England's still - relatively speaking - an abode to free thought, movement and expression.
As far as the entirety of the world is concerned, we're in an unstoppable regress.

The Chinese social credit system is most definitely coming to a bankrupt empire near you.

Just this very morning, Janet Yellen called for a global minimum tax rate. The globalists are ascendent and feeling their oats.

https://www.axios.com/janet-yellen-global-minimum-tax-rate-51c7395b-e46a-4a5c-b18b-bdcf5d8bd352.html

Yes, I believe totalitarianism is coming, but not total totalitarianism.

Do you think so? I am really not sure of this at all. Even before the pandemic I felt that the system was becoming more oppressive, and apart from sitting in a room, writing on this site, I am not aware of having much freedom at all. Of course, I am aware of pandemic restrictions, but wish to see beyond that. I am worried that we are going to be put into restrictions under the guise of the pandemic, which go way beyond it.

I do think that we may be going into a form of totalitarianism, but not a complete one. I am interested to know what form you think that this would take.

Pandemic constraints have contributed, but the world has been degenerating into a freedom-less state for a few years, now. Freedoms in movement are one facet, but totalitarian governments detract from many more (I think you'd agree). Personally, I'm hard-pressed to find multiple (if any) overseeing governments (in the East or the West) that consecrate free speech, free movement and a freedom of religion simultaneously - without indictment or persecution.

Again, the assertion I imparted with regards to the UK, was based on (perceived) comparisons with other countries. I'm not a UK citizen, so I can't actually remark on the exact state of the society. You'd be far more equipped, in that respect.

I haven't formally or informally formulated the format that the form of the formal totalitarianism will form.

I haven't formally or informally formulated the format that the form of the formal totalitarianism will form. — god must be atheist

Paradigm-shattering.

Totalitarianism is always coming, will always be coming. The herald for its arrival is people thinking it’s not just around the corner, lurking.
We will know it has arrived in full force when what's around the corner is called by another name, disguised as benevolence.

Your comment is interesting, but I do think that if my question is seen as worth discussing, the implications on an international level will need to be explored by people in different countries. I am not really sure if my fears are related to the picture which I am seeing in England or on a wider scale. So, it will be interesting to see what people in America think.

So, it will be interesting to see what people in America think. — Jack Cummins

I'm in America. San Diego to be precise. I don't follow your point.

Yes, it is hard to know if totalitarianism is a threat or a fear, and to what extent it could translate into a living reality.

Another footnote, if you'd be interested:

Since totalitarianism unearths itself in a multiplicity of ways, one might consider categorizing its manifestations under three, distinctive themes (they might entail others);

A) Direct/Indirect Subversions of Democracy
B) Direct/Indirect Subversions of Secularism
C) Direct/Indirect Encroachments on Personal Liberties

When two (or more) of these exist in complementarity - under the purview of an institution, with a hegemony over its underlying state - a re-democratization is bound to be arduous.

Your reply is useful, but one problem which I see is the theoretical one and the practical one. Most of us have read George Orwell. However, to what extent would it all be so different if it were to become an actual reality?

Most of us have read George Orwell. However, to what extent would it all be so different if it were to become an actual reality? — Jack Cummins

Huxley's Brave New World is the more appropriate model. A population enslaved but distracted by mindless pleasures.

Your reply is useful, but one problem which I see is the theoretical one and the practical one. Most of us have read George Orwell. However, to what extent would it all be so different if it were to become an actual reality? — Jack Cummins

That's a tough counter-argument. I can lay forth an example, of where one might differentiate between the three:

By Democracy, I'm referring to a state with a representative government. If one political enterprise usurps another and precludes an electoral mechanism, that constitutes a subversion of democracy. One will no longer be able to determine the fate of their governance, or even partake in the determination.

One might, however, witness a subversion of Secularism without one of Democracy; ie. an electoral mechanism remains (in a slightly corrupt fashion), but a predominant political enterprise compels an adherence to faith-derived doctrines. Admittedly, the two will oftentimes facilitate one another.

Encroachments on personal liberties, however, don't have be foreshadowed by either of the above; they can be minuscule, mild and only tentative; nonetheless, since a state enforces them - they can be apprehended, on occasion, as being totalitarian.

Of course, if either one of these rears its head - it's likely the others will too. It's only that their resolutions might necessitate distinctive approaches.

It is interesting to think about the role of mindless pleasures, such as the internet, and to what extent they would blind us. Of course, we all seek pleasures but it does seem worrying if this could stand in the way of critical awareness.

It is so hard to disentangle what appears to be totalitarianism from what really is. Democracy is questionable, as to what extent we feel represented, truly. As for encroachments upon personal liberty, what I fear is that in the last year we have been so used to the need for such curbs. I am not wishing to undermine the pandemic, but what I see is that the need for encroachments becoming a basis for introducing subtle forms of control under the guise of protective health measures.

That's true. If you're habituated to necessary encroachments, you're far likelier to remain passive or be incapacitated, when unnecessary ones are introduced.

When it comes to dystopia, The Q in me had me thinking the whole damn thing was a ruse put in place for this end game of control. After all, I don't personally know anyone who's been sick or died. But I can do the rules standing on my head (Social distancing? Cake. Mask? A piece of cloth, so what? Wash my hands? I take a shower once a year whether I need it or not) so it never really bothered me. I was more worried about what you are worried about.

But alas, long before Covid came along, I was using England, and your biometrics, and a camera up every ass, and a lack of guns, as an example of a barn door that had been left open too long. To mix metaphors, how are you people going to put that genie back in the bottle? It's already way too late for us here in the U.S. so what hope could there be for you guys?

It reminds me of a piece I read a few months ago. The upshot was this: In the not too distant future we are all going to have to pick sides: Either we are with the Plutocracy, or the Cartels'. Both the Plutocracy and the Cartels would have a vested interest in keeping government alive (on life support) so the "people" would have a punching bag every time they felt the pain from this system. It would be government's fault. Meanwhile, the get fleeced by the owners. Who do you want to be your owner? And by the way, the Plutocracy and the Cartels would have a gentlemen's truce, with government serving as the wall between them.

In the end, though, I guess when you sign up for civilization, and forfeit your ability to shoot Nazis, the best you have left is to kick them in the nuts before they push you on the train. And that will just get you a butt stroke from a rifle for your troubles. You're still getting on the train.

I am very wary of biometrics. It seems that it may give people, with so little understanding of sensitive information, the potential for abuse of power.

It seems that it may give people, with so little understanding of sensitive information, the potential for abuse of power. — Jack Cummins

:100: Not to mention those who have a huge understanding of sensitive information.

To what extent do you think that many people do have an understanding of sensitive information. I am thinking of details about health and mental health, and I have seen so much insensitive use of personal information. I think that so much education is needed and if data was just available to people arbitrarily, it could lead to prejudice and discrimination.

I agree that many don't have an understanding. But I think many do, and with mercenary intent.

I used to not want my medical information shared, not because I was afraid of what those who don't understand what they had might do with it, but, rather, I was worried about what those who knew what they had would do with it: i.e. Deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Once Obama Care came along, and I could not be denied based upon preexisting conditions, I wanted a data base created on my carcass so that every time I pulled in for a tune up, or to whine about this or that, the Dr. could pull up my history and see all that shit in one spot. Treatment would get better. (Not to mention, I wouldn't have to fill out six forms asking for the same shit every time I went in.)

But yeah, people who don't know what they have are dangerous. But those who do know what they have can be even worse.

I am not wishing to come to any firm conclusions, but just have so many questions about where we are going with information and the whole issue of social control. As far as I see, there are many different possibilities, but I am just wary of what may happen.

Some of the scary shit it is in China. There's a name for it, but I don't recall. But when you play ball, you get consideration. When you don't play ball, things don't go well. So, facial rec will pic you up at the cross-walk. If you wait until the light clears you to go, you are a good little sheep and your internet will be faster and your flight to Shanghai or wherever will be authorized with less hiccups. But if you jay walk, or go before the light says you can go, then your internet slows down, or you're the last to board the plane, etc. No jail, no beatings. Just a better life. F that. That's government social engineering. Compare with cancel culture; that's freedom of choice.

Either way, though, we live at the mercy of the Plutocracy and the reason they don't F with us more has nothing to do with their empathy. It's just we are not that important to them, individually. The guy in Back-Water, U.S.A. who thinks the Deep State is after him has an inflated opinion of his import.

Remember all the dystopian novels and movies? We are the people who go about their daily lives. We are not the underground righteous rebels fighting the good fight. We might support them them morally, but to actually risk anything, like our T.V. and our internet? Hell no.

I know that it may seem all a bit abstract, but I have no idea where you are living in the world.

I am living in a part of the world where extreme restrictions have been in force mostly for a year . The way I see it from where I am living is that possible measures, such as only being allowed into cafes, pubs, social venues and non essential shops may put some people into a state of permanent exclusion from the whole fabric of social life. I have a smartphone, but not everyone does. The ideas I am talking about are not definite, and they only apply to one country, but it really does make me wonder what is in our midst. I do worry about a whole culture of control, coercion and inequality. I am hoping that it is only my fear, and not something which is going to turn into a daily reality of oppression for many people.

I am not wishing to come to any firm conclusions, but just have so many questions about where we are going with information and the whole issue of social control. As far as I see, there are many different possibilities, but I am just wary of what may happen. — Jack Cummins

People have been festering about this question for decades. It's only been the last years with our beloved technologies that surveillance has become so easy for corporations and govt. How you feel about this depends on your political affiliations and on how paranoid you are. I am not all that concerned about COVID restrictions.

I am aware that that most people on this site are not in England, and I don't know how the future will differ, but I am wondering about life in the post Covid world will be. My biggest worry is that the pandemic will be used as a way of ushering in changes of a totalitarian nature Will it be a pathway to a life of endless restrictions and control? — Jack Cummins

Through the legitimacy of a crisis, be it biological, political or economic, the justifications for an advance of stratification, and therefore, of "totalitarianism" are transformed into agendas that claim to promote "progress", "evolution" and even the "restructuring of society".

Nothing more than a new civilizing cycle concluding again.

And again I say, we should look to the past and look for answers in the Roman civilization so that the same situation that afflicted them, does not completely conquer us.

"One of the most profound and lasting effects of the Crisis of the Third Century was the disruption of Rome's extensive internal trade network:

Along these roads passed an ever-increasing traffic, not only of troops and officials but of traders, merchandise and even tourists. An interchange of goods between the various provinces rapidly developed, which soon reached a scale unprecedented in the previous history and not repeated until a few centuries ago. Metals mined in the uplands of Western Europe, hides, fleeces, and livestock from the pastoral districts of Britain, Spain, and the shores of the Black Sea, wine and oil from Provence and Aquitaine, timber, pitch and wax from South Russia and northern Anatolia, dried fruits from Syria, marble from the Aegean coasts, and - most important of all - grain from the wheat-growing districts of North Africa, Egypt, and the Danube Valley for the needs of the great cities; all these commodities, under the influence of a highly organized system of transport and marketing, moved freely from one corner of the Empire to the other.

With the onset of the Crisis of the Third Century, however, this vast internal trade network broke down. The widespread civil unrest made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult with the debased currency. This produced profound changes that, in many ways, foreshadowed the very decentralized economic character of the coming Middle Ages.

Large landowners, no longer able to successfully export their crops over long distances, began producing food for subsistence and local barter. Rather than import manufactured goods from the empire's great urban areas, they began to manufacture many goods locally, often on their own estates, thus beginning the self-sufficient "house economy" that would become commonplace in later centuries, reaching its final form in the manorialism of the Middle Ages. The common, free people of the Roman cities, meanwhile, began to move out into the countryside in search of food and better protection. Meanwhile, the emperor's court was in Mediolanum writting about the great peace and prosperity of the Roman State:

The history of the empire before the tetrarchy was a time of civil war, savage despotism, and imperial collapse! Diocletian and his companions, the "restorers of the whole world", men who succeeded in "defeating the nations of the barbarians, and confirming the tranquility of their world". "

Fake news, paranoia, collapse of the economic system, decay of the republican principles, polarization, plague, stratification, etc...

The biological crises is already happening, the political crisis is the norm, and the economic crisis in under its way. How long until we find ourselves in the new "Dark Ages"?

I think that Covid restrictions are part of it but not the whole picture. I am not in favour of being paranoid, but just wonder about people being able to live in a way which is bearable rather than under coercive and oppressive regimes.