http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ore-154632
EXCERPT: [...] This is merely the latest example of a powerful rhetoric centered on the word “terrorism” that has shaped — and continues to shape — popular conceptions about contemporary political conflicts, making it difficult to speak intelligently about their real sources. If individuals and groups are portrayed as irrational, barbaric, and beyond the pale of negotiation and compromise, as this rhetoric would have it, then asking why they resort to terrorism is viewed as pointless, needlessly accommodating, or, at best, mere pathological curiosity. Those normally inclined to ask “Why?” are in danger of being labeled “soft” on terrorism, while the more militant use the “terrorist” label to blur the distinction between critical examination and appeasement....
I'm aware that this is an old thread, bit I've been going back and looking for old threads that I find interesting.
(Oct 22, 2014 01:15 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ore-154632
EXCERPT: [...] This is merely the latest example of a powerful rhetoric centered on the word “terrorism” that has shaped — and continues to shape — popular conceptions about contemporary political conflicts
I admit that "terror" can be a rhetorical device, used to make people react in intended ways. But it also seems to capture something real. It isn't dissimilar to many of the left's favorite insults "racist", "misogynist" or "xenophobe" in that regard. Left knees are supposed to jerk simply upon hearing the words.
Quote:making it difficult to speak intelligently about their real sources.
The phrase "real sources" is another rhetorical device, designed to single the writer out as more knowledgeable than others.
Quote:If individuals and groups are portrayed as irrational, barbaric, and beyond the pale of negotiation and compromise, as this rhetoric would have it, then asking why they resort to terrorism is viewed as pointless, needlessly accommodating, or, at best, mere pathological curiosity.
Kind of like when Hillary referred to people like me as "deplorables" and "irredeemables".
When people like
New York Times bloggers find fault with those who use the word ''terrorism", what they don't like is when we find the "real source" of much of the disfunction currently sweeping the middle east and south Asia
in radical Islamist ideology.
These writers would much prefer that everyone find the "source" in some fundamental moral failing in our own Western civilization. Our disagreements arise when people try to exploit these events as just another occasion for radical social criticism of our own history and culture.
This is not the first CC thread of great value that has been ignored. Yazata, I am glad you bringing her post into the present.
I am usually accused of conspiracy theory and don't know if I want to bring this upon myself, but I wish people could join me at the U of O library and go through the government documents with me.
Many years ago I was going through the government documents for 1958 because I wanted to know about the 1958 National Defense Education Act. I found a letter from past President Eisenhower praising the Germans for their contribution to democracy. There are excellent reasons for him believing the Germans made important contributions to democracy, but unfortunately, he didn't understand the importance of culture and education that transmitted a culture making liberty a possibility. He was a military man with high aspiration leading to government positions in Washington DC, and then the presidency.
The Military Industrial Complex is Eisenhower's word for what Hitler called the New World Order, and was in fact, Prussian military control of Germany. Included in this is a study of group behavior, and the effect of the media on mass thinking, and besides requesting congress to pass the National Defense Education Act, his administration also created new connections between government and research and between the government and media. Reagan used both connections to scapegoat the poor for economic problems, and slash domestic budgets, and then pouring money into military spending, including granting arms to mid east countries, escalating the threat of war.
Our understanding of technological advancements is too limited because this is not just about new machines like computers and drones and greater military might. But technological advancement is also about bureaucratic order and research in human behavior and control. Bush, is well known for his war on terror and against the axis of evil and the "power and glory" (words out of the bible) bombing of Iraq. Now I might be one of--
Quote:These writers would much prefer that everyone find the "source" in some fundamental moral failing in our own Western civilization. Our disagreement is about people trying to exploit these events as just another occasion for radical social criticism of our own history and culture.[
But I do think an understanding of history serves us well when we attempt to understanding our reality today.
I think we should know the Military Industrial Complex is real and comes out of Prussia/Germany. It also involves control of oil and the cold war and the use of the CIA to control events in the mid-east and south America and the US relationship with Isreal, all of which has been opposed to the best interest of common people who unfortunately are Muslim, evolving the struggle for world domination with a religious war.
(Dec 18, 2016 07:37 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I'm aware that this is an old thread, bit I've been going back and looking for old threads that I find interesting.
(Oct 22, 2014 01:15 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ore-154632
EXCERPT: [...] This is merely the latest example of a powerful rhetoric centered on the word “terrorism” that has shaped — and continues to shape — popular conceptions about contemporary political conflicts
I admit that "terror" can be a rhetorical device, used to make people react in intended ways. But it also seems to capture something real. It isn't dissimilar to many of the left's favorite insults "racist", "misogynist" or "xenophobe" in that regard. Left knees are supposed to jerk simply upon hearing the words.
Quote:making it difficult to speak intelligently about their real sources.
The phrase "real sources" is another rhetorical device, designed to single the writer out as more knowledgeable than others.
Quote:If individuals and groups are portrayed as irrational, barbaric, and beyond the pale of negotiation and compromise, as this rhetoric would have it, then asking why they resort to terrorism is viewed as pointless, needlessly accommodating, or, at best, mere pathological curiosity.
Kind of like when Hillary referred to people like me as "deplorables" and "irredeemables".
When people like New York Times bloggers find fault with those who use the word ''terrorism", what they don't like is when we find the "real source" of much of the disfunction currently sweeping the middle east and south Asia in radical Islamist ideology.
These writers would much prefer that everyone find the "source" in some fundamental moral failing in our own Western civilization. Our disagreements arise when people try to exploit these events as just another occasion for radical social criticism of our own history and culture.
Yeah, the left has forwarded such causes as climate change and lack of jobs as reasons for terrorism. But can we really expect those who seem to be soft on crime to be hard on terrorism? But when you have a myopic focus on only two of the six
Moral foundations...
When domestics opponents are always considered more dangerous than foreign threats, the enemy of their enemy is their friend.
(Dec 19, 2016 01:37 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]When domestics opponents are always considered more dangerous than foreign threats, the enemy of their enemy is their friend.
i ponder.... has the culture of the propogation of leaders and leadership culture developed to become soo internally competative that the ethos of threat is maintained as internal to validate absolute control and power of the leadership position ?
thus a culture of bi-partisan ideology has been created and maintained to force compliance to submit to the leader rather than the leader evolve with the society/group ?
dictatorship Vs (what?)
(Dec 19, 2016 04:04 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 19, 2016 01:37 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]When domestics opponents are always considered more dangerous than foreign threats, the enemy of their enemy is their friend.
i ponder.... has the culture of the propogation of leaders and leadership culture developed to become soo internally competative that the ethos of threat is maintained as internal to validate absolute control and power of the leadership position ?
thus a culture of bi-partisan ideology has been created and maintained to force compliance to submit to the leader rather than the leader evolve with the society/group ?
dictatorship Vs (what?)
On the left, where even Bernie endorsed Hillary, I'd say so. On the right, where some never endorsed Trump, not so much. The right is notorious for being divided, so that's pretty good insulation against fear mongering to bring people in line. And since none of the political wonks saw Trump coming, I'd assume he's more of a response of the people (as ill-advised as I think that was) than foisted upon them.
We are as paranoid as Germany was when it entered the second world war. Richard M. Brickner, M.D. wrote "Is Germany Incurable" in 1943. He defines paranoia not only as excessive fear but as an excessive need to be superior and in control. The mood of the US and our fear of terrorist follows adopting the German models of bureaucracy and education. Before the first world war Charles Sarolea tried to warn the world Germany was mobilizing for war, but his 1912 book "The Anglo-German Problem" was ignored until the first world war began. He wrote of what the Prussians did to Germany and the excessive obedience to authority.
The best way to understand history is to repeat it. The US is repeating the history of Germany, because in every important way it has imitated the Germany that was militarized by Prussia.
I said the Eisenhower established new connections with the media. Tonight a neighbor told me about Operation Mockingbird.
Quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Operation Mockingbird was a campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media known for a fact to have operated at least during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA.[contradictory] The organization recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network to help present the CIA's views. It funded some student and cultural organizations and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA. The CIA's use of journalists continued unabated until 1973, when the program was scaled back, allegedly finally coming to a halt in 1976 when George H.W. Bush took over as director.[1]
For the Reagan administration this meant all research on poverty was replaced by research on welfare fraud, then the findings of this research was used to scapegoat the poor for the bad economy. This enabled the next move Germany would take to mobilize for war, slashing domestic budgets and pouring everything into military spending. It was a huge shift in wealth and power that is still with us today.
Yet we have a ton of people, on both sides, advising caution with respect to Trump, so it's not like these warnings are going unnoticed. What's more likely is that those who are comparing current history to WWI/WWII Germany are just making the US out to be the next paranoiac's "terrorist".
(Dec 19, 2016 05:49 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yet we have a ton of people, on both sides, advising caution with respect to Trump, so it's not like these warnings are going unnoticed. What's more likely is that those who are comparing current history to WWI/WWII Germany are just making the US out to be the next paranoiac's "terrorist".
I will respond to post that are respectful.
I do not know about others, but what I say is based on personal research, the books in my personal library and the document department at the U of O. A neighbor has said he willing join me on a trip to the document department, and we will make a day of it, having lunch and going through Eisenhower's documents for 1958. Hopefully, I can find the ones I found before and copy them, then figure out how to get them on the Internet. I think this is the best possible way to spend a day, but with Xmass and the workshops I do, I will have to wait a week or two.
I can also copy pages of my books, or "The Anglo-German Problem" is on-line. The on-line translation is not exactly the same as mine, but close enough. You might want to start with that book, which is free on-line. The books written when history was made, do not explain the US adoption of German's model of bureaucracy. That is explained in my not so old public administration textbook, I bought when studying public policy and administration at the U of O. Before this, our bureaucratic organization was extremely inefficient and problematic. I will gladly explain all that, but most people have zero interest in the subject.
(Dec 19, 2016 06:36 AM)Carol Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 19, 2016 05:49 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yet we have a ton of people, on both sides, advising caution with respect to Trump, so it's not like these warnings are going unnoticed. What's more likely is that those who are comparing current history to WWI/WWII Germany are just making the US out to be the next paranoiac's "terrorist".
I will respond to post that are respectful.
I do not know about others, but what I say is based on personal research, the books in my personal library and the document department at the U of O. A neighbor has said he willing join me on a trip to the document department, and we will make a day of it, having lunch and going through Eisenhower's documents for 1958. Hopefully, I can find the ones I found before and copy them, then figure out how to get them on the Internet. I think this is the best possible way to spend a day, but with Xmass and the workshops I do, I will have to wait a week or two.
I can also copy pages of my books, or "The Anglo-German Problem" is on-line. The on-line translation is not exactly the same as mine, but close enough. You might want to start with that book, which is free on-line. The books written when history was made, do not explain the US adoption of German's model of bureaucracy. That is explained in my not so old public administration textbook, I bought when studying public policy and administration at the U of O. Before this, our bureaucratic organization was extremely inefficient and problematic. I will gladly explain all that, but most people have zero interest in the subject.
Don't go breaking your streak now.
Aside from bragging about things you seem to think lend you some credibility, how does any of that contribute to the discussion? You've only told us that any support for your claims is not currently available. Why not just wait until it is?