Arrowhead,

Another great article.  Your clock of totalitarianism reminds me of Ed Griffin's political circle descibed in The Future is Calling, Part I: The Chasm.  He uses the circle to illustrate the difference between collectivism and individualism.  His circle has totalitarianism at the top (12 o'clock), whereas you have it at the bottom (6 o'clock).

I guess great minds think alike!  :-)  Ed's take follows.  --Rick

THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

We hear a lot today about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do those terms really mean?  For example, we are told that communists and socialists are at the extreme left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme right. Here we have the image of two powerful ideological adversaries pitted against each other, and the impression is that, somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all.  They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze communism and Nazism, they both embody the principles of socialism. Communists make no bones about socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international socialism, whereas Nazis advocate national socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is no difference between communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!

There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists, and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find that communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian. Why? Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism and socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical extension of their common ideology. Under collectivism, all problems are the responsibility of the state and must be solved by the state. The more problems there are, the more powerful the state must become. Once you get on that slippery slope, there is no place to stop until you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is total government.  Regardless of what name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different, collectivism is totalitarianism. 

Actually, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical place for us to be is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We need social and political organization, of course, but it must be built on individualism, an ideology with an affinity to that part of the spectrum with the least amount of government possible instead of collectivism with an affinity to the other end of the spectrum with the most amount of government possible. That government is best which governs least. 

Jeff, Stopping the clock is what should be done of course! The founders of this great nation understood that even if they didn't describe in that way. Our Constitution was designed to be the way to stop the clock, and the principles of "the higher attributes of our being" that you identify were understood to be the tools the people would use to maintain their freedom. Our inalienable rights are just that, rights belonging to us that cannot be denied. When the people however, decide to no longer use the tools suggested, the need for more "government help" increases, or more accurately, develops into a huge bureaucracy necessary to provide the security the people are not providing for themselves. As this growing big government intervenes more and more in the daily activities of the citizens, the people in effect, surrender their inalienable rights. This is the America we are seeing today. Too many people no longer exercise those higher attributes. Instead, they are willing to have the "government take care of it"! One of my favorite quotes that I have on my website is this one from historian Edward Gibbon: "In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was the freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." This is the message the two major parties are selling to the American people. Do not worry about anything, we will take care of it. In the end, we find our freedoms and rights being stolen from us by elite politicians interested in re-ordering the world to produce their vision of a socialist utopia, the New World Order if you will. The only way that we can stop this theft and reclaim our inheritance is to reject the elites and the two major parties they control. It is time for the people to recognize that we have have been duped into always voting the lesser of two evils. We are manipulated by the DEM/GOP/MSM propaganda machines to believe that only they, the elites, have the necessary wisdom, knowledge, and experience to govern. In doing the same thing over and over again, always voting for one of them, we always get the same result. What we are receiving by falling for this myth is more big government, declining personal freedoms, and growing influence to the internationalists who hate America. The action we must take is to deny the elites that which they desire the most, the Presidency. Only an independent President can begin to reverse this trend and restore the Constitution, rule of law, and will of the people as the principles of self governance. If any of our Fire Society community out there wish to see a much greater explanation of how the elites are robbing us of our birthright, I urge you to visit my website, joeolivaforpresident.org. Check it out, you won't be disappointed. Thanks, Joe