Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nothing will shock us enough to drive us to the streets en masse

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 09:53 AM
Original message
Nothing will shock us enough to drive us to the streets en masse
I'm sad to say this and even sadder to believe it. But I believe we are trodding a well-worn path and as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

There is a section that is bone-chilling in "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. Here's a part of it:
"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked – if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in "43" had come immediately after the "German Firm" stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in "33". But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying "Jew swine," collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in – your nation, your people – is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way."

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined."

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair." (pp. 170-172)


The more of this book I read the more I believe we are heading in the same direction.

As they say in today's parlance: Same shit, different day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Mass rioting is effective politics?
Oh, good grief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Please note that "rioting" is not mentioned
Just acting en masse to stop corruption at the top.

Protesting is not "rioting." Please don't label the legitimate exercise of free speech as rioting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I think his point there is that mere protest wouldn't work so well
Mere protest threatening to overturn the government order would've been calmly met with guns and ended quickly. (See: Beer Hall Putsch. Albeit that was not exactly leftist protestors at work.)

I don't know of any instance where mere protesting stopped corruption, ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. He goes on to say...
"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or "adjust" your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know."

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

"I can tell you," my colleague went on, "of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn't an anti-Nazi. He was just – a judge. In "42" or "43", early "43", I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an "Aryan" woman. This was "race injury", something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case a bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a "nonracial" offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party "processing" which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the "nonracial" charge, in the judge's opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom."

"And the judge?"

"Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience – a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That's how I heard about it.) After the "44" Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don't know."

I said nothing.

"Once the war began," my colleague continued, "resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was "defeatism." You assumed that there were lists of those who would be "dealt with" later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a "victory orgy" to "take care of" those who thought that their "treasonable attitude" had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

"Once the war began, the government could do anything "necessary" to win it; so it was with the "final solution" of the Jewish problem, which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its "necessities" gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany's losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. I dunno. Ask Marie Antoinette. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Surely you are not proposing The Terror as serious politics.
Robespierre was not an improvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. When push comes to shove, what other power does the public have?
Edited on Thu Jun-21-07 11:15 AM by lumberjack_jeff
Our constitutional government was established to create a framework in which that power would never be required. This framework has been discarded.

"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." -Samuel Adams”

When rightwingers talk of "all options being on the table" in the context of say, Iran, they are doing so because they believe that placing qualifiers on what is tolerable implies weakness.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. In the context of what we the public will tolerate with regard to the rapid erosion of our rights, they're demonstrably right. Bush is doing it because he believes that he need not fear any kind of backlash - our only recourse is off the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. ....I shall show civil respect and not enunciate what you seem to be supporting.
I just disagree, okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. We either live in a constitutional democracy or we do not.
If we do not, then I'm open to suggestions as to how to get back where we started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackHawk706867 Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. A very good accurate article. eom ww
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. We should've just pre-emptively invaded Germany instead?
That'd teach 'em. We could've just sent troops to Europe, have them work with our good old friends the French, invaded, crushed the German Army, and engaged in a long occupation of Germany with its military manpower and capacity for civil resistance largely intact, favoring Jews over non-Jews with overt acts of government supported by armed troops under martial law, with a timetable of a decade or two.

That's the realistic view of it, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. This was a German man reflecting on what he and his countryman should have done
It's not a polemic to encourage foreign intervention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. And yet from the standard "we should've stopped Hitler beforehand" western view
that's what should've been done. Without irony, without thinking the consequences through, and the argument forevermore made about the "next Hitler"... so it's not personal or specific to this one German man, it's a general issue which I wanted to address while I had an opportunity, because well, the issues are closely related. Hope I didn't lead things too far astray though. I see your point at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. We should have "stopped Hitler" at Versaille 1917.
After that, WWII may have been inevitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. How?
I'm curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Keynes walked out of the Versaille talks because he said the reparations ...
... against Germany would lead to extreme instability. Hitler arose out of that instability. If it weren't him, there probably would have been someone else. Germany was coming apart and various factions were fighting to take power. The nazis won the fight. But, if they didn't win someone else would have, and stabilizing Germany meant rejecting the conditions of the Treaty.

The fact that Keynes could see the problem means other people should have been able to see it too. By the time we get to Hitler, it was probably way too late to avoid a disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. But waiving reparations would've been complete political suicide.
Yeah, I'm fully aware history says it would've been the right decision.... but politicians would never have survived in office, and in some cases, perhaps not survived at all, had they supported such a position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MedleyMisty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. I read something interesting in The Nature of Prejudice
and thought about posting it here.

It was the explanation for why racial violence outside of the South (yes, people are racist in other geographical areas - shocking, I know) tended to be riots and inside the South there were more lynchings than riots.

The more oppressed a population is, the less likely it is to fight back.

Actually I think I made that same point in another post a while ago - hard to put up barricades when you're working 60-80 hours a week just to pay the rent and buy some food.

And yes, I've seen that excerpt before and saw the same parallels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
9. Even worse was the case of Austria that did a complete turnaround overnight
welcoming Hitler enthusiastically, even though the Austrian people had just voted that they wanted to keep their independence. Unbelievable.

I wonder how many Americans would welcome a new facist state (out in the open) if it had a cross on their emblem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
16. should have stormed the supreme court when the 2000 election was stolen
but we sat on our hands
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Oh good lord, like that would've helped!
That's ridiculous. Utterly and completely ridiculous. And what would the public at large think? Among other things, it'd be complete political suicide for a generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Would it have? Or would it have saved our democracy?
You are claiming that a mass protest would have been "political suicide"? For a generation?

What about the quick death of democracy to a coup?

Milton Mayer starts the chapter in the book I'm quoting with this:
"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933 ,between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it."

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the universe was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was "expected to" participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one's energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."

"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. "One had no time to think. There was so much going on." "Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your "little men", your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about - we were decent people - and kept us so busy with continuous changes and "crises" and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the "national enemies", without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice - "Resist the beginnings" and "consider the end." But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn't, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your "little men," your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemoller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing: and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something - but then it was too late."

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, "everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to you colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or "You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to – to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait. (pp. 166-170)


Do you see the parallels?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Mass protest nothing! He said storming the supreme court!!!!
Edited on Thu Jun-21-07 11:01 AM by Kagemusha
I thought it was scummy to have Republicans storm an election office in Florida to stop a recount. You cannot even begin to understand my revulsion at the thought of a storming and occupation of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That doesn't fit under my definition of "protecting democracy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Mea culpa
I misread the statement and "softened" it too much.

I don't agree with "storming and occupying".

I'll side with you on this one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. It worked for these guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. And that absolutely does NOT make it right.
Edited on Thu Jun-21-07 11:12 AM by Kagemusha
I'll leave it at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Don't confuse "right" with "effective"
They won and we're living with the ramifications. Being "right" is cold comfort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. The ramifications of storming the supreme court would be far more profound
You think this is as bad as it can get? Doctors shouldn't perform cures that kill the patient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Indeed. The court has already been stormed, just not by we the people. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. The change is in the open, yet insidious
How many of were appalled that more effort was not put into stopping the nomination of Alito or Roberts?

And it's almost beyond comprehension that Thomas made it to the bench. He is nothing more than pure sycophant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-21-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Precisely. Mayer notes this when he quotes the man saying...
But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.


Like you said, we didn't make a stand when the Supreme Court made its unbelievable "one-time for one man" ruling.

We didn't make a stand when WMD weren't found.

We didn't make a stand when the widespread, illegal wiretapping was revealed.

We didn't make a stand when it was revealed that we are involved with torture, both directly and indirectly.

We didn't make a stand when the rendition program and CIA secret prisons were uncovered.

So, ipso facto, we will not go to the streets en masse because there is not "one great shocking occasion" but thousands of steps along the way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC