How Fortunate For The Rulers That Men Don't Think

Remove all ads!

Well, this is a quote from Adolf Hitler, and I thought it was pretty good. Thus, I have chosen it to base my English oral on it. However, I'd like to see what you people have to say. I'm guessing this is the right place to say it.

What do you think, are we all sheep that follow, or are the occasional uprisings proof that we reject the stances of our governments.

 

I'd say both. The majority of us are just born to follow, but every once in a while you will get some great leader, who does not just follow blindly.

But I think that quote is right.
" How Fortunate For The Rulers That Men Don't Think"

Assuming that there are two types of people, those who think for them selves, ie the leaders. And everyone else, a normal man. Or woman for that matter.

 

Hitler may have never read Thoreau. If he had he probably would have had his writings burned. This is from his landmark work, _On Civil Disobedience_:

Of course, in America:

 

Yep, men don't think, women do.

Anyways, I say go with it and post it online later. : )

 

"The More people know, the more question they will ask"

Two years ago I followed a cours on Political Socialization and one of the key themes in that course was the working of elites in authoritarian systems. I basically comes down to this: the fewer the people know about the working of politics and political institutions within their own country and in other, more democratic societies, the less likely it is that they will question the political system in their own country. When you don't know about alternatives, why should you seek change?

 

People get the leader they deserve...

 

It's not that people don't think - they are distracted with everyday life. People aren't stupid. They make observations and conclusions but fail to put it into a larger context. When something drastic happens they eventually take notice, but due to lack of information and indifference they draw the wrong conclusions.

So uninformedness actually is the state the rulers try to maintain: Guess why censorship is a common trait in authoritarian regimes? Self censorship isn't any better as it has just the same effect. The same applies to spin and public relations; they are also meant to pretty up and disguise things.

 

Oh really? So did the impoverished people of Cambodia deserve Pol Pot? Or do you care to revise that statement?

How about Auguste Pinochete from Chile?

How about Idi Amin from Uganda?

Did the people from those countries deserve those leaders?

 

Excellent point, Choke! I think the statement applies in Democracies with low voter turnout, not in totalitarian regimes or other autocracies.

When it comes to places like the US and Canada, voter apathy, political ignorance when the opportunity for involvement is there, and other such nonsense results in corrupt, incompetant and otherwise undesirable leaders, and unless you're one of the few that does take an interest in politics, you deserve wht you get in those circumstances.

 

No people may deserve dicators like the ones you listed but no ruler can rule without atleast some kind of public support and apathy by large portions of the populace. Hitler had large amounts of popular support for a long time even though he ruled by terror, same with Stalin and it goes like that with all dictators from Pinochet to Pol Pot. And you know what? Rules like that wont last for long, Pol Pot was overthrown,Amin was overthrown, Pinochet was overthrown. As soon as the popular support for a dictator erodes he will be overthrown. Look at Castro, a pure dictator but he still has the support of a majority of the Cuban people for one reason or another.
Saddam Hussein had managed to stay in power for the simple reason that he always had an external enemy he could unite the people against, first Iran and then the west. Kim in North Korea rules mostly because his people are on an almost stone age level having no clue at all about politics or freedom. Kim is all they know and they are brainwashed since birth.

So in a way people do get the rulers they deserve, even if it is horrible dictators. Then the people of North Korea deserves Kim less than the people of Chile deserved Pinochet, cause Pinochet had widespread support.

 

One of the most popular Nazi-organizations was "vigour through happiness". Dedicated to make more fun aviable for everyone. It included the birth of mass-tourism. Which led in latter days to the British-German dispute about legitimate ownership of the the Balearic Islands. Anyway, it preoccupied most of the Germans with tennis, travel and cruises. Why bother about weird stuff like constitutions and a burned-down parliament.

So, I think, if nothing is hurting you, why bother. If life is actually great, less need to bother. Anf if something is hurting you, you propably fall for the next ratter. Or you'll be a worthy man which lets people with canisters of oil in your attic and equip them with matches and don't think about it, really.

 

They deserve their dictator, because they're subject to a media blackout from the day they are born and don't know any better?

Yes, the people of North Korea are clearly to blame...

You know what... I was going to go on about the level of education in the various countries I mentioned, and the "widespread support" issue, but I don't think I have the patience on this one to discuss it in a unhostile manner.

 

Hitler did have vast support in Germany, but mostly after he was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg. In the regular elections, he was defeated, not having the large support that he expected. It was not until he had the reins of power, after Hindenburg passed away, and the government apparatus was at his disposal - which allowed him to destroy all his political opponents by force, that he achieved large support. Also, with the SA he had what was virtually a private army within Germany. On a level and fair field he may not have had that much political success.

The point is that oppostition and dissension to any government is important for a free society. When the existing leaders have no oppostition the danger for another Hitler is always there.

Ragusa -- Your point about the public being engaged, Thoreau would agree you. This is from _Walden_:

This is perhaps the most quoted line from _Walden_.

I brought Thoreau into the debate because he is thought to be one of the ultimate free-thinkers. He is despised by authoritarians who view him as an anarchist. But I think he would feel that his conscience was his own best authority. But here, the "wisdom of the founding fathers" is considered a viable authority. So which is the more powerful, the example of authority, or the desire to follow one's own concience? This is probably one of the most serious questions an individual has to solve in his/her relationship with not only government but any other institution which regards itself as an Authority.

 

@ArtE

Nope, I don't care to revise that statement, Joacqin said explained most of it

 

Kim is actually the thing that speaks mostly against my post but it still does not nullify it completely. Kim's father managed to get into power with the help of the people so there is one piece of support. Another is that, although rather cynicial and unfeeling so are the people of North Korea only in the power of Kim for as long as they let him. Sure he does his best to keep them letting him by keeping them ignorant and too busy with trying to stay alive for the day to even think about politics.

I completely see what you are saying ArteChoke and I do not blame the people for being duped, it is very easy to dupe and control humans. Which again is why I think free flow of information and a reasonable education of all citizens in a country is vital for a succesful free society.

 

Tell me Morgoth, did the people with educations or the ones that simply had corrected vision (i.e. they wore glasses), also deserve to get executed for the same reasons Joacqin explained?

He does seem to group in "widespread support" with "widespread terror."

There seems to be a matter of *choice* that your glib dismissive catch-all ignores.

Yeah, I'll just expand on your statement, see if this is fair:

"People get the execution they deserve."

 

I agree ArtEChoke, people do get the executions they deserve.

But really, if we all thought more, we wouldn't have need for any uprising, as there would no longer be blind fools leading the blind - this requires a concerted effort though, and not enough people, as I mentioned once before are willing to just walk away.

Seriously, no-one can be in power unless at least someone is letting them - who is it doing Kim's brainwashing? And if you don't think of "deserve" as some sort of punishment, but as a step forward for their people, (and everyone else) which brings them one death closer to realising that they are being controlled by mad-men, (Edit- or for those many who I know are allready aware of this, yet terrified and seemingly powerless to stop it, they are one step closer to uniting in a consolidated front, or those agents of the opressesers are one step closer to realizing their conscience, and taking up arms against their leaders - it may be costly and painful, but eventually something has to give -/Edit), then I think it very deserving. Death is not an evil thing in itself.

A lot of the other posters have brought up the point that most people are too distracted with entertainment, or too weary from stressful work, or too ignorant to their choices (by design of goverment) that they do not have the energy left to be more than mildly frustrated, yet apathetic towards their political systems. Deaths force people to wake up to this, even the repressed uneducated.

It's really only the manner of repression, and the level of public relations which sets one government apart from another. There may be a few worthy of respect out there, but they are few in the overall scheme of things. We have but to wait until more people realise the futility of their controlled lives that they can reject their legal, governmental, and commercial enslavers to take responcibilty and freedom for themselves.

The unfortunate thing is it cannot be forced, and takes an inexoriably slow pace. Look what happened to Russia when a dictatorship under the misleading guise of communism was thrust upon it.

There really is no true Communism existent in the world today (or Democracy for that matter), not that I'm saying that communism or democracy is what we should aim for, but that people usually need to experience all the wrong options before they find the right one.

Truth is, I think we're not ready to think for ourselves as a society, or else we would, and all these problems facing us would dissappear. A lot of people are happy denying the truth to themselves, and, as aggravating as it may be, what can we do but let them? To try and make them think another way makes us no better off then a dictator, for really, it's just as much to our own benefit as theirs if everyone was a little bit more realistic.

All we can really do is lead by example, tell the truth when asked, and hope that people will start to realise the consequences of their decisions - action or inaction.

Myself, I'm partial to inaction, but it takes a lot of action to achieve it

[ October 07, 2003, 09:37: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

I think a good way to illustrate how people work and how little we truly value freedom is todays Russia. Yesterday there was a rigged election in Chechenya and the only ones that cared were political scientists in the west, the Russians themselves didnt mind. Putin has since he got into power eroded (I dont know if eroded is the right word as there werent much democracy to begin with but you get the drift) the weak Russian democratic institutions, taken control over much of the media and makes sure that the people he wants to be elected get enough resources that it would be a miracle if they didnt win. The Russian people are aware of this, Putin is still very popular. Humans dont care much about freedom really as long as we have roof over our heads, food on our tables and need not fear immediate supression. Putin has been working hard to ensure financial growth and stability in Russia and that is in the eyes of the people way more important than stupid little things like proper elections and democracy.

 

Well said, I agree with you. (Manus)

 

Leaders get their power from the 'the people'.

If I meant outcasts, people who fight against their regime, I would have used the word 'individuals'.

There are two types of people:

• People who don't think for themselves('the people')
• And people who do.('individuals')

'The people' always are the former, they don't think, they're led by one who does think(or is part of another herd). Else they would be 'individuals'.