It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
... As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”
...
Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.
Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” ...
...
Nationalism—The “Sacred Egoism” That Divides
Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?
Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations. [whereislogic: and now you know why you see so many flags waving around at rallies and demonstrations concerning the Israel - Hamas war. “Nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag, and curious liturgical forms have been devised for ‘saluting’ the flag, for ‘dipping’ the flag, for ‘lowering’ the flag, and for ‘hoisting’ the flag. Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.”—What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.]
Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.
... The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences. And that denial leads to wars.
Yes, the experts can come up with all kinds of explanations of why man systematically sets out to destroy those of his own kind. Yet there is one primary factor that most commentators ignore.
The Hidden Cause of War
...
originally posted by: TheValeyard
a reply to: 19Bones79
Well, obviously he wasn't, but how quickly history and context die when there's an agenda.
originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: sine.nomine
Would "there is only one truth that guarantees you a comfy place in the afterlife and everyone else is a heathen who will face our loving God's wrath" qualify as a fundamentalist statement?
originally posted by: 19Bones79
Also in the video: In 1918 the Queen of England already pledged to Lord Rothschild that Britain will make sure the Jews get their own Zionist nation-state.
The concept of Zionism was invented by pre-Nazi pundits who wanted to vilify people of ethnic Jewish origin.
These Nazi's continued to classify fairly normal and peaceable people, who had retained their ethnic culture, but had also integrated with European society quite well, as if they were terrorists plotting the downfall of all 'native' ethnicities.
True Zionists (i.e. people who believed the Nazi lies and sided with the goals of the alleged secret society), were criminals and terrorists.
originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: chr0naut
Throw a link my way would you? I would like to read more about the originators of that document.
The concept of Zionism was invented by pre-Nazi pundits who wanted to vilify people of ethnic Jewish origin.
That's wrong. History paints a different picture.
These Nazi's continued to classify fairly normal and peaceable people, who had retained their ethnic culture, but had also integrated with European society quite well, as if they were terrorists plotting the downfall of all 'native' ethnicities.
Who were these true zionists?
True Zionists (i.e. people who believed the Nazi lies and sided with the goals of the alleged secret society), were criminals and terrorists.