Totalitarian democracy is a term used by several modern political theorists, commentators and scholars, to describe systems upon which the populace has the right to vote, but the citizens are, in practice, completely destitute of consistent and participative political power. While this term is subject to debate – and there is not a political consensus nor an exact definition concerning its precision or application –, we do have some interesting appointments upon which we can analyze the question. 

A totalitarian democracy – although it would make extensive use of coercion to achieve the goals proposed on its political agenda – would try to capture, or, at least, to give the false impression of a widespread popular approval, for the government to acquire the appearance of legitimate ruler of the people. Currently, the Bolivarian government of Venezuela could be properly classified as a good example. Dissidents are never tolerated: they are persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and unilaterally categorized as fascists. Only what the government approves is considered correct and appropriate. The government desperately tries to assure to everyone, but especially to the outside world, that it represents the people, and the ones who oppose the government oppose the revolution; so, if they are, by association, enemies of the state, they are enemies of the people. This is pure populist rhetoric and platform, that enables the government to persecute each and every dissident that disagrees with the instituted policies. So, basically, the government doesn’t tolerate any defiance to its absolute power. But its constant prerogative would reside in the false proclamation that they represent the people in power. So their actions are always carried out on behalf of the people, and they represent the will of the people.    

It is not that hard to insert or to give a democratic appearance to an otherwise totalitarian government, and this is done mainly by the perception of two major components: the “right to vote” – that serves to legitimize the dictator in power, that always “wins” the elections, and is persistently described as president – and by exercising the total monopoly of culture and information. Whoever manipulates information, has the monopoly of "truth".

Another good example that could be perfectly inserted into this category is Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus since 1994. Technically a dictator, he always wins the periodical elections, and has a system upon which he can maintain absolute power, although the entire political anatomy of the country is disguised as a functional democracy. The total control of government information, however, is guaranteed by brutal repressive agencies, known to kidnap and kill journalists that publish content that are incompatible with the political agenda of the regime, or that publish material considered offensive to Lukashenko, or to the government in general.

Although labeled as a guided democracy, Russia functions by a similar system. A lot of people that antagonized president Vladimir Putin – which is in power since 1999, first acting as Prime Minister, then as president from 2000 onwards, then as Prime Minister again from 2008 to 2012, then as president ever since – were mysteriously assassinated. Journalist Anna Politkovskaya, secret service officer turned defector Alexander Litvinenko, business magnate Boris Berezovsky and political dissident Boris Nemtsov are just the most prominent examples. Vladimir Putin is a member of the oligarch mafia, a criminal organization that exerts complete control over all the political and economic affairs in Russia. They don’t tolerate anyone who interferes with their businesses.   

That being said, a lot of other former soviet countries follows the same political pattern. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan are interesting examples of nations that could be categorized as totalitarian democracies.    

The culture is an important aspect for a totalitarian regime. As the freedom of artists, journalists and intellectuals is curtailed, they are hunted down by the regime, or coopted to work for the regime, in exchange for money and safety. With support from the cultural elite, it is easier for the government to acquire easily and voluntarily the general support from the population. 

As most totalitarian states try to acquire a consistent appearance of democracy, they will manipulate each and every aspect of social interactions, to achieve the results they find would be the more plausible and attractive ones, to elaborate on the appearances they find the more attractive for the regime. 

As their efforts go towards the expansion of their basis of popularity, the government will be active in political propaganda. Given the fact that they have to be in a very vigilante state, populism will also help the government to acquire an appearance of massive approval from the society, in general.  

But, as I wrote above, totalitarian democracy is a controversial term, that is subject to ongoing debate among political scholars. What defines an autocracy, a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime, or an illiberal democracy are – basically – different perceptions of authoritarianism, and how they interact with the population, and how much of their freedom is actually dissipated.  


Wagner

Article by Wagner Hertzog

Nicolae Ceaușescu was the brutal and hostile dictator of communist Romania, from 1965 to 1989, when he was forcefully deposed by a popular revolution, and sentenced to death along with his wife. Getting involved in communism while he was very young, slowly Ceaușescu rose through the ranks of the communist party, assuming power when Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, then political leader of Romania, died in 1965. 

​
Initially not a harsh leader himself – on the contrary, gaining some popularity for taking apparently popular stances –, within some years of government, Nicolae Ceaușescu proved to be a cruel and perfidious tyrant, eager to implement severe and aggressive measures to restrict the population. Consolidating a political police named Securitate, Ceaușescu managed to control literally everything within the country’s borders, and rapidly suppressed freedom of expression, freedom of the press, political opposition and consolidated a centralized control of the means of production, which would eventually took Romania to the verge of collapse.   

Being a rude dictator with no real political or administrative skills, Ceaușescu’s government proved to be disastrous for Romanians. Increased corruption, economic inefficiency, catastrophic financial decisions and an intransigent rule more preoccupied on its authoritarian and repressive stance, as the basic means to secure his unlimited and unrestricted power, caused the country to experience a horrendous and abject decline.  As a result, the quality of living for the Romanian population, as a whole, suffered a dramatic downfall. As an obvious consequence, basic goods like food, medication and hygiene products entered a period of severe shortage, which threatened to disintegrate the country completely. 

Like these measures weren’t terrible enough, Ceaușescu always increased the level of brutality and repression. The cult of personality promoted around him also increased dramatically over the years. His birthday was considered a national holiday, and Romanians forcibly had to smile all day long, since appearing sorrowful on this day was something too dangerous to contemplate. So the population in general had to fake a level of happiness they didn’t really felt, only to survive.

In 1989, the Romanian population had become saturated with the oppressive effects of a terrible, inhumane and dogmatic tyranny. Freedom was something they simply didn’t have, to such an extent that people really wanted to rebel, feeling apathy at the best possible evaluation, concerning the possibility of state reprimand. Like a pressure cooker ready to explode, people simply wanted to get rid of the regime. They couldn’t endure oppression anymore. When Ceaușescu did his final speech, which entered history, as the crowd openly manifested scorn and aversion towards him, screaming, interrupting and explicitly disobeying him – with the exception of people in the front row, composed of members from the communist party, strategically placed there to appear that Ceaușescu had, at least, some level of popular support –, it became obvious that the complete dissatisfaction and the total rejection the population felt towards him was too dangerous to be faced directly. Ceaușescu, like the coward dictator that he was, searched for shelter in the government building, along with his security personnel. Nevertheless, the popular agitation that soon followed was easily repressed by the state apparatus. 

The revolution that started some days earlier in Timișoara – which Ceaușescu mentioned in his last speech –, evolved to a national conflagration. Then, millions of Romanians, encouraged by the fact that so many of their comrades were eager to fight, became determined to overthrown the tyrannical regime, and to depose the dictator. Soon after, the situation escalated to such a dramatic extent that even the armed forces didn’t have the courage to face the anger of the populace, and the commandeers-in-chief rapidly switched sides, doesn’t even trying to save Ceaușescu and the old regime, that seemed destined to be disintegrated by the popular upheaval. 

When the insurgents invaded the government building, Ceaușescu and his wife managed to escape by helicopter. Nevertheless, they were eventually captured by the police, and handled over to the military. After a puppet trial, both were killed together by a firing squad. It was the end of communist rule in Romania, and communism then was turned illegal.  

With a mediocre theoretical view of communism, that was never taken seriously by the intellectual elite, Ceaușescu was, at the best possible evaluation, a terribly insignificant individual, that, as a statesman, was a vehemently incompetent politician, whose greatest “quality” as a dictator was his authoritarianism, that managed to project only suffering, misery and poverty over the nation. His insignificant legacy, practically nothing to the Romanian population and to the nation as a whole, is reduced to a sordid past, that no one is interested to revive or to remember.   

For those who may not know, Lee Harvey Oswald was the man considered to be the assassin of former US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. But was he in fact the man who killed the former American president, committing the most controversial murder of the 20th century? The most probable answer to this question is no. Definitely, its completely implausible to think Lee Harvey Oswald has anything to do with the murder of JFK. For this question, just allow me to affirm that 75% of Americans do not believe Oswald was responsible for the murder. Or, at least,  that he acted alone.

The fact that all independent investigations conducted by the respective agencies, namely the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, the Warren Commission, the Secret Service, and the Assembly Murder Investigation Committee all came exactly to the same conclusion points only to an obvious but very disturbing fact: a conspiracy of enormous proportions, capable of encompassing all spheres of power, at the municipal, state and federal levels, which is not something implausible to think. Therefore, those who wanted President Kennedy's death were individuals who inhabited the top of the governmental pyramid, having at their disposal full powers and ample resources to plan and to execute one of the largest and most controversial conspiracies of the 20th century. However, even though the plan as a whole presented severe discrepancies, at every stage of their proceedings, on one point they were perfect: they found in Lee Harvey Oswald the most convincing and persuasive of all scapegoats. A man who not only fit in with all the arduous demands of the task, but, in a short time, defined for himself a past that was perfectly aligned with all the risks and consequences of what would become the most conspicuous, sordid and intricate plot of all time.

After living for almost three years in the Soviet Union, and having absorbed - and nauseated - the Bolshevik philosophy, being a former Marine, Oswald was a very disturbed young boy, deeply resentful of American politics. With a somber personality, sometimes arrogant and furious, Oswald, with his authoritarian and egocentric character, was a man hated and feared by his neighbors, and despised by his co-religionists. Nevertheless, Oswald had dubious connections with the CIA that until today have never been properly clarified. Besides this part of his life being terribly nebulous, and being fully enveloped in, at the very least, recalcitrant doubts, everything is done so that the truth does not become known. Conveniently, two days after assassinating President John F. Kennedy, Oswald, while being transferred from the Dallas Police Headquarters to the penitentiary, was assassinated by Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner. Oswald's murder was broadcast on national television, seen by millions of people just as it happened, due to the television channels that covered his transfer. For his part, Oswald left life to enter an infamous chapter of history.

The fact that the Warren Commission deliberately intimidated, neglected, and threatened witnesses whose testimonies did not support the theory of the lone shooter is at least intriguing. A factor that was never properly clarified but constantly ignored and conveniently swept under the rug. Another issue that could never be fully elucidated was the trajectory of the projectiles that shot the then President Kennedy, completely incongruous with the place where Lee Harvey Oswald was in the final and fateful moment of the tragic incident. This fact shows the inherent and eventful evidence that presents Oswald not only as a strategic scapegoat, but also as a mindful pawn, ready to be sacrificed as an ingenious part of a sinister plan.  

What I think is one of the most interest facts to investigate about this exceedingly intriguing case is how much Oswald knew. He really knew something about the conspiracy? Or he was completely ignorant about it? He was fooled to participate in it? He knew some details about the plot, and was then deceived by other plot members, who were already planning, behind his back, to eliminate him in the first place? What is really necessary to comprehend is how much involved he was in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.    

And let's not forget that when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald, we are talking about a young boy, who was only 24 years old when he died. Who has seen things that no one will ever see, and heard things that no one will ever hear. In a single moment, I believe Oswald is innocent throughout this story, but to believe that he acted alone is to accept what they really want to make us think. It is to accept passively a historical exaggeration and an immeasurable mistake, which only propagates the defamation of a lie that never had all of its points properly connected.

Pol Pot – whose real name was Saloth Sar – was the dictator of Camboja during the Khmer Rouge regime. He implemented a communist government, that brought to Cambodians an excessive, horrendous, virulent and perfidious level of violence and brutality, never seen before in this history of the small southeast nation. This occurred during a period of tremendous social and political unrest in Cambodia, marked by several coups, transitional governments and ephemeral regimes. Civil unrest was caused also by turmoil in neighboring countries like Vietnam, that was inevitably felt in Cambodian soil. Vietnam was at war, and communism was spreading rapidly in several southeast countries.

In 1970, Cambodia was a monarchy, and royal king Norodom Sihanouk was deposed in a coup by General Lon Nol. An anticommunist, Lon Nol led a brief government, that tried to contain the advancement of the Khmer Rouge. Despite his efforts, the Khmer forces eventually gained power and complete control over the country in 1975. The Khmer Rouge regime, which would be also ephemeral, despite its four years brevity, would prove to be corrosive and disastrous for the country.    

At first a shadowy figure, Pol Pot emerged as the terrible force behind the communist regime. Determined to restore in Cambodia the greatness the country experienced in the distant past, with the primary goal to achieve the same level of glorious splendor the region had conquered in ancient times, Pol Pot was interested in conquering the idealized majesty established by the civilization that built the fantastic and monumental temple of Angkor Wat – one of the most beautiful ancient sites in Cambodia –, and a great source of inspiration to this principle. Like every communist regime, horror was brought in with the best intentions in mind.

To achieve its goals, Pol Pot initiated an ambitious agrarian project. All the population living in cities and urban areas were compulsory conscripted to work in collective farms. Everything western or deemed to be western was considered an evil influence. As a consequence, it was viciously eradicated. This was applied even to medicine and medical procedures in general. The Khmer Rouge viciously demanded entire populations to be relocated to rural areas, and then cities were completely emptied. The agrarian projects were developed for the country to be self-sufficient, and to rely on its own productivity to sustain the population. As a result, Pol Pot forbade any goods to be imported.    

The Khmer Rouge regime was brutal and totalitarian. People would die from starvation, exhaustion in the forced labor camps, or disease. The regime also brutalized each and every sign of opposition. As a result, state repression and violence was widespread. A reign of horror, brutality and aggression brought to Cambodians a period of absolute despair and hopelessness. In its ephemeral and brief four years run, it is estimated that the Khmer Rouge was responsible for the genocide of approximately three million Cambodians. According to some estimates, there are approximately twenty thousand collective graves spread throughout the country. Neighboring countries, like Laos and Vietnam, were also dealing with communist regimes.  

As the chronic instability in Cambodia was exceedingly intensified – and this was a symptom invariably entrenched to Cambodian politics, like everything established before, the Khmer Rouge regime was destined to perish. In 1979 Pol Pot was eventually overthrown. His genocidal regime brought tremendous social, political and civil unrest to the country and, with the subsequent conflagration of a civil war, the regime could no longer sustain itself.  Khmer Rouge members that escaped to Vietnam formed resistance militias, backed by Vietnamese military, and a war between the two countries was declared. 

The Khmer Rouge regime came to an end, as rapidly as it rose to power. Pol Pot has fled to the countryside, and continued acting as the main leader of the Khmer Rouge, who, over time, lost national political relevance, remaining only a local leadership. Pol Pot never faced any charges or criminal prosecution for crimes against humanity, although before he died, he was under house arrest, for having ordered the execution of a former auxiliary.     

Pol Pot died 72 years old, in 15 April, 1998, in a district near the border with Thailand. 


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

Article by Wagner Hertzog

In the current state of affairs, there is no denial that the North Korean threat poses as a major problem to world peace. The constant menacing from Pyongyang to Washington now goes steadily beyond innocent or vague provocations. Recently, the North Korean communist regime has threatened to bomb the American Outpost of Guam, in the Pacific Ocean. As the words between heads of state gets more and more aggressive, current president Donald J. Trump is alert, and seemingly ready to take the hardest measures to protect the integrity of the American territory, U.S. citizens and the allied nations of South Korea and Japan, as they will be in the line of fire if a war is deflagrated. 

Japan recently has been preparing to deal with the possibility of a sudden attack. In some Japanese cities, there has been systematic training of civilians, that teaches them how to react in the verge of a war; they have been receiving systematic training specially for chemical or biological weapons. Due to proximity with North Korea, South Korea and Japan have to take the strongest measures to ensure the safety of the civilian population in the best way possible. South Korea, although having a formidable army, is not less fearful of an imminent war. In tension times like these they remember that the Korean War never actually ended; they live solely on the deal of an armistice, since a formal peace treaty was never signed. And, although there are plans to reunite the two countries, to live altogether as a single nation, there is no agreement upon how this fact could be accomplished, since no side will just allow the other to take over its territory. Both Koreas claim the legitimacy to rule over the entire peninsula, which was divided in two incompatible nations by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1945, after the Second World War. Then a territory controlled by Japan, the country lost its claim over the Korean Peninsula after being defeated by the Allies. 

Xi Jinping, the president of China, is apparently trying to act as a mediator of the conflict. Willing to do everything to ensure peaceful negotiations, his priority is not to compromise China’s neutrality in the process, since North Korea is a long-standing commercial partner. This stance, however, has severely compromised a more solid solution to the problem, since Beijing seems always reluctant to be firm and resolute with Pyongyang. Nevertheless, recently China supported ONU’s unrestrictive economic sanctions against North Korea, which enraged Pyongyang. Unfortunately, the slow pace China has been taking to contribute to a possible resolution to the escalating military tension between the two countries has been infuriating president Donald Trump, that seems tempted to put China completely out of the equation. A pragmatic individual, the kind that wants problems solved, Donald Trump gets severely impatient with the China’s week assertions, appearing to be fearful of reprimanding Pyongyang with severity. 

Evidently, this is a problem that will require strong characters fully committed to find a plausible and – preferentially – quiet and discreet solution. War must be the last resource ever; only if no other alternatives can be created, then a conflict could be speculated. But what can we do in what concerns Kim Jong-un, a man that seems to be, at the best possible evaluation, an egocentric, maniacal, nefarious, hostile and rude dictator? 

While the tensions ardently escalates, and we sincerely hope that the nations involved doesn’t need to resort to warfare to solve their differences, this prospect is in no way realistic: Kim Jong-un is an insane dictator, that – against all international cooperation agreements – keeps fabricating, stocking and testing atomic weapons in his country, and constantly exhibiting his nuclear power for the rest of the world to see. Who can hold back this mad tyrant, besides the United States? If Kim Jong-un decides to invade a neighboring country – and, in this case, South Korea would be the best guess –, and meets little to no resistance, nor a sign of disapproving from other countries, the North Korean sovereign could proceed for as long as he wants. It is insanely urgent that someone detains him, and contains his belligerent and expansionist ideals. Indirectly and subtlety intimidating the neighboring countries, North Korea is discreetly emerging from its warfare game, seeing which are the ones they can provoke, and which are the ones they have to be most cautious. An evidently militarist country, with one of the largest armies in the world, certainly, with all these political, diplomatic and military provocations, the resulting tensions would generate the perfect atmosphere for conflict. Now, we depend once more on the United States to detain the tyrant, deprive him of his dangerous weapons, and restrict him to his feudalistic territory.              
     

Wagner

To oppose totalitarian ideologies is a duty of morally correct, determined and altruistic men. We cannot accept – we could never have accepted – any kind of teachings, worldviews or doctrines whose main set of principles are centered in human oppression. But, unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case, in the social and political scenery of the contemporary world. 

Disgraceful ideologies like socialism and communism do indeed sell ideas of common good, but they are completely false, worthless and unrealistic, as the image created by their theories and fallacies never contemplates what they really project. Every evil is sold appearing to be something good. Socialism and communism are no exceptions. But these shameful, abject and violent ideologies do perpetuate themselves easily, by captivating and enchanting younger generations, that do not have any knowledge about the atrocities perpetrated by socialist and communist regimes. 

Knowledge evidently can be a great engine to fight and suppress all kinds of evil. These two, in particular, should be obliterated, eradicated and forgotten as soon as possible, by virtue of all the suffering, agony and hostility they inflicted upon the human race, in the countries where they were implemented. Nonetheless, these evils sporadically rise again in cycles, and it becomes a duty to try to eradicate them, over and over again, constantly, as many times as necessary. 

Evidently, politics feature a lot of evil expressions, disguised as good things. Even evil has good intentions, so we have to be very cautious about everything concerning political worldviews, in a global and local context. 

Always distrustful of politics and social movements, I am always attentive to the evils in motion. No one that has really studied what these ideologies had done to humankind will sympathize with them, let alone people who had to live in countries applying this sordid and malevolent policies.  

So it’s always necessary to reiterate the evils that these toxic things represent. We cannot simply ignore the fact that these disgraceful and aggressive doctrines are still very much fertile, actively pursuing disciples throughout the world, to contaminate and spread to other people the sardonic devices of its hostile purposes. It’s a duty, a moral accomplishment, an obligation to fight ostensibly these kind of alienation, especially when appears to be innocent and harmless. 

I will always be an ardent, enthusiastic antisocialist and anticommunist militant. It’s not an option, when you chose life and happiness over moral degradation, hostility, animosity, destruction and suffering. It’s a matter of necessity.      

 
 Wagner

Ernesto Geisel was a Brazilian politician, that served as the country’s president from 1974 to 1979. The penultimate president of the Brazilian military regime, during his tenure, Geisel started the slow process that would convert the country into a democracy again. His motto advocated a “slow, gradual and secure openness”. Geisel was especially important for Brazilian politics during this period, because he was a sympathizer of the moderate school of thought of the military institution, which meant that he was determined to work in favor of important social reforms, facing, as a result, ardent opposition from the military generals and politicians known as linha-dura (hard-line), a branch of government conservative officials that wished a continuation of a more rigid and rigorous stance of the state towards the population.      

Born in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, the southernmost state of Brazil (the same where I live [several other Brazilian presidents came from this state as well, especially during the military regime {the most notorious Brazilian president, Getúlio Vargas, was also from Rio Grande do Sul; he presided over Brazil for two distinct periods: the first one as a dictator, from 1930 to 1945, during a period known as Estado Novo, and then from 1951 to 1954, by virtue of democratic elections; Vargas committed suicide in the Palácio of Catete, in August 24, 1954}]), in the city of Bento Gonçalves, in August 3, 1907, Geisel was the son of German immigrants, and spent his youth studying in military academies. His ascension in the political arena came only after the military coup of 1964, when Geisel fell into the favor of then president Castelo Branco, the first president of the military regime, and one of the articulators of the military coup. Nevertheless, before that, Geisel had a profound experience and a vast and long career as a civil servant, having worked in several government institutions throughout his life. 

Under Castelo Branco’s tutelage, Geisel was nominated leader of the Military Parliament. Then, in a direct sequence of events, in 1966 Castelo Branco elevated Geisel to the ranks of general, only to promote him Minister of the Superior Military Court in 1967. Nonetheless, Geisel’s behavior was discreet. He only wished to execute the functions and duties he was told to. By this point, Geisel probably would never have imagined that he would be, in the near future, president of the country. 

With the death of Castelo Branco in 1967, internal disputes arose for the rights of succession to the presidency, within the two main military branches, the moderates and the hard-lines. Geisel obviously sided with the castelistas, a group of militaries and politicians that were ardent oppositionists to the election of Costa e Silva (another politician from Rio Grande do Sul) to the presidency of the republic. A former official of the Ministry of War during Castelo Branco’s tenure as president, Costa e Silva, a hard-line, was eventually elected, giving rise to the most repressive, cruel, hostile and violent period of the military regime. Costa e Silva’s tenure as president, though, was quite short. Assuming office in the beginning of 1967, in 1969 he suffered a stroke, dying a few months later. Initially replaced by a provisional junta, his substitute, Emílio Garrastazu Médici (also from Rio Grande do Sul), inflicted over the civil population a continuation of the brutality and the repression initiated by Costa e Silva.

During this period, Médici nominated Geisel – that has been also extensively involved with the oil business throughout his life – president of Petrobras, a state owned oil company, that detains the monopoly, the resources and the commercialization of petroleum in the country. The support that his brother, Orlando Geisel, offered to Médici during his tenure as president, eventually made him chose Ernesto as a successor. Disputing the office as member of a party called ARENA (Aliança Renovadora Nacional), Ernesto Geisel defeated his opponents, Ulysses Guimarães – that, probably assassinated in 1992 during a travel in a helicopter that was deliberately sabotaged, would become one of the most notorious Brazilian politicians – and Barbosa Lima Sobrinho.

Several interesting changes occurred during Geisel’s presidency. Probably the most notorious – and remains fundamental to his body of legacies – were changes in the Brazilian political map. Geisel divided the state of Mato Grosso, creating a new state, Mato Grosso do Sul, and diluted the state of Guanabara (today Rio de Janeiro), giving it city status and merging it with the eponymous state, turning it into its capital.  

During Geisel’s term of office, one of the greatest achievements was the dissolution of both the censorship and the AI-5, a severe political amendment that invalidated the constitution, and gave plenipotentiary powers to the state repression apparatus.       

In 1978, Geisel faced the now historical general strike of metallurgical workers, led by former metallurgist and union representative, Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, that would eventually rise in the political arena, to become the president of Brazil for two consecutive terms, from 2003 to 2010. Probably the most corrupt politician in the country’s history – and considered among the worst in a global scale – Lula has been responding to several court and judicial orders in recent years, being systematically implicated in the most horrifying political scandals of Brazilian history.    

Geisel’s presidency was mainly marked by ostensive plans to control the inflation – a chronic problem in Brazil’s financial system at the time, destined to continue in the years to come –, devised and elaborated strategies to boost the economy’s development, presided the inauguration of subway lines in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, and oversaw the beginning of the construction of the Hydroelectric Power Plant of Itaipu.    

After his term expired, Geisel supported a politician named Tancredo Neves to be the country’s president. Tancredo won, but died before assuming office. 

The post-presidency life of Ernesto Geisel was a quiet and discreet one. He continued his work in oil companies, and together with his wife, Lucy, divided his time between his apartment in Leblon, Rio de Janeiro, and a farm in Teresópolis. Geisel died in September 12, 1996, 89 years old.     


Wagner