In response to the Sat03Nov2018 post by Will:
> This crap is not appropriate for this list.
You are responding, Will, to Robert Fanelli's request for our "Hegelian" opinions about the alleged victories of President Trump during the previous two years. Crap? Well, I believe I understand your sentiment -- that political evangelism is as alien to Philosophy as religious evangelism. Right?
Yet I liked the humor that John Bardis inserted into this thread. (I hope y'all caught my reference to R. Crumb.)
Anyway -- it seems to me that Robert Fanelli may also be baiting the Dialectical Negative to the Trump Party for today's US Election. Is this really too far away from Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1821) after all?
What if a Democrat wanted to express an opposing assessment? Robert got his post in -- I want equal time!
I will fold my response in with my recent studies of J.P. Stern's book, HITLER: THE FÜHRER AND HIS PEOPLE (1992).. Chapter 4 of that book, entitled, "Propaganda as Persuasive Art," strives to explain how Hitler -- this man who was clearly incapable of a two-way conversation -- was nevertheless able to hypnotize vast crowds in rally after rally after rally.
Stern begins a quote from Nietzsche: “Men believe in the truth of anything that they see strongly believed in.”
Stern continues with Hitler's own confession: ‘My whole life was nothing but constant cajolings!’
Hitler was a Performance Artist. He was a master of Melodrama and of Entertainment. As a studied Artist, he brought Art to Politics in the opening years of German Electronic Mass Media. He was unique in this sense.
Stern then quoted Nietzsche again: In all great deceivers, a remarkable process is at work, to which they owe their power. In the very act of deception with all its preparation, the dreadful voice, expression and gestures, amid their effective scenario they are overcome by their belief in themselves; it is this belief which then speaks so persuasively, so miracle-like, to the audience, and is embraced by them.
Nazi Political life was forced into the box of the Rally. Hitler had the example of Mussolini’s theatrics, with all its ritual.. . Several analysts have remarked about the sexiness of Hitler at a Rally. But that was secondary, said Stern, to the "Rally Method."
1. There was very little difference between Rallies before February 1933, to campaign for Hitler votes -- and Rallies after Hitler took power. Same elements -- same effects. This was planned.
2. The timing of the Rally followed closely on some recent political decision or win -- large or small.
3. At the start, and for an extended time, Hitler recounted his Campaign History -- already well-known to all,.
4. There followed the information about the recent decision or win.
5. Then some common ideology; then some economic promises -- layered with invective, accusations, injustices, threats, real fears, imaginary fears, personal attacks against the Leader; and thus the Nation.
6. The accusations are always the same -- the International Bankers, the Communists, the decadent West. A massive national effort under a mighty Leader is needed to overcome it. It demands a yes/no, either/or, all/nothing response by the People..
7. The finale repeats the Leader’s prophecy a promise of revenge and a plan to act on his threats.
8. The Political Rally became the Persuasive Art. It united Germany as never before, into One Folk.
9. The true purpose of Hitler’s meeting was a show of strength and National assent in the face of global threats.
10. Solidarity is achieved even before the Rally begins!
11. The audience is not there to be informed, but to become part of the Performance Art, and so to ‘make history.’
12. Stern says that in this way, Hitler eliminated freedom – and this was essential in his mass politics.
13. The information at a Rally was always as slight as possible! Hitler’s greatest Rallies never contained anything that had not already been disseminated otherwise!
14. The effect of Hitler’s Rally depended on an almost complete foreknowledge of the Agenda by the Public.
15. When the information content is at its lowest point, the connection between speaker and audience is at its highest -- they become almost equal.
16. At this point, the equality of speaker and audience is expressed as Repetition. The speaker calls, and the audience responds. Call and response. Call and response.
17. The Call and Response is most effective as a Question/Answer pair.
18. With this method, a Rally is not really a speech -- Stern calls it a Weapon of Assertion. Information is conveyed in a Q&A game that settles, as nothing else, the unity of speaker and audience; leader and led.
19. The Question is childishly simple – ‘‘Do you want THIS?’ With and entirely predictable Yes or No response.
20. Stern gives examples of these Call and Response Rallies from 1936, and from Goebbels in 1944. The pattern is exactly the same.
So, let us reflect on this.
Stern does not suggest that Hitler was a political genius -- only that his Theatrical Genius and his Performance Art took German Politics (and German Mass Media) by surprise.
The surprise was part of the thrill-ride.
For J.P. Stern, this speaker, Adolf Hitler was "utterly impatient in subtle situations, incapable of appreciating or thinking in nuances, of taking people as something other than either accomplices or enemies."
Hitler from 1933 to 1945 was "incapable of conversation, confining himself either to harangues and monologues, or to gloomy silences." He had to be in charge, or he would repudiate the whole group.
Hitler based his political platform on his private relationships, which were based on loyalty alone. This was the deepest root of his totalitarianism. The Leader must *be* the Nation. ’
There is, of course, more. I am obviously asking about any contrast with President Trump's Rallies, most of which I watch on TV, in astonishment at their simplicity and unity. I was amazed by Stern's description. Does anybody else see what I see?
All best,
--Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: robert fanelli robertfanelli2001@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
To: Hegel Hegel <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 3, 2018 3:41 pm
Subject: [hegel] Fw: Democracy in action
Dear Folks,
It would be satisfying if some of you actually respond to this in any critical way. It would show me that people are interested in what is happening to our country. I wish every American voter would read this.
'As of 2 November 2018 these are President Trump’s accomplishments. Positive or negative is up to you. However this has been the most dynamic President for less than two years in office since FDR. '
Eliminated the “death tax”.
VA vouchers to use private hospitals.
“Right to Try” for terminally ill patients.
Personal income tax cut.
Corporate tax cut.
Keystone and Dakota oil pipelines.
Net exporter of energy..
LNG exports to EU.
Energy sufficient.
Significant GDP growth.
Lowest unemployment rate.
Rising employment rate.
Eliminated ACA mandate.
Eliminated ACA device tax..
Clearing MS-13 from Suffolk county, NY.
Two SCOTUS judges.
>100 Federal judges.
Defense buildup.
New NAFTA agreements negotiated to our increased advantage. (China to follow).
Defusing NOKO belligerency.
Replaced full sanctions on Iran.
Moved American embassy to Jerusalem on the cheap.
Lifetime ban on Fed workers becoming foreign lobbyists.
Cancelled payments to UN for climate change support.
Pulled out of Paris Accord for climate change.
Suspended migration from terrorist regions when full vetting cannot be accomplished.
Brought back in excess of 400,000 manufacturing jobs.
Sanctioned China for dumping, and stealing intellectual property.
Reduced Federal workforce..
Brought home hostages.
Almost 5x10^6 net new jobs.
Sets the agenda for both parties; almost all issues are centered on him.
Has driven highest voter registration ever.
Has emphatically clarified the distinction between nationalism and globalism.
Significantly reduced the number of citizens on food stamps.
He works for free!
... and counting.
What do you think of all this??
Regards,
Bob Fanelli
PS If you do respond to this either for the blue or the red, please try not to get too emotional. Perhaps some of you will respond for both the blue and the red, a sort of bipartisan dynamic (I only wish).