While I'm not claiming that the US is currently close to totalitarianism, there are some comparisons that have become quite disturbing:
1. A regime that justifies itself by claiming to protect the populace from a vague but grave danger. The USSR had the specter of returning robber barons; Nazi Germany, the Jews; and current-day US, terrorists.
2. A secret police that collects everyone's metadata and uses it to investigate suspicious activity. (Stasi didn't record everything all the time; they kept files of who communicated with whom, and assigned surveillance assets to the most promising leads.)
3. A heavy-handed, militarized regular police that apprehends nonviolent suspects with overwhelming force.
I could go on, but the combination of these three is more than enough cause for worry.
Very interesting article. I would add one more, important, thing that is specific to current situation:
11 Always talk and demand for transparency and open society.
Ofc this is not true because they demand only civil sector to be open while at the same time they are closed and even secret (ffs secret laws???). You can't demand open society with one or more parts of that society closed. Let me rephrase this, when facebook/google calls for open society -> they should open their database first, not demanding people to give them more data and lock that data down.
Little bit radical idea, but don't demand something you are not willing to make yourself.
I breathed a sigh of relief when the neo-cons voluntary relinquished power; I had been convinced that Naomi Wolf was right, and that democracy was almost over. Turns out, Cheney was just one head of the hydra, and the march to tyranny never really stopped. :(
If history is any guide, the establishment of totalitarianism has so far required:
A) A government in possession of excessive repressive measures.
B) A general state of popular anxiety.
C) A highly symbolic crisis.
Historical examples include the infamous Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany [1], as well as the lesser known attempt on Lenin's life in Soviet Russia [2] and the duke of Brunswick's capture of Verdun in Revolutionary France [3]. Each of these crises enabled the respective governments to implement extraordinary measures that violently suppressed civil liberties and political opposition.
Thus I have little doubt that we've escaped a close call after 9/11. A follow-up attack, even of moderate proportions, may have enabled an honest-to-God police state by now. Judging by politicians' reactions to the Boston bombing, that danger is by no means behind us.
There are probably a lot of people who do think that the US is close to some kind of totalitarianism, but when speaking about it they might add a disclaimer because otherwise they're grilled by others saying "you have no idea what totalitarianism is, look at how life was in this other country. You're being naive and over-dramatic, etc".
The problem with that view is that such a state will never look exactly the same as it did in another country in another time. As long as we're using another country's situation and behavior as a strict metric for what totalitarianism/fascism/etc "actually" is, some serious problems will fly by with too little attention given.
Im not being clever here, I think that the US is getting like that, but really deep down it doesn't feel like a Nazi Germany (or the like), but it sure is displaying signs of it. So, I'm not even sure what I think, and what the tipping point is where you can say that the US is in that group.
One thing I wonder about is whether its simply presentation? Its is simply that the US has a veil of democracy? Which people can vote, will it ever be seen as a totalitarian state, or stasi like, etc?
One problem I have is that Americans voted for this and previous government and there for must approve of what the USG does. "USA, USA, USA", and all that. Then I wonder if Americans are basically brain washed with this "best country in the world" nonsense, and this "they hate our freedoms" line, which is a contradiction in its self.
Perhaps the US is something new? A democratic fascist state, or something? I mean, the US people have no problem with the likes of Bush threatening countries with bombing back to the stone age to get their own way. No problem with killer flying robots murdering suspects on foreign soil with out permission of that country. No problem with CIA kidnapping and torture for dirty worthless foreigners.
Only when Americans feel the USG is threatening them do they get upset. But frankly, screw non Americans, they are not human or equal. Seems to me Americans enjoy their world power, love licking every one else around, but suddenly, when its them.....
I think what the US is today is very much like bad countries in the past who had disproportionate power and use it to further their own ambition at the expense of every one else. But unlike previous states, the US does it with its own democratic vote that makes it all just fine.
What name you give that, I don't know.
The one single thing that does worry me though is this notion that Americans are some how more valuable, more human, more important that any other people. That different rights apply. To Americans, we are not all human first.
YES I know not ALL Americans think like that. But the democratic results and opinion poles suggest that in the main, most Americans do. I have to say there does seem to be a huge difference between Americans who travel abroad and those who don't. I also include those who spend a lot of time professionally interacting with the rest of the planet too.
The internet has expanded that, just like here, on this site. I see hope here. I see Americans with a far better world view. HN, IMHO, has really helped me with that.
Nazi Germany never felt like Nazi Germany at the time, either. Besides having first-hand accounts of what the lead-up to WWII felt like (my grandfather wrote extensively about it, and his experiences during the war), if it felt like it, Jews would've left.
The really amazing thing about it is that everyone in Germany (Jewish or not) just thought it was a lot of hot air, and would blow over.
It's really worth reading some history books.
The part that scares me most is that while things look benign enough (as they do now), anyone in power can manufacture evidence, present it to a secret court and thus efficiently side-line and silence an adversary. For no other reason than not liking your face, for saying the wrong thing, being too good at something, sleeping with the wrong person...
You just disappear. No court, no recourse. Life destroyed.
"In February 1933 while on a visit to the United States, Einstein decided not to return to Germany due to the rise to power of the Nazis" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Many ordinary Jews wanted to leave including my great grandparents and their relatives. The US put up a quota to keep most of them out and none of their visas were ever granted. Other than my great uncle who went to the US in early 1930 and my grandmother who survived a camp (my mom stayed hidden for two years). The remainder all died in camps. My mother told me my great grandfather continued to believe he was as good a german citizen as anyone right until they took him away in 1943.
Well known Jews could get out at least until the war.
I think the correct assertion would have been that more Jews would have left. Even the information you linked to suggests that, at least as of 1938, many Jews weren't convinced they had to leave yet.
Emmigration is difficult, especially if you're in the middle class.
What would need to happen for you to abandon your job/business, home, extended family and friends and home to move to another country? I don't know what the answer is, but I think in a similar circumstance my first instinct would be to hunker down and wait for things to blow over.
If you're poor and striving, I think these decisions are a bit easier. My grandparents all immigrated to the US from Ireland between 1929-1946. For them, the complete lack of opportunity made it the only decision that made sense.
Spooky23 is probably also right - it seems easier to move if you're at the top (internationally known and/or could walk into a good new job) or at the bottom (nothing much to lose), but harder at the middle class.
For example, I really liked "Last Night I Dreamed of Peace" about Vietnam war (and since I'm from ex-Soviet country lot of the stuff there really resonates with me) but I'm not sure where to start about WW2.
The US did elect Obama, who prior to being president was crystal clear that he'd put the aggressive policies of the bush administration (both foreign and domestic) behind us. I think we did vote for a change of policy. Too bad obama either lied or has been coopted by "the system"
I was agree with your analysis of the political system, but not so much with your analysis of the people. You give them both too much credit and not enough.
First, no one really cares that citizens can be targeted or tortured with no trial (in fact, many call for it as in the case of the Boston bomber). This is tragic, but true.
Second, as much as the rest of the world wants to pretend this isn't the case, the same attitudes are equally present in most of the rest of the western world, from the ethnocentrism (which is a much bigger problem pretty much everywhere else) to the militarism and acceptance of big brother (don't even get me started on the Brits who accept a government which literally puts cameras in their homes).
There's the idea that democracy was created to solve revolts and revolutions. People are a whole lot less likely to do either if they feel they have some 'power' in the process of voting people in or out. "It's only a few more years..."
I think it's worth distinguishing between the iron-fisted totalitarianism of the 20th century, colonialism of the 19th century, and military based hegemony going into the 21st. The iron-fisted path to empire didn't work out too well. But I think "total" control is the goal in all cases.
I find it really sad when people REFUSE to believe this guy, but he said himself people would not believe him anyway :(
Here in Brazil, this plan was also implemented, part of it for example was the creation of our no-fault divorce laws with help of TV Soap Operas.
Later, the author of the soap opera that pushed for no-fault divorce (and indeed, it worked, no-fault divorce was made law in the same year as his soap opera) made even a book writing on how he is a communist and how he uses TV to manipulate society toward communist objectives, and even if you point Yuri interview and this guy book, people refuse to believe it, they think that society changed because it was 100% their choice and that the changes were 100% good and whoever say the opposite is crazy.
Your comment appears to half 'attack' the commenter above and half 'attack' Bezmenov, while not saying much. If the use of 'crack-pot' was in reference to Bezmenov, I reccommend first watching his longer (hour-plus) classroom talk from the early 80s, also on Youtube. The main message and content is clear enough, and saying the current empire will fall is far from saying 'the moon is made of cheese'.
1) I wasn't intending to attack Bezmenov. I haven't heard his message, so I can't pass any kind of judgement/opinion on it.
2) My intent was to lodge my dislike of statements such as:
People don't believe X, but it's ok because X said
that no one would believe him/her.
I viewed it (possibly falsely) as using lack of belief as validation of the message itself. [ This can be done even if the messenger didn't intend for the audience to use his/her statements this way, so it's not necessarily an attack against him/her. ]
3) It (to me) has similarities to statements like:
<statement 1> is true! <opposing group> might try
to distract you by saying <statement 2>, but don't
believe them because it's all lies!
[ Note: I'm not saying that Bezmenov made any such statements, or that such statements are in his character. ]
This is not totalitarianism, its creeping authoritarianism:
>Authoritarianism is a form of government. Juan Linz, whose 1964 description of authoritarianism is influential,[1] characterized authoritarianism regimes as political systems characterized by four qualities: (1) "limited, not responsible, political pluralism"; that is, constraints on political institutions and groups (such as legislatures, political parties, and interest groups), (2) a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency; (3) neither "intensive nor extensive political mobilization" and constraints on the mass public (such as repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of antiregime activity) and (4) "formally ill-defined" executive power, often shifting or vague.[2]
1. A regime that justifies itself by claiming to protect the populace from a vague but grave danger. The USSR had the specter of returning robber barons; Nazi Germany, the Jews; and current-day US, terrorists.
2. A secret police that collects everyone's metadata and uses it to investigate suspicious activity. (Stasi didn't record everything all the time; they kept files of who communicated with whom, and assigned surveillance assets to the most promising leads.)
3. A heavy-handed, militarized regular police that apprehends nonviolent suspects with overwhelming force.
I could go on, but the combination of these three is more than enough cause for worry.