governments or not. Positions of authority require people with strong principles. However, necessarily, their principles put the people at odds with those who disagree and try to obstruct their implementation. Most groups vilify their opponents. Just look at what the left has made of George Bush and you see your own bias even in this post. This is not a bad this but merely the natural competitive instinct of evolution.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Hypothesis
Honest Soul

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 659

Posted 01/07/08 - 09:49 AM:	#3
jaoman wrote: This is not a bad this but merely the natural competitive instinct of evolution. That's not really original, I think Darwin came up with it. But it's true. I think though taking this position is a bit self-defeating, because we accept that we are helpless. Are we really. Evolution also leads to the death of a species as in the example of dinosaurs, and who knows if the same fate awaits us.
We build too many walls and not enough bridges. - Newton

Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Location: Erdschweinhöhle

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 266

Posted 01/07/08 - 12:05 PM:	#4
jaoman wrote: Most groups vilify their opponents. Just look at what the left has made of George Bush and you see your own bias even in this post. This is not a bad this but merely the natural competitive instinct of evolution. That's a stretch. Is propagandizing a "natural competitive instinct of evolution"? Maybe, but fortunately in our enlightened state of modernity we have ethics that scorn the idea of a government putting mortal fear in its people for purely political ends.
Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits

myrmecophaga
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 19, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 51

Posted 01/07/08 - 12:59 PM:	#5
jaoman, regardless of the instincts of evolution, mustn't we as a people, as hypo (-thesis) suggests strive for self betterment? Swordfish, I may be cynical, but have you seen any suggestion that ethics is a major concern of government in this day and age? I certainly haven't yet in my, albeit hitherto short, life.
"It would be wrong to call it Patriotism, because the word is so given to misunderstanding. It is better expressed as a concern for your country that runs so deep, you find it physically impossible to switch off and cultivate the garden" -- Lord Deedes. "Where is human nature so weak as in the bookstore?"- Henry Ward Beecher

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 01/07/08 - 01:04 PM:	#6
Swordfishtrombone wrote: That's a stretch. Is propagandizing a "natural competitive instinct of evolution"? Maybe, but fortunately in our enlightened state of modernity we have ethics that scorn the idea of a government putting mortal fear in its people for purely political ends. I think the issue is centered around the defining line between ethical political rhetoric and propoganda. I happen to share some of the thoughts that you have on the matter, but I could see how someone who felt differently could see such claims as just counter-propoganda.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Location: Erdschweinhöhle

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 266

Posted 01/07/08 - 01:33 PM:	#7
myrmecophaga wrote: Swordfish, I may be cynical, but have you seen any suggestion that ethics is a major concern of government in this day and age? I certainly haven't yet in my, albeit hitherto short, life. It's a major concern of these hapless people that the government manipulates. Not that we can overcome the government's manipulation enough to take them to task for it, though.
Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 01/07/08 - 05:23 PM:	#8
You can only keep people wound up for a certain amount of time before they become immune to the ever escalating fear mongering and get on with their lives. Crises fatigue is setting in. You can tell by the tepid response to Guliani who talks of nothing else.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1415

Posted 01/07/08 - 05:51 PM:	#9
hypothesis wrote: That's not really original, I think Darwin came up with it. Oh dear. Did I forget to add my copyright? Or do you mean propaganda? I think I'm going a little beyond Darwin here. From what I know (sadly, I haven't read Origin of the Species, so correct me if it's appropriate), Darwin proposes evolution through physical competition. I'm going a step further. What I'm suggesting is that homosapiens are now in the process of cultural evolution through ideological competition. Today, the physical threatens us only from within, which is controlled by the ideological (whatever shape it takes). On the other hand, tigers are rarely a major threat in the suburbs. hypothesis wrote: I think though taking this position is a bit self-defeating, because we accept that we are helpless. Are we really. Helpless to what? I'm saying its expected of them to think they know better and to try to impose the fruits of that belief. Hell, its why they ran for office and part of the criteria that got them elected (notwithstanding methodologies, perhaps). That does not leave us specifically helpless – only presented with a confrontation. (Okay, I'll admit we are helpless if our goal is to never be confronted by anything and live in a world that is tailored to our appreciation. This, along with any other scenarios that require godlike powers to surpass the limitations of the human condition. Helpless on those, yes.) I'm positing that this confrontation itself is not sufficient for moral outrage. Bush is getting this policies across by scaring us good guys about Al Quida. Right. Okay. Us good guy liberals get our policies across by scaring others about Bush. Manipulation meet manipulation. Same difference. Or perhaps I shouldn't say us, as my position in this thread is neutral. The deciding factor, ultimately, is not that Bush uses fear to manipulate the nation, but that his policies don't seem to be working. If Washington had ended world hunger, no one would be complaining (except for the crazy woman who lives with her cats. But no one of note listens to her anymore). Swordfishtrombone wrote: It's a major concern of these hapless people that the government manipulates. Not that we can overcome the government's manipulation enough to take them to task for it, though. Um... who are these poor manipulated saps, by the way? I might point out that you seem to have come through the brainwashing somewhat unscathed. Whom are you shielding from danger? And how can you tell if you are shielding them from corruption or objecting to their disagreement with you? Say what you will, there are people out there who would be all too happy to kick our collective civilized asses. A little fear is not altogether misguided. myrmecophaga wrote: jaoman, regardless of the instincts of evolution, mustn't we as a people, as hypo (-thesis) suggests strive for self betterment? Isn't self betterment exactly the point of evolution? Edited by jaoman on 01/07/08 - 06:02 PM
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 01/07/08 - 08:19 PM:	#10
I think the quotation boils down to a variation of evolutionary game theory. Game theory is just a trade-off between competition and cooperation. If someone you are expecting to cooperate with, uses their authority to inform you of a potential threat, you will naturally become defensive and build up a competitive posture with the potential attackers, while strengthening cooperation with possible group defenders. It is a good behavior as long as those who you are cooperating with are honest and cooperative. I think it is well past the time, though, to go around blaming Bush. America is still, technically, a representative democracy. It is fully within the power of the American people to change their situation. Do you want Bush out of office? Do you want the people involved in the current political situation brought to court on war crimes? Do you want to bring the troops home today? The American people have the right to demand all of these things. The German people didn't retain this same advantage. America has lost most of the respect of most of the world and, (from my experience), the world is waiting for the people to wake up and fix their own country. If person A tells person B to shoot person C to protect themselves, who is the one that gets charged with the crime? A legal court will as why person B didn't check the facts, or ignored misgivings and why they still think that person C was a threat even after all evidence points to the contrary. It is person B who ought to stand trial and should be convicted if they were aware that their actions were illegal and proceeded anyway. It really doesn't matter what someone said or whether someone agreed to the action if they don't take action to prevent an illegal action, they are culpable for the international relation and economic destruction of your own country.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.