It’s Not Your Grandmother’s Totalitarianism

A couple of days ago I wrote about the need for a new word for the despotic thought-control regimes whose velvet-covered iron curtain is now descending across the West. When I used the word “totalitarian” to describe Britain, a number of readers objected, so in my post I started a word-search for a replacement.

I was surprised by the unusual number of comments that came in overnight on that essay. And then WRSA linked the post (thank you, boys) and sent a new tranche of commenters over here with additional remarks.

One of the more thought-provoking comments came from georgiaboy61. Below are some excerpts (emphasis added):

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.


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.


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 forbears, just repackaged in shiny, nice new bottles — bottles from their brainwashed peoples can’t wait to drink.

This was my response:

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 forbears 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.

It’s important to note that the brainwash-and-intimidate system can only remain effective as long as most of the work is done by “brainwash”, and not so much by “intimidate”. When the system begins to fail, it ratchets up the intimidation, which accelerates its failure — a positive feedback loop. This is the stage the UK and Europe are in now. A positive feedback loop makes a system inherently unstable, so things will not remain the same indefinitely. Whatever is contrary to Tao will not last long.

Recent technological developments — especially innovations in the design of cell phones and other portable wireless electronic devices — have made the current regime possible. The deterioration of civil liberties over the past fifteen years or so was enabled by the technical advances that in effect put a baby monitor into the hands and pockets of virtually every young person in the Western world. Brainwashing and thought control as presently administered by the techno-state had never been achievable until these wonderful new gadgets flooded the market.

Bodissey’s First Law of Political Economy: Whatever the state is capable of doing to control its citizens, it will eventually do.

“The state” in this instance is far more than just a governmental structure. Governments today are little more than executors of functions designated by a larger structure: the New World Order, the Deep State, the Cathedral, the Military-Industrial Complex, the International Financial System — call it what you will.

Perhaps the difficulty in naming and describing the regime arises from the fact that it is so new. Nothing remotely like this has ever existed before, so we may need to devise equally new descriptive terminologies to use to discuss it.

45 thoughts on “It’s Not Your Grandmother’s Totalitarianism

  1. I think somebody called it “soft fascism.” I am sure a term will eventually arise that fits the bill.

    Similarly, I have been musing that the system pioneered by Putin in Russia also does not have an adequate name. It is sort of a hybrid… a hybrid evolving some defenses that “western democracies” lost and suffer therefore.

    • I know. Then one of two things:
      1) Putin has built the colonial oligarchy to his court.
      2) There is no Putin. This is only an information Golem, a piece of cardboard, which covers the dirty deeds of some interested persons.

      I’m leaning towards the second. I remember President Yeltsin’s “New year’s speech” on television in 2000 and how Tiny Tsakhes (Klein Zaches) Putin was sitting uncertainly beside him on the edge of a chair.

      • You may be interested in a recent essay about Putin by Richard Fernandez (fondly known as “Wretchard” by his long-time friends):

        As the world waits in suspense for the West’s retaliation against Putin’s mini-WMD attack, many are asking why the Russian leader has engaged in this dangerous provocation.

        The Russian crisis has its roots in the Kremlin’s dangerous reliance on oil, crime and nuclear weapons as the cornerstones of its power. By trying to maintain Russia as a superpower on this unstable three-legged stool, Putin has set up a destructive resonance from which it is proving difficult to escape.


        The whole essay is worth your time and many of the comments are thoughtful. Check out his links, too. There usually aren’t very many.

        But maybe you already know about Belmont Club? If not, then you’re in for a treat.

        • We live in a strange world. About what is happening, we can judge only by indirect signs and make assumptions. Those who helped break up the Soviet Union and bribed the “elites” took Russia the role of a raw colony, with the complete decline of medicine, education and other social obligations. Probably, the beneficiaries decided to change the terms of the deal with the traitors of the Russian people, so Putin decided to play in Kim Jong-un.

        • The Russophobia continues without evidence. It may turn out that Russia did do the Novichok attack. But where is the proof? What would the Russia motive be? Both Russia and the West may be as corrupt as the other but in some cases it was the Americans who taught the Russians the evil we see today.

          “As the world waits in suspense for the West’s retaliation against Putin’s mini-WMD attack, many are asking why the Russian leader has engaged in this dangerous provocation.” – PPJ Media
          1. Russia did actually destroy its nerve agent capabilities according to the OPCW 2. The British government doesn’t want to investigate Porton Down, or rule out the possibility that it lost control of some of its Novichok stockpiles. 3. Accusations continue. 4. I burnt my toast today so it’s Putin’s fault.

        • Mr. Fernandez surprises with his contribution to the “Evil Russians” nonsense.

          I hope he can spare a few seconds to reflect on the American “dangerous reliance” on conventional military force and our criminal endeavors in Syria involving an alliance with the AL Nusraqaida and ISIS filth an waging aggressive war.

          If that’s the best Fernandez can do then it’s pathetic.

      • Mr. Putin now sits uncertainly beside no man (if he ever did). He is attempting to manage American arrogance and war crimes to avoid all-out war with Russia, Syria, and Iran, for which we owe him and the other Russians our eternal gratitude.

        Western elites act with no remembrance of the pointless slaughter of WWI but I think the Russians do, not to mention thir recollection of the unpleasantness after 1941.

        • I carry no brief for American “arrogance”.

          Wretchard’s point was that Putin’s three-legged stool is tiltingly unbalanced, which it is.. And when all is said and done, Putin remains a product of the FSB…which always gives me pause.

    • “In short, today’s totalitarians are selling the same old wine as their forebears, just repackaged in shiny, nice new bottles …”

      New Bottles

      Russia drank it, China guzzled it,
      Cambodia quaffed it too;
      In North Korea, Nepal, Zimbabwe,
      The same old witch’s brew.
      Drunk for over a hundred years,
      The parties rage anew,
      Columbia’s Farked and the Shining Path
      Is bound to screw Peru.
      One hundred million dead so far,
      A fact all fascists rue:
      Hitler & co. were pussy-cats
      Compared to the Marxist crew.
      But hey! the facts don’t bother them –
      Those anti-elite elites
      Who run our University Arts
      Are keen to run the repeats.
      So what if it costs a billion dead,
      It deserves another try,
      To reach the ideal of any Heaven
      Many will have to die!
      Did Stalin care, did Mao Ze Dong,
      Did Pol Pot give a stuff
      If your re-education camp didn’t work
      And things got kinda rough?
      “Binary oppositions lead to schism,
      Democracy’s had its chance,
      Let’s drink to totalitarianism”
      Chant the drunkards in their trance.

  2. It can be called soft until there is resistance for upholding the original intent of how a country functions. Once people individually or collectively resist the propaganda and influence, we see they are blackballed from jobs. Once a person is barred from society in this fashion, it becomes hard tactics to conform. Unfortunate that half the country agrees with censorship and destroying lives when they don’t conform to the state ideal. How easy it is for government to destroy lives by cutting off their ability to get and keep a job. How easy it would be to attach compliance to social services needed, employment, and even safety from those who would gladly vilify not only verbally but threaten the very life of those who disagree. We see it happening every day in all western countries already.

  3. The word that eveyone is searchin for is sharia. If we can just agree on that, we can start to address the problem.

  4. I think the underlying word you are looking for is a con and a long one at that.

    • Acuara, a little realism here, please: most shepherds do indeed eat their sheep. Why else would they raise the animals if not for food? Would you slog up and down hills and mountains, living a lonely, often brutal life just because you were fond of animals?? What would you eat? Locusts and honey, perhaps?

      When Christ used that metaphor he realized full well that the crowds understood this basic concept, i.e., sheep = food. Or did he think he was preaching to vegans who loved fluffy little lambs for their own precious selves?


      • Wool, Milk, and Cheese, especially Wool. Y’all remember they didn’t have cotton, That came later. The only alternative was flax, and if you think that a hair shirt constituted penance, you have yet to get your flax straight. It was clothing for the slaves as cotton was too good for them (supposedly). You did not eat your flock as you made your money on the wool and the cheese. The wool was sold by the talent so you hoped your load was not found wanting when it was set in the balances. The old adage is still true, where there’s a wool, there’s a weigh.
        BTW, we have sheep here in SoCal who used to keep the brush down before Moonbeam came to power. Now the hills are burnt and the sheep are penned up and thing just ain’t the same anymore. Sniff!

        • Mutton is not that tasty. Lamb, OTOH is. I do agree with acuara that mature sheep are kept primarily for wool production.

          And I would add that goats are still used to keep the brush down in socal. I’ve witnessed the practice in both Torrance and El Segundo.

        • They ate some of the animals in their flocks. Leviticus (I think) has that rule about not seething a kid (a young goat, that is, to forestall another pun) in its mother’s milk. If they never ate them, they wouldn’t have that rule.

  5. Have you read about the Russian cocaine scandal?

    I think the entire world elite is using drugs. Someone uses cocaine, some heroin, and in very advanced cases, methamphetamine. I have no other explanation for this suicidal madness.

    Why does the European aristocracy not oppose the current genocide of European peoples and the destruction of their cultures?

    • You are probably overlooking another (worse) shared vice, not simply ‘acrost the pond’ but here in the USA–pedophilia.

      The media won’t touch THAT one with a ten-foot pole.

    • “Have you read about the Russian cocaine scandal?” Remember, it’s the alleged scandal. Alleged. None of this gossip is evidence-based. Is all part of the mirror and mazes of The Big Con.

  6. We have seen how those Islamic dysfunctional totalitarians have been quite aggressive in infiltrating various social media in intimidating and threatening anyone that is even slightly critical of them.

    The world’s regression into the dark ages can be attributed to the ever increasingly dysfunctional totalitarian Islamic countries, Islamic inhumanity, Islamic irrationality, Islamic hypocrisy, Islamic double standards and Islamics scams, etc. that had been known to affect negatively many of our nonbelievers lives.

  7. Good article sir.

    The best I’ve been able to come up with is “soft totalitarianism”.

    Sort of captures the smiling face & the suits masking the iron fist. For the moment, as you say.

  8. Lets not over think this.
    It is collectivism vs individualism.

    If there is a need for a new word, OK. It does not need to be descriptive.
    It needs to be new, and it needs to be NEW. It needs to be something that is not already redefined by the Uglyists. No old meanings that can be reinterpreted, today. Uglyism is, however we say it.
    The Uglyists will destroy the possibility of individual freedom. That is how we define THEM. They are UGLYists.
    Historical reference is not useful at this point.

  9. How about Orwellism or Orwellistic regime? He seems to describe very well what’s going on at the moment. Should we not give him the credit?

  10. I would recommend the book by the famous Polish author Stanislaw Lem “Eden”. Wikipedia in English describes this book without delving into the meanings and subtexts. Perhaps the translation is also not sufficiently correct.
    Wikipedia in Russian:
    Power on the planet denies its own existence and thus invulnerable. Presumably, management is using the highly developed industry of information theory, whose title could translate as “Procrustes” — science in the management of society through the creation of programmed social groups and total control over information flows.

    The study of the theory of information outside special institutions is prohibited. All public information comes from the dictator and the ruling circles, which “do not exist”. That is, it is as if taken out of nowhere and strictly measured for everyone, so that members of society behaved as programmed by invisible rulers.

    It is a form of social control whose very existence is denied. An example is a settlement-a “concentration camp” without guards, which is designed so that prisoners remain inside voluntarily.
    Strange, but in Polish, this work is devoted to the smallest article.

  11. traitorism; BCC, RoT

    BioCulturalCommunism is the Religion of Treason
    – devout believers are InternationalFascists (Openborder Fanatics), who believe it’s their holy duty to commit White (European) Genocide, despite being white themselves.
    – the MainStream (Media + Politicians + more) believers are known as “PC-MC” (CulturalMarxism) their Mystery Faith defies Common Sense, giving way to anti-biology, masochistic islamophilia and Invasion Politics (Demographic War)
    – less devout believers just “go with the flow” and can’t be bothered to consider the consequences of their in/actions

    BioCulturalCommunists (including [con]servatives)
    – indoctrinate, brainwash, program (institutions were converted long ago, companies more recently)
    – lie, pervert the truth, deceive (including themselves), cheat (dirty tricks, emotional blackmail)
    – intimidate, smear (always straight to ad homicidium), threaten and suppress (perverting the law)

    imperilism (imperil = Pose a threat to; present a danger to)

    omertarian (Omerta Media)
    – passive: you’re not allowed to speak the truth (biology,islam,invasion)
    – active: the state** lies 24/7/365 to cover up or play down the truth, while pressing BCC onto the herd

    ** BCC-ideology is spread deep into western elements, including the media, academia and churches (current pope is a BCC-leader), but also your family and (former) friends, your local shop and whatnot.

    pressitarian (the press/MSM plays an essential role)

    sup/re/oppressitarian + regressitarian

    – Reduce the incidence or severity of or stop
    – To put down by force or authority
    – Put out of one’s consciousness
    – Control and refrain from showing; of emotions, desires, impulses, or behavior
    – Come down on or keep down by unjust use of one’s authority

    – Block the action of
    – Put out of one’s consciousness
    – Conceal or hide
    – Put down by force or intimidation

    – Come down on or keep down by unjust use of one’s authority
    – Cause to suffer

    verb: Go back to bad behavior
    noun: The reasoning involved when you assume the conclusion is true and reason backward to the evidence

    – Make subservient; force to submit or subdue
    – Put down by force or intimidation

    utopityranny, nannytyranny

    NB. in the interview with Brittany Pettibone
    Tommy Robinson tells the shocking story about the tyrannical way war was waged upon him and his family. After seeing that, no sane person would go to the UK, if they could avoid it.

  12. Mammonism: They all seem to be preoccupied with wealth as well as totalitarianism. Media, State, Corporations one big happy fella.

    Nomenklatarianism: A two sphered world with dual tiered results, messaging, with a horrible ending for all. Soviet man meet perestroika man. Jihadist say hi to AntiFa. Sucker shake hands with a fool!

    Puppetry or Poeppetrarianism: Poe in recognition of Edgar Alan Poe for it succeeds in a macabre psych-social world were average man stoned or sober is being led down the primrose path to a prison of debt or doubt. Those invisible puppet strings are becoming more apparent. Refer to mammonism.

  13. “Perhaps the difficulty in naming and describing the regime arises from the fact that it is so new.”

    “There is nothing new under the sun.” – Ecclesiastes 1:9

  14. Global financial control (no audience participation until morale improves) —

    What replaces Putin if we kick the stool away?

    Is Davos Man correct that the ppl will board the One Worldly Govt luxury goods supply chain consumerist treadmill w celebrity product tie-in?

    Like EU, Syria, Lybia, Iraq, Sudan, South Africa, Astan,… More nation building until morale improves? —

    What came after Lois Lerner? Nothing, no need to transfer power in the Uniparty of Global Financial Control. —

    So Victoria Nuland sinks $6 bil into Ukraine chasing new consumers and market share for rootless Davos Man, sets up The Sting for (loser) Trump w longtime State Dept foil Manafort and that long-ago asset they burned after using Trump to give Felix cachet as their intl arms dealer, and a (fiction) dossier to entertain the allies and keep them on the Uniparty path after Brexit panic;

    but Trump won so here comes The Sting 2: Charlottesville, glory days chasing the KKK will herd voters Gladio style to the midterms for impeachment, plus reinforce our allies need to stay together in political union cuz the American ppl be deplorable.

    Now crackdown on social media and roll out The Spinoff: Special Counsel, Mueller is getting the Enron Pink Mafia back together! with an invitation-only Bluffing 101 seminar. Glory days will continue until morale improves. —

    Riddle me this, do all FBI agents use co-worker wives as assets, and why was the crime unit involved in okaying deals in the stans or checking Ukraine govt finances so they get IMF loans? Why must the US govt run the approved dealmakers as a shadow oil and gas industry or shadow govt w its finger in every pie the world over?

    Why won’t they let non-NATO nation states do infrastructure deals among themselves when they have a natural affinity to their neighbor and their business would be conducted w the intl norms of the day (reducing corruption) thus making them better partners w the west in the future (Carter Page’s thesis, btw)?

    Global Financial Control is the term you are looking for, Baron.

    • ETA: The Sting 2: Frame Flynn (cuz he ain’t down warming jihadis as boots-on-the-ground for regime change) & Charlottesville…

  15. “Bodissey’s First Law of Political Economy: Whatever the state is capable of doing to control its citizens, it will eventually do.”

    I’m sure that Friedrich Hayek said/wrote something very similar. I have several of his books on my Kindle, but it’s not easy to scan through looking for the passage.

    • No, I didn’t think it was likely to be original. But it just suddenly occurred to me while I was writing.

      • That’s fine. The truth cannot be repeated too often. Glad to see we’re online together.

  16. When the Blairite Labour party took power in 1997, the phrase “control freakery” came into political use. It’s as good a label as any.

Comments are closed.