3 ms·

> on the tactics and strategies of totalitarianism, any military that is not actively defending its nation from this constant, post-20th century global threat

> on the tactics and strategies of totalitarianism, any military that is not actively defending its nation from this constant, post-20th century global threat To me it seems most of the countries are, at least at some degree, either totalitarian, obviously or covertly, themselves (and attack their own nation this way) or cooperate with such and supply them with necessary technologies.

wolverine876 5y ago
What does 'totalitarian' mean then? If we redefine it to mean every implementation of every form of government, then the statement is indisputable. But otherwise, if we don't distinguish Xinjing and Scotland, we aren't saying much.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  I didn't mean to say every regulation and enforcement is totalitarianism. The only non-totalitarian ways a state can defend its people from information warfare are education (propagation of rational thinking, awareness of manipulative techniques and fallacies, factual knowledge), enforcement of mandatory fact-checking in mass media and prosecution of proven spreaders of intentionally malicious fake news. Nevertheless many governments prefer to apply the same manipulative techniques to their own people (and avoid educating them to keep these efficient), suppress "undesirable" opinions and facts falsely labeling them as fake and spy on them (their people) as thoroughly as reasonably possible. I consider such governments totalitarian, wildly or mildly.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    I get the idea. For what it's worth, I think 'totalitarian' means one party has 'total' political control.
    - qwerty456127 5y ago
      What if there are more than one faction within the party, neither has total control but the whole party has? To me it seems this describes many single-party states as well as some multi-party states (where the parties can be logically considered factions within "the government" party) What if the party has sub-total yet a huge degree of control and continuously strives to increase its control by applying all offensive techniques it reasonably can on the people?
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Interesting questions. I'm not going to get into fine points of definition (I posted to GP to avoid misunderstanding), which I don't think is important here. I think the significance is whether there are multiple entities who compete for power, or one that dominates everything. Of course, there are grey areas in everything.

wolverine876 5y ago

What does 'totalitarian' mean then? If we redefine it to mean every implementation of every form of government, then the statement is indisputable. But otherwise, if we don't distinguish Xinjing and Scotland, we aren't saying much.

qwerty456127 5y ago
I didn't mean to say every regulation and enforcement is totalitarianism. The only non-totalitarian ways a state can defend its people from information warfare are education (propagation of rational thinking, awareness of manipulative techniques and fallacies, factual knowledge), enforcement of mandatory fact-checking in mass media and prosecution of proven spreaders of intentionally malicious fake news. Nevertheless many governments prefer to apply the same manipulative techniques to their own people (and avoid educating them to keep these efficient), suppress "undesirable" opinions and facts falsely labeling them as fake and spy on them (their people) as thoroughly as reasonably possible. I consider such governments totalitarian, wildly or mildly.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I get the idea. For what it's worth, I think 'totalitarian' means one party has 'total' political control.
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    What if there are more than one faction within the party, neither has total control but the whole party has? To me it seems this describes many single-party states as well as some multi-party states (where the parties can be logically considered factions within "the government" party) What if the party has sub-total yet a huge degree of control and continuously strives to increase its control by applying all offensive techniques it reasonably can on the people?
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Interesting questions. I'm not going to get into fine points of definition (I posted to GP to avoid misunderstanding), which I don't think is important here. I think the significance is whether there are multiple entities who compete for power, or one that dominates everything. Of course, there are grey areas in everything.