Current Affairs EU In or Out

[tsubaki]

Why is the world so stupid?

At what point exactly did this begin to happen? I'd love to pinpoint it.

We have a world where Donald Trump is US President and a rejected Mr. Bean sidekick is UK PM.

'kin hell.

This is actually something that Hitler can be blamed for. He was the first one to really cotton on to the notion of blending advertising and politics, using the mass media (in his day the papers and the radio) to push simple but nonsensical messages about what a leader was, what decent society was, who was not decent and basically establish an identity / brand / whatever on the back of it whilst giving the mass of the people simple pleasures that didn't require them to get involved in politics (as opposed to state-sanctioned activities).

Western politicians were only able to filch one or two of his methods until the generation of politicians that actually got rid of Hitler died off, but since the late 80s we have had an increasing use of his techniques with slight variances for modern tastes (the uniforms) and technology (TV and the internet). This is across all sides of politics too, especially the centre where the worlds of lobbying / PR / advertising / politics / media have literally blurred into one.

 

[Tubey]

This is actually something that Hitler can be blamed for. He was the first one to really cotton on to the notion of blending advertising and politics, using the mass media (in his day the papers and the radio) to push simple but nonsensical messages about what a leader was, what decent society was, who was not decent and basically establish an identity / brand / whatever on the back of it whilst giving the mass of the people simple pleasures that didn't require them to get involved in politics (as opposed to state-sanctioned activities).

Western politicians were only able to filch one or two of his methods until the generation of politicians that actually got rid of Hitler died off, but since the late 80s we have had an increasing use of his techniques with slight variances for modern tastes (the uniforms) and technology (TV and the internet). This is across all sides of politics too, especially the centre where the worlds of lobbying / PR / advertising / politics / media have literally blurred into one.

Very much an oversimplification of what Hitler did. Indeed, the rise of Hitler in the aftermath of the Great Depression and the generally ineffective Weimar Republic actually made a great deal of sense if you look at it from an increasingly frustrated and isolated German populace bitter at the Treaty of Versaille, which looked to punish rather than reconcile. The Germans wanted food on their table and a sense of purpose - Hitler gave them both.

The weird way of linking Hitler to centre-ground politics I could eviscerate for hours mate, but it's nearly midnight. Suffice to say that the cult of personality and propaganda machines are more the preserve of extremes, not moderation.

 

[Jebus_lives]

This is actually something that Hitler can be blamed for. He was the first one to really cotton on to the notion of blending advertising and politics, using the mass media (in his day the papers and the radio) to push simple but nonsensical messages about what a leader was, what decent society was, who was not decent and basically establish an identity / brand / whatever on the back of it whilst giving the mass of the people simple pleasures that didn't require them to get involved in politics (as opposed to state-sanctioned activities).

Western politicians were only able to filch one or two of his methods until the generation of politicians that actually got rid of Hitler died off, but since the late 80s we have had an increasing use of his techniques with slight variances for modern tastes (the uniforms) and technology (TV and the internet). This is across all sides of politics too, especially the centre where the worlds of lobbying / PR / advertising / politics / media have literally blurred into one.

Will his atrocities never end!?!

 

[tsubaki]

Very much an oversimplification of what Hitler did. Indeed, the rise of Hitler in the aftermath of the Great Depression and the generally ineffective Weimar Republic actually made a great deal of sense if you look at it from an increasingly frustrated and isolated German populace bitter at the Treaty of Versaille, which looked to punish rather than reconcile. The Germans wanted food on their table and a sense of purpose - Hitler gave them both.

The weird way of linking Hitler to centre-ground politics I could eviscerate for hours mate, but it's nearly midnight. Suffice to say that the cult of personality and propaganda machines are more the preserve of extremes, not moderation.

Not really. Weimar was not the failed state that Nazi propagandists claimed that it was, nor was the German populace starving before Hitler seized power. The grievances you mention - the betrayal of Versailles and the stab in the back - were both completely false (the Germans demonstrably bore the blame for starting the Great War therefore had to be punished for it and demonstrably had lost on the battlefield by the Autumn of 1918), but they were seized on by the nationalists (representing the Army, who were actually the ones to blame for both starting the war and losing it), but especially Hitler, and repeated over and over again until they were the sort of thing that "everybody knows"

As for "the weird way of linking Hitler to centre-ground politics", well done on completely missing the point (but kudos for saying "the rise of Hitler... actually made a great deal of sense" just before it). Though do you really not think that there was a cult of personality around Blair or that he didn't have a propaganda machine, though?

 

[peteblue]

Turn ugly? Chilling thought, considering how ugly those who voted to leave already are on average...

they are called people, you should try becoming one.....

 

[Jebus_lives]

Not really. Weimar was not the failed state that Nazi propagandists claimed that it was, nor was the German populace starving before Hitler seized power. The grievances you mention - the betrayal of Versailles and the stab in the back - were both completely false (the Germans demonstrably bore the blame for starting the Great War therefore had to be punished for it and demonstrably had lost on the battlefield by the Autumn of 1918), but they were seized on by the nationalists (representing the Army, who were actually the ones to blame for both starting the war and losing it), but especially Hitler, and repeated over and over again until they were the sort of thing that "everybody knows"

As for "the weird way of linking Hitler to centre-ground politics", well done on completely missing the point (but kudos for saying "the rise of Hitler... actually made a great deal of sense" just before it). Though do you really not think that there was a cult of personality around Blair or that he didn't have a propaganda machine, though?

This tactic has been used countless times throughout the Brexit discussion. It's commonly referred to as Illusory truth effect, where familiarity with a phrase or proposition overrides the truth.

Not only has it been used with factual information, but also with the suggestion that riots might happen. Someone outs it into the public domain, it's reported on, then countless MPs can say 'people are talking about this' or 'use it as evidence of fact.

 

[Dharma]

Why is the world so stupid?

At what point exactly did this begin to happen? I'd love to pinpoint it.

We have a world where Donald Trump is US President and a rejected Mr. Bean sidekick is UK PM.

'kin hell.

All explained in this book.

 

[Tubey]

Not really. Weimar was not the failed state that Nazi propagandists claimed that it was, nor was the German populace starving before Hitler seized power. The grievances you mention - the betrayal of Versailles and the stab in the back - were both completely false (the Germans demonstrably bore the blame for starting the Great War therefore had to be punished for it and demonstrably had lost on the battlefield by the Autumn of 1918), but they were seized on by the nationalists (representing the Army, who were actually the ones to blame for both starting the war and losing it), but especially Hitler, and repeated over and over again until they were the sort of thing that "everybody knows"

As for "the weird way of linking Hitler to centre-ground politics", well done on completely missing the point (but kudos for saying "the rise of Hitler... actually made a great deal of sense" just before it). Though do you really not think that there was a cult of personality around Blair or that he didn't have a propaganda machine, though?

It wasn't the harshness of Versailles that was a problem - in fact, it arguably didn't go far enough. No, it was its' structure - the lack of plan for a post-war Germany beyond simply punishing them for losing, including the lack of facilitation when hyperinflation decimated Germany, adding to the humiliation the Germans suffered. They still had to pay the reparations in things like coal even when wheelbarrows of Marks couldn't buy a loaf of bread. Versailles didn't accommodate for this scenario and created resentment, allowing the seeds of radicalism to sow which Hitler bore the fruits of in the 1930s.

When I say Hitler's ascent made sense, I mean it in that regard. He exploited real grievances that went unaddressed by the world community and the weak fledgling Weimar Republic. Compare it to post-WW2, with the formation of the United Nations and so on - a real plan at global reintegration and peace. Sure, it didn't work out flawlessly to say the least, with the segmentation of Germany being the fulcrum of the Cold War, but it was at least an attempt. Versailles made no such attempt.

As for Blair? I didn't see a cult of personality around him as such. More it was the New Labour project as a whole which caught the imagination. A PR machine undoubtedly, but whether it was Blair or Brown, Labour would have won in 1997 because of the message. Hell, Smith would have won in 1997 if he lived, and the country would have very likely been better for it - he after all put everything in place for New Labour to exist. In terms of propaganda, Hitler was the first modern wielder of it, but every political party since has done it - just some better than others. When you said "especially" the centre, that's where I shook my head.

 

[Tubey]

Not really. Weimar was not the failed state that Nazi propagandists claimed that it was

Just this bit specifically... yes it was mate.

To put it succinctly, this cut and paste does it:

Whilst the Nazis’ own actions, such as the party restructure and propaganda, certainly played a role in their rise to power, the economic and political failure of the Weimar Republic was also a key factor.

Germany’s economy suffered badly after the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

Germany was particularly badly affected by the Wall Street Crash because of its dependence on American loans from 1924 onwards. As the loans were recalled, the economy in Germany sunk into a deep depression. Investment in business was reduced.

As a result, wages fell by 39% from 1929 to 1932. People in full time employment fell from twenty million in 1929, to just over eleven million in 1933. In the same period, over 10,000 businesses closed every year. As a result of this, the amount of people in poverty increased sharply.

The Depression associated economic failure and a decline in living standards with the Weimar democracy. When combined with the resulting political instability, it left people feeling disillusioned with the Weimar Republic’s democracy and looking for change.

This enhanced the attractiveness of the Nazis propaganda messages.

The Weimar Republic made baby steps of improvement after this, but nowhere near enough to counter Hitler, who passed the Enabling Act in 1933.

 

[Tubey]

All explained in this book.

Can't see Chomsky's name without uni flashbacks mate lol lol lol

I think propaganda is possibly the root of it like. But I'm more concerned by the tribalism of society overall.

For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been in the next in the last day or so for trying to calmly talk down and defuse a situation with someone who appeared mentally ill and said "eating babies" was the only way to stop climate change destroying us "in a few months". Now, to a rational person, you can see what she was doing - she didn't want to antagonise, cause the person to explode and perhaps be violent/dangerous. It turned out it was a right wing plant from a group with Trump links, but she wasn't to know that at the time.

But simply because of who it was - AOC, Trump's nemesis, one of "the gang" or whatever they're called - the right wing in America criticised her for not saying eating babies was wrong and going as far as to seriously say she endorses people eating babies. The media, the every day person on social media, the lot - if you had a right wing bias, then AOC endorses eating babies.

For me, that goes beyond propaganda - that's cult like behaviour that society has self-formed by grouping into factions and seeing opposing viewpoints as "the enemy".

And it's stupid. Amazingly, wondrously stupid.

That's what I don't get. What was the tipping point? People used to disagree - but they didn't put banners up outside of political conferences with the threat of lynching MPs. They didn't use terms of war like "Surrender Act", traitors etc. about free trade deal negotiations. Something in the last 10 years or so has gone very, very wrong.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Can't see Chomsky's name without uni flashbacks mate lol lol lol

I think propaganda is possibly the root of it like. But I'm more concerned by the tribalism of society overall.

For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been in the next in the last day or so for trying to calmly talk down and defuse a situation with someone who appeared mentally ill and said "eating babies" was the only way to stop climate change destroying us "in a few months". Now, to a rational person, you can see what she was doing - she didn't want to antagonise, cause the person to explode and perhaps be violent/dangerous. It turned out it was a right wing plant from a group with Trump links, but she wasn't to know that at the time.

But simply because of who it was - AOC, Trump's nemesis, one of "the gang" or whatever they're called - the right wing in America criticised her for not saying eating babies was wrong and going as far as to seriously say she endorses people eating babies. The media, the every day person on social media, the lot - if you had a right wing bias, then AOC endorses eating babies.

For me, that goes beyond propaganda - that's cult like behaviour that society has self-formed by grouping into factions and seeing opposing viewpoints as "the enemy".

And it's stupid. Amazingly, wondrously stupid.

That's what I don't get. What was the tipping point? People used to disagree - but they didn't put banners up outside of political conferences with the threat of lynching MPs. They didn't use terms of war like "Surrender Act", traitors etc. about free trade deal negotiations. Something in the last 10 years or so has gone very, very wrong.

Talking of eating babies and Brexit: I very nearly wrote yesterday that the title of Boris Johnson's 'A fair and reasonable compromise' reminded me of the Jonathan Swift essay 'A modest Proposal'.

 

[summerisle]

Something rotten in the state of this country.

 

[Khalekan]

Does this letter have to be signed by johnson? Could he delegate it elsewhere? I don't trust this lying excuse for a PM.

I am watching Newsnight just now and it seems that if Johnson decides to disobey the Benn Act then the matter will go to court and that Court will be empowered to send the letter itself.

 

[davmaher]

Can't see Chomsky's name without uni flashbacks mate lol lol lol

I think propaganda is possibly the root of it like. But I'm more concerned by the tribalism of society overall.

For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been in the next in the last day or so for trying to calmly talk down and defuse a situation with someone who appeared mentally ill and said "eating babies" was the only way to stop climate change destroying us "in a few months". Now, to a rational person, you can see what she was doing - she didn't want to antagonise, cause the person to explode and perhaps be violent/dangerous. It turned out it was a right wing plant from a group with Trump links, but she wasn't to know that at the time.

But simply because of who it was - AOC, Trump's nemesis, one of "the gang" or whatever they're called - the right wing in America criticised her for not saying eating babies was wrong and going as far as to seriously say she endorses people eating babies. The media, the every day person on social media, the lot - if you had a right wing bias, then AOC endorses eating babies.

For me, that goes beyond propaganda - that's cult like behaviour that society has self-formed by grouping into factions and seeing opposing viewpoints as "the enemy".

And it's stupid. Amazingly, wondrously stupid.

That's what I don't get. What was the tipping point? People used to disagree - but they didn't put banners up outside of political conferences with the threat of lynching MPs. They didn't use terms of war like "Surrender Act", traitors etc. about free trade deal negotiations. Something in the last 10 years or so has gone very, very wrong.

I don't think there is a single tipping point you can look at and say "That's where it started to go wrong". I think there are markers along the road, though. An example of this I think is the MMR/Autism scandal which I think started in the 90's in the UK. It was probably the first occasion I can remember when the majority (and by majority I mean around 99%) of scientific opinion was routinely questioned or ignored. It also coincided with a move in the more liberal media (particularly organisations like the BBC) to have what they considered balanced debate. Their version of balanced debate was to give equal credence to both sides of any debate, irrespective of where the likelihood of truth lay. This just ended up giving air time etc. to anyone with an opinion, no matter how extreme, and without any real challenging of that opinion by the adjudicators in these debates who seemed to think that their job was to stay neutral. I don't think confidence/belief in science or other areas where experts operate has ever recovered from this and we now have a situation where a politician can say "I think we've all had enough of experts" and nobody really bats an eyelid and he doesn't get challenged at the time he says it. In fact, a large part of the population agree with him. We have allowed a situation to develop where the truth doesn't really matter any more, which is an incredibly sad state of affairs. When you get political advisors using phrases like "alternative facts" when telling outright lies you know things are on a slippery slope.

Coinciding with this, I think there has also been a dumbing down of how complex issues are reported and discussed. I get that most people like simplicity, but there are some issues that can't be simplified into a few trite phrases. Again, the BBC is a good example of this. Go onto their website and rather than seeing any real analysis of the Brexit debate all you seem to get are "Your 1 Minute Guide To Brexit", "What Is A No Deal Brexit?" If we did get another referendum you can guarantee there will be vox pops of people saying "No-one's really explained what it's about." I remember when the BBC used to employ proper journalists, particularly investigative ones but those days seem to be pretty much over now.

You then add into all of that the impact of the internet, where the echo chamber effect just confirms to people that their views must be right because everything they read says the same thing and you have an increasing polarisation of opinion with little or no middle ground or reasoned debate. Everyone becomes demonised. That polarisation then leads to hardening of views and anger/hatred/ridiculing of anyone who disagrees with you and your mob.

Regarding the internet, I think one of the most disastrously laissez faire attitudes we have allowed to take hold in the last 20 years is that internet operations such as Facebook, Twitter etc. are not viewed as publishers and can't be prosecuted for the content posted on their platforms. So we get the absurd situation of having "How to make a bomb using reagents from your kitchen" videos being posted and left up for years. Can you imagine that being sold In Waterstones? It took years to drag these companies to a point where they even started to do something about it.

A lot of these issues have come about, I think, because we chose to become too liberal. We thought that by allowing the extremists - on both sides - to have their say our logical arguments would persuade them to see the error of their ways. We gave them a platform which legitimised their views/attitudes/behaviour and society is now paying the price for that and the old middle ground around which debate used to pivot doesn't really exist anymore.

 

[tsubaki]

It wasn't the harshness of Versailles that was a problem - in fact, it arguably didn't go far enough. No, it was its' structure - the lack of plan for a post-war Germany beyond simply punishing them for losing, including the lack of facilitation when hyperinflation decimated Germany, adding to the humiliation the Germans suffered. They still had to pay the reparations in things like coal even when wheelbarrows of Marks couldn't buy a loaf of bread. Versailles didn't accommodate for this scenario and created resentment, allowing the seeds of radicalism to sow which Hitler bore the fruits of in the 1930s.

When I say Hitler's ascent made sense, I mean it in that regard. He exploited real grievances that went unaddressed by the world community and the weak fledgling Weimar Republic. Compare it to post-WW2, with the formation of the United Nations and so on - a real plan at global reintegration and peace. Sure, it didn't work out flawlessly to say the least, with the segmentation of Germany being the fulcrum of the Cold War, but it was at least an attempt. Versailles made no such attempt.

As for Blair? I didn't see a cult of personality around him as such. More it was the New Labour project as a whole which caught the imagination. A PR machine undoubtedly, but whether it was Blair or Brown, Labour would have won in 1997 because of the message. Hell, Smith would have won in 1997 if he lived, and the country would have very likely been better for it - he after all put everything in place for New Labour to exist. In terms of propaganda, Hitler was the first modern wielder of it, but every political party since has done it - just some better than others. When you said "especially" the centre, that's where I shook my head.

No peace treaty of the time did that though - to reform the entire nature of the defeated state if that state was still in being; they just imposed reparations on it (as the Germans had done to others) and stripped colonies and disputed off.

Your point about humiliation was what I was sort of talking about though - Versailles was by no means a savage peace treaty, nor did it humiliate the German state or people (the biggest gripe was that Germany was blamed for starting it, something that was then and is now clearly true). People were (understandably) angry about the war and the loss of so many lives, but rather than acknowledge who was to blame most of German society repeatedly told everyone else that it was a humiliation, that other people had betrayed them, delegitimizing the very real defeat they had suffered when idiot militarists had thought it would be a great idea to start a fight with most of the rest of the world. This was so successful that loads of people still believe it now.