Who wrote this and from where is it quoted?

[BaalChatzaf]

I give an extract from a book just below. See if you can guess who wrote this and from what book is the quote taken.

Tell us if you agree with what is quoted here or do not agree.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

.....

Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First those who believe everything they read.

Second those who no longer believe anything.

Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.

Numerically, the first group is by far the largest being composed of the board masses of people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion of the nation. It cannot be classified according to occupation, but only iknto grades of intelligence. Under this category come all those who have not been born to think for themselves, or who have not learned to do so and wo, partly through incompetence and partly through ignorance believe everything that is set before them in print. To these we must add that type of lazy individual who, although capable of thinking for himself, out of sheer laziness, gratefully absorbs everything that others had thought over, modestly believing this to have been thoroughly done. The influence which the Press has on all these people is therefore enormous; for after all they constitute the broad masses of a nation.

But, somehow they are not in a position or are not willing personally to sift what is being served up to them: so that their whole attitude toward daily problems is almost solely the result of extraneous influence. All this can be advantegeous where public enlightenment is of a serious and truthful charactger, but great harm is done when scoundrels and liars take a hand at this work.

The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those who were formerly

in the first group and after a series of bitter disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see in print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at all or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which they hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements. These people are difficult to handle:for they will always be sceptical of the truth. Consequently, they useless for any form of positive work.

The third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read. They will not read any newspaper without using their own intelligence to collaborate with that of the writer and naturally this does not set writers an easy task. Journalists appreciate this type of reader only with a certain amount of reservation.

Hence the trash that newpapers are capable of serving up is of little danger-much less of importance-- to the members of the third grougp of readers. In the majority of cases these readers have learned to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the truth. Most unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their intelligence and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of affairs in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything. Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor, the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the

credulous.......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you know, please don't give it away for a little while because I want people to guess.

In a few days I will give the answer.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Um, duh.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Ted Keer

[caroljane]

A duh for Ted but I don't know, except a mid-20th century American, and probably not WR Hearst.

I of course, like everybody else in Group 1 and most of Group 2, believe myself to be in Group 3.

[caroljane]

Or wait, maybe de Tocqueville?

[BaalChatzaf]

Or wait, maybe de Tocqueville?

Nope. Not even warm.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

The Cat is out of the Bag.

The piece I quoted was from Mein Kampf written by none other than Herr Shickelgrueber himself.

There interesting thing is that Hitler was not a stupid man. Some of his observations of the political scene in Germany and Austria both before and after the the Great War were very much on point. His opinion of "the Masses" was not elevated, but then no one ever made a cent overestimating the intelligence of the great unwashed public.

The real problem came with Hitler's "solution" to the problems of state as the world found out to its great sorrow less than fifteen years after Mein Kampf was published.

There is a lesson to be learned from all this: Always take the utterances of your enemies literally, verbatim. If Neville Chamberlain had read Hitler's book he might not have been so anxious to go to Munich and give away the store.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mikee]

This extract is a perfect example of how a politician can create the appearance of wisdom: write something that everyone can agree with, something that from virtually anyones perspective is true. In other words, say nothing.

[BaalChatzaf]

This extract is a perfect example of how a politician can create the appearance of wisdom: write something that everyone can agree with, something that from virtually anyones perspective is true. In other words, say nothing.

Hitler's trichotomy of the public was right on point. The vast majority of the public, the "masses" if you will, can be sold a bill of goods with little trouble.

Actually Hitler laid out his entire strategy to seize power, control the press and later kill the Jews. It was all there. Fortunately the rest of the world was able to put a stop to him. It is amazing how the Brits and the French could not summon up the courage to stop him early on when it would have been easier, cheaper and more certain. The Devil had a plan and he set out to execute just as he described it.

That is why it is necessary to take our enemies at their word. We must not interpret their threats charitably. We must take what they say seriously, if we expect to survive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mikee]

"..the "masses" if you will, can be sold a bill of goods with little trouble."

If honesty were a constitutional prerequisite for holding public office, or any government position, the "masses" wouldn't be so easily duped. Any lie told by a politician either stumping for office or in office should be prosecutible as perjury, a guilty verdict should disqualify that person from ever holding that office or any position in government. And I don't mean impeachment by other politicians. A real trial with citizen jurors. Remove the bad apples permanently from office. Create a culture of honesty, create leaders that people can look up to with confidence.

[BaalChatzaf]

"..the "masses" if you will, can be sold a bill of goods with little trouble."

If honesty were a constitutional prerequisite for holding public office, or any government position, the "masses" wouldn't be so easily duped. Any lie told by a politician either stumping for office or in office should be prosecutible as perjury, a guilty verdict should disqualify that person from ever holding that office or any position in government. And I don't mean impeachment by other politicians. A real trial with citizen jurors. Remove the bad apples permanently from office. Create a culture of honesty, create leaders that people can look up to with confidence.

Dream on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mikee]

"..the "masses" if you will, can be sold a bill of goods with little trouble."

If honesty were a constitutional prerequisite for holding public office, or any government position, the "masses" wouldn't be so easily duped. Any lie told by a politician either stumping for office or in office should be prosecutible as perjury, a guilty verdict should disqualify that person from ever holding that office or any position in government. And I don't mean impeachment by other politicians. A real trial with citizen jurors. Remove the bad apples permanently from office. Create a culture of honesty, create leaders that people can look up to with confidence.

Dream on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Evidently you are firmly ensconced in group two, the cynics.

I believe in the basic goodness of people. I don't know how people who claim to believe in liberty, open societies, free markets and capitalism can believe differently. The system is broken, not the "igorant masses" as you evidently believe. With good information, the average person will make the correct choices. Voting for someone because you believe in their lies is to be disenfranchised. Your vote has been stolen. Remove the liars, then see what quality of representatives you get. The founding fathers, I believe, depended on the press asking the hard questions and reporting honestly to keep would be politicians in line. Perhaps this function needs to be shifted by constitutional amendment to the courts.

If you are a cynic you are part of the problem. So, I take your response as a compliment. Thank you.