Fascism and Totalitarianism

I have blogged about the above before, but it is always worth thinking about them again.

Sometimes, people do not know what these words mean and use them indiscriminately as mere insults. We should think about what we are actually describing when we use these words. You do not have to go into detail – it is enough to understand the basic principles and you can do so in simple terms. Fascism simply describes a system of Government where the holders of power hold absolute power. Once elected (or simply having grabbed power), Fascists claim absolute authority. There may be some sort of token democratic process involved, but, essentially, Fascism means that whoever holds power can do as they wish without necessarily having to pass laws. A fascist government can act as it wishes, and the mere fact that it is the government means that whatever it does is legal. whether laws have been passed to enable the actions or not. In fact, the actions taken by a fascist government are equivalent to the passing of laws. The situation is a little like the idea that “The King” cannot break laws that he makes. When “The King” breaks his own law, what he has done is, temporarily, repealed his law for the duration. When he has ceased the repeal, then his law is, in effect, re-enacted. Thus, Henry VIII was able to have Thomas A’Becket murdered without any danger of himself being tried for that crime.

That is Fascism. It roughly translates, in modern day terms, into persecution of minorities which are currently out of favour, such as people who enjoy tobacco.

Totalitarianism, I believe, derived from the actions of Stalin in Soviet Russia. He decided that the agricultural system of Russia was not efficient. He therefore decided that farms must be ‘collectivised’ to make them bigger so that mechanisation could be introduced to increase efficiency, and thereby increase yields. What was ‘totalitarian’ was that there was no escape, regardless of either the current efficiency or ownership of the land. The application of his edicts was ‘total’ – there was no other way. If anyone objected, he was brushed aside and possibly murdered.

In modern-day terms, totalitarianism translates into ‘one size fits all’.


What is most heinous about both modern-day fascism and totalitarianism is the appearance of reasonableness. This reasonableness is achieved via surveys. “70% of smokers want to stop smoking” is the excuse for persecuting all of them and especially the other 30%. It matters not to the fascist totalitarians that what their surveys show is merely ‘second preference’ (‘first preference’ is to continue to enjoy tobacco). ‘Second preference’ is sufficient to justify the use of fascist, totalitarian force.


You might say that smoking harm is so great that the end justifies the means. That is what ‘The Medical Establishment’ preaches. But their initial premise (smoking harm) is far from proven (see the McTear Case), just as climate change harm is far from proven, even if it was happening. No wonder that the Medical Establishment is so anti-e-cig. E-cigs are destroying their comfortable black and white picture, and they might, eventually, show that nicotine is not addictive and that smoking is not ‘an addiction’ at all but a habit, just as drinking tea or coffee is a a habit. How much would most of us desperately miss our ‘first thing’ cup of tea or coffee! Why should not e-cig users enjoy a ‘proper’ cig first thing in the morning and then enjoy their e-cig for most of the day thereafter? Why not? Doll’s Doctors Study showed the less a person smoked, the lower the risk.

I do not understand why it is that Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are so keen to go down in history as fascist totalitarians. Perhaps they do not care. Perhaps they are content to have the power, for a little while, to bash people with clubs. Perhaps they enjoy just having the ability to bash people, especially the easiest targets. Perhaps they actually enjoy enabling mental health establishments to persecute mental health patients by depriving them of their tobacco. Why else should the allow it? They must derive pleasure from their cruelty. There is no other explanation.


It may be that their political legacy will turn out to be the anti-thesis of what they desire. Certainly, Cameron and Clegg will be seen in the future to be incompetents. They may, at the moment, be seen to be issuing the right sound-bites and photo-shoots, but History is likely to show that none of the players in the political game, at this time, had the foggiest idea of what they were about. Specifically, it likely that they were not aware that a treaty (upon which the EU exists) is just a passing agreement between parties of a temporary nature. Only when the EU gains control of our military and our police will it really exist. Our Government, in the UK, can refuse to enact any directives that the EU produces, and the EU Commissariat can do nothing about it other than expel the UK.

UKIP have a problem, and one can understand  Farage’s difficulties, and the reason that he must emphasise “IN or OUT”. But the REAL problem is the RUSH. There would have been no problem with the EU had it not been for the RUSH to create a UNITED STATES OF EUROPE.

It is a curious thing that the UNITED STATES OF RUSSIA has disintegrated. There are movements in the USA by some States to extract themselves from the USA. That will not happen, but what WILL almost certainly happen is that Scotland will become a tiny, subject territory under the control of the EU Soviet, just like Cyprus.

The answer to these problems is simply to stop feeding the beast. Just stop. It is not a matter of arguing about the nuances of budgets. Stop paying until the Commissariat proves the need for the funds. Take the budget out of the hands of the EU Soviet. When you look at the situation in simple terms, it is easy. Just stop paying.

I remember posting a few weeks ago about the financing of the FCTC, and how many countries had not paid their dues, and that more and more countries were not paying. Only the big payers, like the UK (of course!), Japan, Australia, etc were continuing to waste taxpayers’ money. Note that the USA pays nothing.


It is beyond my comprehension that our land cannot produce at least one LEADER who can think beyond the idea of bombing or not bombing Syria. Greater cost savings would be attained by bombing Brussels. Our LEADER, if and when he/she emerges, will just stop paying.  I vaguely remember Cameron saying that he wanted the EU budget reduced by 5% or some such figure. That is totalitarian thinking (one size fit all). NO! Every budget item must be justified. We must not pay for health zealot propaganda, for example.


Simplification of government WILL happen. Cameron and Clegg promised but failed to deliver.  Neither of them should have accepted the duty if they had neither the knowledge or the courage to remove the monkey of academia from their backs.


7 Responses to “Fascism and Totalitarianism”

  1. Peter Says:

    Henry the Second?

    By chance I had read this before your post: poor Mr Conti thinks Clegg resembles Stalin.


    I suspect Stalin – or any moderately senior party member – would simply have invited Mr Conti to donate his dacha to the Party; or be re-educated in Siberia.

    • junican Says:

      Henry ll? OK.
      Stalin Clegg? That is what I mean about throwing insults around. Conti would be better comparing Clegg with the French Revolutionists – lite, of course.

    • Frank J Says:

      Clegg is more like Henry VI

  2. J Brown Says:

    I find it a bit amusing that we are to sympathise with some actor who lives in a mansion and bought a £32,000 Bentley, who is bemoaning his financial state. While it is all fine and well for us to sit in our cushy homes, with food on the table, and throw about terms like ‘fascism’ and ‘totalitarianism’, we are able to do this because we actually don’t live in such dictatorial regimes. I would suggest that we actually speak to people who have survived such regimes, before we compare our lives with theirs. While I do not agree, certainly, with many of the laws passed, and may ‘live off the grid’ with respect to many of them, I am able to do so because I don’t live under such regimes.
    And yes, sadly, it appears that politics in modern times in the West only attracts mediocre thinkers and legislators. We have attained a certain level of freedom, health care, education, etc., and have the privilege now of being lazy about all of them.

    • junican Says:

      It isn’t often that we disagree JB!
      I guess that I should refer to ‘fascism-lite’ and ‘totalitarianism-lite’. The ostracising of climatologists who disagree with the idea of global warming and the excommunication of medical people who disagree with tobacco control, are fascist acts, although to a much more minor degree. It is the gradual process of ‘denormalisation’ by propaganda that I object to.

  3. J Brown Says:

    Despite my lack of sympathy for some mansion living, Bentley driving actor, this ‘fascism’ of information exists everywhere – and any topic that you may be interested in, is affected by this. For example, how many readers here, who have never had a heart attack, are taking statins to ‘reduce cholesterol’, This is actually the biggest ‘scam’ of the pharmaceutical industry in the past 30 years. Do you know that if you have never had a heart attack, the reduction of such an episode is 1% within the next five years? But that the use of statins has been shown to cause an increase (4-20%) of adult onset diabetes, muscle problems, impotence, memory loss, liver damage, cataracts and cancer; that no statin has ever shown a benefit to ANY female who has not previously had a heart attack? And that the scientists who are attempting to bring this information to the public are also ostracized by government, media, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Is this actually ‘fascism’? Or perhaps ‘capitalism’ at its best – theories, rationals and policies perpetuated by nothing more than profit…..

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: