[NightShadows]

I don't want to be shocking, or overtly negative, and whilst I am certantly not taking for certain like in my title that this is the direction we are going, would we even know for sure if we were?

The one thing I find troubling is that almost all voices of dissent in America (and Canada) have virtually disappeared or marginalized completely to the side line and fringes of the so called information elites, and media machines. And while it's something that can at times difficult to prove in poll results, I really think that free speech has been on a rapidly steady decline in our countries, and healthy vigorous non-biased discussions are severely lacking, unless dissent pried and dragged kicking and screaming from the politically correct depths of the broom and pantry closet...

I just wonder then, if the all mighty, morally righteous majority, and well adjusted and moderately content are i so opposed to competition, or any form of antagonism, what will this bode for the near and far future?



Though forgive me if I am wrong, I wonder if the 'Human rights' campaign has ever progress more then a dead horse that's routinely revived whenever in case of catastrophe, a convenient ruse needs decapitation and decimation. It's all happy faces and pitch forks from here on out folks, you could never tell the difference. George Orwell said: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others"

[Joka]

Totalitarianism becomes legitimate and justified when a majority of the population becomes fearful or insecure. It is because of that fear or insecurity that totalitarian individuals rise to power from a variety of political backgrounds around the world historically.

For power to exist it must first have the consent of a majority of people.

[Hong Wu]

Everything about the west today is meant to bring back totalitarianism. "Racism is bad but we are also importing and subsidizing the absolute worst among our minority ethnic groups, so we need to have the military patrolling the streets in case the Russians attack."

[Negotiator]

Totalitarism is a crime. You force people to follow your will and brutally suppress the opposition. You censor press and outlaw free speech. You violate any law under gods sky in order to maintain your government. Thats a crime. Not justified and not justifyable.

Even the bible already names serving the subjects as the only possible justification of government, and condemns totalitarism explicitly (it was a very common form of rule back then, after all).

And what is "all else fails", anyway ? Thats not reaching your political goals.

[Clangeddin]

Totalitarianism (intended as the centering of all powers on a single entity) could be justified only if:

1) It actually manages to perform better than democracies. This alone would be a gigantic debate on its own about what "performance" actually is.
2) It does not deny free speech, freedom of expressions. A truly all-powerful dictator should not really care about what the citizens say, the moment it does, he's showing weakness.
3) Generally stays out of citizen's private sphere of life. (what you do at home is your business, as long as you don't override anyone else's will in the process)
4) Ends all large scale conflicts. Another big debate on this one and would probably require to be a global totalitarianism for it to work.

The big problem is that, so far, totalitarianisms have shown to fail on all 4 points, and actually perform worse than democracries in all of them. Maybe there could be an argument for 1) in Nazi Germany (compared to Weimar's republic) from an economic point of view, but even that may be largely down to a myth and not to the actual state of things. Also Weimer's republic could even not be considered a true democracy itself, it had a lot of democratic deficits and in the end one of them was used to give rise to the Third Reich. They didn't even have to do a civil war to gain power.

[Dubayoo]

Totalitarianism (intended as the centering of all powers on a single entity) could be justified only if:

1) It actually manages to perform better than democracies. This alone would be a gigantic debate on its own about what "performance" actually is.
2) It does not deny free speech, freedom of expressions. A truly all-powerful dictator should not really care about what the citizens say, the moment it does, he's showing weakness.
3) Generally stays out of citizen's private sphere of life. (what you do at home is your business, as long as you don't override anyone else's will in the process)
4) Ends all large scale conflicts. Another big debate on this one and would probably require to be a global totalitarianism for it to work.

The big problem is that, so far, totalitarianisms have shown to fail on all 4 points, and actually perform worse than democracries in all of them. Maybe there could be an argument for 1) in Nazi Germany (compared to Weimar's republic) from an economic point of view, but even that may be largely down to a myth and not to the actual state of things. Also Weimer's republic could even not be considered a true democracy itself, it had a lot of democratic deficits and in the end one of them was used to give rise to the Third Reich. They didn't even have to do a civil war to gain power.

Eh... totalitarianism is a concept unto itself. Even without Nazi Germany, it would still have a domain.

If anything, free speech can lead to totalitarianism since it can enable a dictator to come into existence. If anything, we see that now with Trump, the reality TV host, becoming President. He broadcast a show into the privacy of people's homes that they tuned into, and built up a cult of personality to run a campaign on. The same thing happened with Obama when he ran as the "cool" president that actually didn't stand up for liberal values.

Pacifism can be totalitarian as well in that they refuse to stand up for international human rights. This happens a lot in the developing world, especially Africa, where leaders of multiple countries pledge not to intervene in each other's countries while oppressing their own people.