Nazi Properganda?

Post Reply New Topic

Louis Leakey advanced an evolutionary argument to explain warfare and atrocious governments. These things happen because humans evolved to be a very agreeable and cooperative species--but only agreeable and cooperative within our own troops/bands (to use the terms that describe other primate groups). As the troop is enlarged to a "nation", that agreeability can be extended enormously. However, that also means that the innate, evolutionarily-conserved hostility to "rival" troops would also inflate accordingly.

To define an "us" means that we must define a "not us", and the "not us" becomes an evolutionary competitor. The stronger we define "community", the stronger the definition of "not in the community" becomes. I shudder at what would happen to neurological and other minorities if we ever do become "one world, united". We have already seen, innumerable times, what happens when there is no external "not us". A group that has isolated itself sufficiently to ignore the existence of any external "not us" creates new groups of "not us" within its own numbers.

One tactic the Nazis used was infrasound. Infrasound is sound that is too low to be heard but can be felt by the body. Infrasound can travel long distances and can go through walls. The sound waves are capable of causing severe nausea and very unpleasant sensations. If strong enough, they can rupture organs and kill.

When Hitler would give his speeches, Nazi propaganda engineers would turn on an infrasound generator at certain points to generate nausea in the crowd and stir them to anger when he mentioned the Jewish people.

I regard our human tendency to mock and ostracize the 'different' as tantamount to our equally human instincts to physically harm anyone we don't like, or to have sex with any attractive individual who crosses our path. We recognize that the latter two are leftover instincts from our past, which have to be kept under control if we want to live in a civilised society (even if, practically speaking, we still don't always succeed in controlling them!). Yet the urge to make victims and scapegoats is something that we've not only not overcome, but don't seem to want to. Watch TV any night of the week, and this kind of behavior is treated as entertainment.

I don't fully understand the politics of what Hitler did in Germany, I will admit that. But I think I can understand how people get scapegoated.

I can think of one instance where a whole group of people in the UK is being steadily vilified by means of spurious 'scientific' evidence, press hysteria and the need for government think-tanks to find someone to blame for any problems, even apparently unrelated ones. And in this particular instance, it's working phenomenally well because it's a group that a lot of people have an irrational hatred for anyway, and because the hatred can easily be masked as 'concern'. I'll leave you to work out exactly who I'm talking about.

Of course, it's also taboo to mention this in any modern context, because people will scream 'Godwin's Law!' at you and explain how it's nothing like Nazi Germany because nobody is being forced to wear yellow stars or put in camps. My response is always: yet. The old boiling frog is a good analogy here; things generally do start very, very gently and with what look like the best of motives.

I'l put these situations of the past into context.
Seeing as the majority here is left wing American it is entirely understandable that you cannot even dream of grasping the the concept of identity and nationalism.

Right, there is this area in central Europe that is inhabited by people who are ethnicly, culturally and German speaking.
In the past Germanics originating from Scandinavia have traveled through vast areas of Europe and even Asia settling all over the place.
These people had during that time large presences throughout eastern Europe, the baltics and the balkans.
These people had a common heritage of wich they were proud and stayed loyal to theyr ancient language and identity.
Through many wars in Europe provinces constantly switched between countrys wich caused many Germans to come under the rule of a Slav country.
At the same time many Slavic people also lived under German rule in German countrys such as Prussia and Austria.

I hope i've educated you a bit on how people were in the past and where theyr loyalty lied.
Citizenship of any particular country in Europe meant little to peoples identity and feeling of belonging.
For instance Austrians considered themselves as a German people.
Not odd seeing as Vienna had been the capital of a past united German nation.
The only reason Austria wasn't part of Germany is a politician named Otto von Bismarck isolating them politicly.
Meanwhile war erupted with France in wich Nationalism grew and the southern German states eventually joined Prussia to form Germany.

On topic i don't think the German population wanted a war in the west.
Germany was extremely vunerable to invasion so it was a strategicly wise move to invade france.
Imagine all the world powers being able to amass milions of soldiers at theyr will in your backyard lol.
Hitler wanted to conquer vast lands in the east to let germany grow larger and more powerfull.
The slavic populations in eastern Europe were merely seen by him as an obstacle that needed to be gotten rid of.
Lebensraum in the east had been a dream for the German people for thousends of years.
Several Germanic tribes migrated to what is now the Ukraine and Russia to get vast spaces to farm.

Evidence, or is this something that comes with the tinfoil hat kit?

The nazis did not use "infrasound". They used very old-fashioned oratory and rhetoric. The weak-willed like to tell comforting lies to themselves about magical nazi mind control techniques. The truth is that most people would make very good little nazi followers without needing "infrasound" or other magic spells.

I found this book a good read: The anatomy of fascism by Robert O. Paxton. isbn nr 0-141-01432-6

The Nazis were National-Socialists. Fascism appeared in Italy and in the whole had nothing against the Jews. There's a big difference between these terms, although they have similar traits. Why do you, guys, tend to mix them?

Because Mussolini ended up moving toward Germany. Italy started anti-Jewish programs in 1938, although not as enthusiastically supported by the populace as were Germany's. Likewise, Italy had hitched its wagon to Nazi Germany's star, so it would be inevitable that the two totalitarian forms of government would be associated in the minds of outsiders. Japan was sufficiently distinct in its divine absolute monarchy to avoid this association.

For reasons unfathomable, the big-talking Italian strongman Mussolini who was able to take the government via a direct show of strength fell all over himself to please the little Austrian corporal who only got into power through political backroom deals.

Italy would have done better to have been satisfied with conquering Abyssinia, refusing Germany entry to Austria, and staying out of Hitler's war.

Are we discussing history? I thought it was about the terms

I am explaining how the terms became conflated. That requires referring to history. All knowledge is interrelated. There is no such thing as a definition that exists outside of history.

Not sure what this word means. But I DO KNOW why they are mixed, still asking is no crime, anyway? it's simply MY OWN curiosity.

Infrasound is well known and documented.

http://www.lowertheboom.org/trice/infrasound.htm

http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/res ... vreaus.htm

Ever hear of the word "dictionary"?????

Try actually USING one when you come across an unfamiliar word like "conflated". And I DID ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

I know the difference between fascism and national socialism!
There are just interesting chapters about the holocaust and national socialism, about propaganda in the book I mentioned.
Funny that people got side tracked in a discussion about terminology.

I wasn't sure this was a valid word. My first guess was that it was a humorous combination of confused and inflated. i was wrong. According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, it means "merged" or "fused together into one entity" as in "to conflate dissenting voices into one protest." If I had to guess, I'd say it means merging things that disagree with one another—ideas, ifor exmaple—into one new, idea distinct from any of the ideas that composed it.

Whoa! Lighten up! She's lives in Odessa, in the Ukraine. English is not her native language. It's also entirely probable that she doesn't have an unabridged English dictionary handy, even in a public library.