In other words, to make a big deal about them being granted “free will” when in actual fact they are being manipulated with fear…
2007-10-24 15:03:04 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Hitler was a master at seeming to give the people what they wanted - security.
Dubya's masters were able to do exactly the same till even some of the most stupid were waking up; there are many who would vote for him again because they have been convinced the Democrats are librool, pinko commies who would sell USA to the Taliban or some other stupid clap-trap they like to vomit.
Hitler: The masses are like an animal that obeys instincts.
Hitler: The chief function (of propaganda) is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind.
Hitler: The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or a political nature, depends upon the consistency and perseverance with which it is employed.
Hitler: The masses of our people, whose sheepish docility corresponds to their want of intelligence.
Hitler: Only the fanaticised masses can be guided.
Hitler: Morality is stupidity or decadence.
Hitler: The art of all popular leaders consisted at all times in concentrating the attention of the masses on a single enemy. (Iraq and Iran)
2007-10-24 17:24:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
no communism works best. in order to truly oppress a populous one must make the masses as dependent on the government as possible.every time i here that there should be a law.. or the government should step in.. etc i can feel the effect of our freedom slipping away.people need to be more independent and solve their own problems instead of wanting the government to do it for them .this is why i say i love my country but i fear the government.
2007-10-24 17:52:59 · answer #2 · answered by joe c 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. "1984" by George Orwell?
I grew up in a communist country, but the people did not REALLY believe they are not being oppressed! It wouldnt really work for ever!
2007-10-24 22:01:38 · answer #3 · answered by Chickoon 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, too obvious. The best way is to allow them to think they have a say (a "vote"), but not allow them enough economic influence to decide who they have available to vote on, or enough truthful information about the available candidates to make an informed decision. Man I hope that never happens. Wait...
2007-10-24 15:16:33 · answer #4 · answered by neil s 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, it works better if people think that there is a real reason to be afraid, they will willingly surrender their freedom. They will bow before a priest, or support a "patriot act" if they are afraid enough.
2007-10-24 15:11:39 · answer #5 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
ayn rand said it worked under certain conditions, definitely not in our world though..
Oh and even before Hitler, before 'Dubya', Chinese and eastern religio-political systems had this one figured out...back as far as 200-300BC. Read into Taoism, it has great insights along with this one. (the best leader leads without the masses knowing)
2007-10-24 17:58:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are free to do what you want. However, don't blame others for the consequences of your actions.
Oppression is bad, yet what makes one credible to think people are oppressed if they don't know what oppression is?
2007-10-24 16:00:46 · answer #7 · answered by Otaku in Need 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
because of the fact those in the depths of depravity in many cases think of they're unfastened.. certainty is they're oppressing themselves. I agree that many western women everybody isn't something better than slaves to society.. all they think of roughly is seems, makeup and visual attraction. i myself am a western female, yet i'm slave to not something. actual freedom from oppression is lots better than protection from corruption.. that's freedom from preconceived photograph, that's freedom from an thought of what you're "meant" to be. I have not any faith or concept to inform me what I could desire to be as a woman.. I follow no thought of what a woman could desire to be, I merely am as Nature meant me. you notice from my viewpoint, maximum ladies people western and eastern are trapped in a preconceived photograph or thought of what they could desire to be.. they by no skill truly locate themselves. they do exactly their terrific to in good shape into in spite of their faith or society tells them they could desire to be... in the west women everybody is instructed they could desire to be skinny, have massive breasts, placed on attractive clothing and makeup and be self sufficient with a occupation. in the east women everybody is instructed they could desire to be modest, organic and lined, they could desire to not placed on attractive clothing or placed themselves on demonstrate for men.. so which you notice no count which way you seem at it.. women everybody is doing what they're instructed to do, appearing how they think of the international/faith/society needs them to act.. As for me, i will define myself and what I could desire to be on my own thank you very lots!
2016-12-15 08:34:36 · answer #8 · answered by bartelt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the stink bait. They've done this practically since our inception.
2007-10-24 15:08:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's how I'd do it. Then I'd make up a bunch of crap about how my way was "the one true path" so that anyone who followed me could feel really superior to those who don't follow me.
2007-10-24 15:08:27 · answer #10 · answered by Pull My Finger 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋