In How Hitler Became a Dictator we learn how Adolf Hitler was able to rise to absolute power over Germany, even though his party had a minority of votes. In 1932 Hitlers party stood for a couple elections, and won only 30% of the vote, meaning they were rejected by 70% of the voters. To gain power they staged a series of murders and other violent actions which might be called Terrorism today. This built a climate of fear leading the people to vote for Hitlers party, which then quickly moved to grab control over the government. Once in control over the government, they staged a fire at the Reichstag (Germany's equivalent to the U.S. Capital building) which was blamed on Communists and used to engender even more fear in the population.
That history is instructive today. Hitler's rise to absolute power was based on lies and deceit and manipulating the German public through fearism. It's understood that a political movement can control a population through fearism, and it was the German propoganda masters who honed this to a fine art. One stages an event that causes the people to be afraid. Then, as the political leader, one steps onto the public stage and offers the people a solution to the event which is meant to calm their fear. But, in the fearful state, the people become more pliable, more willing to do anything you tell them must be done.
For example would we be willing to essentially disrobe before boarding airplanes? After the Sep 11, 2001 attack, and after the "shoe bomber", we are willing to do so. But before those two events would we have stood still for such invasive searches?
Following are a series of recent speeches and other events which illustrate the principle in action. It seems obvious to me that a state of continual fear is being maintained so that the government can manipulate us. Rather, so that the neocons can manipulate us into supporting their continued control over government.
For example, take the 2006 State of the Union speech. This clip was constructed from every fear-word spoke by President Bush during that speech. Now, what is the intended message of a speech so filled with with fear-words? Is such a speech meant to calm our fears or to build them?
And it's not just the government figures. Here's Jon Stewart (the Comedy Show) commenting on a recent bit of fearmongering about airplane travel. In mid-August 2006 there was a revealed plot that would have had "terrorists" bringing bomb-making materials onto airplanes, mixing chemicals during the flight, and then supposedly detonating them during the flight. But what it's meant is air travelers are now prevented from carrying a whole range of potentially dangerous things on airplane flights.
In the 2004 Republican National Convention they repeatedly invoked September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein, and the threat of global terrorism. Over and over.
During the 2004 election cycle an announcement was made of vague threats where al Qaeda would possibly disrupt the election. There was even consideration of whether the election should be delayed until the threat of disruption was over. Here is Jon Stewart's analysis.
GOP Senator Burns: 'Faceless' terrorists 'drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night': At a fundraiser dinner featuring First Lady Laura Bush, Senator Burns claimed that "faceless terrorists" drive taxicabs during the day, and plot to blow up our society at night.
Was it a terror sting or entrapment?: A terrorist cell was captured and is being charged for plotting terror attacks. However, the people making the plot had no connection to al Qaeda or any other terror organization. Instead they were contacted by FBI agents, who posed as al Qaeda plotters, and it was these FBI agents who supplied all the money and material with which these plotters were planning to launch their attack. Yup, some terrorist plotters were fooled by FBI agents into thinking they were working for al Qaeda, when they were actually working for the FBI. And, for this "crime" they are under threat of prison sentences for plotting attacks the FBI told them to plot.
Bush setting up next terror speech: Discusses a series of new speeches to be given by Bush that are meant to prop up support for the War On Terror.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff strongly backed a program Wednesday that would ease airport security for passengers who pass voluntary background checks to show they aren't terrorists.: Ah, so we're presumed guilty until we prove our innocence? Is this the state of terror the U.S. citizens are in, that such a proposal can be made with a straight face and not get laughed off immediately?
Oh, and this plan is said to be proposed directly as a follow-on to the liquids-as-bombs plot that was "prevented" in mid-August 2006. In that plot supposed terrorists in the UK were planning to hide bomb-making materials in innocent looking bottles of sports drinks or hair gels or the like. Once on the airplane they were expecting to mix the chemicals and make their bomb. A big scene was made about this plot, dozens of people arrested, and the public made to dump vast quantities of personal care products or drinks under the guise of their potential for danger.
And, now, in the state of fear created by that event, the Department of Homeland Security is proposing that all of us who travel in airplanes be registered and have to endure background checks. Okay, that is, those of us who travel and wish to avoid enduring ridiculous searches and treatment under great suspicion, that if we want to travel in ease then we would be required to give up some freedoms and privacy. For what? Under a propped up false sense of insecurity?
Hmm, this makes me think of the book 1984 where double-speak would have meant the Department of Homeland Security is really about creating Insecurity among the population.