Tuesday, 16 September 2014

Totalitarianism, variations on a theme

I doubt many people are not clearly aware of what totalitarian government means, although fewer who are aware of what it would be like living under it. This is because partly some people born and brought up in such a regime are often unaware of any alternative, and like with Stockholm Syndrome, have become used to the restrictions and see them as normal. The other reason is those living in free countries who advocate totalitarian rules, but would be no different from anyone else in suffering if they were brought in. If you are in a free country which creeps towards totalitarianism then you may well notice the difference, and if it becomes bad enough will work to free yourselves from it, knowing exactly how it was before and now.

Most people however seem to be overly concerned with the different versions of totalitarian government, basically left (communism), right (fascism) and religious, but when you come down with an infection then only the doctor is concerned about the variety in order to treat you, you are just ill with a fever. Therefore I would suggest it is of utmost importance to first recognise and accept both entire totalitarian governments and then any new rules which comply with its requirements, than make much importance of which variation is being imposed at any time. If you're not allowed to travel without a permit, speak against the government, break religious laws (even if it's not your religion, like in Saudi Arabia) or wear what you like in public you're wasting your life partly, as from what we are aware of at least we only have one, and no one on earth has the right to impose their wills on you, even when you misguidedly voted for them like in Nazi Germany. Natural law, basically the golden rule of never treating other people badly, beats all governments. Therefore whether the rulers are the Communists or the corporations, your only life is being ruled for someone else's benefit at your expense, and God would never want a single person to live as they do in Iran for instance, as no God would tell anyone to kill or restrict people as they do there and all other religious extreme regimes.

Does it make much difference if the state owns and runs the businesses, or the businesses run the state? Either way they make the profits and we lose out, and the people are basically enslaved. The words you aren't allowed to use may be against religion, the government, or for freedom, but your speech is still limited by other people's wishes. Besides inciting a crime or lying to cause harm, there should be no restrictions on speech. If someone wants to call you a spastic or wog it's not nice, but insulting people is part of life and can't become a crime or we'd all be guilty by lunchtime every single day. The degree of insult, I hear you say? What is the harm caused by it? Is wog worse than jungle bunny, and if so, then why so? Is causing offence harmful? If it was we'd all be in therapy for the rest of our lives. Insulting and being insulted are not something dangerous and we grow up learning to see it as other people's problems and drop it back on their doorsteps, as taught in Buddhism and yoga. They don't care what people say as they know it's meaningless and empty words.

So the bottom line is look at the rules rather than their source. No version of being in prison is any better than any other. Would you prefer a fascist, communist or religious government? Or none of them?

No comments:

Post a Comment