It is often said that power corrupts but absolute powers corrupts absolutely. My son is studying 20th Century History and pointed me to a website where I found the following extract . It seemed poignant at a time of world conflict, Bush, Blair, Saddam and leaders everywhere take note. Remember the people who count. Us - the little people are only little individually. It is a small and dangerous step from election to dictator,
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis waged a modern whirlwind campaign in 1930 unlike anything ever seen in Germany. Hitler traveled the country delivering dozens of major speeches, attending meetings, shaking hands, signing autographs, posing for pictures, and even kissing babies. . . .
Germany was in the grip of the Great Depression with a population suffering from poverty, misery, and uncertainty, amid increasing political instability. . .
Hitler offered the Germans what they needed most, encouragement. He gave them heaps of vague promises while avoiding the details. He used simple catchphrases, repeated over and over. . .
His campaign appearances were carefully staged events. Audiences were always kept waiting, deliberately letting the tension increase, . . .
Hitler offered something to everyone; work to the unemployed, prosperity to failed business people, profits to industry, expansion to the Army, social harmony and an end of class distinctions to idealistic young students, and restoration of German glory to those in despair. He promised to bring order amid chaos,
a feeling of unity to all and the chance to belong.
He appealed to all classes of Germans. The name of the party itself was deliberately welcoming
The election propelled Hitler to solid national and international prestige and aroused the curiosity of the world press.
On October 13, 1930, dressed in their brown shirts, the elected Nazi deputies marched in unison into the Reichstag and took their seats. When the roll call was taken, each one shouted, Present! Heil Hitler!
They had no intention of cooperating with the democratic government, knowing it was to their advantage to let things get worse in Germany, thus increasing the appeal of Hitler to an ever more miserable people.
Nazi storm troopers dressed in civilian clothes celebrated their electoral victory by smashing in the windows of Jewish shops, restaurants and department stores, an indication of things to come.
Now, for the floundering German democracy, the clock was ticking and time was on Hitler's side.
Originally posted by Montagueshistory is a funny thing too - it depends on who writes the books. much is hidden, distorted or fabricated. but you are right about the little people - they do get taken for a ride on whatever bandwagon is rolling. yet they are also the ones who do turn things around.
My son is studying 20th Century History and pointed me to a website where I found the following extract
so there is always hope that individuals will think for themselves and act appropriately - but it is a slow process which is why bruce cockburn wrote in a song "...history takes a long, long time"
Originally posted by pradtfSomewhere out there is a place that's cool
history is a funny thing too - it depends on who writes the books. much is hidden, distorted or fabricated. but you are right about the little people - they do get taken for a ride on whatever bandwagon is rolling. yet they are also the ones who do turn things around.
so there is always hope that individuals will think for themselves and act appropriately ...[text shortened]... slow process which is why bruce cockburn wrote in a song "...history takes a long, long time"
where peace and balance are the rule .............
Help me find it and I will follow,
I believe that we can make a difference but only if we try. Let me prove myself and improve myself.
The little people will learn that they can be as big as their hearts
there are other factors to do with hitlers rise to power that he had nothing to do with-the coalition government due to the SPD's unwillingness to stand and the split in their party (USPD/SPD), and the initial weaknesses in weimar, but yes-his campaign also included storm troopers halting other party's speeches etc...
But the ULTIMATE power is always with the "little people". Like us. If everyone of us REFUSED TO FOLLOW LEADERS... and insisted on thinking for ourselves, the world would be a better place. No more dictators. No more cults. Only people... each respecting others who LEAD THEMSELVES.
NO MORE LEADERS! WE LEAD OURSELVES BY THOUGHT AND REASON!
"Sheep are the main cause of Follow The Evil." Famous old saying I just invented. 😉
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
The power / corruption thing comes from Lord Acton, a 19th Century Historian:
"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end...liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition...The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. Every class is unfit to govern...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." [Acton]
Andrew
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWell said. The trouble is, if you're not able to safely tell others about your opinions, it can be very hard to act upon them. One mantra that I think would make the world a better place: one is NEVER 'unpatriotic' or 'a traitor' simply by expressing one's opinions, whatever they may be. This seems to be forgotten all too often, even by the citizens of democracies.
But the ULTIMATE power is always with the "little people". Like us. If everyone of us REFUSED TO FOLLOW LEADERS... and insisted on thinking for ourselves, the world would be a better place. No more dictators. No more cults. Only peop ...[text shortened]... cause of Follow The Evil." Famous old saying I just invented. 😉
Originally posted by Acolyte'Unpatriotic' and 'treasonous' are very different things. I think much of what I say, for example, could be characterized as 'unpatriotic', in that it does not glorify my country. I agree that opinions of citizens should never be treated as 'treason', though.
Well said. The trouble is, if you're not able to safely tell others about your opinions, it can be very hard to act upon them. One mantra that I think would make the world a better place: it is NEVER 'unpatriotic' or 'treasonous' simply to express one's opinions, whatever they may be. This seems to be forgotten all too often, even by the citizens of democracies.
Originally posted by royalchickenFair enough, unpatriotic can simply mean 'not patriotic'; as such, most sayings, thoughts and activities are not patriotic. However, especially when applied to a person, this word is generally used to mean 'wishing ill of one's country', and so is not all that different from treason in nature, only in degree. I've edited my post to reflect this. Of course, if you do wish ill of your country, then saying so is admitting that you are unpatriotic in this sense; but admission of murder is not murder.
'Unpatriotic' and 'treasonous' are very different things. I think much of what I say, for example, could be characterized as 'unpatriotic', in that it does not glorify my country. I agree that opinions of citizens should never be treated as 'treason', though.
Originally posted by AcolyteHmm, does the fact that I never chose to view it in this more negative sense reflect the frequency with which this epithet is hurled at me 😛?
Fair enough, unpatriotic can simply mean 'not patriotic'; as such, most sayings, thoughts and activities are not patriotic. However, especially when applied to a person, this word is generally used to mean 'wishing ill of one's country', and so is not all that different from treason in nature, only in degree. I've edited my post to reflect this. Of ...[text shortened]... g so is admitting that you are unpatriotic in this sense; but admission of murder is not murder.
I don't think so. I think you're right, but I wonder if the negative connotation is meaningful. How would you characterize honest criticism of one's country? This could be classified as unpatriotic, but I think an argument that this is the essence of patriotism is also acceptable, as criticism sometimes yields general improvement. What do you think?
Originally posted by royalchickenDescribing the ills of one's country rarely involves wishing more ills upon it, unless you believe that your country is irredeemably bad (as, say, many Yugoslavians thought of their country in the 1990s.) The trouble is, 'country' can mean both 'Volk' and 'Staat' (to borrow some German), and while you might disagree with the 'Staat', only misanthropes would see their own 'Volk' as incurably bad. On the other hand, 'Staaten' are less subjective than 'Völker', as the former are more likely to be formally recognised.
Hmm, does the fact that I never chose to view it in this more negative sense reflect the frequency with which this epithet is hurled at me 😛?
I don't think so. I think you're right, but I wonder if the negative connotation is meaningful. How would you characterize honest criticism of one's country? This could be classified as unpatriotic, but ...[text shortened]... otism is also acceptable, as criticism sometimes yields general improvement. What do you think?
Originally posted by AcolytePatriotism, in my view, refers to pride in and less-than-critical support of the 'Staat' on the basis of nationality. The same treatment of the 'Volk' with which one identifies oneself is 'nationalism'.
Describing the ills of one's country rarely involves wishing more ills upon it, unless you believe that your country is irredeemably bad (as, say, many Yugoslavians thought of their country in the 1990s.) The trouble is, 'country' can m ...[text shortened]... Völker', as the former are more likely to be formally recognised.
If we take the 'country' as some combination of these, then I could, say, suggest that the American constitution be replaced with 'The Tale of Peter Rabbit'. This would describe some ill (from my point of view), would arguably wish ills on the 'Staat', because they are analogous to the feared Mr. McGregor, but would not represent the belief that the country is irredeemably bad, as it has no actual gripe with the 'Volk'. However, I do not like this premise as it is silly.
So, is 'country' synonymous with your 'Staat', 'Volk', or some combination, or something different entirely? If there is some combination at work, how does it function; what aspects of 'country' are contained in 'Volk' versus 'Staat'?
(Erm, I haven't spoken German for about 13 years, and even then only as well as a toddler normally speaks, so I should verify that 'Staat' means something like 'state' or 'government', and 'Volk' is 'people' or 'citizenry'. Have I missed the point?)