It’s Not Totalitarian — But What Is It?

Posted on by

I’ve taken a lot of flak over the past couple of days for referring to the current government of the UK as “totalitarian”. And with good reason — it’s not the right word to describe the repressive regime which is now in place in Britain. The task of suppressing free speech and independent opinion is not the government’s alone, but is also subcontracted to supposedly independent institutions of civil society, the media (especially social media) and the academy. It’s a full-court press across the whole of British culture, but without any obvious co-ordination by a centralized hierarchy headed by a strongman in the style of Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

No, it’s a different system, and the word “totalitarian” does not do it justice. The word is too old-fashioned: It conjures up images of jackboots and concentration camps and firing squads, which are not necessary (so far) to accomplish the state’s purposes.

Sweden and Germany are much the same, and other Western European countries — France, Belgium, and the Netherlands — are almost as bad. All are using the same types of non-totalitarian methods to enforce an efficient, technologically advanced regimen of thought control. The current government of the UK is far more successful in its brainwashing of the populace than the Soviets or the Nazis could ever have dreamed of.

As it happens, while I was preparing this essay two separate tidbits of news came in that reflect on this topic.

1.   Bill Warner’s Twitter account is now blocked in Germany: “@PoliticalIslam’s account has been withheld in Germany based on local law(s)”
2.   Tommy Robinson was asked to leave Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park by the police (see the previous post). In his video about the incident, Tommy also referred to the British government as “totalitarian”.
 

The primary technique employed by modern Western countries is a combination of indoctrination and fear: the indoctrination to make people actually believe the state-imposed ideology, at least to a certain extent; and fear of being prosecuted and fined (or even, God forbid, sent to prison to be at the mercy of Muslim inmates), of losing one’s job, of having one’s children taken away, etc. Those who don’t really believe the “racism” foolishness are at least well aware that they need to keep their mouths shut on certain topics.

Even so, enough people do believe it to keep the system functioning. On numerous occasions I’ve run into friends who are genuinely shocked and appalled at the suggestion that mass-importing Mexicans into the country is a bad idea. And these aren’t liberal-progressives; they’re moderately conservative people who have swallowed the standard GOPe line that immigration is good for the economy. And, hey, we’re a nation of immigrants, you know! “I lift my lamp beside the golden door,” as Emma Lazarus so famously wrote — the lines that have come to be known as the “0th Amendment to the Constitution” by unreconstructed paleocons.

I’m sure our British and European readers have had similar experiences with friends who really, really believe in the Willkommenskultur. Who are certain that immigrants really do enrich their respective cultures.

They’re evidence of the phenomenal success enjoyed by the control systems that keep Westerners in line. Unfortunately for our globalist masters, these systems are now in the process of breaking down. That’s why the iron fist is beginning to slip out of the velvet glove. The change of tactics is an indication that the brainwash-and-intimidate regime is no longer fully effective.

So we need a new word for the coercive system that is repressing and persecuting people like Tommy Robinson in the UK, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Pierre Cassen in France, Dan Park in Sweden, and Michael Stürzenberger in Germany.

I don’t have any good ideas, but I’m open to suggestions. ECAW came up with the first one:

And as for finding a new word, let’s start the ball rolling with “hypnotarian”.

128 thoughts on “It’s Not Totalitarian — But What Is It?”

  3. I would describe the self-imposed censorship and the unwritten political collusion with media, education, and social network ostracism/suppression as “pacificationism”.

    One is allowed to say or do what one wants to as long as it doesn’t conflict with unspoken but widely understood political and societal norms. So, one is free to watch sports, porn, socially approved tv shows and movies, or play video games to one’s heart’s content, and the masters behind the curtains manipulating the dumbing down and replacement of Western populations will never interfere. We are voluntarily taking the pacifier that they offer.

    However, there is the unspoken threat that if one acts contrary to the wishes of our masters, there will be consequences; ostracism and banning on social media, potential loss of employment for unpopular and incorrect views or thoughts, and harrassment by formal and informal tentacles of government and law enforcement. A few highly public examples of what will happen to oneself if they choose to disobey the soft tyranny serve to keep most in line. This is the pacification by the velvet glove of the elites that hovers in the background in ready view of those who don’t voluntarily take the pacifier of licentiousness that is offered as a carrot to gain our cooperation and compliance.

    Pacificationism works so well that most are not even aware that they are taking the pacifier, or have any desire to remove it from their mouths, once taken. On the rare occasion that it is accidently removed, the adult infant will respond like a biological infant, and bawl and throw a tantrum until it is reinserted back into the mouth, and ignorant peace and bliss are allowed to resume.

  6. Atheism. This is what happens when cultures reject the God of the Bible, the only true God. The foundations crumble. People have nowhere to make a stand. Nothing makes sense without God’s Word. The world is rejecting God and swimming in a whirlpool trying to stay afloat.

    • I agree with you that this is a God Delusion culture, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. Surprise Surprise for smart hedonistic atheists, that even backward culture as Islam can take them over, because unlike western atheists, the Muslims have faith.

    • The flip side of that coin is the strange mentality we are seeing where the state itself is worshipped.

      That never ends well …

    • Atheists in the USSR completely rolled Islam into asphalt. My father was a Soviet officer, at one time we lived in the North Caucasus in the Cossack village. Despite the mixed composition of the population (Russians, Karachais, Circassians) there was an Orthodox church in the village, but there was no mosque.

    • Strange then, that the Roman Empire collapsed after making Christianity the official religion.

        • I thought the same about NoDeathBeforeAdam’s point; the West’s decline may be partly due to the loss of respect for the moral principles we inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition, but this didn’t have to follow automatically from the spread of secularism.

    • But, it was mostly gullible Christians who provided aid and welcomed those mostly exploitive, uncharitable Muslims migrants/refugees/parasites into Western Europe.

      • Is this Christianity you are referring to, or the humanist liberal interpretation of it?

  7. Comparison with totalitarianism is incorrect. Under Stalin, the existence of rape gangs would be unthinkable. And preachers of extremist ideology would have been shot long ago. The mosques are either demolished or converted into swimming pools.

    • I think you are wrong in just about every regard in your assessment of Stalin and Stalinism.

      Stalin was a tyrant in the real sense of that word. He was not a theoretician but as explained often he stumbled upon the “theory” of socialism in one country.

      Not only did he revise theory in the most anti science manner possible but he then became the “gravedigger” of the revolution.

      Why make a comparision between these degenerates of history…the Islamists and the Stalinists.

      I would remind you that in the late 40s to 50s especially Stalin had become a total Antisemite.

      That in itself is close to Islam and the origins of Islam at that.

      • Do I justify Stalinism? In the totalitarian state there were no other centers of power and ideologies. The right to violence belonged exclusively to the state.

      • Stalin did two good things: 1) he had Trotsky (a real [epithet]) killed, though this has made Trotsky a sympathetic martyr, for some unfathomable reason, 2) he did steward the Red Army to victory in WW2. Could the Red Army have done better without him at the top? Who knows, but the fact is the Red Army marched into Berlin in April ’45 and snuffed out Hitlerism.

    • Agree totally.As always the west people have no clue what real communism and totalitarian communism is.
      Soljenitzin would open their eyes better.

      • I like to analyze Wikipedia for the existence of certain articles in different languages. For example, there is no article “Dhimmitude” in Russian. And the most extended article ” Inner emigration” – in Russian and German.
        Under totalitarian regimes, we managed to “emigrate”. I do not think that this is possible with Islam.
        ===========
        Solzhenitsyn wrote more for the Western public. There is a more tragic author – Varlam Shalamov

    • Can you believe that silly woman laying down an ultimatum to Putin? Just imagine how scary Putin finds old Theresa, haha …

    • This is indeed a very true comment. The British ruling class rallied behind Thatcher at a particular point. Thatcher had bluster but was essentially weak, being a captive of the thinking of a Keith Joseph, and came out with this nihilist thought that a person is an individual and not related to society. Thatcher did much then to pulverize British society. Then as you say there are these two. Like Thatcher they too are weak but essentially anti English. It makes me wonder, and this is just a thought, are the English capitalist class trying to negate the memory of the true Celtic hero woman Boadicea? Not all actions are fully conscious. This may be happening in a subconscious manner. At any rate it is my contention that this English capitalist class sees as part of its survival to negate the sense of national pride and so they are liquidating all Englishness. Why would any socialist in this context say anything at all negative about Britain First leaders who have paid the price of stating the Britishness (I prefer Englishness) by being sentenced to prison where they now languish? To me a true socialist, a Leninist, a Trotskyist, should be fighting for their freedom, in the same way that Lenin and Trotsky both defended the Irish 1916 Rebels against British execution orders, and the same applied to Roger Casement (I should say Sir Roger Casement)

      • Thatcher was weak? Were you actually there? She took on the whole Marxist-led union movement, which abused the trust of millions of men, and almost singlehandedly smashed it (and it WAS Marxist-led, they didn’t call him Red Robbo for nothing). She risked alienating the entire urban north of Britain and went ahead anyway, thank God. She was the one and only postwar leader of my country that had balls, that dared to upset people. By comparison the current crop of worms in Westminster .. I’d better stop there or I’ll be redacted.

        • Oh come on that’s unfair, Arthur Scargill was a very nice fellow, and didn’t have funny hair at all.

  9. I’d call it dhimmification.
    While the term refers to what Islam does to disbelievers allowed to live under its jurisdiction, the exact same process can also be used by a ruling class to subject a population to any doctrine by applying unrelenting long-term pressure until submission becomes preferable to principles.

  10. Much worse than communism… at least the communists didn’t sacrifice their children in thousands up and down the country to a savage ideology for their agenda.

  11. A ‘Luciferocracy’

    Given the fact that Freemasonry worships Lucifer, the giver of reason and fire. The ‘Day Star’ which shines out of its season.

    The Bible has a nice prophecy about this, that Lucifer weakens the Nations!

    All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

  12. “Common purpose” …..Could turn out to be the common denominator behind GB’s slide into something , even Orwell could not imagine .

  13. A couple of years back I did criticize this blog when I considered that you were exaggerating the political state of the UK. Well I do hereby humble myself before everybody and say GOV was ‘onto’ what was developing in the UK and my faith in the decency of the British establishment was sadly out of date.
    The attitude of Theresa May (known as Sharia May) and her henchman Amber Rudd beggars all belief. A Conservative government which is intent on stifling conservative opinion is something I never expected to see.
    This will not end well. (To put it mildly)

    • Thank you for having the guts to change your mind and even more guts to say so. It cannot have been easy. We need folks like you to help educate those who even now cannot or will not see how things really are.

  15. Overton peephole: the Overton window being those topics one is free to discuss openly.

  16. As much as Russian people was changed, during the course of revolution, Civil War, collectivization, industrialization, Stalin’s repressions and WWII to the extent that it’s not Russian people anymore but rather Soviet people. To the same extent German or British people was irreversibly changed by historical processes: WWI then WWII, fall of colonialism, decades of migration from Middle East etc. And there is no coming back.
    I would say that WWI was crucial in this regard, it literally broke European spirit.

    • Someone else has been reading Pat Buchanan, I see. That book of his was a real eye-opener.

  17. Totalitarian is the right word. A state that wants total control over it’s subjects life, even their thoughts and beliefs, from cradle to grave, are by definition totalitarian.

    • Yes, but they do it “hands off” through social media/society, so the word should be “socialtarian”

      • Yes. But they will not be “hands off” for long. As opposition increases, totalitarian pressure will also increase. The are sitting atop å pressure cooker, trying to keep the lid on. At this stage, the state will have no other choice than to become repressive and totalitarian.

        • We have a different problem here in the US but I am increasingly convinced we are facing a similar outcome.

          Clearly there is a great consolidation of power taking place behind the scenes (Trump). The American right cheers this because clearly the only way to root out a significant portion of the high-level deep state is first to engage in a great consolidation of power, as the Deep state has had decades to insinuate itself and will not voluntarily surrender power.

          It remains to be seen how this new consolidated power will be used. Since it is in the hands of a power-seeker it probably will not turn out well. But the American people know that this is the only way left to us short of a very very cataclysmically destructive Civil War.

          I blame the Democrat-communists for everything that happens after this because they left us no choice. Neither side was ever meant to have this much power. The chances of it turning out well are slim. The people are only safe from their own government when that government has very little domestic authority. Political power is never relinquished voluntarily.

          We are creating a monster to kill a monster. One of the monsters is going to win. What then?

          Anyone who has read any significant amount of history has seen this movie before.

  18. Huddlism: from huddle,
    noun – crowd, mass, bunch, cluster, heap, muddle, jumble (a huddle of bodies, gasping for air).

    This also harkens back to the collectivist ideology that used the ancient word “fascio”, bundle of sticks, lashed together. (From Italian – fascio, “group, association,” literally “bundle” ). Speaks of the same evil source, without the modern distorted interpretations, that make the word no longer usable.

    Lately I finding myself thinking of the zombies I see in the world nowadays, and trying to describe them. Inward looking groups, engaged in consensus groupspeak. Sheep, herded by sheepdogs. Sheep dogs directed by shepherds (not good ones). Unseen Owners, planning the herding.

    Such a good idea to find a new word to describe this old menace in it’s newest manifestations.

  19. A lot of syllables, but ‘Participatory Totalitarianism’ captures the jarring and contradictory NON-SENSE of the thing. I first heard the term (the only time) during a 1976 congressional race in Northern California. The candidate was unsuccessful, but was obviously on to something.

  20. We don’t need a new word when we already have “Treachery” and “Treacherism.” I suppose we could have “Treacherist” if we aren’t happy with “Traitor.”

  21. The ruling capitalist class control the means of production. The ruling capitalist class internationally is in deep crisis. the capitalist class internationally got a huge fright in October 1917. Whatever is happening, and Baron describes this very well, is connected to the crises in the capitalist class.

    It is strange that Baron does not see this in class terms, and in historical class terms at that.

    I feel that the working class in any country cannot fight on the basis of an abstraction. As used in the dogma of the “left” internationalism can become a dogma.

    The working class is forced to fight for survival in its own country.

    After all Lenin and Trotsky had to fight to defend Russia from 1918 to 1922 in the Civil War promoted from outside, including by Britain and the US.

    Again in 1939 as the war clouds gathered Trotsky warned that Hitler WOULD attack Russia, even as Stalin was making a “deal” with Hitler.

    Even then Trotsky was prepared to travel back to Russia and defend Russia with Stalin in a united front.

    This is one explanation. The British capitalist class does fear nation (nationalism) for the reasons above I have perhaps poorly described.

    Of course people must understand better that the labour Party uses socialist words to disguise a capitalist essence. they are capitalist to the core.

    It is not difficult in essence …The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. What is new? Lenin wrote about this in about 1906….

    • Communism was given its modern definition, such as it is, by the quack “scholar” Karl Marx, who was as shoddy and disreputable in his personal habits as in his so-called scholarship.

      The use of “working class” as a social descriptor doesn’t, and never did, describe any kind of predictive category or group identity. It’s why virtually every state claiming to be “Communist” had to institute secret police, a crackdown on free speech, and prison for dissenters. Communism is a philosophy that when implemented in any form, makes people act contrary to their own instincts and interests.

      • It’s also why the linchpin of Marxist belief, i.e., that dissatisfied workers would arise spontaneously in the West, never happened. Striking socialists led by trade union leaders out for their own gain, but that isn’t the same thing at all.

        The Soviet version of Communism took hold largely because Russia was the perfect place to have it begin: no middle class, no property laws, and no cultural heritage that promoted open speech and dissent. The secret police already existed, long before Lenin arrived.

  22. I may well be back with bits to add on as the day progresses and as I think about the topic a bit more.

    At first blush William’s “Gleichschaltung” above seems a good one, if only there were a snappy Englishism to apply, especially one showing the threat of force that doesn’t come through in a straight translation. [In just the same way that translating the arabic “kafir” into English as “infidel” shows none of the derision or worse of the arabic.]

    What we are seeing is peer pressure “alignment” with the State threatening the laggards to conform. It doesn’t need anything quasi legal (as the way they try it on Tommy Robinson or with the exclusion of any number of those who would awake us from our slumbers). If anyone should think that they could survive that treatment, then there is always the example of Dr David Kelly.

    But then how do we compare with Chicago gangland, when the police turn up at (I believe) a perfectly respectable pub and say (I paraphrase their actual words rather badly): “Nice pub you’ve got here landlord, real shame if anything were to happen to it. Hear you’ve got a gig on next weekend that some of the locals don’t like. We’re going to be busy in other parts of London, so if you really don’t want this pub trashed we suggest you cancel the booking. Just a bit of friendly advice you understand, though we might have to close you down for a few days, or even get your alcohol licence cancelled permanently, if you don’t take it.”

    On occasions such as this, it really seems that the police act just as though they were a gang. Sure, the biggest and bestest gang in town, but nevertheless just like a gang. Laws are enforced selectively, depending on what they percieve to be “the public interest” at the time. Some get away scot free, some get caught and punished. Depends who you are. And this arbitrariness also makes for a lot of looking over one’s shoulder, trying to make sure you are not going to be “got” for what you are doing just now.

    This is not a relaxed society, secure in the knowledge that we all abide by the same set of rules. It is tense, constantly on the lookout for whoever is going to trip us up next.

    Still haven’t found that word, but maybe my diatribe(s) can provoke it in someone else’s mind.

    • This is not a relaxed society, secure in the knowledge that we all abide by the same set of rules. It is tense, constantly on the lookout for whoever is going to trip us up next.

      Exceptionally well put.

    • With all due respect, you’re confounding the implementation with the structure.

      You’re describing the mechanics of behavior control and thought control, but that doesn’t tell us why a formerly free people served by a government characterized by absolute constitutional rights and separation of powers, degenerated into a totalitarian, thought-control state.

      I have a theory, but I’ll wait until I get the rest of the comments made to propose my descriptive word, which hopefully will include a hint on why the government degenerated.

  23. I have tried to investigate the visual at the top. Lenin is speaking and along with Lenin are juxtaposed Jihadist Fascists.

    First of all this is intolerable and inexcusable to place Lenin in company with Jihadist Fascists promoting Sharia.

    It is the British ruling capitalist class that is promoting Sharia in Britain, and it is the German, French, Swedish, American ruling class promoting Sharia in their countries, and I could add Ireland, Scotland, Australia…all ruling capitalist classes. Baron knows this better than many. But it is capitalist governments, such as the Irish all parties, who are promoting Sharia. So place May, or Cameron, or Trump, or any of hundreds of capitalist leaders along with these Fascist Jihadists. Why Lenin? Did Lenin write anything supporting Islam? Ever? Did Marx? Ever?

    The Labour Party is also promoting Sharia but as I explained it is a capitalist party totally.

    Lenin did not promote a totalitarian state. That is a terrible slander.

    The working class of Russia took the power away from the Russian capitalist class in October 1917.

    This is the greatest democratic action that has ever happened in history. The underdog rose up and took the power.

    It is up to socialists to defend that today. Part of that defence is to explain how Stalin usurped the power and created the system of Stalinism. That was indeed cruel and dictatorial, but it was not Leninism. Lenin explicitly fought Stalin in the short time before he died. Trotsky fought Stalinism from 1920 to 1940 which is a goodly part of his life.

    This is something that socialists must undertake to explain. But remember there are very vested interests and positions that are not in this regard interested in historical explanation.

    I wonder is Baron interested in such a dialogue. If not that is the most dangerous thing of all.

    • I used Lenin and a mujahid to represent two forms of totalitarianism. I could have used Hitler instead of either one of them, but I’m tired of the Nazis — they’ve been overused. Besides, the Soviet symbol and the Islamic symbol both have a star, which makes for a pleasing sense of symmetry in the graphic.

  24. I stand to be corrected because I have only read it, not studied it, but did the Stalinist “Red” Army not carry out raping on women in Germany in about 1945. If that is true it is part of the degeneration that took place under Stalin and Stalinism. Again socialists of today have to explain that and show that the roots of that lay with Stalin and was against socialist, that is Trotskyist, morality. And to defend the latter it is necessary to understand deeply Trotskyist morality in the Civil War 1918 to 1922. Just one example of the massive tasks that true socialists today are faced with.

    • But a far darker side to the Soviet occupation quickly became apparent. It ranged from casual theft – there were cases of Soviet soldiers simply taking any jewellery they fancied from passers-by – to more serious crime. Anna Levitska knew of two school-friends who were raped by Red Army officers: ‘Those two girls were shaking the entire time that they were telling me about what had happened. They were in tears. They simply did not understand how this could have happened. They were dreadfully affected by it, and, of course, I too was affected when they told me about it.’

      And though theft and rape were officially crimes in the Red Army, there was a sense from the very beginning of the occupation that the Soviets were intent on despoiling eastern Poland – despoiling property, despoiling people, despoiling ideas. In pursuit of the Marxist ideal of ‘equality’, the Soviet authorities turned conventional values upside-down. To be rich was no longer pleasurable but dangerous. Whereas before it had been acceptable to stroll, smartly dressed, down the central promenade in Lwów past the ornate opera house, now it was evidence of ‘bourgeois’ behaviour and rendered you liable to arrest. It is often forgotten that just as the Nazi occupation of western Poland in 1939 was driven by ideological beliefs, so was the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland.

      Rees, Laurence. World War Two: Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West (Kindle Locations 476-486). Ebury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    • In the aftermath of the Red Army’s victory in Budapest rape was almost ubiquitous. ‘The worst suffering of the Hungarian population is due to the rape of women,’ records a contemporary report from the Swiss embassy in Budapest. ‘Rapes – affecting all age groups from ten to seventy – are so common that very few women in Hungary have been spared. . . . The misery is made worse by the sad fact that many Russian soldiers are diseased and there are absolutely no medicines in Hungary.’62 Fifteen-year-old Agnes Karlik63 was one of the young Hungarian women who suffered personally at the hands of the Soviet forces. Just like Ivan and his family, Agnes had been hiding in a cellar with her family during the siege. And, just like Ivan, she found the first Red Army soldiers she met ‘not unpleasant. They were just making sure that there were no enemies in the building. They didn’t stay long. They tried, actually, to be friendly.’ But the atmosphere soon changed: ‘All of a sudden these rough type of soldiers entered the building and they were really unpleasant. They snatched watches and looted and pushed people around. . . . We tried to pacify them, but it was a very frightening time for all of us. The children were crying. And they started to pull women out with the excuse to come and help peel potatoes. And my sister and myself were dragged away.’ Agnes’ grandmother insisted on going with them: ‘She tried to find out what they wanted and what they were doing. But they just pushed her around and we clung to her. And then they took us outside. There was snow everywhere and it was pretty cold.’ The soldiers dragged them into a tent nearby. ‘They were screaming, and for myself I felt absolutely so frightened that I was just rigid. So they pushed us into this tent type of arrangement and they raped us [her and her sister]. We were just young. Very young. And we didn’t know what they were doing because at that time children were brought up differently. Not so aware. . . . I was sixteen, almost sixteen. In November I was going to be sixteen. And my sister was fourteen. My grandmother tried to help us and they beat her up. . . . But she wouldn’t leave us. And when it was all over she took us back. I still get nightmares about it.’ That night Agnes curled up and tried to fall asleep in a secluded section of the cellar where the clothes were kept: ‘And I was woken up by another couple of hoodlums coming into that section. I don’t know how they found me there. They must have been trying to loot. And there I was in the middle of it. And they raped me again. And again I just let myself go absolutely limp.’

      Rees, Laurence. World War Two: Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West (Kindle Locations 5501-5522). Ebury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    • An insight into Stalin’s views on the subject can be gained from his behaviour in the Kremlin in the winter of 1944 during a visit from Milovan Djilas, a leading Yugoslavian Communist. Djilas had previously criticized the behaviour of the Red Army in Yugoslavia. Just like the Communists of Köbánya, Djilas had been concerned by reports of rape and had complained to the Red Army authorities. Subsequently, at a banquet held at the Kremlin for the Yugoslavian delegation, Djilas’ protest was clearly on Stalin’s mind. He began by speaking about the horrors endured by the Red Army as they fought the Germans back out of the Soviet Union and then into eastern Europe. He then said: ‘And such an army was insulted by no one else but Djilas! Djilas of whom I could least have expected such a thing, a man whom I receive so well! And an army which did not spare its blood for you!’ Finally, Stalin said, ‘Can’t he [Djilas] understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousand of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?’67 The ‘climax’ of the evening, according to Djilas, was when ‘Stalin exclaimed, kissing my wife, that he made his loving gesture at the risk of being charged with rape.’ On another occasion, when Stalin was told that Red Army soldiers were sexually mistreating German refugees, he is reported to have said: ‘We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have some initiative.’68

      Rees, Laurence. World War Two: Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West (Kindle Locations 5567-5579). Ebury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    • The first Russian incursions into East Prussia took place on 22 October 1944, when 11th Guards Army captured Nemmersdorf and several other border hamlets. Five days later, General Friedrich Hossbach’s Fourth Army retook the villages. Hardly one civilian inhabitant survived. Women had been nailed to barn doors and farm carts, or been crushed by tanks after being raped. Their children had been killed. Forty French PoWs working on local farms had been shot, likewise avowed German communists. The Red Army’s behaviour reflected not casual brutality, but systematic sadism rivalling that of the Nazis. ‘In the farmyard stood a cart, to which more naked women were nailed through their hands in a cruciform position,’ reported a Volkssturm militiaman, Karl Potrek, who entered Nemmersdorf with the Wehrmacht. ‘Near a large inn, the “Roter Krug”, stood a barn and to each of its two doors a naked woman was nailed through the hands, in a crucified posture. In the dwellings we found a total of 72 women, including children, and one man, 74, all dead . . . all murdered in a bestial fashion, except only for a few who had bullet holes in their heads. Some babies had their heads bashed in.’ Even the Russians displayed subsequent embarrassment about what had taken place. Moscow’s official history of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, usually reticent about such matters, conceded: ‘Not all Soviet troops correctly understood how they had to behave in Germany . . . In the first days of fighting in East Prussia, there were some isolated violations of the correct norms of behaviour.’ In reality, of course, what happened in October in East Prussia was a foretaste of the Red Army’s conduct across Poland and Germany in the awful months to come.

      Hastings, Max. Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-45 (Kindle Locations 5845-5857). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

    • There were hundreds, if not thousands of suicides when the Russians took Königsberg. The family who lived above Margaret Mehl’s apartment, a bank director and his wife and daughter, made a cool decision to kill themselves. Others died in less spectacular fashion. Margaret Mehl’s aunts Helena and Else decided to stay behind and await the return of their husbands from the war. They simply starved to death. Dr Hans von Lehndorff saw terrible scenes of murder and pillage: ‘We stood close together, awaiting the end in some form or other. The fear of death . . . had been entirely dispelled now by something infinitely worse. On every side we heard the despairing screams of the women: “Shoot me! Shoot me!” But the tormentors preferred a wrestling match to any actual use of firearms.’ Some women were raped in hospital maternity wards, within days of giving birth.

      Hastings, Max. Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-45 (Kindle Locations 6453-6459). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

    • My grandmother was a victim – so yes, yes they did. She was only a child at the time.

      • Also, they were massacring all the surrounding villages so when their village was next my great-grandmother hid my grandmother and her brother in a haystack and they lay there for a few days. The village women spent a few days cooking the biggest, best meals they knew how while the men and elders gathered to pray. The army came into town, ate the food and kept on marching and the village was spared. Not feeding your army enough has its downsides, it would seem. And I refuse to deny the Divine Intervention as well.

  25. It seems much worse in Europe, but the big social media companies are strangling conservative sites in the US. The goal is to ensure that Republicans aren’t elected. It’s a war, but conservatives haven’t fully realized it yet.

  26. The overall definition of Britain’s system of controlling humans I believe could reasonably be defined as a tyranny (as well as the Brussels EU) because they oppressively control and impose many aspects of the citizen’s life with rigorous laws to censor and legally prosecute dissent. Although the UK is not ruled by one tyrant they can still be considered a tyranny run by the collective similar to communism but less totalitarian. Main thing is it’s all about the individual verses the collective.

  27. The problem in Britain is mass brainwashing.Quite frankly the majority of people living in the U.K are incapable of critical thought.there are a few honourable exceptions of course .

    But most books written by British authors post 1950, are full of characters who are pathologically self -absorbed and whose internal life revolves around constant self-monitoring and self- censorship for incorrect(socially unacceptable) thought.

    Life is too short too spend time reading that drivel.Give me Anthony Trollope, give me ,Richmal Compton,P.G Wodehouse ,Jane Austen .

    There are rare exceptions to the self- conscious gauche rot that spews forth from the British Isles these days .I did enjoy the “Strange Death of Europe” by Douglas Murray.

    Also there is a new book out by A. M.D Waters “Beyond Terror” that looks promising and which I plan to order.

    • Yes, but the vast majority of people are incapable of critical thought – they are known as the led. And these people will follow whoever holds the reins of power – they will follow the establishment until a better explanation of reality comes along, and then they will follow that.

  28. We could personalise it as in “Muttitarian” or “Theresatarian”

    Or link it to its primary source in Europe – “EUtarian”

    Or since we’re talking about soft authoritarianism – “Softarian”

    But my wife goes for “Nannifarian” since the once merely annoying Nanny State has now turned evil.

  29. I would also call it dhimmification, since it seems the ideology that mostly benefits this culture of unlawfulness and insanity is islam. It’s also good to note that this path will lead to completely totalitarian system sooner or later.

  30. “hypnotarian” is a good one. Alexander Maistrovoy, a Russian-Israeli journalist, has described this mass hypnosis well without your new coinage.

  31. Craven – at least some police departments

    How about Euphemismism – related to Sonderbehandlung

  32. When looking for a new English word we can turn to Latin for ideas.
    I searched for the Latin word for “to control” and found “conprimere,” but searching a little further found “comprimere” too. Sometimes these were defined the same way, but sometimes not.

    The Latin verb “conprimere” means to hold one’s breath, to silence, or to suppress/control/stifle/frustrate/subdue/cow, put down. I found the exact same meanings for “comprimere” plus the additional meaning of “to compress.” And one site even listed these meanings for “comprimere”: “copulate (male), hem/shut/keep/hold in; press/squeeze together, fold, crush.” Food for thought there …

    So, there’s a grain of an idea in those old Latin terms. “Conprimatarian” anyone? Comprimatarian? Conprimitarian, comprimitarian, compressitarian — my head is spinning.

    Too bad there could be confusion over con and com, and the word doesn’t exactly flow off the tongue, but with practise …

    Also, the idea that the masses are partly complicit in their own fate isn’t conveyed with this term. The idea that they acquiesce in the social control of themselves, even to the point of damage or eradication of their own culture, is difficult to capture in one term.

  33. I am no use at naming things. In any case what is missing is a party to make a name stick. But really my heart is not in it.

    The people need a fearless party which will explain what is really happening in simple and unmistakable terms.

    In America youth are trying to tear away the basis for civilization and protection from tyranny, state tyranny, the Second Amendment, inseparable from the First.

    Ireland inverts Breitbart. In thejournal.ie they have a site like Breitbart but is on the side of defending and protecting Jihad. They have a method…you can write a comment, the comment is there, but nobody sees it. And that is Ireland, the land of Connolly and Pearse!

    In fact if you can find a name for those last four words you have it!

    The EU, Soros, are at the centre as this site documents all the time.

    But the sharpest effect and greatest suffering is in Northern Nigeria with hundreds of girls being abducted at will.

    The BBC as seen in its total defence of Morsi and hatred for el Sisi is at the centre of it all.

    But it is most explosive in the US in the hatred of Trump. The pressure there is so great that even Trump is effected by the pressure. So his UN Choice of Nikki Haley (Trump just how do you back her?) “U.S. Ambassador Haley Tells U.N. Russia Responsible for Chemical Attack”…is sobering for anybody who defends Trump on the basis of Nation.

    It comes down to this and Britain is a microcosm of the whole…

    Britain denies entry to Spencer and Geller…what a crime!

    Britain jails and continues to persecute Tommy Robinson

    Previous movement pushed off the streets

    Britain infiltrates and uses a Fascist left SWP type movement to attack on the streets the EDL…Hitler did exactly the same thing to smash down socialist movements, and to whip up hatred of Jews.

    And there is no party

    No party to lead and to oppose

    I will fill this void. Even with only three people I will put forward an analysis and a perspective. Without that there is nothing.

    That is the essence of Leninism and of course in a very big way Trotskyism.

    We live in the present and we fight in the present. In this present of ours there are many things to do and stress, but Halley must be answered, and the jailing of Britain First leaders must be replied and fought against.

    Without a real answer to those two things by the so called Anti Jihad Movement there is nothing.

    There was no charge against Britain First, no charge whatsoever. They just jailed them. It was same as “internment” in Northern Ireland. And Halley has no proof of anything. Shame on Trump. He is responsible for his Government and Cabinet.

    • Let’s see how well the SWP types fare on Sunday when Tommy Robinson gives a speech at speakers’ corner in Hyde Park. Got my train ticket already.

  34. From my recollections this all began during the late 1950s when the advertisers took over the media, particularly the small screen that could be put into every home (television). The corporations then created a culture that appeased and satisfied the populace while ensuring continued profits for them. A good example of this was Kellogg’s sponsorship of Superman.
    The corporations and the media then carried on quite a love affair working with each other to play to the lowest common denominator and the baser instincts of the viewing audience. The replacement of the Red Skelton Show by the Smothers Brothers showed that entertainment no longer needed to be confined by any moral sense, it simply needed to be entertaining. The mass media also played to our laziness as it was easier to push a button and then mindlessly watch images than to pick up a book and read it and understand what was written. Once we became conditioned to the new reality that had been invented by the corporate collective, the management of our lives could be imposed by this oligarchy to its collective profit.
    The result was a shepherding of the societal herd. From this point it was a small step to culling the herd (Roe v. Wade anyone?) and disposing of the sheep who were prone to wandering off as these wayward sheep questioned the official narrative. Thus, what we have today is global “Shepherdism” in which the Elite hire the shepherds to keep the flock in line. The shepherds could care less about the flock because they do not own it, the bankers who hold the mortgages and the corporations who provide the employment are the actual owners of the flock, but it would be unseemly for the owners to do the shepherding so hirelings are called in.
    The Bible speaks of the Good Shepherd and the worthless shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays His life down for His sheep, the worthless shepherd feeds off of them and discards the weak, lame, hungry and injured instead of caring for them. The Bible pronounces a Woe upon the worthless shepherd and promises the return of the Good Shepherd. So, the term you are looking for Baron is Shepherdism, and what we are seeing these days is that of the foul and rotten sort, a counterfeit that only Satan could dream up.

  35. Totalitarian is good enough. Whether private firms are involved or not is irrelevant and clouds the issue, suppression of dissent.

  36. I have just scanned through Infowars. It is possible I missed soemthing but if there was something it was slight whereas it should be central. I refer to the Trump UN person Nikki Haley and her siding with UK.

    I therefore draw very serious concerns about Jones and Infowars. Yes it is necessary to defend Trump against Fascists like the CNN and against Fascists like Meuller. And I will defend Jones against Fascists too.

    But this must never be at the expense of telling the truth. And the Haley UN position is critical which is why the very savvy BBC was on to Haley immediately.

    But if Jones is silent on Haley..that is serious!

    • Based on your comments I assume you do not think a Russian agent, be them governmental or corporative, poisoned the Russian double agents?

      Is that what you are claiming?

  38. I am not at all sure if Raheem Kassam has written on the jailing of Britain First…

    But I did identify this paragraph…

    “This is also the week during which a group I have no fondness for — Britain First — was disappeared down the memory hole by Facebook, and its leaders locked up by the British government.”

    Why does Kassam have this obligatory dig at Britain First…that he has no fondness for them.

    Why add that?

    The thing is he does not explain. He does not tell us what his differences are. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/14/britain-outlawed-right-wing/

    A person I was friends with, Jared Israel, used this term “obligatory dig” and it was often when somebody would attack NATO but felt they had to have an “obligatory dig” against Milosevic.

    Kassam could have as well said “They had it coming”!!!

  39. the luminescence of a healthy robust human soul should be identifiable by these primary characteristics. Moral reasoning that intends no harm to others, a freewill that does the same and manifests wholesomeness out of that imponderable gift, and intellect along with emotion that resonates with the question; “Why me Lord”!

    The anger that throbs beneath my skin tells me I’m neither wholesome nor moral as I’ve sublet most of my life to immoral men and their schemes and plots to degrade me and my fellowman. What upsets me more lately is how simply foolish I am .

    Shamelessness occupies both sides of the moral conumdrum that is mankind. However cruelly someone has been treated in ones’ life, at sometime during our existence we’ve been equally terrible or more likely ten times worse towards someone we said we cared for. “Their is no wisdom nor counsel nor understanding Against the Lord” Proverbs 21:20.

    The riddle that is baffling yet achingly repetitive with deja vu is how mankind older yet wiser-not. Just keeps elevating the demonic sides of ourselves to run our systems. The conclusion is we are fatally flawed by our flesh to have the most rancid parts of our humanity elevating men, political, clerical , industrial,academy to illume our darkness.

    So in ersatz acknowledgement to the darkest city in existence Damascus Syria, the imploding gloom surely is “Dystopian”.

  40. It’s a sort of “civil dementia”, not only causing Islamophilia but losing our ability to use reasoning and logic in a wide range of public efforts. Eg we cannot, or we find it extremely difficult to, form policy: Syria, immigration, Iran, China, North Korea, health care, interest rates, anti-trust, intellectual property rights, labor unions and closed shops, abortion.

    We thus seem to have great intellectual difficulties in the civil realm, hence the apt word dementia.

  41. Those in power who are using it to destroy our civilization are “death grippers.”

  42. The UK is descending into a quasi-communist country. As you all may have heard, the UK banned last week both Lauren Southern and Martin Selner with his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone. They were handcuffed and jailed for a few days because of their potential to offend a Muslim. Yet, the UK has no problem allowing known jihadists from entering their country.

    More:
    1. Lauren Southern interviewed by Stefan Molyneaux:
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/qGFyX8sq_L0/

    2. Martin Selner and Brittany Pettibone – commentary by the Black Pigeon on the state of UK:
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/JmdlP4LWBnE/

  45. Some suggestions for an adequate term:

    *full blown baby-boomerism

    *the day before totalitarianism arrives-ism

    *social welfare worker grabbing power and going hysterical-ism

    *naivism, or: islam is niceism

    *blind-ism

    *denialism

    *soft totalitarianism. meaning: not quite totalitarian, but way, way more than just authoritarian

    *first world pampered-ism

    *UN-ism, or ‘Uniformism’. Note the pun(s).

    Or just: stupidty-ism
    .

  48. Chirocracy, the state of being ruled by force, literally by a strong hand.
    Dysnomy, the creation of flawed laws, which cause more problems.
    Chrysocracy, ruled by the wealthy, literally governed by gold.
    Demonocracy, ruled by demons.
    Diabolarchy, ruled by the devil.
    Take you pick!

    • Two more,
      Zabernism, the unjustified use or abuse of military or police authority, particularly in an aggressive manner.

      Kakistocracy, rulership by the worst leader.

  51. JD sends this suggestion:

    Soft tyranny is a good start as a description of western nations. Mixed with cultural marxism – implemented slowly on an industrial scale through the education system – the “demoralization” phase as explained by Yuri Bezmenov.

    As first explained by Tocqueville.
    http://www.startribune.com/what-tocqueville-foretold-a-despotic-democracy/260480181/

    Highly recommend GoV readers watch the interview with Yuri Bezmenov and G.Edward Griffiths on destabilization of western nations:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgmg2VFX058

    Pay special attention to the four step plan of how nations are destabilized.

    • That is a quite fascinating interview with Mr. Bezmenov. The idea that we are somehow going to somehow erase 20 years of western self hatred from our education system is a very daunting task. The so called victim groups are in for a rude shock if what he says is true (and it certainly looks true to me). This says that the Democratic party has never really changed. It is still the party of an aristocratic elite that views itself, and it’s ideas, as superior to all others. With Mr. Bezmenov’s plan in place, they are given the perfect vehicle to enact their revenge on the country.

  53. We’ve had the SS.

    Now we have the SSS.

    (aka the “Triple S”)

    Taking what Himmler’s boys did a step farther.

    The Satanic Surveillance System.

    Up here in space
    I’m looking down on you
    My lasers trace
    Everything you do
    You think you’ve private lives
    Think nothing of the kind
    There is no true escape
    I’m watching all the time
    I’m made of metal
    My circuits gleam
    I am perpetual
    I keep the country clean …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMVV_HsHcX0

  54. Pink police state. James Poulos once came up with this label — a permutation of Tocqueville’s soft despotism, or democratic tyranny. But increasingly there is little about it that is soft.

    Consider the following, from the late John Adam Wettergreen (wonderful, rock-ribbed conservative professor of political philosophy and American political theory):

    In 1970 I believed that Tocqueville’s soft despotism was the aim of the bureaucratizers. However, today we cannot be so optimistic as was possible in 1970. Today’s bureaucratizers are not soft despots at all. The political use of criminal law, such as began during the Watergate scandals and has begun to be regularized during the Reagan administration, is characteristic of tyranny, not Tocqueville’s “new,” “soft” one, but a harsh one . . . To the carrot “spending unlimited by law” the legislature has added the stick — the penalties of the criminal law.

    Tocqueville’s democratic despotism does not use criminal penalties . . . he did not expect democratic leaders to be tyrants, but rather schoolmasters. On the evidence of the twentieth century alone, he was drastically wrong. Democracies in Tocqueville’s sense of that term have proven capable of tyrannies more brutal and more pervasive than anything imagined in previous ages . . . it suffices to say that he mis-evaluated the human desire to rule. This is an error characteristic of modern political science from Machiavelli on: The assumption that human nature (or a part of human nature) is non-political.

    –The Claremont Review of Books, Spring, 1988

  55. I wonder if pink Tyrant (stamp out the British) mother (of islam) Theresa approved the command hisself. Also: if Wilders/Spencer/Gellar would go to Great Cuckistan, would they be arrested and imprisoned too?

    Any non-corrupt court would penalise these heinous anti-European (anti-Western) acts but are such courts still to be found? Pandering to stone-worshippers lies at the very heart of Western Dhimmicracies, though other pathological clients are served generously too.

  56. Hello Baron,

    Greetings and thank you for another thought-provoking article.

    Your musings over whether to call the present government of the United Kingdom “totalitarian” are interesting, although I disagree that the term “totalitarian” is inadequate to describe the variety on display in present day Britain and elsewhere in Europe and the western world besides.

    You make reference to the term totalitarian bringing to mind “jack boots, concentration camps and firing squads” – so in the narrow sense you are right that – thus defined – totalitarian isn’t the correct word for what we see in Britain today.

    However, I would strongly argue that your definition of “totalitarian” is much too narrow. Doing a quick internet search of no more than two minutes yields a number of useful definitions which have nothing to do with National Socialism or Stalinist Communism. For example:

    “…relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.”

    “Totalitarianism is a political concept where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. ”

    “Totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state.”

    There are other definitions as well, but you see the point. The “totalitarianism” you imagine is fascist totalitarianism or perhaps communist totalitarianism, but those are far from the only types – especially if you broaden the definition away from the by-now stereotypical images from the WWII and Cold War era.

    Is Islam totalitarian? Absolutely. Why? Because within an Islamic society governed by sharia law, there is literally nothing which does not fall under its prevue. Islam is totalitarian in that it is “all-encompassing,” enveloping completely those who practice it and live within it, believer and kafir alike.

    The totalitarianism currently on display is a product of cultural Marxism, which is the dominant ideology of the post-modern West, in particular within the ruling class elites and the parts of the culture they control – the media, education, government and so forth.

    Communism is dangerous enough, in and of itself, but the story does not end there – for cultural Marxism has now hybridized itself with Islam, producing what I like to term Islamo-Marxism. This is manifested in the Islamophilia displayed by the British royal family and aristocracy as well as by the British government itself, as represented by Prime Minister Theresa May – a dhimmi and card-carrying member of the ruling class.

    Like her German counterpart, Angela Merkel, May has turned upon her own civilization, nation, culture and people and adopted the ideology of the oldest and most-implacable enemy of western civilization – Islam.

    As it turns out, Marxism and Islam make a convenient alliance against the enemy they both share – western civilization, what was once called Christendom. Their ideological differences, shall we term them, don’t matter too much right now – for the shared goal is the destruction of their enemy.

    I won’t burden the reader with an in-depth analysis of cultural Marxism, except to remind readers it is inclusive of all of the powerful solvents which been used to dissolve our once-proud civilization – political correctness, diversity, feminism, victim studies, critical theory, and so on.

    In the 1950s, historian J.L. Talmon coined the term “totalitarian democracy” to describe a society and system of government “in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.”

    Isn’t that what we’re seeing in Britain, at least in part?

    Another useful definition was offered by Dr. Larry Sellin, who coined the term “administrative tyranny” to describe the form of tyranny practiced by the Obama regime during its eight years in the White House.

    This is useful as well, since it takes in the various forms of censorship, repression of dissent and non-judicial punishments meted out by the state and its minions. In the case of Britain, punishments may be judicial as well – since one may be prosecuted for “hate crimes” by saying something unflattering about Muslims. In America or Canada, however, it is just as likely to be a privately-owned firm or a non-profit organization, acting in place of the government proper, which turns the screws on dissidents and others who dare to question the received wisdom.

    Any government or regime build upon lies cannot tolerate dissent, for even one man, sufficiently motivated and charismatic, can bring down an entire regime – an entire system of government. The emerging tyranny now evidenced in Great Britain and in much of western and northern Europe besides, fits the pattern – those who dissent must be crushed, for they endanger the entire project of the globalist elites.

    Cultural Marxism shares its intolerance for dissent with Islam. Muslims may not criticize Islam too severely or too often, or else they risk being charged with apostasy and a death fatwa being issued against them by an imam, followed by a sudden death at the hands of one of their coreligionists-turned-assassins.

    As times change and technology alters our world and how we interact with one another, the methods used by would-be tyrants have changed as well, and so has what constitutes totalitarianism.

    Today’s totalitarians in the West are not so foolish as to use the fascist images and methods from the Second World War verbatim; even the person with the most-cursory knowledge of 20th century history knows that Hitler and National Socialism were evil and should be opposed.

    Today’s totalitarians are far more subtle and patient. They are mastering how to enslave a race of people without actually appearing to do so. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the other great tyrants of the 20th century would melt in envy at the powerful new tools available to today’s propagandists, to today’s secret policeman, to today’s totalitarian EU bureaucrat. Moreover, today’s tyranny adopts methods from far-and-wide – whatever works is the watchword.

    The globalists, Muslims and cultural Marxists and many others as well – have all had a role in seasoning this toxic and deadly brew.

    In short, today’s totalitarians are selling the same old wine as their forbearers, just repackaged in shiny, nice new bottles – bottles from their their brainwashed peoples can’t wait to drink.

    • Georgia Boy,

      Actually, until a few days ago, I thought “totalitarian” was an adequate word for the regime that has evolved in Britain, and that is rapidly evolving here in the Nation Formerly Known as the United States of America. Total state control of political opinion and social behavior — that’s totalitarian, right?

      “Wrong!” said our readers.

      The first and most important rule of linguistics is: usage is everything. It doesn’t matter what’s in the dictionary or what language experts say; if a term is defined in a certain way in widespread common usage, then that is what it means. I certainly wouldn’t try to argue that “gay” means “happy and light-hearted”; would you? It meant that to my grandmother, but it doesn’t mean that now. Usage is everything.

      It seems that “totalitarian” does not just mean total state control, but total state control of a certain form. That particular form was kind of set in stone by Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, and Mao. If it doesn’t look like their regimes, it’s not totalitarian. That’s what common usage says, and usage is everything.

      The main distinction seems to be that postmodern totalitarianism by and large controls people’s thoughts and behaviors without their realizing it. This is the great advance that the Western democracies have made over the last half-century, and with which they have far outpaced what their Communist, Fascist, and National Socialist forebears could manage. If you lived in a Nazi or Communist utopia, you knew very well who controlled you, and how. There was no hiding behind multiple layers of gauzy bureaucracy, nor any pretense that the organs of control were not administered by the state. The state owned your life and even your very soul, and everyone knew it.

      This is not true in today’s neo-totalitarian regimes. We said, “We won’t get fooled again,” but we were wrong. We got fooled again, big time, and most of us didn’t even know there was any fooling going on.

      So a word is needed for a regime that is relatively decentralized, not clearly visible, dispersed through multiple loosely connected organs, and able to control individual thought, behavior, and expression without seeming to do so in most circumstances.

      That’s the word we’re looking for. I haven’t seen one that fits the bill yet. The best I could come up with was a cumbersome compound phrase: brainwash-and-intimidate. But that doesn’t really do the job.

      I’ll probably have to expand on this in another post.

  57. Parasitism

    It’s what the parasite class does after all.

    And yes, islam and it’s moslem savages are an exstitstential threat to the West – Sink the damn rapefugue ships, every one!

    Yours in Daily Armed Infidel Liberty via anarchy!
    Northgunner III

  58. Proto-Fascism.
    Totalitarian in intent and purpose, even though incomplete … yet.
    Imposed by ostensibly private actors who are in incestuous symbiosis with “official” government.
    Governmental agencies co-opted by private interests which in turn are co-opted by governmental agencies.
    A (not-so-)slow-motion merger of economic powers and governmental powers; each using the other to get away with things they couldn’t each by themselves.
    Prot0-Fascism.

    Oh, and it’s not limited to just one side of “the pond”.

    • Safflower

      This is a great coemment onthe theme which makes a lot of sense to me.

      “Governmental agencies co-opted by private interests which in turn are co-opted by governmental agencies.”

      A good example is Thatcherism in UK.

      There is no such thing as society said Thatcher, echoing Keith Joseph who in turn echoed American forces, many in the universities and think tanks.

      So what could be better than ennobling the individual. Rather than pay rent we will give the renter the house at a ridiculous price.

      But it was a once all. The social housing (for future generations) was gone at the stroke of a Tory pen.

      It became very popular. If you spoke against it, as you thought about future generations, you would be laughed at int hat British scoffing way of the upper classes.

      At the same time millions of Muslims were entered into this situation and they themselves expanded the vision of Thatcher with gusto, buying up by their pooled by Sharia solidarity resoources whole areas of cities, and as in places like Bradford nearly whole cities.

      But Thatcher, always a shallow thinker which she compensated for by much bluster and playacting with Reagan, never anticipted Rotherham raping of English girls by Sharia.

      As you say…”Governmental agencies co-opted by private interests”

      What an interesting way of looking at this phenomenon!

      The original intention of Keith Joseph and his pupil Thatcher was something along the lines of “Let us make of every worker in the UK (the origin do not forget of the actual working class…it was the first…just as Britain was the origin of the sytem of capitalism) into a capitalist, a little capitalist for sure, but still a good thing, said this devoted follower of capitalism.

      And not only would the worker become a little capitalist. But the family and the family home (newly bought for a song) would become a little capitalist enterprize too.

      Yes the Kinks and John Lennon were preaching goodness too.

      But reality never ever does work out according to dogmatists. This is the mistake made by all commenters on Gates of Vienna.

      Reality does intervene. In this case what intervened with Thatcher was the 1984 Miners Strike. This was essentially a workers revolution against the state, but without the presence in any shape or form of a revolutionary party. It was led by Scargill, a brave enough guy, but theoretically not a revolutionary like Lenin, but a trade union official, part of the trade union bureaucracy, linked in with the Stalinist and reformist (not revolutionary socialist) CPGB.

      The workers thus confronted the Thatcher capitalist state, were led to the very brink of revolution, but could not proceed to TAKE THE POWER.

      gates of Vienna of course never talk about this in relation to the happenings in Britain for one very good reason…They cannot!

      I will remind anybody who cares to think of this more…there were similar great risings of the working class of Germany but they too were defeated for the same reasons, reasons of leadership.

      It was these defeats of the working class in Germany that opened the door to Fascism. The real thing!

      This is why the writer above is so correct…what you have in all these moves, such as the jailing of the Britain First leaders, the actions by the police (police state certainly) against Tommy Robinson, is proto Fascism.

      Not yet the taking of power by a Fascist state. But leading in that direction.

      It WILL be decided by leadership. I think I know where Gates of Vienna and these “colourful” commenters will be in this great struggle…nowhere!

  59. The Age of Reason has given way to the Age of Propaganda.

    But the elite cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

    A mighty reckoning awaits.

  60. Authoritarian

    The New World Order allows for widely different regimes to coexist as long as these regimes accept and don’t oppose or undermine the top dog. Provided you don’t challenge its position you’re okay and can treat your underlings whichever way suits you.

    Presently US is top dog on the world scene, politically as well as in military strength. This however, is now being challenged by Russia with ideas of a multipolar world with strong but independent countries.

    The accusations and crusade against Russia is nothing but a ploy to ensure that Russia can never challenge and topple the top dog.

    The reasoning and rationale behind this is the handiwork of the 68 generation, now in full power throughout the western world.

    What we see on the world scene is nothing but a replica of what’s going on inside each and every western country.

    Diversity, multiculturalism, religious fanatism, sharia laws, beheading, torture, abolishing free speech, trial and sentencing without evidence just accusations and so on are acceptable as long as my position as top dog is not threatened. If threatened then your head is off.

    It’s the one big mistake the toppled regimes have in common: they did not accept the ruling top dog.

    Now it’s Russia’s turn in the new authoritarian world order.

    • This is a very good comment because it brings into focus what Jones has always rightly concentrated on “the New World Order” and your description is a very precise description of this not very precise term.

      But it is real. Globalism is real. It entails the suppression of independent nationhood.

      The repercussions of this struggle inside of British society (Brexit) with huge vested interested tied to remaining in the EU, that all of British society has become convulsed, and by way of compensation for these convulsions people like Johnson seek an external enemy, which is the Russia of the nationalist Putin. This is so typical and why every one of us no matter our political convictions should be so very worried. In the weeks before the election the sometimes great talk show host Michael Savage was tearing into Hillary Clinton because she was calling Putin (after that Russian history) a “Fascist” and Michael was rightly going crazy with Clinton because as he said “Does she really want a world nuclear war?”

      What is left out in all of these comments is the role of Donald Trump. Trump is a nationalist too like Putin. The reaction of the New World Order against Trump has been the fiercest of all, and it is far from over.

      The reaction has been so fierce that the New World Order has placed its agents right inside of the Trump Government.

      Do they really desire a Nuclear War? Where is the difference between Hillary Clinton calling Putin a Fascist in the weeks before the election in 2016, and the actions of Nikki Haley in the UN, lining Trump along with Johnson and May?

      The reaction against Trump of the New World Order has been so fierce that Trump has struggled to survive and the outcome even now is still no longer determined.

      In the recent events on Russia, which is threatening nuclear war, I see Trump being bossed by Nikki Haley, and Haley does represent the New World order, as does also the Vice President.

  61. I think we see in the British government (and probably several governments in Europe) a parallel to the thinking evident with the Chinese Communist Party’s obsession with “stability”. The CCP overarching goal is to remain in power by promoting and maintaining “stability”. Social stability, economic stability, ethnic stability and of course political stability. What they fear is uncontrollable tensions rising in the teeming masses, boiling over into “instability” which rapidly gets out of hand or control and eventually lead to the CCP being blamed, tossed out of power and a possible break up of the nation.
    In the case of Britain the elite political classes are pondering a similar nightmare to the CCP. They have a growing segment of the population (the muslims) who have very different, radically different beliefs and values to the majority. Like two trains hurtling towards each other on the same track. To avert the impeding disaster they fear, the political elites attempt to cocoon each group in the “cotton wool” of law and regulations, and control of speech. The aim is “social stability”, the cocoon or buffer is to smother any and every flashpoint of potential conflict that endangers “stability”. It’s a further and more insidious development of nannystatism”. It’s anti democratic and anti-freedom as the elites have long realized with a growing entrenched muslim population, the inevitable outcome will be a clash of cultures. To prevent the clash, traditional freedoms must end, so goes the thinking. So social stability at all costs becomes the highest value to preserve the State from chaos and upheaval.
    Can it possibly succeed in either Britain or China? I doubt it, tensions suppressed are not tensions defused. It only delays the inevitable blow out until later.

    • Baucent…great great comment indeed! You have hit on the exact situation that prevails in the world. I will add my penny worth.

      The system of capitalism, that is production of commodity for profit, has become a world system, and has created a world economy. This is a development in the material world which cannot be denied in any way.

      However while creating a world economy, which is of potential gain, it has also created an entity (that world economy) which is not united towards anything but profit, and which is being torn asunder by tensions, conflicts, jealousies, hatreds. These could well break out into nuclear war or wars and the destruction of all life, human, plant and animal.

      Science is being distorted to the aims of profit and these national hatreds, and we truly enter the world of the madhouse.

      The question is if there is any revolutionary force that can lead out of the very dangerous situation?

      As Beaucent says the seek stability but it is a stability of the kind that Hitler and Stalin were seeking. Stability is an illusion.

  62. Grundyism, referring to Mark Twain’s quote:

    “We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. We have two opinions: one private, which we are afraid to express; and another one – the one we use – which we force ourselves to wear to please Mrs. Grundy, until habit makes us comfortable in it, and the custom of defending it presently makes us love it, adore it, and forget how pitifully we came by it.”

  65. Considering the vastly increased ability of state and allied non-state actors to control the flow and content of information afforded by the internet, perhaps “infotarian” would capture that aspect of the situation.

  66. “Establishmentism”

    A population entirely ruled in thought and deed by the establishment.
    We’ve merely substituted the threat of violence with the threat of embarrassment.

  67. I call the current system neoliberalism. It is currently failing economically. Neoliberalism is another form of collectivism. Collectivist systems become more totalitarian as they fail and they all fail in their economics.

    The U.S. has had 3 political ideologies: classical liberalism until the Civil War, modern liberalism until WWII and neoliberalism ushered in after WWII. There was a different relationship between economy and politics in each one. Property was viewed differently under each system.

    With variations on a theme, these ideologies were global political ideologies. An easy way to think of neoliberalism in the U.S. is as government-sponsored corporatism. Another easy way to understand it better is to realize that neoliberalism goes with globalization and financialization. It has a lot to do with the free movement of capital.

    • An intriguing explanation, but each incarnation is increasingly illiberal. To be widely accepted, a term must be widely understood.

  68. I am very critical of this exercise by the editor of Gates of Vienna to seek a word because these processes cannot be reduced to one word anyway but Ihave never seen a thread on any site anywhere in which there is such an exercise in communist and Marxist hatred. I wonder is this really an anti communist and anti Marxist and anti Russian worker site with anti Jihad as secondary?

    Many of the contentions on this thread, nearly every one, need to be halted, questioned, asked the question what is this really saying. Of course I cannot cover every one but this is typical…

    “Hell Awaits on March 15, 2018 at 2:54 am said:
    As much as Russian people was changed, during the course of revolution, Civil War, collectivization, industrialization, Stalin’s repressions and WWII to the extent that it’s not Russian people anymore but rather Soviet people. To the same extent German or British people was irreversibly changed by historical processes: WWI then WWII, fall of colonialism, decades of migration from Middle East etc. And there is no coming back.
    I would say that WWI was crucial in this regard, it literally broke European spirit.”

    Is this coming from Buchanan as somebody suggests?

    I could question every one of the many assertions here but really…The Holocaust did not change humanity?

    Yes I would say Buchanan did have a hand here all right!

    And what has it all to do with fighting Jihad anyway…the writer does not say!

  69. Unhappily, this problem arises out of our nature and our limitations. It has always been with us, and there are no signs that’s it’s going to go away. It just changes its outward presentation.

    The ideologies that we inspect to explain it are a fairly recent development, what we call totalitarianism, authoritarianism and the mob mentality have been with us since time immemorial.

    I don’t have much time for this right now, so I’ll just mention a few sketchy related notions:

    ** There is something in us that makes crowds attractive and even exciting. We like forming crowds from time to time, and stepping out of our demanding individuality and releasing ourselves into faceless, nameless, amoral anonymity of the crowd. It’s nasty but it’s fun.

    ** Crowds, having no coherent mind of their own, inevitably find themselves clustered around some person(s) that represent the crowd to itself — who are seen to embody the spirit and spirit and authority of the crowd.

    ** We flip-flop readily between giving ourselves over to the leader(s), the crowd itself, a person — real or imaginary — sometimes even a taboo physical object.Sometimes this is accompanied by an elaborate set of ideas; sometimes it’s just the person in the center or at the front of the crowd without any special ideas. All of history attests to this.

    ** In modern times we have come to make a practice of composing ideologies as rationalizations to indulge this ancient, primitive impulse. All evil ideologies are rationalizations to crush the individual under the authority of the leader, the inner circle or even the mob itself. All of them adopted as excuses for enjoying the thrill of dropping your personal identity — and indulging your savage impulses without fearing the wrath of others. The mob and the leader are the measure of all that is good — and you are free to revert to an innocent, beastly state of nature.

    ** Ball games, rock concerts, late-night dance clubs, even church are all, in some degree, more harmless, civilized manifestations of related inclinations. In fact, even the word religion comes from the same root as ligament and implies that which binds men together.

    It stinks, but there it is. We all have animal nature and either we deal with it or it deals with us.

    I have no idea what to call it.
    😉

  71. It’s old fashioned feudalism, where an aristocracy farms out the burden of controlling the lives of the masses to a favored elite class. The media are the new clerical class, the gov’t the nobility and Muslims are increasingly their men-at-arms.

Comments are closed.