"If it's provable we can kill it."
that's a quote, by the way
Published on February 27, 2007 By EmperorofIceCream In Misc
(Link)

This is a link to the image that currently graces my desktop at home (image insertion seems not to be working right now). And this is a link to the website of the creator of that image: (Link) You should look at his stuff, it provokes thought and that in itself, in this dumbed-down age of complacent fear and self-satisfied hysteria, is a dangerous act, almost a revolutionary act.

The greatest threat to any State is not an armed populace. It's an armed populace that thinks. Consider the text at the bottom of the image, the text that forms the title of this article. What does the juxtaposition of the words 'totalitarianism', power', and 'idealism' with the image tells us about this artist's conception of all three ideas? The image combines technological artifacts with human form to produce something which is either more or less than either (depending on your point of view) but which in either case is alien. The humanity of the form is consumed by the machine and in the process the machine becomes something more menacing than it otherwise would have been. Intelligence, capability, possibility - but without conscience and therefore without remorse.

Power without conscience expands into every area of possibility open to it, becoming Total Power as it does so, becoming Totalitarianism when it finds an Idea by which to define itself (the Idea of Blood, of Race, in the case of Nazism) and Idealism as it finds a philosophy to explain and justify the dominance of the Idea over everything else.

Any human collectivity can become possessed by an Idea. The Germans under Nazism were possessed by the conjoined ideas of Blood and Race. Jim Jones and the Kool-aid Kids, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, were alike possessed by the Idea of the Messianic Hero: evidently, some Ideas are more toxic than others.

Every Idea can become an Idealism and every Idealism is, according to this artist, anti-human because every idealism is one more means to feed the totalising of the Idea, and from the totalised Idea flows the persecution of everything that does not conform to that Idea.

'Jesus Christ' is an Idea that in certain sections of American society is total and totalizing, that subsumes the whole of the lives of its adherents within its own life. 'Allah' is a total and totalizing Idea that does the same in the lives of its adherents. Look at the fervor in worship of the evangelical sects, look at the fervor in worship of Islamists: Islamists kill the opponents of Allah; evengelicals (some of them) kill the opponents of Jesus Christ. The origin of the killings in both cases is an Idea of God as total and totalizing, leaving no room for opposed points of view. The names differ, the form and the outcome is the same. Not all Islamists are killers. Not all evangelicals are killers. Those that are killers are so for the same reason - they subordinate humanity and its differences to an Idea that excludes and demonizes difference. Add the fervor of religious identity to the fervor of the political zealot who, for example, believes it to be incumbent upon America to make democratic Republics based on capitalism and free enterprise the political norm throughout the world. The one Idea reinforces the other, they meld into each other, become an Ideal, an Idealism and eventually a political philosophy and a political practice.

It becomes increasingly likely that every opposition to that practice will cease to be seen as merely a divergence in opinion and way of life and come to be seen as an attack upon something that is intrinsically and naturally right. The charm of the Total Idea is that it explains everything. The danger of the Total Idea is that it explains everything but itself as being wrong, and dangerously wrong.

Take away the Total Idea from its adherents and their world flies off its axis and tumbles into chaos. This explains why for the Bible-Believing Christian (for example - it's equally true of Koran-believing Islamists) there can be no errors in their respective books and every text within them is divinely authored. There can be no plurality of Ideas where the mind of God is conceived of as unitary, and the order that proceeds from that mind as necessarily universal in nature.

'Totalitarianism' is not about dictators and repression - as it is commonly misunderstood and misrepresented. Democracies can be totalitarian in the application of a principle (such as 'homeland security'), making that principle a concept to which everything else in life is subordinated.However while democracies may be totalitarian in their application of given principles they do not, usually, comprise totalized States because within a democracy there is, usually, some system of checks and balances working against the free exercise of unlimited power. However, in age of mass democracy and party representation, that system of checks and balances is vulnerable to capture by the Executive - especially when the Executive manages to instil in the population at large a pervasive sense of being under threat, arguably what is now occuring both here in the USA and in the UK.

When power assumes the form of an ideal - an ideal democracy, for example, meant to be a panacea for the world's ills, and that ideal is driven by fear, it is increasingly likely that the power which has assumed the form of an ideal will become totalized because in order to secure the success of the ideal no area of life can be left unpenetrated by power. In America that process has never advanced very far because of the barrier to totalizing power represented by the Constitution. But it is advancing, because every sacrifice of liberty to the Ideal of security makes every subsequent sacrifice that little bit easier.

Until one day you wake up and discover that the face that regards you from the mirror is no longer a face you recognise because, more than anything else, it resembles everything you thought you could not be.

Comments
on Feb 27, 2007
I don't disapprove of the Total State - but I wouldn't want to live in one. That doesn't mean that I don't recognise that certain blessings flow from a unitary government empowered by a single vision, just that I don't want to pay the price of those blessings in the coin of my liberties.

The author who most clearly and cogently discusses the tension between the Idea and the individual is Carl Schmidt, author of 'The Challenge of the Exception'. He was Hitler's 'Crown Jurist' and chief legal ideologue - but that doesn't mean he wasn't right. Divested of the language of blood, race and nation, of the language of Nazism, his argument is simply this - that in extraordinary circumstances a decision must be made, and that decision must be made by one person legally empowered to use extraordinary means to meet extraordinary circumstances.

Where the Idea is valued above the dissenting individual; where the right to resist extraordinary means employed to meet extraordinary circumstances is not acknowledged - or where it is acknowledged but disregarded, we can say that a totalizing Idea is deployed against difference. This may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view. As I've said, I'm in sympathy with the idea that a decision is best enunciated by one voice, and the idea that that voice should derive from some unifying principle that is natural to the people who form the political constituents of the voice that enunciates the Ideal. And to that degree I'm in sympathy with the nature of the Nazi State which showed that even in the age of Modernity, very ancient social themes are still relevant.

What the Nazis did was to bring together organic unity and bureaucratic organization and military discipline, all unified by the Idea of Blood, of Race. In consequence they were able to take on the world and almost win.

The fact that they could do so remains a demonstration of the power of the Total Idea, and continues to be a challenge to the prevailing notion that democracy is the only viable form of political organization. The success of Nazism as a socio-political organizational form ought to make us consider to what degree our current political verities are truths only to the extent that they deny the validity of other perspectives. And we ought to do so because by so doing we gain an intellectual and political flexibility that can only be an advantage in the struggle against the monolithic and inflexible mass of the majority of thought regarding political and/or spiritual Jihad.
on Mar 01, 2007
"But it is advancing, because every sacrifice of liberty to the Ideal of security makes every subsequent sacrifice that little bit easier."

It's also advancing because the congress has put re-election in front of making real stands against what they see is abuse of that power. I.e. this damned war in Iraq, the democrats, and their henny-penny stands against, non-binding resolutions, support for the troops but not for the president's war. Even Pelosi doesn't appear to have the political capital to force the issue to a head. Of course because the situation is improving right? Yeah, and I'm running for congress too, No. Because she's looking to conserve political capital even though the war in Iraq is the single biggest issue facing the country when the country decides to face it.

That is the only thing that would end this war quickly. Or we could win, by having the situation improve to the level that the Iraqis can takeover without imploding, yet that appears even after 5 years of occupation to be beyond the light at the end of the tunnel.

"However, in age of mass democracy and party representation, that system of checks and balances is vulnerable to capture by the Executive - especially when the Executive manages to instil in the population at large a pervasive sense of being under threat, arguably what is now occuring both here in the USA and in the UK."

Arguably, and right. Very dangerous indeed. I have no doubt that in the last few years things have marched more towards the way of a more totalitarianistic government with President Bush, Vice President Cheny, Republicans, this war in Iraq of which we cannot extricate ourselves from, the larger. well smaller war on terror, which seems much less necessary in the United States since the days and weeks and months after 9/11. But do you think that the Federal government of the United States can actually go so far as to be truly one of a totalitarian regime?

I mean, did we not elect Bush twice, did we not choose to put into office, these congress people therein, those who would trade for their interests and in getting re-elected above and beyond making wise decisions, the right decisions when it comes to war, and things for our nation. Here I mean, The war in Iraq, the outrageous increase in spending, the lack of recovery/assistance in hurricane Katrina recovery efforts, the lack of accountability in Iraq war reconstruction financing, the intelligence agencies inability to determine North Korea was nuke capable before we found out via a test. Were we not as responsible, for making good election choices, as those chosen were to make wise decisions and the right decision more often the the wrong ones?

I think we are.
on Mar 01, 2007
To: Dan Greene

Hello. Welcome to the blog.

It's also advancing because the congress has put re-election in front of making real stands against [...] abuse of that power. [...] Even Pelosi doesn't appear to have the political capital to force the issue to a head [...] she's looking to conserve political capital even though the war in Iraq is the single biggest issue facing the country when the country decides to face it


All any politician of any stamp or party is ultimately concerned about is her (in this case) or his political survival. The natural position of any politician in a democracy is studied ambiguity - until he or she can decide definitively which way political advantage lies. Had Bush's Little Adventure in Iraq proven to be a success, or even less of a failure, then politicians on all sides would be doing their best to claim a share of the political spoils. As it is, there's a tiny chance that something may be salvaged from this ridiculous affair - so politicians hedge their bets and wait for some decisive indicator that either all is lost, or that there is still some advantage to be gained.

The most foolish thing in the world, in relation to politics, is to imagine that any politician is in the game for anything other than his or her interest. If ever politics was informed by an ideal of public service, that time is long since gone.

But do you think that the Federal government of the United States can actually go so far as to be truly one of a totalitarian regime?


I think that outcome is a lot less likely here than it is elsewhere. You have the Constitution. You have a heavily armed population conscious of its Rights under that Constitution and not averse to using force to defend it. And, importantly, you have a military that is not loyal to some person or party but to the Ideal of America, to a Republic governed by Law and Office. All of which are powerful disincentives to the extension of the power of the Executive across the whole of the State and into the body politic. But is it possible for America to move in that direction and ultimately become something she has never been before? Yes, it's possible. Just not likely.

Were we not as responsible, for making good election choices, as those chosen were to make wise decisions and the right decision more often the the wrong ones?


I agree with you. Every citizen of a Republic bears a share in responsibility for the actions of that Republic because, as a citizen, he has a share in authorizing those acts - even if that share is as minimal as merely recognizing the Authoirity of the Republic to act at all as legitimate. In a Republic having the form of a democracy that authorization and responsibility is even clearer - because a decision to vote is a decision to participate, and in a majoritarian democracy all participation is also legitimation.

Even a decision not to vote does not excuse a citizen of either his authorization or his responsibility - because the non-voter continues to reside in the Republic, continues to accept its benefits, obey its laws, and does nothing other than not voting to disassociate himself from the Republic. In other words, he remains a citizen, and as a citizen he expresses the ligitimacy of the Republic as a whole, no matter how he may dissapprove of certain actions of the Republic.
on Mar 01, 2007
Good article, Darlin'.


Thank you.

V^^^^^^V bites you.
on Mar 03, 2007
But do you think that the Federal government of the United States can actually go so far as to be truly one of a totalitarian regime?

I was looking for more of a yes or no there.
on Mar 03, 2007
As I think many on JU will tell you... I rarely do 'yes or no'. As I've said, I think it possible but extremely unlikely that America will take the road to what might be called traditional Totalitarianism, because of the hedge of the Constitution and the separation of powers which make it extremely difficult for the Executive to capture the whole of the State - which is one of the preconditions of Totalitarianism.

Having said that, I don't believe it impossible or even unlikely that a purely and peculiarly American form of Totalitarianism will not spring up. In the article I made reference to the totalitarianism of political and social principles (the example I used was 'homeland security'). From illegal wire-tapping to the gross and disgusting nonsense of defining one's enemies as 'illegal combatants' in order to avoid the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions, there is an on-going concerted attempt to make 'homeland security' the mantra that disguises progressive encroachments of the Executive upon the autonomy of other aspects of the life of the State.

America is still one of the most open, democratic states in the world, and these pernicious, anti-democratic attempts to shore up the power of that egregious incompetent and despicable little man, Bush, have failed. As they ought to. But in terms of what might be called the 'domination of principle' there are far more worrying trends to be concerned about than anything that can be initiated within the (at most) eight year term of any President - certainly anything that could be initiated by the likes of the confused, incoherent and evidently increasingly desperate President Bush.

The Total Idea is total only to the extent that it goes unrecognised for what it is. It is a Total Idea to the extent that it penetrates all and every layer and aspect of a given society. What Idea is it that is absolutely unchallenged and utterly pervasive within America today? Commerce. In the name of Commerce, Corporations gather information about citizens. Information which, if it was to be collected and held by the Government, would be viewed as the most flagrant violation of citizens' civil liberties. Our every purchase is recorded, catalogued, cross-referenced, and codified in any number of ways in order to maximise the selling potential of any line of products.

We are not so far from the vision of Philip K. Dick, in which automated systems recognise the presence within a store of a given consumer and tailor the products on display to that consumer's preferences. We are tabulated, encoded, digitized and filed away for the uses of all kinds of non-governmental Corporate Interests almost from the moment of our birth. And what is becoming apparent in American society today is the overwhelming imperative to consume.

To consume goods. To consume celebrities. To consume political policy options. We are entering the Total Information and the Total Consumption Society. And in future ages the greatest crime against society will not be to sell the secrets of that society to foreign powers; it will be the failure to consume enough.

Do I believe that America will become a Total State after the style of the states governed by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao? No. Do I believe that the whole of American life will come to be dominated and governed by certain Commercial Interests; that we are already in effect drones whose sole purpose in life is to consume the 'goods' presented to us?

Yes.
on Mar 04, 2007
Thats interesting I see us there already in many ways, with the way the "real media" hypes news that is junk. Also how a lot of our products don't have a sustainable and renewable life cycle. We truly are expected to continue to buy things, and create our own need with the help of "marketing need" i.e. a trendy word for value. If we don't the whole system collapses so it is our interest to spend rather then save, utilize rather then acquire. Not sure how it all figures into government power though.
on Mar 04, 2007
Not sure how it all figures into government power though.


There is a simple reason for that. It doesn't 'figure into' government in any way put forward by classical political theory/political philosophy. You'll find, however, that it figures into much of postmodern political thinking quite nicely, particularly the work of Michel Foucault, where 'power' is not so much the preserve of an Office such as that of the President of the USA: power is the province of discourse. If you can say (say as in advertise) something that is deemed to be true by many, then to that extent what you say has power.

Discourse that covers what it is to be an American, what America and Americans stand for (for example) profoundly shapes the nature of American foreign policy. Equally, those who have millions to spend on advertising products shape the desires we have for products. And arguably, this is a totalitarian ('totalitarian' with a lower case 't' in order to distinguish it from the more widely known and misunderstood form represented by Hitler, Stalin and Mao) type of power since it reaches into every part of our lives and goes completely unquestioned. And just as arguably, it's not a kind of power that can easily be figured into more usual concepts of the nature of power having to do with government. In that you are completely right.
on Mar 04, 2007
"since it reaches into every part of our lives and goes completely unquestioned."

It reaches in if you allow it, if you welcome it, and if you have no defense against it. I find that I am able to evade marketing when I recognize it. But the trick is to recognize it.

I think for totalitarianism to work you have to have a willing populace with a set of conditions. In North Korea for example you have not only the unwavering support of the populace but the expectation that resistance to the norm will lead to death. But that won't always be that way. People rebel for freedom and organize against their leadership when they find that it leads them astray.

I think our government has gotten themselves into a bind with the Iraq war and we have stepped into the closest line with the totalitarian way of ruling with President Bush and the pre-war acceleration to invasion, as we have ever been to a dictatorship. Yet it was the choice of the people, not screaming for a stop of that line of thinking, a choice of the media in general to not question that before troops boots' stepped into the border of Iraq.

I think before the war even with the whole of the evidence shaky and the knowledge now that the evidence had been more or less hand picked to support the conclusions that Iraq was a real danger, that we gave into that desire to remove that danger. That availability to succumb to the general consensus of the group is the dangerous exploitation of tyrants.

It worked great for Hitler. It works today still for Castro and for North Korea. I don't think it would work in the United States in government though.