The one point at which
totalitarianism made this evident was in cutting the freedom of religion.
Not exact matches
His ban from visiting Britain in June 2009 has
made him the «poster child» for free speech, not only for Americans concerned about the cultural shift towards
totalitarianism and their rights to freedom of expression, but for people around the globe.
Of course, sometimes the
totalitarianism state is based on religious power, like in Iran, but it certainly wouldn't tolerate any rival religion holding power, which is what
makes the rise of evangelical power here in the US so scary.
Totalitarianism is, almost by definition, religious in its intensity and in the nature of the demands it
makes upon the total being of its adherents.
The superman and
totalitarianism offer this something more than oneself, and both are characterized by the fact that they do in fact remove all intrinsic value from the individual and
make him simply a means to a greater goal in which he can symbiotically participate.
And in exploring the wide implications of it all, he noted «the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level
make the acknowledgement of truth impossible» (VS 101) and warned us, as he had done in an earlier encyclical, that «As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised
totalitarianism».
Despite a long tradition of acknowledging conscience, the failure of recent equality and other legislation to
make room for conscience and the observance of faith at the work place and elsewhere is yet another feature of an attempted
totalitarianism.
At the same time it rebuked the pastors for opposing not Nazi
totalitarianism in tow but only its encroachments on organized religion; they were
making a truly heroic stand, but «the cause which they champion is not the fully Christian ideal» (February 7, 1934).
What is it that
makes totalitarianism so novel and so demonic?
De Man's ideology was inherently friendly to
totalitarianism, because it denied the existence of objective truth and
made meaning the province of readers, including demagogues wielding power ideologies.
But does the fact that different experiences can be
made out of the same «material»» the fact that similar emotions can accompany a love affair, a conversion to God, or a conversion to
totalitarianism» mean that the experiences are morally equivalent?
In this way, classical
totalitarianism muffles moral conscience and
makes the burden of individual responsibility lighter.
Or will the forces pushing for «victory» and economic domination continue to
make imperialism — that second major root of
totalitarianism — a policy of our government?
Thus, we see a claim which
makes sense of all the martyrdoms of our time: Martyrs today no longer die explicitly for Jesus Christ nor for the freedom of the Spirit as was the case in the first two periods we had considered, but they die for human justice, i.e., an urgent new action is needed to defend those who are overwhelmed by the weight of
totalitarianism.
The odd peripheral items on screen - leaflets for the 2003 Stop the War demo, or the main protagonist's faded London 2012 sweater - contribute to
making this one of the most innately credible depiction of Britain under
totalitarianism ever seen on screen.
Wolf goes on to
make a persuasive case that America came close to
totalitarianism under the Bush / Cheney regime.
One of the points I have
made before on various occasions is that fundamentally
totalitarianism isn't really political — at least not in the sense that people mean the term «political.»