The word ‘totalitarian’ is so widely used to equate fascism and communism, that it necessary to expose how social democrats have deployed the term ‘totalitarian’ to mask their own hyper-statist or protofascist designs on the dissenting individual.
[Updated 6-4-13:] This blog has three purposes: 1. To demonstrate that there is no such thing as “power” as an end in itself, and in Orwell’s most famous book, his villain O’Brien explicitly makes mind-control the chief end of the Inner Party. But in doing that he separates mind from body, suggesting that Orwell was never a materialist, in contrast to Freud and his materialist followers. In prior research, I noted that the formulation of “the will to power” (as an end in itself) was asserted by aristocrats, like Nietzsche, critical of the rising middle class, of rising women, and of the “jewified” bourgeoisie in general. 2. To suggest that social democrats fastened onto the term “totalitarian” (invented by Italian Fascists) in order to distinguish themselves from rival statists, whether these be fascists or communists. It is my contention (and here I find both Eric Hobsbawm and Jacob Talmon very helpful) that…
View original post 1,821 more words
[…] Orwell, Power, and the ‘Totalitarian’ State (clarespark.com) […]
Pingback by Europe Has Become A Totalitarian State | Zero Hedge « olduvaiblog — May 2, 2013 @ 1:56 am |
Not sure you understood my blog. Authoritarian statism comes in degrees. Also, the very word “totalitarian” has been used by social democrats to exaggerate their differences from fascism and communism. That was the point of my blog.
Comment by clarespark — May 2, 2013 @ 2:10 am |