article by Wagner Hertzog 

The Spartacus League was a striking and historical, but ephemeral German political movement with revolutionary, marxist and socialist tendencies, founded in Germany in 1915, during World War I, and its most prominent members were Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, both affiliated with the leftist wing of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Both left, after the party expressed support for the German Empire in a declaration of war against the Russian Empire. Unhappy with the political guidelines for power in Germany during this period, both Liebknecht and Luxemburg were arrested for publicly speaking out against the war. With the Kaiser's resignation, and the end of the monarchy, the world, as the Germans knew it, was over, and the nation invariably plunged into chaos, disorder and political instability. With ideas based on what Liebknecht defined as a "Free Socialist Republic" - naively believing that such a republic would be born from the ashes of the German Empire - one of the principles the Spartacus League advocated was the state recognizing and taking into consideration the needs of the proletariat, and giving the working class a greater role in the government. At the end of 1918, the Spartacus League finally became the Communist Party of Germany. It became active at the beginning of the following year's notorious, but ill-fated, Spartacus Rebellion which, possibly inspired by the Russian Revolution, took place in the first weeks of January 1919, initially inflated by the ordinary working class, with the clear objective of destabilizing the Weimar Republic, and declaring its opposition to the ongoing political state of affairs. Raising barricades through the streets of Berlin and invading the headquarters of a newspaper that published articles hostile to the Spartacus League, the workers and sympathizers of the cause resisted for eleven days in the busy streets of Berlin, believing they were initiating a historic, promising and forceful insurrection, which, ironically, would soon come to an end, for lack of strength and resistance. The rebellion, which occurred suddenly, without any kind of logistical or military support, was in fact doomed to failure from the outset, and with the help of the Freikorps - anticommunist paramilitary units composed entirely of volunteers - the uprising was quickly crushed by the government. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were immediately arrested, and they were both executed shortly thereafter, which invariably led to the rapid dissolution and eventual demise of the Spartacus League. Unfortunately, an extremely fragile organization from the beginning, it was never able to properly offer consistent resistance to its political opponents, or even consolidate a solid and cohesive agenda of social change.

  
Wagner

If you haven’t seen Dark5 yet, here’s the recommendation! Dark5 is a formidable YouTube Channel, with the most bizarre and obscure content. Each video lists five things in sequence, concerning a specific subject. The videos are usually short. Each topic, and every one of the cases and situations exposed, is executed briefly and objectively; a short explanation covers an entire story, with the purpose to give the viewer a precise picture about an event, though in a simple frame. 

The idea in general behind the channel is simple: five cases are presented in sequence, with a theme in common. The videos have no narration: subtitles in English explain everything the viewer has to know to understand the subjects in question. A usually sinister, though quite amicably serene soundtrack keeps playing in the background, while the cases are being presented.

This channel is great for everyone with desire to discover curiosities. Of course, like I mentioned above, concision is the signature style of the channel: the content is presented in a very compressed narrative in screen subtitles. If you find anything interesting and feel the urge to enlarge your knowledge about a specific case, situation or phenomena, you have to search for Google, or in another YouTube channels what you’re looking for. I think you can say Dark5 is more of an introduction, an open door to discover interesting things to study, and analyze further.  

Nevertheless, the channel is amazingly interesting, and given the fact that its rhythm is pretentiously rapid, it’s pretty great for certain parts of the day, especially when you have a break in a specific, though agitated period of your routine, like work, when you don’t have too much time, or if you usually can’t find – whether it will be always, or in a particular moment of time –, the patience required to see longer documentaries about similar issues, or even the same subjects.

Dark5 is a very interesting channel for people interested in more obscure, bizarre, mysterious and enigmatic subjects. A great place to provide easily assimilated knowledge, and to satisfy morbid curiosities.    


Wagner

The proof that, to a certain extent, Ancient Greece was unified - by Wagner Hertzog

The Delian League was a confederation of city-states led by Athens, who had a profound, eviscerating and intense rivalry with the Peloponnesian league, which was, by its turn, led by Athens’ main antagonist, Sparta. This infuriating and complicated rivalry fatally culminated in the bloodthirsty Peloponnesian war, that abruptly put an end to the Athenian leadership in the region of Attica. So, vehemently analyzing the context, it is wrong to say that Ancient Greece – at least according to some historians –, never was a unified nation. From a logistic, politic and strategic point of view there was a unification that, if by one side never saw any formal politicizing process, on the other, was very cohesive and systematically organic. During its peak period the prominence and the leadership of Athens over the Delian League came to be so strong that many historians refer to this period as the Athenian Empire. 

Several times throughout its existence, city-states with membership in the Delian League, due to profound dissatisfactions over a vast array of subjects, deflagrated insurgencies, mainly to free themselves against the abusive, sometimes dictatorial – even tyrannical – domain of Athens, being mostly defeated in the vast majority of occasions. Athens wisely used these wars at their favor, with another purpose in mind: to intimidate and threat other cities with potential to stage a rebellion. Since Athens usually defeated the insurgents in bloody and humiliating battles, other city-states with membership in the Delian League would refrain from taking the same path. The so called "golden period”, also referenced as the classic history of Athens, came to an end when the city was devastated after the Peloponnesian War. 

Another aspect interesting to analyze are the main differences between the powers of the Hellenic world: democratic and cultural Athens was vastly different – in fact, completely incompatible – from the more oligarchic, warfare-oriented and militarized Sparta. Throughout the classical history of Greece, these two opposite poles would be thoroughly and intermittently involved in hostile conflicts, for the benefit of their social, political and ideological ambitions. 

Although it is entirely possible to understand the concept of city-state, Ancient Greece saw, indeed, periods of political, military and ideological unification. The fact that each and every city-state detained a vast degree of autonomy does not imply an intrinsic factor of complete independence: for the greater part of its existence, the Delian League was led by Athens, assuming the same role Sparta did, concerning the Peloponnesian League (and both, by the way – just for the record – often did it with iron hand, never tolerating rebellion or disobedience of any kind). 

So, to affirm that Ancient Greece was a disjointed and disconnected ordeal of city-states is an entirely wrong supposition. Although it has never been a cohesive union, history teaches us that there were fairly organized confederations of city-states, united by a strong leadership – that at certain times acted in an excessively dictatorial mode, its true – comprising a coherent unity, fighting for common interests. The Delian League and The Peloponnesian League, guided by the strong leadership of Athens and Sparta respectively, were two city-states that divided Ancient Greece into two belligerent, distinct and rival poles, often exerting with iron fist the political and ideological ambitions which both represented and fought for, obviously moved by the ardent desire to guarantee their political hegemony. Something that nation-states to this day try to enforce by the excruciating, tragic, inhumane and violent means of war. 


Wagner

by Wagner Hertzog 

Being "Etruscan" an exonym of Roman origin, the Etruscans called themselves by the endonym "Rasenna"; one hypothesis that seeks to explain their origins affirms that the Etruscan civilization developed from the autochthonous Villanovan culture. The beginnings of Rome, as well as its development as a primitive city-state, are possibly due to the expansion of Etruria when, in reaction to their territorial control, several tribes of Latins and Sabines probably united, forming a sort of coalition, to defend themselves against the periodic invasions of the Etruscan peoples. Several wars of Rome against Etruscan city-states like Fidenae and Veii are very well documented. 

Nevertheless, Etruscan society and culture played a major role in the early formation of Rome. As a city-state in its formative years, Rome developed gradually from a confederated alliance of Latins, Sabines and Etruscans. Inevitably, various elements of Etruscan culture and civilization were assimilated and disseminated by the Romans, who, especially during the republican period, recognized and prided themselves on the peoples who were responsible for their origins. 

Many historians today claim that the Roman civilization only became a powerful and emerging city-state because its rise coincided with the decline of the Etruscan civilization, undoubtedly a favorite subject among contemporary archaeologists and historians. Their language also continues to be a source of fascination, mystery and curiosity, which rekindles the uniqueness of their origins; they spoke an archaic isolated language, which by convention has been called Etruscan. Study, discussion and research between so called “etruscologists” show clearly that, unlike the neighboring peoples, the Etruscans did not spoke an Indo-European language. With an almost enigmatic writing system, their language remains mostly obscure, and was never entirely deciphered.  

Although their hegemony in the area was quite short – it lasted less than four centuries – history shows that they were of major importance to a certain degree in shaping roman’s culture, as well as war tactics. They engaged in trade and commerce with other civilizations – like the Greeks and Celts –, and usually could have warm, almost peaceful relations with them. Nevertheless, they engaged in warfare, and one of the main reasons that seeks to explain the formation of Rome was the fact that probably the Latin tribes that lived disperse in the seven hills of Rome had united to protect themselves from the periodic incursions of Etruscans into their territory, thus slowly giving rise to what early Rome came to be: an emerging, strong, independent city-state, destined to expand even further, and to become one of the most powerful, impressive and distinguished empires in human history.  

Unfortunately, several aspects of the Etruscan civilization are obscure. Since only a handful of texts directly written by them survive, what is mostly known forcibly comes from roman texts, with a lot of sources whose historical accuracy are not exactly reliable. The essence of what is known about the Etruscan civilization comes from archaeological evidence, as well as studies and research done in situ. With scarcity of historic legitimate sources from their own time, the substantial essence of the Etruscan civilization, unfortunately, is doomed to remain a mystery. 





​
Wagner

Unless you have been living under a rock on Mars, you will probably be aware that there is a massive boxing match coming up. Mayweather vs. McGregor, Some people call it the match of the century. It's been hyped so much that even I know about it. I have never in my life seen a boxing match. I don't care about boxing. I don't care about testosterone buildings bashing each other's faces to pulp. It's just not a part of my morbid fascination.

Then again, even though I despise violence in all its forms, somehow this upcoming fight intrigues me. Not the fight itself but everything surrounding it. Millions of people want to see it. The price money that these two will divide is 300 million dollars and millions more will be won or lost in bettings. On facebook, I see posts about the fight more frequently than posts about the recent terrorist attacks on Barcelona. Even wrestling news sites are mentioning the fight.

True, Mayweather has had a tiny stint in WWE where he broke Big Show's nose but wrestling is fake (sorry, scripted) and that particular appearance should be erased from everyone's memory. It was just one of WWE's many attempts to put wrestlers in the ring with famous non-wrestlers. They do it every once in a while and it's never memorable. Before that WWE pay-per-view, I didn't even know who Mayweather was, let alone McGregor. That's how much I care about boxing and MMA.

But still, there is this tremendous hype and for what? People are paying tonnes of money to see this thing. The pay-per-view price is being set at US$89.95 (with an additional $10 charge for high definition). The lowest-priced tickets available on Ticketmaster had a face value of $1,571; prices are $5,000 near the ring, and "platinum" seats cost up to $14,995. Are you fucking kidding me?
No wonder McGregor is willingly having his face fisted. He's going home with at least 75 million dollars, just for receiving a few punches. Like many people, except perhaps the Irish, I think Mayweather will win this one. He will probably win it fast too. Then again, for 100 million, he just might put up a little show and let McGregor try to hit him first. In all, people are going to pay heaps of money to see a very short fight.

The promo videos and press conferences I've seen have all been extremely cringeworthy. McGregor wearing a suit with 'Fuck You' printed in stripes allover is one of the most childish things I have ever seen an athlete do, and remember, I'm a wrestling fan. I've seen athletes wearing turkey costumes, clown outfits, pink skirts and onesies with bright yellow dots. I love wrestling and I love WWE but their spinoffs are getting extremely ridiculous. A 'Fuck You' suit, Total Divas, Donald Trump... Honestly, WWE should just stick to wrestling shows.

What I dislike most about this fight and about the hype leading towards it, is the ego that these future Alzheimer patients have been showcasing. Both are either extremely full of themselves or the whole thing is supervised by Vince McMahon. There is so much hype, so much show that I'm almost beginning to think that this event has any historical value. 

The conspiracy theorist in me expects something else to happen at the exact day as the boxing event. Why else would the entire media try to focus as many people as possible onto the screen? Why else would they want to pack one of the biggest stations in the world to capacity? I'm not even talking about a terrorist attack. I'm talking about passing a law that will diminish your privacy, a large scaled scan of personal information, a train with nuclear weapons on board that can safely depart, an evil alien race that can safely land and negotiate the possibility of sending human slaves to their planet, something like that. Something that needs to escape the people's attention. I know, it's probably far fetched. The truth might be a lot simpler. Two testosterone filled dudes talk thrash and some marketing nerds see an opportunity to make big money. The rest of the world is so used and addicted to violence that willfully pay to see this. 

So now I'm wondering why the hell I am writing this article. As some readers might say, "if you don't care about it, just shut up about it". But I do care. I care and I worry. The fact that this, a fight, is one of the most hyped events ever somehow worries me. The fact that we're still not beyond the Roman "bread and games" tradition worries me. Kids are going to see it and you can bet your ass that many youngsters will punch their brothers and sisters in the face on Saturday. That's what kids do. That's what everyone does. We copy each other constantly. Copying one another is embedded in our DNA so we do it all the time. Today, we live in an era where ego, selfishness, a big mouth and violence are being shown and sold to every receptive individual. Guess what they are going to do? 

Oh well, perhaps I should just hug a tree on Saturday...


​Rik

Forgive me for picking a fan-made lyric video but in this one the lyrics are extremely important. My suggestion: learn them by heart and sing them loud whenever your boss is an ass again.

I know, Ugly Kid Joe had a pretty similar titled song but when you really want to get the message over, you better go with Overkill. I mean, no need to go for a friendly 'hahah, I hate you' song when you can really thrash faces, right?

Or if you want something rather funny but still want to send a clear message, perhaps this is the tune you want to send. It's a clear and direct message, something which many people claim to like...

Everyone is angry at their ex, and with a good reason too. Exes are just former leeches... Well, mostly. Ben Folds' ex still owed him some money, so he made a song about it which probably earned him more money than the bitch actually owed him. Good for him...

For those who don't understand Dutch, don't worry, we have no idea what he's singing either. Still, this whole song is a perfect one to tell people to "bugger off". 

Max Cavalera's industrial output Nailbomb also knew a thing or two about being pissed off. Together with  Alex Newport of Fudge Tunnel, he created some of the most intense hate anthems to date. Oh man, how I wish for a Nailbomb reunion...

Right, let's take a look in the noise and power electronics scene. Haus Arafna has been creating harsh, unpleasant music for decades. I suggest you play this loud.

Or how about mister Cold Meat Industry himself, Roger Karmanik and his ear torturing Brighter Death Now moniker. Delightful musicks to fuck up your hated one's sanity, that's all you need...

Although this can be good advice for everyone, this smasher by Pain is a clear message, not to be missed by its receptor. Plus, it's an awesome piece of metal.

Obviously, people have been pissing each other off for ages and the punk scene is a very good source to find some decent hate songs. Like this rough and raw tune by The Stooges for example. 

Well, I don't think this really needs an explanation. This song seems to be near the top of people's favorite hate songs, and perhaps rightfully so too. 

American aggrotech legends Combichrist also have a few stomping hate songs. This is one of my favorites, containing some good torturing advice...

And since we're dancing, let's quickly blast this futurepop classic by Apoptygma Berzerk through the speakers. Because you know, "bitch" isn't a very nice word but sometimes well deserved...

Of course, Anal Cunt deserve a spot here since they were one of the angriest mofos on the entire planet, plus they topped it off with hilariously dark humor. What's not to like about these guys.

It doesn't always have to be harsh and brutal to get the message through. Ska lords Reel Big Fish know a thing or two about not liking someone very much...

It's funny because it's true...

Article by Wagner Hertzog

While Fidel Castro is widely celebrated throughout Latin America as a revolutionary hero and a champion against what the communist worldview saw as American imperialism, facts inherently present to us a very different point of view, that challenges everything normally presented by the leftist narrative, that undeniably exposes Fidel Castro and the Argentine guerilla warfare leader Ernesto Che Guevara as heroes of the Cuban revolution. Nothing could be more distant from reality: what really happened in 1959 was the substitution of the deranged and horrible tyranny of Fulgencio Batista, by the much more aggressive, ferocious and oppressive communist regime of Fidel Castro. And to romanticize the atrocities perpetrated by Castro in the name of “la revolucion” is a crime as terrible as the ones he inflicted over his own people.   

When Fidel Castro established himself in power, he initiated a tremendously aggressive campaign to crash opposition. In La Cabaña, Che Guevara conducted mass shootings through firing squads, some of them carried out personally by him. It is estimated that, during the initial years of what they called “The Cuban Revolution” – that should be labeled more properly as “The Cuban Genocide” –, almost 8.200 people were killed, most of them executed by firing squad. Although well-seen, and mostly inserted in a positive light by the mass media, the facts undeniably expose Fidel Castro as a hostile, malignant and evil tyrant who have done it all to achieve power, and then to sustain it around himself. Fidel Castro always had the final word about everything that occurred in Cuba. When he achieved power, companies were nationalized, and from then on, everything in the small Caribbean island-nation was administered as if they belonged to him. Because, as a matter of fact, after the coup, they were his properties, anyway. Everything could be considered personal possessions of Fidel Castro. He ruled unopposed above all and everything. His wish was always an order, to be executed immediately; Fidel Castro was an absolute despotic autocrat, that ruled according to his own personal wishes. It will not be an exaggeration at all to affirm that Cuba was a great corporative company, and its sole owner was its evil tyrant, Fidel Castro, who extended benefits only to his immediate family. 

After taking power, Fidel – a Marxist-Leninist – analyzed how he could transform Cuba from a market economy into a socialist state. Then, gradually, the country would be converted to communism, although Fidel contemplated the possibility of skipping steps into the process, going directly to communism, instead of doing the transition to socialism first. 

Nevertheless, despite the overthrown of Fulgencio Batista – a United States backed dictator, who also governed Cuba as president from 1940 to 1944 –, and the “glorious” and “promising” winds of change that the “revolution” inspired, the living conditions for the Cuban population never got any better. On the contrary: living standards widely decreased, and soon became clear that an oppressive state apparatus would be required to maintain things strictly “under control”. Cubans impoverished widely, and without the possibilities of free enterprise and the free-market system for improvement, the population became infamously hostage of widespread misery.    

Another interesting fact about Fidel Castro, like many other dictators, is the fact that he preached a moral code of conduct – to his closest associates, as well as to the Cuban people in general – that he never demanded himself to follow. When Fidel Castro became dictator, he expressively forbade illicit drug use, prostitution, and gambling, and defended more conservative values and ideals, like family life, work, integrity and discipline. Nevertheless, he never tried to develop the virtues he advocated for. Now it is widely known that Fidel, while married – and maintaining his marriage a very private matter for decades – had a lot of lovers and mistresses, as well as countless love affairs, and offspring from several different women. He never tried to be a graceful and dedicated father to any of his children – even neglecting some of them –, and his daughter spoke against him when she managed to escape from Cuba, something Fidel was anticipating, and had made his best efforts in order to avoid.   

What happened in Cuba is the best example of the atrocities inherent to socialist tyrannies: a whole nation is taken hostage of precarious conditions, and each and every individual that tried to confront, challenge or contest the government was assassinated. Cubans who desperately searched for life improvement had to scape to the United States; today, Florida has several communities that are major hubs of Cuban expatriates, that went to great lengths to escape the tyranny of Fidel Castro, the evil dictator that ruined their lives. Now that he is dead, and his brother Raúl is in charge – but with the promise to retire soon – maybe the Cuban people will have the opportunity to finally implement democracy in their homeland.       
 

Wagner

Article by Wagner Hertzog 

Susan Sontag was an American essayist, playwright and political activist, who achieved notoriety in the mid-sixties, through an essay published in the now defunct Partisan Review. She consolidated her publishing career with well-acclaimed books, especially her work in the field of non-fiction. 

​

​
Nevertheless, what can be considered marvelous and uncommon for Sontag is the fact that she, as a left-wing activist, considered the possibilities of at least some items of the left ideals and political agenda to be incorrect, mistaken, or even completely wrong. Considering how belligerent, intransigent and arrogant left-wing activists can be, this attitude of Susan Sontag can be seen as a phenomenal gesture of humility, altruism and true benevolence.

She famously said the phrase “Communism is fascism”, while in a rally in New York City in 1982, while trying to explain more profoundly the true nature of communism, and comparing to fascism, alluding to the totalitarian nature of both. At that same speech, she also suggested the possibility of anticommunist activists to be right, and that they were good-natured and well-intentioned in their efforts to prevent communism of becoming a reality, correctly implying that there is a great effort of communist sympathizers to deny and to conceal the horrendous crimes perpetrated by communist regimes all over the world. This is proven right by the fact that – to this day – although communist governments has killed far more than the Nazi regime, communism is not as hated or shunned as Nazism, with only a handful of countries in Europe – like Ukraine, Georgia, Romania and Moldova – having forbidden communist parties and activities definitely, whereas Nazism is forbidden mostly everywhere.  

Susan Sontag was widely reproved by her peers, in consequence of her criticism of communism and left-wing politics, with people criticizing her for betraying her own ideals. Which I think is a superficial overlook, and doesn’t take into an analytical specter the depth of her thoughts, political perceptions and human considerations.      

A brave person with a greatly analytic mind, predisposed to investigate profoundly the main reasons for social problems, Susan Sontag clearly had no fear of confronting what could disturb her. If by any chance she felt the need to deconstruct and analyze profoundly her own political beliefs, she would do that without any regret, knowing beforehand, of course, about the possible implications, since she knew how people on the left usually reacts, always hostile, contemptuous and aggressive towards criticism. Regardless of this, Susan Sontag had no fear of admitting to herself when something she deeply believed was wrong, and was permanently analyzing her own worldview, expanding her horizons and reevaluating her own group of beliefs, in order to evolve, and to explore different perspectives on art, literature and politics, as well as in another fields of life. 

A cohesive and sensitive thinker, without fear of exploring new possibilities, nor questioning or confronting preconceived values, Susan Sontag was a different leftist. A leftist with solidarity, perspicacity and strength to admit that she was a human, that she could be wrong at certain times, that she was constantly seeking the betterment and the improvement of her own nature and character, and that the left is not always right; she surely knew how to be and make a difference in the political scene, as a true courageous activist. There is no doubt that this was a formidable attitude of her, indicative of a benevolent personality and a profoundly humanistic character, with an heterogeneous openness that only a handful of people are able to achieve. 


Wagner

Article written by Wagner Hertzog

Socialism is an inherently harmful political cosmogony, due to a large multiplicity of factors. Nevertheless, the most malignant of these factors certainly concerns coercion, which is the inexistent possibility of choosing not to participate on its platform of social revolutionary rhetoric, that seeks the so called “common good”. 

The main goal of socialism objectifies the state as the most preponderant factor for a well-organized society. In theory, this may be pretty and even delightful, but in practice, an enormous state will inevitably resort its citizens to a condition of slavery – whether directly or indirectly –, and this could happen gradually, or even rapidly. When the state is seen as the solution for all problems, and it is given to the government a wide range of powers to supposedly resolve these issues, the final result will be inherently harmful: less autonomy for the individual and the society. Its power to choose vastly decreases, and, as a result, the government will become more and more tyrannical.  

When you analyze a society which had its autonomy fully compromised, a terrible and catastrophic collapse will inevitably take place. The nationalization of the economy will also rapidly deteriorate the living conditions of its citizens; as the economy will gradually collapse, crime, poverty and famine will destroy the nation. The possibilities to seek for a way out of the precarious system created by socialism will be, undoubtedly, to its citizens, leaving their country for good. Now, in the present day, we have the most preponderant example of this situation in South America. Online, we can testify daily what is happening in Venezuela, and how the country is suffering with miserable intensity literally all the terrible and grotesque ordeals of socialism, and all that came with it: tyranny, widespread misery, political turmoil, death by state repression, unemployment, economic collapse and famine, between many other unfortunate events.

Socialism visibly destroys all countries that suffer from this agonizing political sickness. To seek in the state a magical solution for everything will inevitably pave the way for misery and totalitarianism. This type of government can also approve the sanction of laws and amendments that forbid private property, with everything belonging to the government, which clearly shows the contempt and the lack of respect and consideration of socialist politics regarding personal ownership. Being completely based on coercion and use of extensive violence to achieve its meanings and objectives, socialism has way more to do with evil than with social improvement. Let me completely exclude a lot of other factors, like the possibility of the betterment of human beings, the nation and the economy, to name only a few. The fact that we can’t deny whatsoever is that socialism is related to tyranny. And a lot of other illnesses, like widespread dissemination of poverty and government bureaucracy. 

Socialism, especially for the private sector, is a horrendous and detrimental disease; strikes it like a sordid and atrocious parasite with high taxes and abusive tariffs, with the sole objective of taking the money out of the productive system. Without any consideration for the ones who fought hard to have their own business, socialism makes its income with the work, the productivity and the effort of others. And another major problem of this grotesque and abominable form of rule: a socialist government, in order to control society, seeks to expand. The more the government expands, the more expensive it becomes. The more expensive the government becomes, more costly will be the taxes, so the monetary power of the citizen greatly diminishes, and this have a negative impact in his quality of life. Also, the larger the government, more corrupt it will be. The more departments a government have, the more money circulating throughout its vicinities, the more will be deviated. An enormous government will also inevitably become tyrannical. The more tyrannical the government becomes, more oppressed will be the nation, since the government, in order to suppress the possibility of people not choosing socialism, will have to suppress free speech, to prevent citizens of expressing their justified resentment towards the government, in order to maintain an appearance of order, conformity and popular support. 

Everywhere you look in a socialist nation, you will see slavery, chaos, famine, disgrace and absolute horror. Socialism denies freedom, and imposes several restrictions towards its citizens, in a precarious system of infamous poverty and scarcity, designed to annihilate. Socialism is incapable of improving the life of people. In a socialist country, the only ones capable of displaying a very ostentatious, magnificent and excellent standard of living are the ruling elite, as well as some members of the military, whereas the people become relegated to an inhumane degree of misery.  

Socialism promotes the gradual, vast, critical and intense deterioration of everything. Socialism kills, never saves. But before killing life, socialism kills the spirit, the happiness, the joy, the will to live. In a socialist state, people die slowly, way before they die physically. This is why socialism has to end, and rapidly. Socialism brings nothing but degradation, misery and suffering.  


Wagner

Inverted totalitarianism is a political concept and principle first mentioned by noted American political scholar Sheldon Wolin. According to Wolin, inverted totalitarianism is a system that develops in a relatively democratic free country, that gradually evolves to be a managed democracy, a form of government that appears to be a democracy, but is in fact authoritarian in nature. According to him, that’s exactly what the United States evolved to be after the Cold War. Thus, it’s a totalitarian form of government that gradually evolves from democracy. But in this aspect, there is a fundamental difference concerning its formation and extraordinary structure: instead of subverting the establishment through a revolution – like traditional totalitarian regimes – it paradoxically uses democratic institutions and principles to assert, justify and legitimize its totalitarian nature. Albeit never disrupting nor abandoning a fragile facade of democracy, in order to sustain appearances. Thus, it’s a system similar to a guided democracy (Russia), to an illiberal democracy (Singapore), and a liberal autocracy (Egypt), but mainly differs in the role that large enterprises play upon its political system.         

One of the preponderant factors in the model of inverted totalitarianism is the part of large companies and corporations. They act as the real substance behind the curtains. In fact, the real de facto holders of power are bureaucrats, executives, businessmen and company owners, that subvert government and its implied hierarchy, in order to use political institutions to consolidate their influence and guarantee their financial interests. Thus, through lobbying and crony capitalism, they literally buy politicians and state-owned platforms. Consequently, they effectively own them, making these large corporative groups the real force behind the power. Presumably, all political decisions, laws and amendments approved were done in order to meet the standards and demands of these groups of shareholders, to their exclusive benefits. We can almost affirm inexcusably that it’s a form of corporatocracy, although inverted totalitarianism can expand beyond that and extend a little further.    

Inverted totalitarianism also uses state propaganda to transmit to its people – and also to the world – how good they are, and how effectively they are pursuing the “common good”. One such example is the justification the United States continuously used to fight terrorism. No one would argue the incontestable fact that terrorism is indeed a cruel, hostile, aggressive and violent enemy, and has to be suppressed in order to save lives. But for the United States government, in countless moments, tasks and missions – especially outside their own sovereign territory, and mainly in the Middle East – the end justifies the means. So, if anyone dares to disagree, to contest or to question their counterterrorist methods, this person can be considered an enemy or even a potential threat, with the dangerous probability of becoming a target. No one can question their methods to fight terrorism. Thus, this is one major element of inverted totalitarianism. It is a “democracy”, but no one can disagree, nor contest anything, not even their targets, objectives, goals and missions. Effectively, “fighting terrorism” becomes merely a pretext to achieve more shady and obscure goals, and to assert, reassure and consolidate an increasing and ever expansive zone of control. 

In the model of inverted totalitarianism, politics play a major role all the time. Everything is about politics, everything is achieved through politics, everything is by politics, everything is for politics. Strangely, though, but consistently convenient, never anything really concrete is achieved, and the lack of expressive results are shamefully apparent. And despite being a constantly political oriented state of affairs, paradoxically, contrary to traditional totalitarianism, inverted totalitarianism demands and stimulates the populace to be in a constant state of lethargy, apathy and indifference concerning politics. If the people are alienated, it’s easy for the ones controlling the state apparatus to pursue their own agenda.

Although the concept is relatively new – at least to a larger audience – it’s clear that several societies and countries around the globe are becoming, or already are, resorted to the model of inverted totalitarianism. A state of affairs where the political system is nothing but a large committee for sale, predisposed to seek and to consolidate the monopolies, markets and financial interests of the corporative autarchies that pay the most, this is the natural reflex of a world whose major interest, unfortunately, is money. 

While the idealistic worldview says that this is a harmful global phenomenon easy to fight, the realistic perspective affirms that it’s a battle hard to win. Nevertheless, the problem is identified. 

Inverted totalitarianism is a system suffocated by the subtle aggressiveness of its own tale. 



Wagner