Without the help of the rising priestly caste, the hunting chieftain could never have achieved the engaged powers and cosmic authority that attended his elevation to kingship and widened his sphere of influence.
Lewis Mumford, The City in History
We should not accept the official, and “expert”, debunking of ordinary ways of thought. While popular habits and attitudes can be presented as a compound of prejudice and self-interest, so can official and expert views.
James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and overcoming administered freedom, inquisitorial tolerance, and equality by command
What has in fact happened during the past half century is that the bulk of power in our society, as it affects our intellectual, economic, social, and cultural existences, has become largely invisible, a function of the vast infragovernment composed of bureaucracy’s commissions, agencies, and departments in a myriad of areas. And the reason this power is so commonly invisible to the eye is that it lies concealed under the human purposes which have brought it into existence.
Robert Nisbet, Twilight of Authority
Introduction to Part 2
I argued in Part 1 of this essay that in spite of the evidence of authoritarian personalities such as Lenin, Hitler, Justin Trudeau, Klaus Schwab etc, a theory of totalitarianism is incomplete if it solely focuses on the charismatic leader. What of the people, or at least the 1/3 third of fence-sitters and the other 1/3 who seek solace and security in the arms of governing terrorists? In addition to the top-down and bottom-up theorizing of totalitarianism, what are the techniques that accomplish a totalitarian order? Finally, if theory is of any use, it must be put to the test, so what responses are possible to defeat totalitarianism?
Well, what do I mean by coviditarianism? As with Nazi Germany which used medical hygiene, tyranny and scapegoating of Jews to establish the Third Reich, we are on a global scale witness to a similar dynamic in which the cult of biomoral hygiene rationalizes the full spectrum dominance by the State. The State, however, cannot and does not operate alone, neither in its use of force nor the propagation of ideology. It requires collusion and a merger with other social sources of power such as the corporate and rentier class, the intellectual clerisy (i.e., college/university professors), the cultural intelligentsia (i.e., journalists, filmmakers, artists, novelists and poets and teachers) and the technical intelligentsia (i.e., ‘independent’ scientists and technologists).
But, what of so-called ‘civil society’? One obviously cannot have totalitarianism without the complicity of the masses of the people. Hence, ‘participatory totalitarianism’. However compliant are the masses, they are not dupes. It may be said that some of the 2/3 of them are careless, contented, eminently manipulable, lazy, indifferent, trusting, unaware, unthinking or wreckless in their refusal to be vigilant, but not stupid. There are rational reasons, and even a biological imperative as a ‘herd’ animal, for the irrational complicity of most. This point does not contradict my earlier agreement with Jack D. Douglas’s statement that there is a socio-genic imperative toward freedom. Rather, it is that paradoxically for the majority, ‘freedom’ is pursued within the confines of the cage offered by their ‘keepers’. Thus thinking that they are free, the staunchest defenders of totalitarianism are the people themselves.
In spite of the socio-genic imperative toward freedom, what is remarkable about human beings in the context of administratively configured social formations (i.e., State-based formations), as noted by Oliver Cox in Race, Caste and Class, is their facility to forbear the most hideous social conditions of caste, slavery and abject degradation. But this tolerance is not indefinite as revealed by the rebellions of Spartacus, the Zanj, the Albigensians and Cathars, Denmark Vessey, Louis Riel, inter alia, and ultimately, the Haitian Revolution. One need not go as far as these, for we are reminded by James C. Scott in Domination and the Arts of Resistance that where power is arbitrary and vicious in its exercise, dominator and dominated know something about each other. What they each know is their interdependence: power is negotiated and qualified by the majority who are ignorant of their power by ‘playing fool to catch wise’ and ‘in the presence of the King, bend low and fart (silently!)’. Rulers having a sense of their obligation, too, play their part.
Some scholars have noted that the tables might be turned without upending the game. Though overly gynocentric, heteronormative and historically sweeping in its claims about women’s ‘oppression’, Vern and Bonnie Bullough’s point account in Women and Prostitution: A social history is apt. They argue that prostitution is “…an outstanding example of the perverse resilience of human beings, since women, including prostitutes, have turned their sexual subordination into a weapon that allows them in turn to victimize men”. It would seem that Oliver Cox was not wrong, but only on the surface. He accepted the appearance of things as other than what they were, for even in obedience there is resistance!
But what happens when the move toward totalitarian control is impelled from the bottom up? Not in the form of individual resistance, but as insistence for the expansion of State authority? As I noted in my first blog entry, “Canada’s COVID Coup”, this may be called “participatory totalitarianism’. Others, such as J. L. Tallmon in The Origin of Totalitarian Democracy, call this process in complex State-based social formations, “totalitarian democracy”. The point is made by none other than Albert Speer, for a time a devotee and key administrator for Adolf Hitler. Jack D. Douglas quotes Speer’s own words from Inside the Third Reich. In the cold light of reflection, once the euphoria of the irresponsible pursuit of freedom at the expense of others revealed itself in the bitterness of loss, truth was revealed:
But as I see it today, these politicians in particular were in fact molded by the mob itself, guided by its yearnings and its daydreams…The mob determined the theme. To compensate for misery, insecurity, unemployment, and hopelessness, this anonymous assemblage wallowed for hours at a time in obsessions, savagery, license. This was no ardent nationalism. Rather, for a few short hours the personal unhappiness caused by the breakdown of the economy was replaced by a frenzy that demanded victims. And Hitler and Goebbels threw them the victims. By lashing out at their opponents and vilifying the Jews they gave expression and direction to fierce, primal passions.
Under a state of socialistic mob rule, not even Hitler, as Robert Nisbet points in The Quest for Community, could compel underlings to increase the amount of his military pension. Clearly totalitarianism was total!
While crises and shocks give vent to the psychology of the need and fulfillment for a moral community to exercise communion to scapegoat Others and pursue blood lust to actually and ritualistically destroy harmless enemies, there are historically specific peculiarities to contemporary totalitarianism. Unlike Europe’s medieval past when the determinants of economic crisis (i.e., inflation) were dimly comprehended in Europe, Jews and witches were ready to hand as scapegoats. So, as noted by Cornelius Christian of that time period in “The Political and Economic Role of Elites in Persecution”, both clergy and the nobility held up outgroups as scapegoats to direct the wrath of the masses away from themselves. Today, however, when the ‘principles’ of the market are well-comprehended, as is the psychology of mob-scapegoating, shocks of one sort or another are, as noted by Charles Tilly, either induced, fomented or not deterred to produce crises. Such crises are the shocks which generate fear, which in turn justify both top-down and bottom-up totalitarianism. As Robert Higgs points out, the State produces the fear it is eager to assuage – of course, for a price – ever tighter restrictions on freedom and liberty to more effectively contain revolts from below should ever the masses figure out that their complicity is the key to totalitarianism. This, indeed, is the playbook found in the Rockefeller Foundations Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, and, before this, another equally nefarious plan of action called Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, An Introduction Programming Manual. The point of both is to create ‘shocks’ that ratchet-up the public’s clamour for ‘protection’.
What the lords of the polis learned over the past 100 years – largely from the paid-for ‘social espionage’ produced by the captured enterprises of anthropology, political science, psychology, social-psychology and sociology – is that a populace can be goaded, herded or induced by terror into believing the ‘benefits’ of ‘safety’ on the plantation outweigh the risks of small government and taking chances with traditional institutions. With the 19th Century Prussian statesman, Otto von Bismarck, modern ‘Welfare Statists’ learned that the offer of ‘care’ and ‘security’ to the masses, for the price of obedience to their betters, could strengthen the grip of rulers. The knowledge clerisy, the likes of Gustave LeBon, Hobart Mowrer, Ivan Pavlov, B. F. Skinner and others showed that individuals and masses could be manipulated through fear inducing signals. For example Francis A. Boyle, drafter of the “Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989”, shows in Biowarfare and Terrorism that the incident preciptating the passage of the PATRIOT ACT was an inside-job calculated to lower the resistance of politicians and the public to increased central government control. Clamour for the protection of the State induces of its own accord the majoritarian belief that all must be subject to Rousseau’s anti-democratic and totalitarian “General Will” – administered, of course, by centralized government. For what it is worth, given his anti-Blackness and support for the slavery of peoples from Africa, Benjamin Franklin’s admonition is worth keeping in mind: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
Totalitarianism and the destruction of competing allegiances
Totalitarianism has existed for an infinitesimally part of the natural experiment called humanity. It emerged more than 5000 years ago with the first States based on absolute authority of divine monarchy. This fact is well-attested by a wide range of scholars such as Jack D. Douglas, Michael Mann, Lewis Mumford, James C. Scott, Pitirim Sorokin and Richard Trexler. What marks the distinction between the social predation and parasitism of conquerors from totalitarians? The distinction between Narmer, Ashurbanipal, Alexander the Great and his generals, Genghis Khan or the English Marcher Lords on one hand and that of Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or FDR on the other is not physical force, but the all-important factors of bureaucracy, technic (which includes ideology) and technology. The evidence in support of this claim is that old-style conquerors of nations, clans and tribes are at some point absorbed into and become one with the people they conquer. And, where they hold themselves off as a distinct strata, they are effectively parasites living off the host and make no effort to insinuate themselves into the people’s psychology of the interstices of their lives. It is one thing that such conquerors often did not last past two or three generations. But, more important to the argument I am making here, is that as long as the conquered remained sedentarized and paid their tax-tribute to the old-style parasitic totalitarians administrative bureaucracy remained small and the people were essentially left alone.
Though, to be sure, the captured herd were occasionally subjected to brutality and exploitation, there were three-saving graces. First, escape into nomadism was possible. (To some extent within totalitarian regimes nomadism remains possible, but it is now called ‘homelessness’ – a fact which frustrates centralizers). Second, while there were ‘legibilizing’ technologies such as censuses and land tenure systems to map the herd, innovations brought into being by the centralizing administrative States such as citizenship and nationalism, birth and death certificates, the concept of context-free individual, social security IDs and so on enables the administrative totalitarian State to do what the predatory State could not previously do: penetrate into the interstices of collective and individual life. This development seems the historical specificity of the post-Feudal European States of the 16th Century. Now trapped within the technocratic cage of the internet, algorithms today present a quality of unmatched surveillance and control manifest in the Social Credit System and CBDCs that would shock previous totalitarian. We are on the precipice of a reality. Offered by dictator’s such as Justin Trudeau, we can read the polar opposite into the claim that “The Fourth Industrial Revolution will not be successful unless it creates opportunities for the billions who are unable to be here today more opportunity”.
Finally, as noted by Robert Nisbet (see below), theoreticians of totalitarianism such as Plato, Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau bitterly complained about autonomous social institutions (e.g., boroughs and towns, clans and tribes, families, guilds, religious institutions, self-help associations and universities etc). What was the problem? “Partially blind” as James C. Scott called it in not being able to fully legibilize (e.g., catalogue, document, fix, track, trace) all members of the herd, the administrative totalitarian State was obstructed from directly imposing itself on individuals. The State, as David Nesbit points out in The Quest for Community and Twilight of Authority, had to compete with other authorities that offered discipline, protections and which were rewarded with the affection and loyalty of individuals bound and committed to context and tradition. What had to be done? How could the State become total against its competitors?
First, the State had to create the individual who was committed to individualism and who would defend the State. Jack D. Douglas argues that both the rights-bearing citizen and the Nation are products of the post-16th Century welfare-warfare State and not, as is widely believe, the reverse. Second, largely with the aid of the intellectual clerisy, the State disparaged as irrational, outmoded and stultifying context-bound situations, folklore and tradition. Antonio Gramsci in his screed against competing and encrusted barriers to State power condemned custom, folklore, old wives tales, the common vernacular, other-worldly religion and traditional ‘wisdom’. These were to him, and others, both liberals and socialists, evidence of ignorance and irrational prejudices encapsulated by the disparaging term “common sense”, as opposed to “good sense”. Finally, combing points (1) and (2), by actively suborning or destroying competing sites of authority through outright ideological and practical warfare in the form of welfarism, the individual lay fully exposed to the absolute authority of the State.
Of course, there were other factors: such as standing armies and police who, on behalf of central authority sold protection to the newly recognized individual and citizen – at the price of tax-tribute. The ‘Welfare State’ and the ‘Warfare State’ are, therefore, indistinguishable. Following the reasoning of Robert Nisbet, the point is that what distinguishes the gap between totalitarians such as Plato and Rousseau is neither theory nor time in the march toward full spectrum dominance, but rather ideology, imagination and technical capacity. Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies cites Plato’s The Laws as follows:
The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should ever be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all on his own initiative neither out of zeal, nor even playfully. But in war and in the midst of peace, to his leader he shall direct his eye, and follow him faithfully. And even in the smallest matters he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up when, or move, or wash, or take his meals…only if he has been told to do so…In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become utterly incapable of it. In this way the life of all will be spent in total community. There is no law, nor will there ever be one, which is superior to this, or better and ore effective in ensuring salvation and victory in war. And in times of peace, and from the earliest childhood on should it be fostered – this habit of ruling others, and of being ruled by others. And every trace of anarchy should be utterly eradicated from all the life of all the men, and even of the wild beasts which are subject to him.
To his credit, Plato at least allows that individuals can teach themselves. But Rousseau, who stands on Plato’s shoulders, allows no such latitude. Under his schematic, as noted by Robert Nisbet in The Quest for Community, if individuals are to be free from context, ignorance, superstitution and tradition they must be forced to be free. It is an interesting irony: people are forced to be free, but in doing so they are made slaves by the wise legislators of the Welfare State.
It is tempting to take for granted the apparent benefices of the Rousseauean ‘social contractarian State’ (or that of the Hobbesian ‘Leviathan State’). Outlawing dueling, which justified the State’s monopoly on physical violence, and the establishment of public ‘education’ were but two instances of emerging totalitarianism. Public schooling was and remains important for cementing the ideals of liberalism (all things and persons are equal, except when determined by the State) and the idea of the necessity of centralization and planning. This is called technocracy. It was actively propagandized starting in the 1930s, especially in the United States, and is now so pervasive it is no longer noticeable, In truth, it was merely an updating of ideology of Henri Saint-Simon and Auguste Comtean to make a religion of science and planning. Writing in reaction to the technocratic push, conservative scholars like Nisbet point out that centralized authority and liberalism were attained and sustained by an attack on clan, tribe, regionalism and, behind these the family. Why? These were alternative sites of authority which offered to individuals their own benefits and rewards, at the price of discipline, duty and loyalty. Where there not benefits to ‘freeing’ the individual? After all, as Marx argued, “The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living”. So how should people be made free?
In Discourse On the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1755), Rousseau made the case that the State and the people are one: “…the interest of the Sovereign and that of the people must be single and identical”. In order to achieve this absolute unity, the context-bound and disciplining effect of the family, with all its conflicts, contradicts and yes, happiness, comes in for withering assault, as do voluntary allegiances such as guilds and competing regional sovereignties. Here the claims of feminists that fathers are despots and the ‘patriarchal’ family is the site of women’s ‘oppression’ and ‘slavery’, and, must on this count be destroyed to establish “…a society in which everyone is cared for” is neither new nor revolutionary. Rousseau’s followers also such as Auguste Comte, much in advance of Marxists-Leninists and liberal feminists, long ago advocated for the abolition of the family. In any case, Nisbet outlines Rousseau’s recipe for destroying the family as follows,
The family should not be granted the all-important duty of education, for too great a responsibility hangs in the balance. The traditional educative function should be transferred from the family to the State, so that, as Rousseau states it, the ‘prejudices’ of the father may not interfere with the development of citizens.
Lest it be forgotten, Rousseau was neither a father nor a husband, but only a child who abdicated the estate of those responsibilities. What merit should Rousseau’s admonition hold screams to be answered by liberals and Statists (whether Left or Right).
In any case, it is less important what happens to the father and more so that the father – in the personality of the wise legislator and her/his administrators – becomes the State! The brutality of the family courts towards fathers and husbands, for example, becomes explicable as part and parcel of the totalitarian project. What the State-as-father shows is that contrary to the feminist myth that the State is modeled on the ‘patriarchal family’, we see in Rousseau that the ‘patriarchal family’ is instead a threat to the State. This fact goes a long way to explaining the totalitarian logic in the ridiculous screeching about “toxic masculinity”, except of course on ‘Remembrance Day’. What we are witness to is an attack on fatherhood and males, which, paradoxically, amounts to an attack on motherhood and women (see below). Far from liberating women from the burdens and oppression of the ‘patriarchal family’, the State is now ‘pater postesta’ (dictatorship of the father). And, he is cruel husband if ever there was one!
Under the protective rule of the ‘paternal’ State in its marriage with the mother, childbearing mothers are made into milch cows through the effective nationalization of the family. With the services of drones (e.g., fathers), childbearing women are reduced to wombs that breed generations of canon fodder for the military, commodified labourers for production, and, commodifiable and killable lumpen masses for fear-inducing industries and producing. If people think they are free, ever were and can pressure the government to give them ‘their freedoms back’ this shows just how effective has been the propaganda of liberalism and belief in the Hobbesian Leviathan State. In abrogating the disciplining and protective functions of fathers in families, which in part constitutes their threat to the totalitarian State, feminists, both the malevolent technocratic types and the naïve who believe the royal road to women’s liberation is State intervention, are complicit with the enslavement and miserable condition women are in, in this our totalitarian dispensation.
Sociologists, despite that their bailiwick is group dynamics and social interaction, have managed to divorce the individual from the basic unit of social analysis – the family. In truth, their preoccupation I with promoting individualism, not the integrity of the individual. This is because they are technocrats for the liberal and Welfare-Warfare State. Removing the individual from context of the family by slight of hand, except where the family is pathologized as a site for the brutalization of women and children to be ‘abolished’, the fundamental unit of social analysis is made invisible. As far as the neutered-father family is concerned, the totalitarian State is enlarged in sociological propaganda as advocate, friend, protector, savior: beware of Greeks, or more appropriately sociologists, bearing gifts! What is concealed in all this is that the family, until the ‘discovery’ of romantic love in the 19th century was sustained not by affection and love, but rather, as Robert Nisbet reminds us in Twilight of Authority, “…duty, obligation, honor, mutual aid, and protection [which] have been the key elements”. What does it mean the family, whatever, its variety, is under attack by the centralizing State? Where is the evidence and how is coviditarianism, along with transsexualism, transgenderism and medically assisted dying (MAiD) examples of it?
The spectacle of children and adults, including pregnant women, being forcibly held down and medically battered with injectable poison, or, physicians coercing children against their will and that of their parents are the results of the abrogation of the family and voluntary associations. This precedent means the Rubicon has been crossed and anyone can be forcibly ‘vaccinated’, or, if the totalitarians think it too troublesome, they will simply “vaccinate” through shedding-designed therapeutics, spiking food with mRNA products, and, if they wish, transhumanize by spiking our water to make us morally compliant with administrative diktat. In all this, the assault on the family, and especially on our children, is one of the most appalling and galling manifestations of totalitarianism. State administrators and their little Eichmanns and Mengeles and jackbooted thugs not only have unfettered access to the individual, they have total access to our children’s minds and bodies. A concrete instance of State intervention in the family is with prime minister Justin Trudeau and various medical officers of ill-health, such as Bonnie Henry in British Columbia, encouraging children, as young as five years old to forego their parents’ consent to submit to a bioweapon masquerading as a ‘vaccine’. Though there is much gas-lighting, backtracking and lying by the likes of Justin Trudeau, the tape does not lie! Uninformed Consent is an excellent documentary. It not only lays bare the outrages of Canada’s coviditarians, but eloquently bears witness to the terrible suffering wrought by misplaced confidence in government.
Indeed, Canadian law legitimates the oxymoron of “mature minors”. With that, children can ‘consent’ to: a) make the decision to submit to medically assisted suicide or be ‘volunteered’ for such by a parent; b) chemically and surgically alter the expression of secondary sex characteristics (transsexualism); c) redefine their gender (transgenderism); and d), if the corrupt globalist United Nations has its way, they will be able to have sex at any age, with anyone else of any age – all without the intervention of pesky parents. Should parents seek to intervene to assert the priority of their authority to educate and protect their children at vulnerable stages from State-sponsored mental confusion and violence, home schooling will be abolished as the British government is attempting to do. And, should parents seek to ensure the physical wellbeing of their children NOT to be exposed to tainted spike protein laced blood, their children will be removed from them and subjected to medical procedures irrespective of the wish of the parents – as was done in New Zealand.
The solution to the abject totalitarianism that is in front of us goes beyond scapegoating Donald Trump or Jair Balsanaro. It goes beyond including ‘fearless leaders’ such as Jacinda Ardern, Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden, Mark Rutte, Christine Legard, Ursula Von der Leyen and Rishi Sunak and others. I am persuaded by Robert Nisbet and conservative sociologists that totalitarianism is not so much a problem of right or left politicians, but more the destruction or subordination of natural or voluntary associations that can challenge, reduce and resist the unfettered reach of the administrative State to achieve ‘public welfare’. In this logic: the individual can be destroyed, must be destroyed and is destroyed in order to save the individual (for uses by the State). Elena Louisa Lange points out that under myths of ‘the common good’ and ‘care’, no one is safe and all are destroyable by this logic.
At this point working against the grain of professional sociology, which is complicit with totalitarianism, endeavoring to formulate a coherent theoretical perspective on totalitarianism, and, practically, figuring out how to live, love and find joy in life while resisting coviditarianism, I am grappling with two urgent questions.
First, if the State created the individual and the nation, but individuals and nations are redundant in the drive toward one world government, does this not mean that individuals and nations are redundant? This point is well-attested by Zygmunt Bauman in Liquid Modernity, who though clearly ambivalent, favours the globalist approach though to ‘order’. In that book he seems cavalier about the scale and scope of mass global killing that this implies. He seems to correct himself somewhat in Wasted Lives: Modernity and Its Outcasts, where he faces up to the potential wiping out of the bottom billionth but not much more than that. To comprehend and contemplate the magnitude of murder – the wiping out of billions – both cognition and language fail; but not, evidently, the imagination and mechanisms available to those intent on culling the herd, such as the usual Malthusian suspects who call themselves “The Good Club”.
Second, if the drive for freedom is a biological imperative within the human species, how might genuine freedom be attained against 2/3 of the population that prefer slavery? Russell Brand, is one among the leading advocates of the old idea championed by Robert Nisbet that decentralization, diversity of living and renewed florescence of voluntary associations are preconditions for individual and group liberty, freedom and the good life. At the heart of all criticisms of totalitarianism is the recognition that one of the great dangers of centralized authority, beginning with standardized weights and measures, is the standardization of the human personality. To this end, Brand continues to raise the value of decentralization that not only preceded the State, but has functioned alongside it as a force of adaptation, creativity, discipline and restraint. Brand makes his case in conversation with Joe Rogan and Cornel West.
But as complex as the resistance to totalitarianism is, I cannot help but think that to study the theory and history of totalitarianism is a necessary part of that resistance. My journey has only really just begun, though in truth all my years of reading on the topic now seem purely ‘academic’ in nature. But then again, I think it was really a quest to explain to myself why I am organically non-compliant. As is the case with this post, there will be missteps and errors in analysis and historical account. Clarity and correction of analysis can come about through discussion with persons of differing opinions toward the goal of theoretical and practical resistance to totalitarianism. For all the totalitarian implications of Antonio Gramsci’s disparagement of custom, tradition and “common sense”, what is deathly to totalitarianism is not only the reinvigoration of allegiances and loyalties other than the State, is the boon to liberty that arises from independence of thought and judgment about what is good and what is not:
…[I]s it better to work out consciously and citically one’s own conception of the world and thus, in connection with the labours of one’s own brain, choose one’s sphere of activity, take an active part in the creation of of the history of the world, be one’s own guide, refusing to accept passively and supinely from outside the moulding of one’s personality?
We must neither confuse nor conflate the individual with individualism. The latter is consumerism, homogenization, quietism and an indispensable aid to totalitarianism. The former is the freedom not to conform to the type, and, in the process, to raise the ethical and moral standard of what it means to be human. In The Condition of Man, Lewis Mumford puts it this way:
Man’s life differs from that of most other organisms in that individuation has become moe important to him than strict conformity to type: he participates in all the characters of his species, and yet, by the very complexity of his needs, each individual males over the life-course of the species and achieves a character to become a person. The more he organizes his environment, th more skillfully he associates in groups, the more stantanly he draws on his social heritage, the more does the person emerge from society as its fulfillment and perfection. But that process is never finished. Every other animal but man is a complete representative of his species: man remains the unfinished animal.
The words of Charles Bukowski – “Your life is your life, don’t let it be clubbed into dank submission” – gives fresh urgency to be aware of the biological imperative of the human animal’s indomitable will to freedom and liberty, if humanity is to be/remain human.
Finally, let me repeat the point: the rights-bearing individual is a creation of the State, and, the State has no fear of the individual in pursuit of individualism as each expresses their individuality to consume. To defeat its competitors – the Church, the guild, the free town, self-help associations and the family etc – the State offered freedom from the responsibility of custom, duty, obligation and tradition, which could no doubt be onerous and brutal. The clock cannot be turned back to the days when the State was weak, which, Jacques Ellul reminds in The Political Illusion disparaged as the ‘dark ages’. In my opinion, if we are to develop a coherent theory of totalitarianism, our preoccupation ought not to be solely with the examination of the totalitarian State directly, but on that which its propagandizers fear reveal its emptiness and impotence: the family, voluntary associations and local and regional government equal to the central governing authority. ‘Let a thousand flowers bloom’, but with weakened centralized authority!
 This essay is inspired and livicated to my friend’s five and two year-old daughters. Brilliant, beautiful and curious, they deserve a world where they will thrive rather than enslaved, controlled or murdered by officer-holders of a global centralized State.
 Chock full of interesting and relevant citations, the first chapter of Richard Miller’s Drug Warriors and Their Prey offers an excellent and succinct summary of how the Nazi’s legally weaponized biomoral hygiene to establish the cult of totalitarianism. Significantly, since it is wrongly presumed that totalitarianism is always a top-down propagandistic dynamic. As shown by Jacques Ellul in Propaganda and Jack D. Douglas in The Myth of the Welfare State, what makes totalitarianism total as a form of social existence is that it is impelled by the masses terrified by actual or perceived loss and, thus, craven to be insulated from the risks of life (i.e., ‘safety’).
 I am not here making a ‘prediction’ of either massive ‘systemic’ failure or the end of the human species. Neither of these is a guarantee, though either or both, are without resistance very probable. The question of which way the ‘probability’ goes rests with whether the socio-genic refusal of indominitability can head off either probability. Given the technological means for outright destruction or the slow death of the species through the anti-evolutionary imperative of a monotonous ‘transhumanism’, increased probability of misfortune, merely because the means for it proliferate, may give way to certainty. In The Myth of the Welfare State Jack D. Douglas invokes George Santayana’s warning of the ‘iron law of history’ that those who refuse the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat its failures. It can hardly be said that any self-inflicted terminus of the human species is a ‘failure’.
 There are examples of Covidian tyranny resisters who are unaware that they harbour the seeds of totalitarianism within themselves. While I do not for a moment contend Albert Speer and the audience of the Kim Iversen show are morally equivalent, I do suggest the merit of the analogy. A large number of her subscribers and audience reacted angrily to her March 24, 2023, discussion with Richard Wolff. Questioning the wisdom of her decision to speak to a “communist”, some threatened to unsubscribe. While I have serious reservations about Wolff’s persistent sociological structuralism (e.g., capitalism is a ‘system’) and commitment to planned economy, which is functionally no different from the planned Ponzi scheme at present, the imperative of those on the right to engage in counter-cancelling should alert them to the limits of so doing. Thus for example, Ben Shapiro, who styles himself a proponent of ‘free speech’, lambasted me as an egg head ‘woke’ professor for writing my essay “How Hollywood’s ‘Alien’ and ‘Predator’ movies reinforce anti-Black racism”. Aside from his anti-intellectualism is his bad faith; for, as an Ashkenazi Jew, Shapiro should know well that 20th century totalitarians and others, as shown by David Livingstone Smith, dehumanized the Other as not only ‘animal’ and subhuman but also non-human. The danger here is that right wing ideologues who presume themselves to be arbiters of free speech and truth imagine their brand of totalitarianism is other than what it is.
 Roxanne Dunbar put the matter liberating women, abolishing the family and securing the State as pater postesta thusly:
How will the family unit be destroyed? After all, women must take care of the children, and there will continue to be children. Our demand for full-time child care in the public schools will be met to some degree all over, and perhaps fully in places. The alleviation of the duty of full-time child care in private situations will free many women to make decisions they could not before. But more than that, the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.
 In Sex and Conquest Richard C. Trexler makes the same point as Nesbit, but arrives by a different route. He argues that we cannot separate State formation and the emergence of private property from sex and sexuality, especially both sexual conquest and ‘penetrative penality’ directed at males. Thus, he argues,
It has long been a truism that the family is the foundation of the state, but, in fact, reflecting on the developments of…[homosexual conquest of males and ‘penetrative penality’]…persuades us that those relations between males that begin in gangs and continue in these first homosexual marriages already provide the foundation for the state…Only once power relations between men are established in these first homosexual marriages is property addressed in a later heterosexual marriage.
True it was, Trexler admits in agreement with Gerda Lerner, that the first States emerged as slave holding enterprises and that women were the first slaves. But, even from citations provided by Lerner on the emergence of slavery, this was possible ONLY because the fathers, brothers and all other male relations of the first (female) slaves were not only murdered, but were sexually savaged in the process. From this point onward, the State always eyed the authority of fathers with tremendous jealousy.
 With the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution in swing, future Statists may have no need for mothers as such. À la The Matrix and Stars Wars Clone Wars, children will be grown in vats en masse as needed, fitted for specific roles, and, presumably with the will-to-freedom ‘crispered’ out of them.
 Two examples are: first, the misandrist genocidal screeds of Valerie Solanas’s 1967 SCUM Manifesto (The Society for the Cutting Up of Men); second, and more recently, Jenny McDermott’s who argues that because women are raped and murdered by men, and, because, as the embodiment and representation of ALL women, “I am sick of being a baby factory that produces more men”, “we need to kill all men”, “kill all male babies” and “kill any man you see”. As to rape, victims of murder and genocide, the evidence does not bear out feminists who say the quiet part out loud, that boys and men must be killed en masse (see Tommy J. Curry’s “Foreword” to my Appealing Because He Is Appalling and Augusta DelZotto and Adam Jones’s “Male-on-Male Sexual Violence in Wartime: Human Rights’ Last Taboo?”).
 I do not feel a need to defend myself against spurious charges that I advocate the ‘oppression’ of women.
 Bearing in mind the discussion about children and the abrogation of parental authority, the report states on pages 21-22 that:
…sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.
What better way to screen globalist pedophiles from accountability.