totalitarianism

theshadowkey666dark asked:

I have this theory that blue diamond is dead and the sea spier was the only way to revive her because in the episode the test we see that the moon goddess statue has a diamond cut and has a blue tint what I'm saying is that once blue diamond died and rose quartz left meybe yellow diamond took over and made home world and totalitarian society

Hm, that would be interesting although, I’m a bit hesitant to really climb onboard with that just because the Crystal Gems weren’t all that upset by the Sea Spire’s destruction. Unless of course they were kept in the dark on that fact from Rose, or were not fond of Blue Diamond and do not want to see her return, it’d seem kind of weird that they were indifferent to the loss of the Sea Spire.

It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech.
—  Ludwig Von Mises (1881-1973) Austrian Economist

anonymous asked:

And what do you think about Poland?

Same as we are, but living in EU and making better beer than we used to make. Sometimes you accuse us of Stalin’s villainies as if we were suffered of totalitarianism lesser than you.

anonymous asked:

what do you think mao's greatest theoretical shortcomings were? and what do you think of him as a figure all-around; that is to, rather loadedly, ask you if you consider him an authoritarian dictator? and separate but related question — do you think that the term "totalitarian" has much use?

Well if you’re asking about the failures of the Chinese government during the Maoist period, that’s a very different question from what the failures of Mao and his clique were, and what the failures of Mao himself were. As a person, I can’t say I know much about him, but he seems like an incredible military strategist. The encirclement campaigns led by him were hard-won victories against opponents that outnumbered the Jiangxi Soviet’s forces numerous times. It’s telling that the Jiangxi Soviet was captured only after Mao was removed from his position. With the Long March though, he seemed to view himself as sort of anointed, a single person who was generally right, and whose opponents were thus generally wrong. This doesn’t take away from the fact that he was often right, but rather hardened him and made him view opposition as tantamount to treason. He may not have been as supremely paranoid as somebody like Kim Il Sung, who Mao believed was overly brutal, but he did have a bad habit of driving forward in his decisions even when faced with criticism. That’s how he managed to lose his leadership position after the Great Leap Forward. He wouldn’t listen to everybody else criticizing the centralized growth strategy that his clique’s planners had come up with (which ignored division of labour and assumed farms with the exact same production capabilities would want to trade the exact same goods they made with each other) and they ultimately united against him and pushed his clique out.

Authoritarian dictator seems like a reasonable characterization, although we can’t act like stupid ass western historians and their Great Man Theory and characterize all decisions of the Chinese government as though they were made directly by him. Every dictator has a vast apparatus working to ensure they stay in power, and every person in that apparatus is responsible for both its successes and, more importantly, its crimes, which should always be highlighted first and foremost.

Totalitarian is certainly useless. It’s a term made up by Neoliberals to portray their ideas in a good light, as though the state that Hayek preferred wasn’t the same as the one Schmitt wanted. It was then degraded by Neocons like Jeane Kirkpatrick to imply that there was a substantial difference between dictators America supported (Authoritarian, and as such not pushing into economic life and thus sowing the seeds for their own collapse because Capitalism somehow breeds democracy) and dictators America opposed (Totalitarian, because they brought the economic into the sphere of the state and thus prevented Capitalism and later democracy from forming). Any political system is necessarily going to take up the totality of life, because all life is political. The only reason the economy exists as such is because the state does make interventions into the economy to keep it going, such as the intervention that creates property, or the intervention that bails out banks.

E. JABÈS: […] What does that mean? Maybe nothing. Only that we are full of contradictions, that there is no definitive answer, no truth.

LIBÉRATION: No truth? And yet you’ve spoken of subversion in your books, or of revolt by the Jews against injustice. So for you, as a writer living in his writing, inhabiting it, what does it mean to say there’s no truth? On the plane of social reality? On the plane of politics, ideology?

E. JABÈS: I don’t any longer believe that there is any (single) truth there. On the political plane, the answer is always very dangerous. The totalitarian regimes, which live the answer, which impose the answer, cannot tolerate the question. It’s necessary to denounce that, and one can only do that by allowing the question, by a critical attitude.


But I believe that many people realize this, these days. We have been so disappointed by everything we’ve tried to defend that we are obliged to rethink the struggle, to make it less blind. When I was young, I militated a good deal. It was easy then.


On the one hand, you had what was called fascism and on the other what was called democracy. I was eleven years old in 1923 when Mussolini came to power. It was therefore very clear to me: it was necessary to crush fascism. But today it’s not always clear what is fascist and what is not.


So even if one believes in a cause, if one sides with a party, it is always necessary to protect the possibility of criticizing–even in a way that’s very violent sometimes. We find ourselves confronting a totally open situation that it behooves us to preserve. It’s necessary I believe to get used to living with this idea. It is for me, in any event, the only possible certainty, the only one an intellectual can have.


That doesn’t mean that at certain moments one shouldn’t act within a party, or a group, for a well defined, specific mission that demands attention. But to unconditionally adhere to a “truth” is to renounce one’s responsibility as an intellectual. True subversion today is questioning. […]


We are able to commit ourselves only if we start from what we know, which means always in a limited way. One avoids thereby that rendering experienced by those who’ve staked everything on a party and suddenly feel themselves betrayed. You can’t bet on history, once and for all. Perhaps it’s that we’re not made for thinking about tomorrow. Every day can put everything back into question. We aren’t able to define ourselves in long-rage terms.


Besides, what is identity? It’s something that’s developed every day. If I ask you: who are you, what are you going to say? That you’re called so-and-so, that you’re the son of so-and-so. But that’s not an origin. There is no origin, no identity given once and for all. It’s necessary to understand that we only commit ourselves to what we hope to discover.


We have seen intellectuals for example who, after having left the Communist Party, have felt the need to display the reasons for their decision in all the newspapers: as if that departure were dramatic. But it is normal. You’ve militated for ten years for whatever party and you leave it. And so?  You could have lived for ten years in a country and left it. That’s what life’s about. What I think attracts young people to my books is the large place that has been given to questioning and that has led me to learn to live with my contradictions and the contradictions of others. 


The question nevertheless allows us to remain vigilant, to assume responsibility for our actions fully. How necessary this vigilance is every instant today! The question remains our greatest trump card.

wenimira asked:

Hello. In your post, you said Kuvira is doing exacly the same thing as the Fire Nation. Could you tell me why do you think so? She seems far from commiting genocide like the Fire Nation did or destroying conquered territories as Ozai intended with the Earth Kingdom. No offense, please, I'm just curious.

Hi! and you are correct in that Kuvira hadn’t been seen directly committing genocide. However, the fire nation wanted exactly what she did. A united kingdom based on technology and innovation and nationalism. Kuvira’s mindset of her nation was exactly like that of the Fire Lord’s and his nation.

Nationalism and patriotism can be good, until they are taken too far.

Kuvira began walking over people, hurting her people, and forgetting her original mission in pursuit of power, much like the fire nation. She put people into “re-education camps” because they dared not give in their culture and submit to her totalitarian state. You know who else did that? Stalin. Mussolini. Hitler. 

And the next step for them was genocide. Kuvira made it clear the Earth Kingdom was superior in her mind, and a cleansing wouldn’t surprise me. Again, we didn’t see it, but at the rate she was going i think it is plausible. I mean she built a giant weapon and intended on using it in republic city, without knowing if everyone was evacuated or not. Why? Because she didn’t care. those lives meant nothing to her, like how the air nations meant nothing to the Fire nation.

In addition, she left the towns she took over to rot. We always saw the people in the big cities that supported her. We saw the people she never directly interacted with. We saw her army. The only time we saw true non-military Earth Kingdom citizens react to Kuvira was in the beginning when they clearly didn’t support her and called her out for only wanting their resources.

When the Fire nation started the war, it was to build a better nation and help the world through it’s strength. they lost sight and the few with power began using and abusing it to hurt others “in pursuit of the greater good.” Kuvira did the same thing, just under different circumstances. and who’s to say she would have stopped with the earth kingdom?

loreweaver asked:

I'd actually argue that communism on a SMALL scale, i.e. a community commune where everybody is there voluntarily and can leave if they change their minds, works pretty well. It's totalitarian communism--the only way to possibly run a communist STATE--that's the problem.

Well yes. Within most contexts, I generally assume that a person is talking about state sponsored communism when they talk about communism.

2

Why George Orwell’s 1984 Got it Right

In June, 2013, book sales of George Orwell’s 1984 spiked to record sales after the news of the NSA surveillance broke. Orwell might have been wrong about the year, but he was on to something much bigger than even he knew. We found out that “Big Brother” is really watching us. All of the conspiracy theorists that society used to scoff at are being listened to a little more carefully. Snowden is still a wanted man for just letting us know that the unthinkable of our country spying on us in ways we would not think, was in fact happening.

Orwell need to explain why he wrote his now so famous book because he, as well, did not think that the general public should remain naive and in the dark about their governments. 

In a 1944 letter to Noel Willmett, George Orwell laid out the thesis behind his next book, Nineteen Eight-Four, railing against the inevitable rise of Stalin, Anglo-American millionaires and “all sorts of petty fuhrers” who will prosper by means of anti-democratic caste systems. He explains that he supports going to war against Hitler as the lesser of two evils, but makes it clear that the great threat to the world is authoritarianism and its attendant systematic falsification of history, accepted by the intelligentsia so long as it is being undertaken by people on “our side.”

On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side. Indeed the statement that we haven’t a Fascist movement in England largely means that the young, at this moment, look for their fuhrer elsewhere. One can’t be sure that that won’t change, nor can one be sure that the common people won’t think ten years hence as the intellectuals do now. I hope they won’t, I even trust they won’t, but if so it will be at the cost of a struggle. If one simply proclaims that all is for the best and doesn’t point to the sinister symptoms, one is merely helping to bring totalitarianism nearer.

Two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it.

Orwell’s insights were more prophetic than fiction. He saw something coming to fruition that is not what our country was supposedly founded on. As for Snowden, some view him as more of a hero than traitor and that he did the right thing. Our society has the right to know what the government is doing. Unless brave souls step up to reveal this information, it will remain reserved for the very few, the privileged one percent.

sources 1, 2

2

So the Calgary Expo CALLED THE POLICE  on Honey Badger Radio for having a meet-up in a PUBLIC PARK.  Seriously, sue the shit out of this crappy convention.  Can someone explain to me when Canada became a communist police state?  These people didn’t do anything other than politely disagree about feminism during a panel about fucking comic books and put up a GamerGate logo on a booth they spent $10,000 to get that they were forced to take down hours later with no refund.  Fucking scary shit.

9

The Abandoned Monument

The once prized monument, located on Mount Buzludzha, is the biggest ideological building in Bulgaria. It was built as tribute to the creation of the Bulgarian socialist movement in 1981. The UFO-shaped structure served as the congregation hall for the new Bulgarian state. After the failure of the Bulgarian totalitarian state in 1989, the building was permanently closed.

Abandoned and derelict from neglect, the last 20 years have not been kind to the monument. Thoroughly vandalized, stripped of its mosaics and bronze ornaments and strewn with graffiti, the building still stands, awaiting to be returned to its former glory. In 2012 the Bulgarian cabinet transferred the property to the Bulgarian Socialist Party, which has shown little incentive to restore the monument.

Put a man in uniform, preferably a white man, give him a gun, and Americans will worship him. It is a particularly childish trait, of a childlike culture, that insists on anointing all active military members and police officers as “heroes.” The rhetorical sloppiness and intellectual shallowness of affixing such a reverent label to everyone in the military or law enforcement betrays a frightening cultural streak of nationalism, chauvinism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but it also makes honest and serious conversations necessary for the maintenance and enhancement of a fragile democracy nearly impossible.
— 

It’s been 70 years since we fought a war about freedom. Forced troop worship and compulsory patriotism must end

Calling all cops and troops heroes insults those who actually are heroic – the soldier who runs into the line of fire to protect his division, the police officer who works tirelessly to find a missing child – by placing them alongside the cops who shoot unarmed teenagers who have their hands in the air, or the soldier who rapes his subordinate.

It also degrades the collective understanding of heroism to the fantasies of high-budget, cheap-story action movies. The American conception of heroism seems inextricably linked to violence; not yet graduated from third-grade games of cops and robbers. Explosions and smoking guns might make for entertaining television, but they are not necessary, and more and more in modern society, not even helpful in determining what makes a hero.