Understanding Totalitarianism

It is worth while for those who disdain all human things for money, and who suppose that there is no room either for great honor or virtue, except where wealth is found, to listen to his story.


Ever since the end of the second World War and the eventual total defeat of the Axis powers in Europe and the Pacific it has been common parlance to refer to overbearing governments and radical movements (mainly political) as in some way fascist. Commonly these phenomena can be, and have been, labeled as dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, and totalitarian.

Sadly, though certainly by design, this has had the effect of blurring the lines between truly oppressive regimes--in all senses of the word and its various applications--and forms of governance which seek to set the interests of the state as the primary motivating factor of agents within any organizational faculty.

Though it cannot be denied that men like Hitler, Mussolini, and Evola described themselves as fascists (though in the case of Hitler National Socialist was his choice label) that they could be and did describe themselves as such does not and certainly in their time did not necessarily entail they were despotic, tyrannical, or totalitarian. The modern left has taken, and indeed may be credited with popularizing, this obfuscation, to conflating fascism and fascists on the one hand with totalitarian on the other. A key point of contention here is that while the latter may also include the former there is not an implied notion and obtainment of the latter solely on the basis that the former obtains itself. Certainly fascists and fascistic governments may be totalitarian but they may also be quite the opposite.

For instance, in describing the distinction between soft totalitarianism and hard totalitarianism Julius Evola makes recourse to the fact that a true fascist political government, i.e. the central governing body, takes the form "of a natural gravitation of parts and partial unities around a centre that commands without compelling, and acts out of prestige with an authority that can, of course, resort to force, but abstains from it as much as possible."

Judged in this manner the founding structure of the American political system, in theory, could be construed as obtaining the fascistic ‘image’ Evola describes just a few paragraphs later as having, "unity and, at the same time, multiplicity, united organically and in synergy, in visible correspondence." Indeed, many governments and societies over the course of human history may fall under this category of Evolian fascism--and indeed have, according to Evola.

When the image and concept of American values is invoked--and it often is--in reference to American political and electoral systems it is done with an almost spiritual reverence to the idea that many disjointed peoples, and sometimes opposed groups, come together to put the benefit of the whole nation before all else in the tacit recognition that large and multi-directional moving forces are much better suited with a common and strong leader who is kept in check (at least in the context of American government) from descending into true totalitarian despotism by not only other governmental organizations but (at least this is the thought) the people themselves.

While it may make many Americans, and indeed any who see value and legitimacy in democratic forms of governance, uncomfortable to conceive of their ideas as in any way fascistic or constituting a divergent branch of fascism this is not the result of any truth in their discomfort but rather a long slide of political malfeasance and lack of public scrutiny in the evolution of language and thought. Some of the blame for this rests on the inevitable passage of time but the majority of culpability rests with each generational vanguard who sought convenience and political expediency in categorization of what they saw as dangerous political movements and ideas over the intellectual and linguistic health of concepts societies use in order to make sense of an ever-changing political and social landscape.

In the case of the modern left we see this manifest as political expediency in Cold War Republicans and Democrats labeling all forces in opposition to the interests of the West and its hegemonic control over trade, science, and military force as communists or fascists. Understanding how those on the left, who today see the interests of the state and the people as intertwined or necessarily distinct but parallel, came to call all things opposed to their specific Marcusian politics as fascistic is beyond the scope of this article.

Suffice it to say given the total devastation and ideological destruction brought forth upon classic Marxists and Communists at the hands of self-labeled fascists and national socialists it is not hard to see in the knee-jerk reaction of leftists, both past and present, a very real understanding of their own fear of fascism and thus their quick tendency towards labeling anything opposed to their own group ideological and power interests as fascism much in the way the Cold War politicians of America did towards those they labeled Communists. This is despite any objective evaluation of the relative strength of the opposition group. In labeling even those who objectively would pose little threat to entrenched Marxists and Communist systems these labels serve as a kind of casus belli for the left enabling them to rationalize whatever action which they take as necessary in combating an existential enemy both ideologically and physically no matter the cost.

Enter the alternative right. Today we, as a group of varied and divergent interests, are unified as separate and autonomous branches around the fasces we call White identity, Identitarianism, and White interests. Above this there are no others. We see ourselves as distinct from others not of us as well as many of those within our group. However, and much as Evola describes, we gravitate around one strong central concept that puts our racial, ethnic, and in-group interests first over those who are not part of our group or who have forsaken the qualities we deem necessary for membership.

It is at this point that the distinction between fascism and totalitarianism is of the utmost importance. Many of our legitimate grievances against the modern leftist state--both political and social--arise out of a denial of freedoms; to associate and keep at a distances those of our own choosing, to advocate for our own interests at both the individual and collective group level, and to be free from fear of reprisal from those who see us as hostile or ideologically distasteful from their own brand of worldview.

There is a bit of irony here, though misplaced, regarding self-proclaimed fascists decrying a kind of ill-diverged fascism i.e. the kind of central demands we make and claim of our own group interests and community are strikingly similar to the superficial operations of the left we now find ourselves enslaved to. As will be highlighted in more detail below a notable distinction is in motivation as it pertains to right-totalitarianism--or fascism--and left-totalitarianism. Enjoying the liberties of a 'free republic' we have turned towards a more resolute and stable system of government in response to the realities of geographic, technological, and demographic trends over the last five to six decades which have put our interests at odds with others and have been used to further others' interests at our own expense.

Though it is indeed ironic it is not incoherent. In desiring a new alternative to the policies and demands of an increasingly hostile group many within this republic have sought non-violent avenues in publicly discussing such beliefs and values under the assumption of enumerated rights extended towards all groups and in the hope of legitimizing our views to others only to be met with a revocation of our enumerated rights and subsequent total attack on our entire existence. In seeing the writing on the wall those among us have turned to a system, indeed the only system, which offers the best hope of protection and unity against an equally destructive force where against such a force traditional democracies and republics offer scant hope of success in providing for the safety and security of its constituent peoples. And it is because this distinction is so obscured and has cause for some to see such an event as a tragic irony that the two forces, though similar in some respects, must be properly defined so that such confusions are eliminated and more clarity is offered on the subject.

A totalitarian is one, or a group, who rules with utmost and absolute power despite the dispensations of their critics (often violently punishing these critics) and despite the social, political, and economic consequences bound to manifest from the exercise of such absolute power. Under the boot heel of the totalitarian(s) you are not free to speak your mind, do or not do business with those you choose contrary to the decree of the totalitarian(s), oppose their use of power, decry their methods and status as totalitarian(s), or any other form of activity or lifestyle which the totalitarian(s) see as immoral, distasteful, or threatening to them. If there was ever a group which so embodied these aspects and as is imbued into the modern political lexicon by the left as what constitutes ‘fascist’ the left in all its disfigured and malicious forms would be such a group.

You have the freedom to consent to baking cakes for those whose lifestyles violate your beliefs but you also have the freedom not to have those beliefs and thus relieve yourself of any inner moral misgivings. You have the freedom to think in whatever manner you deem palatable as long as you also understand you have the duty towards a freedom of not thinking in a way manifestly opposed to the left. You are certainly free to conduct yourself from within your own mind but you also are encouraged and have the freedom to read such material as would make those thoughts unthoughts. You can do anything so long as what you don’t do is do things which jeopardize the coherence and stability of the left and its institutions and body of thought. And if the left jeopardizes these things themselves you have the freedom to not point it out and remain a silent observer.

That is absolute totalitarianism. And that is the left.

In contrast, the right--or more aptly the alternative right--desires freedom to think, speak, act, and believe in a manner which does not violate the interests of the group as a whole which anyone within the group by this very fact has these interests necessarily. You certainly may not say or do such things which would violate this group’s cohesiveness or functionality. You may not put your own interests above those of the group’s and you may certainly not do so when this means putting the interests of others outside the group above the interests of your own group. Within the structure and confines of this group there are many things which you may not do.

However, what you may always do is leave this group. This group does not demand your continual existence within its own borders and communities even against your own will – especially against your own will. You are free in that you may freely choose to leave this group. You may associate with whomever you wish even if that means associating with those who do not see this group as moral, right, effective, legitimate, etc. More importantly, when it comes to the interests of the right they are motivated towards a common flourishing through creation of families, communities, common bonds made which last a lifetime, intellectual creation, artistic creation, spiritual and state creation. Suffering is not avoided nor does the state seek to be rid of suffering but rather suffering is made easier to endure through the will of the people striving to strengthen the state and through this strength make themselves more than they were previously. Bound up within all of this is a common and shared heritage, history, and culture which is reflected throughout society in its architecture, art, systems of learning, and most importantly in its politics. All is reflected through the family and the state since they are one in the same though they are reflected in their distinction by degree but not by kind.

That is right totalitarianism. That is fascism. That is freedom.

And that is what the left is not.

It is important to further understand how the left frames itself and in what ways we may see the left manifest as being wholly unfree and totalitarian (some of which I have already alluded to). Totalitarianism must be distinguished into three general categories. It is not necessary, however, to dive into particulars as the purpose of generalization is to recognize those traits which subsume certain actions into one or more of these three categories and allow one to be mindful of leftist totalitarianism. These are economic totalitarianism, social totalitarianism, and political totalitarianism. One will certainly find themselves, in analyzing the that actions of the left, coming to see many of their actions, beliefs, and policies fit in more than one of these three categories at one time. When this is the case it is best to make one’s final judgment based upon the method of transportation the left uses to put its victims underneath its boot.

Denying the Christian freedom of service to those they are at religious odds with would be social totalitarianism--by whipping up a media firestorm and shining the light on this victim of religious discrimination the left has socially ostracized the Christian into exile. Thus the left has precluded them from doing business with others (in this case the social totalitarianism is the primary driver of the left’s engine while the economic totalitarianism is simply a secondary but known side effect).

Stipulating and legislating acceptable forms of discourse and constituting certain concepts as ‘off-limits’ or ‘hate speech’ is a form of economic totalitarianism--though not strictly. The justification for this is that in driving home what constitute acceptable forms of speech--and by inference, thought and ideas--the left is creating a social environment which limits individuals and groups in those economic prospects which otherwise one would not have to consider the social environment. While the primary driver here is one of changing the boundaries of acceptable socialization and social interaction the true purpose is in molding and limiting those economic prospects individuals can safely, and without threat or fear of their business being crushed under a mob of violent and hysterical leftist thugs, engage.

Driving the social culture limits certain economic prospects and is a form of market regulation. The left currently is extremely good at this and generally this is the raison d’etre of the academic system in modern America; upon their emergence from undergraduate or graduate studies legions of newly minted leftist automatons have been inculcated with the proper conditioned responses to certain ideas and words and what is and is not an acceptable form of existence regarding lifestyle for others. In this sense the two totalitarianisms form the base of the entire leftist totalitarian triangle.

The political totalitarianism of the left is a little less overt from the other two though this is mainly due to the fact that much of the left's political power derives from its ability to inflict its brand of social and economic totalitarianism on others. Essentially it functions as a kind of crowning achievement if one conceives of political, social, and economic totalitarianism as a trinity taking the shape of a triangle.

Politics and politicians of the leftist totalitarian system manage to seize power by first, in singles or small groups, successfully gaining positions within the academic institutions where they have direct access to young minds. Secondly, and more recently, this has been aided by advances in social media and socially connecting through the digital realm: these groups, through practicing an ideological nepotism, bring more of their ilk in and then manipulate their youthful and naïve ‘students’ into frenzies--either directly or indirectly (indirect manipulation is the most common form of manipulation and it is done with socialization and social engineering through familiarizing these young students with traditionally radical and Marxist ideology).

Over the course of many years (as we have seen) predictability is a major player in this tactic. Business, once when this phenomenon was not a common event as it had not yet been deployed en masse, now have come to expect and indeed work their business models around making sure media and social mobs are not whipped into a frenzy because of their ‘problematic’ marketing. When they do not fall in line they are made an example of, as in the case of the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for two homosexuals for their wedding. Groups such as the ADL and SPLC often (indeed it is their mission) ‘blacklist’ businesses and groups and then disseminate this list throughout communities as both a warning and notification.

These groups are supported by the few who are able to get into the political system either covertly or overtly and then, through political nepotism, do the same thing they have done in the academic sphere and in doing so increase their ranks within the political institutions. Once they have reached a tipping point their political influence becomes overt rather than covert by crafting policy that reinforces and encourages their original economic and social totalitarianism while at the same time codifying these economic and social totalitarian principles into the structure and law of the society itself. This is the ‘crowning achievement’ of the left as a totalitarian group and if and only if this has been achieved does the political totalitarianism of the left actualize itself in everyday society; the vertex of the triangle is now formed and its strength absolute.

Within this synergy of these three totalitarian ethics the modern left moves across the political, social, economic, and individualistic landscape to create a state of total dominion and whether passively or actively those who live under this system of total enslavement submit to it or suffer the consequences of social ostracizing, political alienation and attack, and economic impoverishment; the cruelest and most drawn out death for which the left relishes. The consequences of one suffering the attacks of the left’s totalitarian drones and the left itself should they have a family or children are even more severe. Ultimately, this system of leftist totalitarianism only survives when there are those who live and act in a manner which separates them from others by the fact that their standard of living and quality of life is higher than those others while at the same time the two being phenotypically distinct from one another. Without this there is no motivating push behind the left’s claims and their objectives are never attainable.

While Whites, and White Europeans, are the obvious and overt group being attacked currently this system of the left and the left as a totalitarian construct is not sustainable and will see diminished returns with a concurrent increase in difficulty maintaining itself as it engulfs and destroys each successive group who each has less than the previous but now more than the next. Fundamentally, this derives out of the basic premise of the left--obliteration. Progress through constant change, uniformity through variety, peace through destruction. These are the tenets of the left and they all lead to self-annihilation.

Just as the Black student was called ‘White Supremacist’ in her defense of an opposed group’s right to assemble and hear the speech of another, so too will the left ultimately call destruction unto itself with its privileged status as a group who has more than those who do not. The left will end itself on its own accord, and in doing so voluntarily, its proclamations of suicide will be heard by all its followers not as their own self-induced ruin but as battle cries towards victory with its own death.

"In our destruction we are victorious. Long live the victorious dead."

Such insanity should not be allowed to exist.

Update: 13:45 9 July, 2016

This article was originally published a month ago after having seen in many instances the right being touted as totalitarian, fascist, tyrannical, and all other litany of -isms the left enjoys rolling out of their collective dick holsters. With the events of the past few days, specifically in Dallas, but most especially the resulting 'protests' popping up across the country, I felt the need to clarify a general tone which some may get a sense for after having read this article.

It is important to understand that the cyclical self-destructive nature of the left is not something which we can simply sit around and wait for. The last few paragraphs of the original article, I fear, may lull some into the sense that what we have to do is simply fight a war of attrition with the left until they eat themselves into oblivion. This is absolutely not the case and to do so would be fatal on our part. The left survives as long as it has an enemy it can direct its collective shock-dindus at and other (increasing) demographic blocs it has under its totalitarian umbrella. As long as Whites exist in any kind of oppositional state the left will never advance its cannibalistic nature to other groups within its own bloc.

Dallas, and the other places where Whites and White police officers have been explicitly targeted is a watershed moment in American history and specifically our history as a growing movement. Police departments around the country are teaming up their officers and are ordering their employees to travel in pairs while on duty. I imagine, given my own experience in the military, that this policy will necessarily extend into these officer's private lives as a de facto policy they implement themselves and they will be traveling with their fellow co-workers when off duty. It was advised for us to do the same when coming back from deployments in areas which had a high Muslim population.

There is no reason we, as White Nationalists, cannot and should not do the same. Even if you are not publicly 'out' with your political and racial ideology, as we have seen, simply being White is enough to gain the ire of non-Whites and it is now the heuristic non-Whites are using to select their targets.

In reality, the left's totalitarianism is on full display post-Dallas with the immediate media spin in their reconciling and legitimizing the actions of Blacks and the Dallas shooting as a result of 'muh oppression'. Bodies were literally not yet cold when Fox News had a token dindu out expressing 'sadness' at the loss of life of the officers but pivoting immediately to the predictable 'well, this is a result of years of feeling helpless and frustrated'. No such courtesy extended to Whites who felt similarly. No, the feelings of Whites aren't worth anything, but the feelings of non-Whites are sacred and holy.

Had a rural Appalachian White come out of his backwoods cabin, enraged and irate over the loss of his job and the collapse of his community, and shot up a city-center full of 'model college citizens,' we all know how the media would have treated him; an example of toxic and hostile Whiteness and the dangers of Christian America.

For my brothers in Law Enforcement and my fellow Whites, keep your head on a swivel and watch out for each other.

Author image
All your races are belong to us! Co-host of RadioTRS' philosophy podcast KulturKampf