Extra   page 27

Verglichen mit der Irrsinnswelt der Konzentrationslagergesellschaft selbst, die von der Phantasie nie ganz erreicht werden kann, weil sie außerhalb von Leben und Tod steht, ist der Prozeß, durch den Menschen auf sie präpariert und gleichsam zugerichtet werden, einsichtig und zweckvoll. Den Anstoß und, was mehr ist, die schweigende Billigung solch unerhörter Zustände in der Mitte Europas haben jene Ereignisse erzeugt, welche in einer Periode untergehender politischer Formen plötzlich Hunderttausende und dann Millionen von Menschen heimatlos, staatenlos, rechtlos machten, wirtschaftlich überflüssig und sozial unerwünscht. An ihnen hatte sich bereits erwiesen, daß die Menschenrechte, welche ohnehin weder philosophisch begründet noch politisch je gesichert gewesen waren, auch ihre rein proklamatorische, appellierende Wirkung verloren und in ihrer traditionellen Form zumindest nirgends mehr Geltung hatten. Dies aber sind nur die negativen Vorbedingungen; schließlich war der Verlust des Arbeitsplatzes und damit des angestammten Platzes in der Gesellschaft, wie die Arbeitslosigkeit ihn mit sich gebracht hatte, oder der bei den Staatenlosen eingetrene Verlust von Paß, Heimat, gesicherten Aufenthalt und Recht auf Erwerb nur eine sehr vorläufige, summarische Vorbereitung, die für das Endresultat schwerlich ausgereicht hätte.

Der erste entscheidende Schritt auf dem Wege zur totalen Herrschafft ist nichtsdestoweniger die Tötung der juristischen Person, die im Falle der Staatenlosigkeit automatisch dadurch erfolgt, daß der Staatenlose außerhalb allen geltenden Rechts zu stehen kommt. Im Falle der totalen Herrschaft wird aus dieser automatischen Tötung ein geplanter Mord, der dadurch eintritt, daß die Konzentrationslager immer außerhalb des Strafvollzugs gestellt werden und die Insassen niemals "zur Ahndung von strafbaren oder sonst verwerflichen Taten" eingeliefert werden dürfen. [Siehe Maunz, op. cit. p. 50.] Unter allen Umständen achtet die totale Herrschaft darauf, in den Lagern Menschen zu versammeln, die nur noch sind - Juden, Bazillenträger, Exponenten absterbender Klassen - , aber ihre Fähigkeit zu handeln, zur Tat wie zur Missetat, bereits verloren haben.

Hannah Arendt

"Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft", S. 655

Dennoch darf das Element des Verbrechers in keinem Konzentrationslager fehlen. [..] die Tatsache, daß sie fast ausnahmslos die Aristokratie der Lager bildeten und die administrativen Funktionen erfüllten, zeigt deutlich, daß es erheblich schwerer ist, die juristische Person in einem Menschen zu töten, der sich etwas hat zuschulden kommen lassen, als einem völlig Unschuldigen. Der Aufstieg des Verbrechers in die Aristokratie der Lager ähnelt auffallend der Verbesserung, die in der juristischen Lage der Staatenlosen, welche ja auch ihre bürgerlichen Rechte verloren haben, eintritt, sobald sie sich zu einem Diebstahl entschließen.

Hannah Arendt

"Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft", S. 656

Verbrecher gehören eigentlich nicht in das Konzentrationslager. Daß sie dennoch eine permanente Kategorie in allen Lagern bilden, ist vom Standpunkt des totalen Herrschaftsapparats aus gesehen eine Art Konzession an die Vorurteile der Gesellschaft, die man auf diese Weise am leichtesten an die Existenz der Lager gewöhnen kann.

Hannah Arendt

"Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft", S. 657

Zu dem Amalgam von Politischen und Verbrechern, mit dem in Deutschland wie in Rußland die Konzentrationslager begannen, fügt sich sehr bald ein drittes Element, das bald die Majorität aller Insassen bilden sollte. Diese größte Gruppe bestand aus Menschen, die überhaupt nichts getan haben, was, sei es in ihrem eigenen Bewußtsein oder im Bewußtsein ihrer Peiniger, in irgendeinem rationalen Zusammenhang mit ihrer Haft steht. Ohne sie hätten die Lager niemals existieren beziehungsweise die ersten Jahre des Regimes überleben können.

[..]

Diese in jedem Sinne vollkommen Unschuldigen bilden nicht nur die Majorität der Lagerbevölkerung, sie sind auch diejenigen, die schließlich in den deutschen Gaskammern "ausgemerzt" wurden. Nur in ihnen konnte der Mord der juristischen Person so vollständig durchgeführt werden, daß sie ohne Namen und ohne Taten oder Missetaten, an denen man sie hätte erkennen können, in den Massenfabriken des Todes "verarbeitet" werden konnten, die zudem schon ihrer Fassungskraft wegen individuelle Fälle gar nicht mehr berücksichtigen konnten. (Ein Jude etwa, der sich wirklich gegen das Naziregime "vergangen" hatte, kam dort gar nicht erst hinein, er wurde sofort erschossen oder totgeschlagen.) Die Gaskammern waren von vornherein weder als Abschreckungs- noch als Strafmaßnahme gedacht; sie waren bestimmt für Juden oder Zigeuner oder Polen "überhaupt", und sie dienten letztlich dem Beweis, daß Menschen überhaupt überflüssig sind.

[..]

Während die Einteilung der Insassen in Kategorien nur eine taktisch-organisatorische Maßnahme für die Verwaltung der Lager ist, zeigt die Willkür der Einlieferungen das wesentliche Prinzip der Institution als solcher an. Die Existenz einer politischen Opposition ist für das Konzentrationslagersystem nur ein Vorwand, und sein Zweck ist nicht erreicht, wenn infolge ungeheuerlichster Abschreckung die Bevölkerung sich mehr oder minder freiwillig gleichschaltet, daß heißt ihrer politischen Rechte begibt. Die Willkür bezweckt die bürgerliche Entrechtung aller von einem totalitären Regime Beherrschten, die schließlich in ihrem eigenen Land so vogelfrei werden wie sonst nur Staaten- und Heimatlose. Die Entrechtung des Menschen, die Tötung der juristischen Person in ihm ist die Vorbedingung für sein totales Beherrschtsein, dem selbst freie Zustimmung hinderlich ist [Damit hängt zusammen, daß jede Propaganda und "Weltanschauungslehre" in den Lagern ausdrücklich verboten waren. (Siehe Himmler, *Wesen und Aufgabe der SS und der Polizei*.) Hiermit wiederum muß man zusammenhalten, daß Lehre und Propaganda auch für die bewachenden Eliteformationen nicht zugelassen waren; ihre Weltanschauung sollte nicht "gelehrt", sondern "exerziert" werden (Robert Ley, op. cit.)]. Und dies gilt nicht nur von speziellen Kategorien wie Verbrechern, politischen Gegnern, Juden, an denen die Sache ausprobiert wird, sondern von jedem Einwohner eines totalitären Staates.

Hannah Arendt

"Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft", S. 658 ff.

Die Menschen werden an sich und anderen irre, weil sie die Mittel als Zweck behandeln, da denn vor lauter Tätigkeit gar nichts geschieht, oder vielleicht gar das Widerwärtige.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Remember this. The people you're trying to step on, we're everyone you depend on. We're the people who do your laundry and cook your food and serve your dinner. We make your bed. We guard you while you're asleep. We drive the ambulances. We direct your call. We are cooks and taxi drivers and we know everything about you. We process your insurance claims and credit card charges. We control every part of your life.

We are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday we'll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but we won't. And we're just learning this fact. So don't fuck with us.

Chuck Palahniuk

"Fight Club"

The frightening coincidence of the modern population explosion with the discovery of technical devices that, through automation, will make large sections of the population 'superfluous' even in terms of labor, and that, through nuclear energy, make it possible to deal with this twofold threat by the use of instruments beside which Hitler's gassing installations look like an evil child's fumbling toys, should be enough to make us tremble.

Hannah Arendt

"Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"

I cannot tell why the spokesmen I have cited want the developments I forecast to become true. Some of them have told me that they work on them for the morally bankrupt reason that "If we don't do it, someone else will." They fear that evil people will develop superintelligent machines and use them to oppress mankind, and that the only defense against these enemy machines will be superintelligent machines controlled by us, that is, by well-intentioned people. Others reveal that they have abdicated their autonomy by appealing to the "principle" of technological inevitability. But, finally, all I can say with assurance is that these people are not stupid. All the rest is mystery.

Joseph Weizenbaum

Let's take robots on assembly lines: If it's used to free up the workforce for more creative work, say, controlling production, making decisions about it, finding creative ways to act and so on, then it's to the good. If it's used as a device to maximize profit and throw people into the trashcan, then it's not good.

Noam Chomsky

http://youtu.be/0kICLG4Zg8s?t=14m49s

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

Stephen Hawking

https://www.reddit.com/r/ ... wking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv

We don't know a perfected totalitarian power structure, because it would require the control of the whole planet. But we know enough about the the still preliminary experiments of total organization to realize that the very well possible perfection of this apparatus would get rid of human agency in the sense as we know it. To act would turn out to be superfluous for people living together, when all people have become an example of their species, when all doing has become an acceleration of the movement mechanism of history or nature following a set pattern, and all deeds have become the execution of death sentences which history and nature have given anyway.

Hannah Arendt

"Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft" p. 683

If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.

George Orwell

If the ability to tell right from wrong should have anything to do with the ability to think, then we must be able to "demand" its exercise in every sane person no matter how erudite or ignorant.

Hannah Arendt

"The Life of the Mind: The Groundbreaking Investigation on How We Think"

I fortunately come from generations past that learnt to think using paper. If I have to cut off my right arm to escape computer addiction, I can do that. Generations now and especially in the future will quite literaly be unable to think straight without an electronic device in their hand. To them, life will be brutually stressful with no inner peace to be found because they will be assaulted non-stop by disingenuous companies who have every kind of life-sapping wares to peddle.

Kroc Camen

http://camendesign.com/blog/disentanglement

I feel like the inability to focus for long periods of time is holding back progress in many areas. If we can't even stay away from email for a few days, how can we clear our minds of conventional thinking?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6864907

Don’t collect data. If you know everything about yourself, you know everything. There is no use burdening yourself with a lot of data. Once you understand yourself, you understand human nature and then the rest follows.

Kurt Gödel

Think deeply about things. Don’t just go along because that’s the way things are or that’s what your friends say. Consider the effects, consider the alternatives, but most importantly, just think.

Aaron Swartz

There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous.

Hannah Arendt

The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any.

Hannah Arendt

Most of us are unable to sort out reality — we can't distinguish between a thing and a symbol for that thing. This springs from several causes. One cause is that we are isolated from the natural world, where the distinction between a thing and a symbol is more obvious. Another cause is our educational system, which simply reflects the intellectual laziness of the society in which it is embedded. A third cause is resistance on the part of vested interests — if we could think creatively, we would be difficult to govern, and advertisers would have to appeal to reason instead of emotion.

Paul Lutus

How we confuse symbols and things

Most Americans are educated in name only — we do not have the comprehension of ideas that would be required to think for ourselves, and we also are not trained or encouraged to do this. Not only are we unable to think creatively, we don't even possess this expectation, and this is not an accident.

There are many vested interests that prefer us as we are — in government, religion and in corporate America. Think how much more trouble we would be if we could think for ourselves. Not only would we be much more difficult to govern (to the degree that politicians would have to explain their actions), we would be much more alert to the public stupidity that so often surrounds us.

Paul Lutus

How we confuse symbols and things

It is no accident that modern education doesn't teach the distinction between symbol and thing — if it did, education as we know it would fall apart. After that, after education reshaped itself to provide actual knowledge instead of the symbolic representation of knowledge, the society around us would be transformed.

But in the meantime, most "educated" people cannot tell the difference between a fact and an idea, the most common confusion of symbol and thing. Most believe if they collect enough facts, this will compensate for their inability to grasp the ideas behind those facts.

Paul Lutus

How we confuse symbols and things

The net effect of this language system was not to keep these people ignorant of what they were doing, but to prevent them from equating it with their old, "normal" knowledge of murder and lies. Eichmann's great susceptibility to catch words and stock phrases, combined with his incapacity for ordinary speech, made him, of course, an ideal subject for "language rules."

Hannah Arendt

"Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"

The outstanding negative quality of the totalitarian elite is that it never stops to think about the world as it really is and never compares the lies with reality.

Hannah Arendt

"The Origins of Totalitarianism"

There are many people who are not entirely themselves because as children they were not given time to think about themselves. And because they don’t know everything about themselves they can’t know everything about everything. But no one likes to admit that she doesn’t know everything about everything. And so these people try to make up for not knowing everything about everything by doing things.

[..]

People who for some reason find it impossible to think about themselves, and so really be themselves, try to make up for not thinking with doing. They try to pretend that doing is thinking.

Laura Riding

Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All points of view can be heard: the Communist and the Fascist, the Left and the Right, the white and the Negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought.

Herbert Marcuse

"Repressive Tolerance" (1965)

There was a wonderfully illustrative story which I thought I had bookmarked, but couldn't re-find: it was the story of a man whose know-it-all neighbor had once claimed in passing that the best way to remove a chimney from your house was to knock out the fireplace, wait for the bricks to drop down one level, knock out those bricks, and repeat until the chimney was gone. Years later, when the man wanted to remove his own chimney, this cached thought was lurking, waiting to pounce...

As the man noted afterward—you can guess it didn't go well—his neighbor was not particularly knowledgeable in these matters, not a trusted source. If he'd questioned the idea, he probably would have realized it was a poor one. Some cache hits we'd be better off recomputing. But the brain completes the pattern automatically—and if you don't consciously realize the pattern needs correction, you'll be left with a completed pattern.

I suspect that if the thought had occurred to the man himself—if he'd personally had this bright idea for how to remove a chimney—he would have examined the idea more critically. But if someone else has already thought an idea through, you can save on computing power by caching their conclusion—right?

In modern civilization particularly, no one can think fast enough to think their own thoughts. If I'd been abandoned in the woods as an infant, raised by wolves or silent robots, I would scarcely be recognizable as human. No one can think fast enough to recapitulate the wisdom of a hunter-gatherer tribe in one lifetime, starting from scratch. As for the wisdom of a literate civilization, forget it.

But the flip side of this is that I continually see people who aspire to critical thinking, repeating back cached thoughts which were not invented by critical thinkers.

Eliezer Yudkowsky

Cached Thoughts