Tucker vs Little Totalitarians

Conservatives throwing hissy fits because Tucker calmly stated an undisputable fact of objective reality (that he asked somebody for a comment and was refused) shows that totalitarianism is extremely attractive to both sides of the political spectrum.

We have only got one last remaining honest journalist who isn’t a partisan lackey, and we can’t deal with the trauma. Ooooh, he said something I don’t like! I need a safe space from that terrible realization!

The worst ones are those who say that Tucker “betrayed our side.” He’s a journalist, people. He’s not supposed to have a side. The whole problem here is that every journalist, every news source, and every platform has taken a side. It shouldn’t be this way. We shouldn’t be manipulated by the people who give us news in a way that serves “their side.” They should stick their side up their anal cavities when they come to work like I stick my political beliefs up mine.

Tucker has twice invited a sleazy bastard to the show who believes in “color revolutions.” I hate that sleazy piece of utter ridiculousness. But I deeply respect Tucker for giving space for everybody to speak, even the people I personally don’t agree with.

Crush your inner totalitarian, folks. The problem is inside. This is a society that is sick with longing for totalitarianism. I hope we get better soon.

26 thoughts on “Tucker vs Little Totalitarians”

    1. It’s inaccessible without an account.

      So far, even a Trump-appointed federal judge has thrown out this lawsuit in Georgia for lack of evidence: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/11/19/federal-judge-rejects-trump-allys-bid-block-election-certification-georgia-438563

      If they’ve got something, it’s time to show it to somebody. If it’s not the press, then show it to the courts. For now, nobody has seen anything but anecdotes that can’t even convince a conservative judge.

      Like

      1. “I didn’t get angry with the request to provide evidence,” Powell told Fox Business on Friday. “In fact, I sent an affidavit to Tucker that I had not even attached to a pleading yet to help him understand the situation, and I offered him another witness who could explain the math and the statistical evidence far better than I can. I’m not really a numbers person.”

        Carlson was “insulting, demanding, and rude, and I told him not to contact me again, in those terms,” she added.

        Like

    1. Once you put belonging to the tribe above everything else, the inevitable next step is to want your tribe to win at any cost and make the losers obey. Totalitarianism always grows from the seed of complete certainty that you stand for the Truth and the opposing side is evil.

      Like

      1. That may be so, but until that step is taken to turn tribalism into totalitarianism, it remains tribalism.

        Apologies for being fussy about these definitions. In my experience, it isn’t possible to have a reasonable discussion about these concepts unless everyone uses the same words for the same things. The isms go haywire 🙂

        Like

        1. If I make it publicly known that I voted for Trump, this will be the end of my academic career. That is totalitarianism. We are asking students to narc on professors on each other for ideological crimes. That is totalitarianism. We are already there. And the scary part is that we don’t have an opposing side. We have one side holding the totalitarian power abd another side pouting that it can’t do the same.

          Like

          1. Yeah, but academics have all been communists for as long as anyone can remember. Do you think Wall Street firms care who their traders voted for as long as they make money?

            Like

            1. If you think this isn’t coming from academia to every workplace around you, you aren’t paying attention. Does the name James Damore ring a bell? He’s not in academia.

              This is actually worse in business than in academia today.

              Like

          2. Respectfully, I can’t agree. Losing a career after casting a vote that is prohibited by the power system in place commonly happens in tribal systems as well as authoritarian/totalitarian ones.

            In my readings regarding totalitarianism, practically the only common thing between all of them is that the power structure in place prohibits individual rights. In your example, the fact that you voted at all, and have the choice to keep it secret, means that individual rights are not prohibited. So, it can’t be totalitarianism.

            Imo, in the US, the situation seems more like degraded tribalism at the moment, where at least one tribe (the Democrats) seem to have a very authoritarian nature at the moment.

            Like

            1. In the USSR we voted and the vote was secret. In Putin’s Russia they vote and the vote is secret. The Soviet constitution was completely pro every possible right, including the right of national self-determination for Republics.

              For instance, you were absolutely allowed to go to church (mosque, synagogue, etc). Your right to do that was never taken away. But the penalty was public shaming – not by the government, mind you – but by colleagues and friends, an incapacity to pursue your career, and what we today call “cancellation.”

              I fail to see many differences.

              Like

              1. The difference is freedom, which essentially means not only having the right, but being able to use the right without some kind of undue constraint.

                Regarding voting as per your first paragraph, I think that we are talking about different things. My point was to say that totalitarianism is a system that totally controls the individual, so that the individual doesn’t have the ability to participate in a fair electoral process, nor has privacy in regards to who they voted for (with absolute privacy being equal to secrecy, of course).

                Since you got to choose to vote and also got to choose to keep secret who you voted for without constraint, then you can’t be in a totalitarian system, since you got to choose rather than the ones who would deprive you of that choice.

                What you’ve mentioned about voting in the USSR and modern day Russia, I think, isn’t about privacy, but rather an unfair and opaque electoral process, because the ones keeping secrets aren’t the voters, but election officials.

                Like

              2. During apartheid every possible language and religion was tolerated. It wasn’t just tolerated. It was enforced. You had to live in way that was considered appropriate for your group and couldn’t change group. Conflict between these groups was encouraged.

                Like

            2. “In your example, the fact that you voted at all, and have the choice to keep it secret, means that individual rights are not prohibited. So, it can’t be totalitarianism.”

              Codswallop.

              “This is a society that is sick with longing for totalitarianism. I hope we get better soon.”

              Amen.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Respectfully GSW, it might be good if you looked up a definition or two about what totalitarianism is before saying that something is codswallop.

                Alternatively, you could say why you think that something is codswallop, so that we could have a nice chat about it.

                (this comment is a total trap btw 🙂 )

                Like

              2. You’re welcome to be impolite if you like. Please, explain your thoughts. I’m very interested 🙂

                Like

              3. That doesn’t look like an explanation. It looks more like irrelevant nonsense. Please, try again. Explain your thoughts about how an authoritarian system can have total control over its subjects, yet have people living in the system control their own choice to vote, control their own choice of who to vote for, and control their own choice of whether or not to keep the whole thing secret.

                🙂

                Like

              4. The fixation on “choice” bothers me equally among feminists and libertarians. It’s not an extremely meaningful concept.

                In Russia people freely and secretly vote for Putin. But they “choose” him because they were never allowed to have another candidate. They were never allowed to hear the truth about what Putin really does. So what is that “choice” worth? If I lock you up and give you nothing but potatoes, can I then claim that you choose potatoes? What if I convince you by brainwashing you since birth that anything but potatoes is poisonous. And then even if you see a million different foods you will still “choose” potatoes because you are convinced that anything else will kill you.

                Like

              5. @ Clarissa: Strictly speaking, yes you’re right – the significance of choosing depends on the conditions of the choice. That is what gives having choice any value.

                I’m very tired and should probably just go to bed, but looking at what was said about freedom a few posts ago, which was: “the difference is freedom, which essentially means not only having the right, but being able to use the right without some kind of undue constraint”.

                The important thing to look at from that definition (imo) is the word ‘undue’ that precedes the word ‘constraint’, which in the context of freedom (for this discussion we could say) means ‘imposed by someone else in a prejudiced way’.

                So in regards to an election involving Putin, the ‘undue restraint’ on the voter isn’t a constraint on the ability to vote or who counts the vote or something – it’s the constraint on choice of candidates. Choice of candidate is constrained so that other candidates who might be better for the voter are denied to the voter, and it is undue because of the prejudice of whoever wants to rig the election against the voter who might have chosen a candidate that better met their own needs.

                The logic using your potato example is the same obviously. ie the primary constraint would be on the understanding of the child, which then caused the child to self limit their choice of food, which then limited available nutrients etc so on and so forth.

                I’m not sure what you mean about feminists and libertarians btw.

                Like

        2. Tribalism has traditionally been promoted by colonialists and imperialists as a divide and rule tactic. So it does have that in common with totalitarianism in that it allows a small group of people to rule a much larger population.

          Like

  1. FSU was not so ideological as some organizations in US. At least, I haven’t read about similar enlightening notices about Marxism-Leninism while hiking in nature:

    ” Here’s what the National Park Service tells you about the Queer Ecology of the Muir Woods. Excerpt:

    Queer ecology is the series of practice that reimagines how people think about nature. It studies gender, sexuality, and behavior in the natural world. It uses the word “queer” because it draws from a related field called queer theory. ”

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/muir-woods-queer-woods-california-wokeness-live-not-by-lies/

    Or is it a demand-supply issue? The moment some American may be slightly interested in learning about queer ecology, the capitalist system springs into action to prefulfill the yet unexpressed demand, while FSU failed both in bringing both toilet paper and effective National Parks Service to the masses.

    Like

    1. What’s curious is do you see how they want to challenge the binaries, right? OK, fine. But then they impose the racist / anti-racist binary and hysterically insist that it should be accepted unquestioningly. Fascinating stuff.

      Like

  2. “During apartheid every possible language and religion was tolerated. It wasn’t just tolerated. It was enforced.”

    This is the best description of wokesterism and its manifestations that I’ve found, and I would suggest a new name for it – neo-apartheid, but enforced by corporations rather than governments.

    There’s traditionally been a very similar system in Malaysia where a person is born into a group and mostly cannnot change groups – with often grotesque results…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.