csteele,
the world has changed in 100 years.
ANZAC Day is part of a boom industry that includes tourism such as annual pilgrimages to Gallipoli Cove and Kakoda; "reel" patriotism as the heroics of the Hollywood treatment; patriotism as mardi gras on Australia Day; video and online gaming, wherein killing is indulged interractively in all its gory glory; war as real-life make-believe for all ages in the form of "skirmish"--the grand finale of the so-called STRENGTH programme delivered by Scripture Union to its naive acolytes in State schools; state funerals on the odd occasion a soldier is killed (hundreds die in industrial accidents every year).

What all this lurid patriotism does, and is meant to do, is put the whole military/defence spectrum at a remove from the ostensible accountability of democratic government.
It has nothing to do with oligarchy and everything to to with emotional manipulation of the masses. All this emotional investment is simultaneously the great allure of the military--the proving ground for "real" men.

War has been professionalised, like the Olympics, and you have to be a real-life GI Joe, and on heart, to play.

Dear Squeers,

I agree with your description of ANZAC day. It is not an expression coming spontaneously from the masses. It is emotional manipulation of the masses. This emotional manipulation has been orchestrated by an oligarchy consisting of members of the media, the political class, the churches and the media. There is a basic oligarchy. However, for particular tasks various subgroups of the hierarchy are active.

David f.,

For this whole thread I've been mindful of the human predisposition to belligerence - and it's interesting even just examining our tactics during debate.

I believe in free speech - and you're right, we can't separate people from their ideas - they come wrapped in the same package. So how does man overcome a situation where he is moved to hostility, not only by physical threat, but also by ideological imperatives?

Words and their meanings are intellectual and psychological weapons for us to fashion at will. Like literal weapons, their composition and symbolism give rise to varying degrees of effectiveness and, more importantly, the style of their exposition has great resonance upon the ensuing response.

It's not only the content of a discussion that is important, but also the approach chosen by the parties involved that shapes the emotional tenor of the exchange.

Poirot,
I agree that we can't and shouldn't separate people from their ideas, but Marx's ideas have been systematically distorted, abused, misunderstood and misrepresented since they were conceived.

davidf,
what you're describing seems rather attenuated and unconscious a phenomena to me to be described as "oligarchy". I think a much more accurate and usefully self-reflective description is "hegemony":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

Dear Poirot,

Your post was interesting. You wrote: "So how does man overcome a situation where he is moved to hostility, not only by physical threat, but also by ideological imperatives?"

It is unreal not to acknowledge feelings of hostility. However, we can try to consider the other person by expressing our feelings while trying to keep the hurt to a minimum.

Yesterday a JW came to my door. When I disagreed with him he said, "I did not come here to argue." He came to promote his ideas. However, the price of promoting your ideas is to allow those who differ with them to argue with you.

You said, "overcome the situation." I don't agree that we have to overcome the situation. We can try to it keep under control and minimise the harm done,but no encounter where people differ can be made pain free.

Maybe I am reading you wrongly. What do you mean by 'overcome the situation?"

Davidf.,

By "overcoming the situation" I mean the human leaning or condition that drives us to hostile actions - to a warlike attitude.

It seems innate that we gravitate to a warlike stance when certain conditions prevail.
In fact, our ever developing intelligence has been enhanced by our constant interactions - peaceful and hostile - with other groupings of humans over the millenia.

It's just that I can't envisage a human condition where belligerence could be done away with. I think it's a fundamental behaviour.

Btw, I used to try and pick the brains of JW's when I was younger, but now I simply tell them I'm not interested and wish them well (while slowly edging the door shut) - but, of course, that is not engagement - it's the opposite.