[Winstonm]

I found this definiton of Totalitarianism from Wikpedia and it made me read it twice.
(Emphasis added)

Quote

Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the official state ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party state, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

Without going into detail, we have the war on terror (mobilize entire populations), peace rallys spied upon and arrests made(intolerance of activities), composite businesses who contract with the gov't and seem part of the gov't, disappearing labor unions, churches threatened by the IRS for anti-war sermons (repression and state control), the Department of Homeland Security (secret police), CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, (you pick for MSM propaganda), being placed on the no-terror fly list for anti-war rallies and speeches (restirction of criticism), the NSA wiretaps (mass surveillance), and numerous world-wide terror attacks.

However, this is not all recent and a good bit pertains equally to Brittain as well as the U.S. Is there truly a power elite, a shadow government intent on totalitarianism at least in Brittain and the U.S.?

Is it paranoia if they really ARE out to get you?

[helene_t]

I don't think it's fair to call the present British government totalitarian. Maybe Blair would be willing to use totalitarian means to stay in power and maybe he already tried to do that, but in that case he's a pathetic failure.

Also, I think that most (not all) U.S. citizens who'd say "they are out to get me" are, indeed, paranoid. Bush would probably like to be an American Kim Il Sung and he has been partially succesful in becoming a such, but the U.S. is still a far cry of North Korea.

[mike777]

What?

History never/seldom/not often repeats..ok please list your research.

Again..please list who is running for President of the USA who says we are not in a terror war against usa? A real real war? I do not claim zero..I do ask who and why?

Again we are in a real full death war..or not...come on.....if not..ok...but who says that?

If we need a real full debate ok..but who is saying no?

[Winstonm]

Maybe it's me, Mike, but your comments seem off point - either that or I did (most likely the right interpretation) a poor job of framing my question.

The examples I listed were ones that were simple to remember and should not be taken as a reflection on the current administration.

The question I have is whether any educated, intelligent persons have a vague feeling about, suspect, or even believe that a Shadow Government exists that is behind the scenes but ultimately making the calls as to which direction governments move over time - toward more freedom and democracy or toward fewer freedoms and totalitarianism.

You seem to be implying that the movement is indeed there but that it is necessary to fight the terrorist war. That is another issue entirely from what I had meant to ask.

Sorry if the post was confusing - so let me rephrase: sans terrorist war reasons, is it 1) insanity, 2) vaguely possible, 3) possible, 4) probable, 5) likely, or 6) quite likely that the movement of the governments of the U.S. and Brittain toward greater government control is a result of a much larger force behind the scenes inplementing over time their policies?

In other words, does it matter who now is and will it matter who will be president/and or prime minister or will a shadow government actually be steering the ship of state?

Quote

History never/seldom/not often repeats..ok please list your research.

"History does not repeat; but it rhymes" is a quote from Mark Twain that infers to me that we do tend to repeat our historical errors but with twists that make them although not exact, close parallels. Maybe you read it differently?

[Al_U_Card]

We may well find out by the day after the next presidential election....

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 29 2007, 07:31 AM, said:

We may well find out by the day after the next presidential election....

I don't know why they don't just tell us who won and save all the campaingn money being spent - put it into national health care.

[mycroft]

No, we won't find out "the day after".

The problem with power is that nobody in their right mind wants to give it up. The American Revolution was about prising power away from Mother Britain. The Founders decided that since governments tend to grab everything they can and hold on to it, they should set up a rule of Law that restricted what powers Governments could appropriate, so that individuals could remain free.

It worked for 150 years or so; I guess that means it was a success.

Cynical, me?
Michael.