“Mr. Gandhi! Where there is no witness; there is no martyr involved either.”

Martin Buber, a Jewish rabbi and a peace-seeking religious scholar.

First; Integrity.

The term totalitarianism is very young compared to other terms in political philosophy. Its usage began in the 20th century and examples of it can be seen in some contemporary governments. Some of its characteristics include:

Single-party (single nation) government.

Charismatic and unconventional leadership.

Undercover police.

The police and army are powerful, tough, and…

The value of a Muslim is that this method of government did not exist in the classical divisions of types of government and its emergence coincides with the transition of society towards modernity; of course, it is not necessary. Because in the past, the criterion of governing, despite accepting labels such as…

Virtue

And/or.

Bravery.

“Roots have had a strong economic impact. The ruler holds the highest income-generating business, and those around him defend and maintain their income more than the ruler himself. However, with the transition to modern times and the entrance of reason into the realm of standards, beliefs and values ​​that have always been considered correct are at risk of being doubted or even collapsing, which means endangering the standards of rulership.”

In a historical perspective, one can discover this new criterion of governance, which reflects the desire for traditions and traditional rulers.

Defending values.

In any possible way, sometimes old values are transformed into a core that the ruling and traditional part of society is connected to and resist against social changes, and sometimes new values – seemingly – take on this role. Examples of the first form are the return of the Church in 18th century Spain and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Governments that use religious beliefs as the oldest and harshest means of unity and suppression. For the second form, fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in the 20th and 40th decades are the best examples where nationalism and racism were the basis of their actions.

Second; Fear and Violence.

From a psychological perspective, many of our conscious behaviors are manifestations of our unconscious desires, sometimes in alignment with those desires and sometimes not. For example, a child who sees themselves as a part of their mother’s body and their mother as a part of their own body, experiences repeated distress when separated from their mother, to the point that – according to Freud’s analysis – they develop deep-seated complexes towards their father. These types of reactions can be seen in our daily behaviors in countless ways.

One of the most vital natural reactions of humans is anger. A person who is powerless against the wild nature and does not see the ability to cope with many phenomena within themselves; inevitably decides to express violence with anger; sometimes to defend against an animal that has entered their territory, sometimes to escape from natural disasters, and sometimes to take control of land, food, etc. against their own kind.

In psychological terms, anger is rooted in perception.

Fear of losing.

We eat. Fear that arises from losing something, someone, or a position. It is not surprising to say that one of the simplest and most natural reactions of authoritarian governments to any opposition or protest will be violence. A government built on domination from its foundation.

Everything.

It will not be easy to lose his position of ownership in any field.

Let’s not forget that this government has taken shape towards modernism in a crucial moment of society. A society whose most important achievement is rationalism. If it is based on direct exchange of information between people (as it has been common in traditional societies) and the measure of reason is added, undoubtedly the ruler will face a deep challenge in controlling everything – including the stability of values. The point that Hannah Arendt rightly emphasizes is the ruler’s prevention of information exchange between individuals; a desirable society of integrity, composed of isolated and uninformed individuals; a society from its core.

Individual.

Why create division, ruler?

Anything.

He is afraid, so the ruler is in front of any action outside of his government’s charter.

Individuals.

It will be decided; those who have the ability to gather a large group of dissatisfied people. Therefore, the ruler resorts to violence.

Third; Demands and Assassination.

In the twentieth century, we witnessed the birth of the concept of unity and the formation of governments and many violent ideologies that continued into the present century. Of course, in this tumultuous century, movements against violence were able to secure fundamental rights for Indians, African Americans, and others in India, America, South Africa, etc. However, the dominant theme in the twentieth century was bloodshed and violence. In many cases, enlightened thinkers were silenced; sometimes specific races, sometimes followers of a religion, and sometimes all critics and protesters…

When a totalitarian government reaches a state of stability, it resorts to physically eliminating its opponents. The reason is very simple; to prevent reaching another critical point. In Germany, tolerating Jews was considered an insult to the high values of the German race, so there should be no doubt in the supreme goals of the superior race. They had to prevent any division by eliminating all conflicts and differences in society. In Iran, however, races came to an agreement based on divine beliefs, so conflicts and rebellions were formed by non-believers or those who tolerated them. They had to be eliminated so that future generations would not doubt the lies spread by the media.

About the idea of ​​totality and the occasional belief, the discussion is not limited to the domestic policies of governments; a prominent example of this is America’s seemingly non-totalitarian stance against the growth of communism. Just as Stalin in Russia and Mao in China shed blood and spread lies, America’s war machine also invaded Vietnam and Hollywood created myths about it. This is how powerful armies like NATO were formed…

“So as long as the slogans of economic rulers remain dominant and income remains the main concern, the act of assassination becomes less significant and concepts such as exploitation, hypocrisy, and corruption become more tangible; but when the veneer of any ideology is applied to the structure of economic interests, governments will survive.”

Self and selves.

Remove it.

Others.

They know…