Are the Brown Shirts making a come back all over the world?

Hudson’s co-founder, the Israeli academic purge and the subversion of US Middle East policy

Taken from 'The Only Democracy' who reposted this item from Didi Remez’s Coteret blog.


Evidence is mounting that the Institute for Zionist Strategies (IZS) — an Israeli NGO at the forefront of an ongoing campaign to purge Israeli Universities of faculty and programs deemed “left-wing” — is a creature of The Hudson Institute, a major Washington based neoconservative think-tank, which played an active role in shaping the Bush administration’s Middle East policies.

Hudson is the primary financial backer of the IZS, providing at least half of the organization’s total reported multi-year funding, but the connection does not end there.

Max Singer, co-founder of the Hudson Institute, its former President and current Senior Fellow, is also the IZS’s Research Director. At least according to his bio on the Hudson website: The IZS site only identifies him as a member of the Advisory Committee. Its 2006 brochure (page 8), however, states that he is a member of the International Board of Governors and as one of the ex-officio members of the Projects Committee, which “as such, are invited to all deliberative sessions and events.” According to the IZS’s verbal report to the Israeli Registrar of Associations for 2008 (the last one filed), Singer’s wife, Suzanne, is one of three members of the NGO’s “Council”, the sovereign decision-making body under Israeli law.

As the IZS’s Research Director, Singer would presumably be responsible for the research that pressured the President of Tel-Aviv University

to take the extraordinary step of examining the syllabi of his institution’s Sociology Department for “left-wing bias”. The introduction to the IZS’s 2006 brochure (page 1), which Singer co-signed, indicates that he saw this type of activity as part of the organization’s strategic purpose:

The IZS will help liberate the public discourse in Israeli society from the self-imposed constraints of the prevalent dogma and internalized notions of the politically correct. Israeli society needs to be freed from the acceptance of double standards so that we can become comfortable asserting our own national purpose as a sovereign Jewish community.

This goal would fit well within the stated purpose of a Hudson Institute project, which was launched at the same time as funding of the IZS began (emphasis in the original):

IZS Brochure 2006
The Future of Zionism. The Center for Middle East Policy is launching a multi-year project to examine the future of Zionism and its implications for the State of Israel. Israel faces an ideological crisis: As the recent Gaza pullout showed, societal divisions between secular and religious Israelis and between left and right wing camps have become so pronounced that they threaten to overpower the Zionist consensus that traditionally unified the nation. [Hudson Institute Form 990 Report to the IRS for 2005, page 23].

For a generation, Singer has been involved in designing and promoting aggressive US foreign policy. In the early 1980′s he was on the board of Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America (PRODEMCA), a controversial organization involved in the Iran-Contras scandal. In 2002, he published The Many Compelling Reasons for War with Iraq.

A Democratic administration is in power in Washington and Singer has moved to Jerusalem, so he has found a new instrument for beltway influence: The government of Israel. From a July 17 policy note published by the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University (emphasis mine):

To prevent Obama from bringing America behind his different view of the world, Israel needs to help Americans appreciate the way that Obama sees things differently than they do. The views of most Americans, and of most of the American political world, are much closer to Israel’s understanding of Middle Eastern realities than to Obama’s perceptions. Israeli actions can help Americans to recognize the conflicts between what they believe and the premises of Obama’s proposed policies. The critical element in Israel’s policy concerning the US is the degree to which Israel is able to recognize, stimulate, and get the benefit of the parts of the American policy-making system that do not share President Obama’s radically different ideas about the world. Israel does not have to act as if Obama’s views will necessarily determine the policy of the US, and it certainly does not have to assume that Obama’s current views will dominate US policy-making for many years. Israel has the power, if it has the fortitude, to influence the degree to which Obama is able to make the tectonic change in American policy that he would like to make.

Netanyahu’s Senior Diplomatic Adviser, Ron Dermer, seems to have acted on this advice, incurring the wrath of Rahm Emanuel. From Ben Caspit’s August 19 column in Maariv:

Emanuel was angry, he claimed, because Dermer briefed certain Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, against the President and Emanuel himself.

Town Council Meeting 4 August 2010

At the Town / Parish Council meeting tonight item 15 (b) on the agenda reads:

15 Representatives on outside bodies: ...

(b) To confirm representatives on the Police Joint Action Group (JAG)

This item was brought up a couple of months ago. Rather alarmingly Cllr Dewis said that membership of this Committee was 'by invitation only.'

The Council will also discuss my complaint against the Town Clerk's silly allegation of bullying - item 25 - but as usual the public will be excluded. I have been told the matters raised 'have been addressed.'

Somehow I doubt this Parish Council is capable of addressing the matter adquately. The fact remains that Richard White was manipulated by Cllr Dewis into pursuing his spurious complaint of bullying against Martin Brookes. Cllr Dewis attempted to use Richard White's complaint as a means to ensuring that Martin Brookes was unable to carry out his duties as a Councillor. Martin Brookes has since resigned, blaming me for bringing to the Council's attention a highly incendiary allegation that a Councillor accused him of being a paedophile. The person who told me this, in the strictest of confidences, remains far too frightened to make her allegation publicly. Which brings into question what sort of power local Councillors might wield? I might say that if this allegation was made it was unkind, criminal and severely dangerous. In my opinion if the allegation was made it amounts to an attempt to seriously harm Martin Brookes. That is a criminal offence.

Richard White appeared to believe that any criticism of his capabilities as a Town Clerk was tantamount to bullying, whereas in fact the criticism was justified and wholly appropriate. Richard White issued inaccurate advice to Councillors on the 'six-month rule.' He seemed to feel that any demand that Standing Orders are adhered to as particularly picky and unnecessary. Since then he has managed to form a basic understanding of Standing Orders, but is still intellectually incapable of grasping the need to keep his distance from the internecine politics of vendettas pursued by local Councillors. Richard White's inability to do the job adequately has led to some levels of stress, but that is not a fault of the job. I would suggest it is a fault of Richard White's rather limited intellectual and administrative capabilities. Any crisis of confidence the Town Clerk has faced might sadly be wholly justified.

The breathtaking way in which item 15 (b) has been listed for tonight's meeting is evidence that, yet again, the Town Clerk is prepared to bend to the will of local Councillors. I was at the meeting when Cllr Dewis stated that membership of the Police Joint Action Group was 'by invitation only.' At no point were representatives voted onto this Committee. Yet the Town Clerk's agenda states: 'To confirm representatives to the JAG.' What the hell does that mean? Who is confirming what to whom? They are either elected or not. What sort of finesse is this intended to be?

No wonder the local police are suffering a lack of public confidence. When the three Town Councillors who represent locals can be described as:

Charles Haworth - aka 'lardboy' on the world wide web - who has posted criminally tasteless material in the belief that it constitutes humour. I had two bare behinds posted in my name on the internet last year. When I complained to the Police they did absolutely nothing to ascertain who posted this material and instead arrested Martin Brookes when he ill advisedly posted a copy on a noticeboard. Such double standards on the part of the police certainly need oversight and I would suggest that Charles Haworth, Cllr Alf Dewis and Cllr Joyce Lucas are the least likely candidates to ensure that public confidence in the police is enhanced.

Cllr Dewis called the police to throw me out of a Council meeting when the Standing Orders had not been complied with and then proceeded to bully Martin Brookes mercilessly for the rest of the meeting. Cllr Dewis pretends to know the law. In truth Cllr Alf Dewis knows damn all, but is prepared to subvert any situation and use his contacts and influence to bring the democratic process down to a tyrannical level of abuse.

Cllr Joyce Lucas was asked if she had said that Martin Brookes was a paedophile. I wonder if she knows that her lack of denial is, in civil law, tantamount to an admission of guilt. I have yet to see either in letter form or minuted form a denial by Cllr Joyce Lucas and begin to wonder what the reason might be?

A few anonymous postings were made in my name of Martin Brookes' blog. I certainly never made any anonymous postings and one in particular was in the worst possible taste and highly dubious, or even offensive. Should I complain to the police? I suspect that there is no point, particularly since Cllrs Lucas, Haworth and Dewis are to remain our representatives on the Police Joint Action Group.

Let's hope that these dinosaurs of local government do not stand for re-election next year. In the meantime does anyone know the procedure for abolishing a local Parish Council?

WMDs - Where the truth lies.

WMDs, Tony Blair and Eliza Manningham Buller

24 September 2002 – Tony Blair to the House of Commons:

“It (intelligence services information) concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within45 minutes: and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.”

25 February 2003 – Tony Blair to the House of Commons:

“The intelligence is clear. He (Saddam) continues to believe his WMD programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression. The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death.”

20 July 2010 – Eliza, Baronness Manningham-Buller, Director General of MI5 2002 – 07 to the Chilcot Inquiry:

“The nature of intelligence – it is a source of information, it is rarely complete, it needs to be assessed, it is fragmentary… We were asked to put in some low grade, small intelligence to it (2002 dossier) and we refused because we didn’t think it was reliable.”


After the first Gulf War I tried to write an article about ‘Gulf War Syndrome.’ Super fit airmen and soldiers who had left for Kuwait and Iraq had returned unable to climb the stairs. The MoD was denying culpability. I interviewed some servicemen. One particular story I heard may shed some light on Saddam’s WMD capability.

I was told that a warehouse facility had been discovered in Komashia. The warehouse was filled with WMDs. Anthrax, plague, ricin (see Tony Blair’s statement to the House of Commons February 2003).

The airman who told me of this facility then said that it was decided to blow the warehouse to smithereens. Sortie after sortie left from forty miles away to bomb the warehouse in Komashia. Airmen, wearing little more than shorts and shoes, serviced the returning aircraft to send them back to carpet bomb the warehouse. He felt the blow back on the surface of the returning aircraft may have affected the airmen. The MoD weren’t interested in solving the real problem of ‘Gulf War Syndrome.’

I was then told that no inventory had been taken of what was in the warehouse in Komashia (the airman couldn’t spell it either).

Why?

‘Well work it out,’ he said. All the labels on the barrels were British, French and American labels – most of them in English. 'We gave those WMDs to Saddam when we wanted him to fight the Ayatollah Khomeini.' It would be too embarrassing to have a paper trail leading right back to the West in supplying Saddam with the very weapons he was using on the Kurds.

By not taking an inventory we didn’t know how many of the barrels we had given Saddam had been destroyed. We didn’t have the intelligence available to work out whether Saddam still had many or any of the WMDs we had originally supplied him with. We were groping in the dark. We had to assume had some WMDs stashed elsewhere, we just didn’t know. Because we decided the political fall out would be too difficult to explain when it became clear where those WMDs emanated.

That I feel is probably the plain truth. However it wouldn’t do to admit this to the Chilcot Inquiry, so we hear half truths from the players in the arena.

A little intelligence gathering of which airmen served in or near Komashia to bomb a warehouse, might reveal an unpalatable truth if those airmen were interviewed. One wonders whose truth the Chilcot Inquiry is seeking to uncover?

Are expensive Inquiries worth paying for?

Complaint Against Town Clerk - response in full:

Letter Received from Town Council

I have received the following letter from Oakham Town Council in response to my complaints against the Town Clerk’s inability to be professional and competent, signed by the Mayor:

“Complaints Against the Town Clerk

I refer to your complaints against the Town clerk in your communication dated 26/06/10. Firstly let me apologise for taking my time in replying to you, but I am sure you will appreciate there were a lot of issues to be looked into.

In accordance with the Councils complaints Procedure sections 4 and 5, (detailed on the attached Appendix), I have considered all the issues you raised and discussed them all in detail with the Clerk. As a result of this I am satisfied that all matters you raised have been addressed and any necessary actions are being undertaken.

I will be reporting details of this complaint to the next Full Council Meeting.

Under section 6 of the Complaints Procedure if you are not satisfied with this response you are entitled to ask me to bring your complaint to the Full Council for full discussion. Please notify me in writing if this is the case, stating which parts of the complaint you wish to be brought to the Full Council.”

You will note that although it is claimed the matter has “been addressed” I am given no details of how this has been resolved.

I hear through rumour that the Town Clerk is to undergo further training. My confidence in the Town Council’s dysfunctional governance leads me to suppose that this is merely a sop and that the Town Clerk is irremediably incapable.

I have yet to receive any written denial of the slanderous rumour perpetrated against a Councillor. This matter is far more worrying and leads one to surmise that hushing up, covering up and an inability to address real problems is an endemic problem throughout the whole parish Council.

Until local citizens take it upon themselves to stand for election to get rid of the problems on Oakham Town Council there can be no resolution to the dysfunctional governance of this rump of a diseased local Government body. Contrary to rumours circulating I shall not be standing for election. I have seen how the whispering campaign and outright bullying of one Councillor has been conducted and have no wish to sit alone facing this diseased rump of local Government. Having said that I do have some respect for the Mayor, but feel that without a dedicated cadre of colleagues this Council will rumble on ineffectively and dysfunctionally forvever.

Boycott called against Israel

Having received several posting over the last few months regarding a boycott of Israeli goods and services, and having lived next to South Africa for much of my childhood and seen the efficacy of boycotts and peaceful activism I share this article from the Only Democracy with you today. Unfortunately by doing so I gather that Israel will probably ban me from entering her borders. Apparently those advocating this boycott are to be banned from visiting Israel. Now how in all logical reasoning does this make Israel a 'democracy?' Only totalitarian states are unable to tolerate political criticism.

"Only a boycott will persuade Israel
by Ayala Shani &Ofer Neiman

“Israel won’t change unless the status quo has a downside” – these words were written by journalist Tony Karon, a Jew from South Africa. This sentence reflects the rationale behind the broad BDS campaign – which includes sanctions, institutional boycott, and divestment – which has begun trickling down into public consciousness in Israel. Instead of a defensive, self-righteous response along the general lines of “the whole world is against us”, it would be best to learn the facts about the campaign and peer into the collective mirror, which reflects grievous and systematic violations of human rights and international law.
The current movement originally started with a call to action issued in 2005, signed by more than 170 organizations from Palestinian society: citizens of Israel, refugees in exile, and Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and in Gaza. The call to action was published in Hebrew, too, and citizens of Israel are requested to express their support of it. It is for this purpose that the Israeli group “Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from within” was founded.
The BDS movement that has developed in response to the Palestinian call to action does not have any formal, focal leadership. Regular citizens around the world, including many Jews, initiate activities and take part in them. The goal of the movement is to demonstrate to Israel the international community’s disgust and rejection of its actions, so that Israel will act for the immediate termination of the occupation, for the end of discrimination against the Arab citizens of Israel, and for recognition of the refugees’ right of return, as phrased in United Nations Decision 194. Elements of the oppression which the movement wishes to put an end to match the legal definition of the crime of apartheid – systematic and institutionalized racial separation, as practiced in old South Africa.
The movement does not promote any specific political solution (one state or two, the return of any particular number of refugees), but rather, strives to change in a nonviolent way the balance of power that makes it possible for Israel’s governments to violently withhold the basic rights of millions of people, and to renounce their accountability with unfounded statements (“the Arabs are to blame for the refugee problem”, “the settlements are legal”, “there is no siege upon Gaza”.)
It will be stressed here that the boycott is not a personal boycott on Israelis but rather, a boycott of official Israeli institutions and of events taking place under their auspices. Thus, for example, there is no call to deny an Israeli researcher her right to lecture abroad. There is a call to avoid holding international conferences in universities in Israel which proudly proclaim their contacts with the military establishment.
Is Israel being singled out? As was true about white South Africa, the world is justly sensitive to situations where a population that has civil rights determines the fate of a population which has neither civil rights nor the right to vote. Fairness is not always a feature of international relations, but Israel enjoys many international privileges, such as membership in the OECD. The citizens of China, where grievous human rights abuses take place, have never been given the opportunity to express a lack of confidence in the government that forcibly suppressed the student demonstrations in 1989. In contrast, the citizens of Israel cast their votes again and again for parties (including Kadima and the Labor Party) and governments under whose administration settlements are built, people are tortured and arrested for years with no trial, unarmed citizens are shot, and land and water resources are plundered.
Many people around the world ask, therefore, whether there is good reason for a normalization with Israel. Port workers in Sweden and Norway, countries which have historically been very sympathetic to Israel, refuse to unload Israeli container ships. Artists wonder why they must perform here and enhance the sense of “business as usual” when the very fact of their performance will be portrayed as support of Israel’s policy.
A deep-reaching public discussion is needed at this time, not only about the question of whether the boycott is or is not justified but about Israel’s policy. Many Israelis acknowledge the heinous acts being done in our name, under our very noses. It is appropriate for an effective and nonviolent campaign against these actions should have their support.
The authors are active in the Israeli group: “Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from within.”
This article was originally published in Hebrew in Haaretz Online, June 22 2010.
Ofer Neiman (a regular contributor to The Only Democracy?) and Ayala Shani published this article in Hebrew in Haaretz. As is often the case, the most interesting, and cutting-edge discussions, don’t get translated into the English version of the paper, perhaps in fear of offending sensitive Jewish American sensibilities? In any case, the article has been translated by Dena Bugel-Shunra, of Shunra Media. It was originally published in English in Jews Sans Frontieres."
Thank to Wikipedia for the map image of israel and the occupied territories.

ANSWER TO A RIDDLE

ANSWER TO A RIDDLE

Well the Festival is almost over; unfortunately I haven’t had time to attend many events. However I did manage to get to the Merry Monk on Sunday night. It was a comedy evening and Andy Watson was half way through his act. This event was not listed on the back of the festival programme and I almost missed it

At last years’ festival we had two very able comics; unfortunately the audience was not appreciative. The stand ups tried every trick in the book. They didn’t know the Oakham audience and were struggling to find something to get locals to laugh at. The poor comics bombed on everything – and they were funny and very very good.

They tried celebrity culture – nothing, nada. They tried political culture, MPs expenses and you’d have thought that would have touched a cord, particularly in Oakham: nothing, nada. They tried environmental issues – nothing, nada. Having thrown out all their prepared scripts, which had a roaring crowd of people rolling in the aisles with paralytic laughter elsewhere, and bombed only in Oakham, they finally gave up in exasperation.

‘Tell me,’ one of the comedians said, ‘is this the sort of town where everyone is doing everyone else?’ Were they asking if we are inbred? I rather thought they were. Surprised? There are no buses out of Oakham at all on Sundays. Trains don’t run to Peterborough until 12.45 pm on a Sunday either. The last bus from Peterborough leaves at 4.40 on a weekday. Oakham is an anthropologists dream town – an inward looking tribal culture of uncivilised political elitism rules here. The police are in the pockets of local Councillors who may ignore the law with impunity and punish those who criticise the ruling elite, whilst they sit on and influence the Police Joint Action Group. In fact Cllr Dewis was able to assure us, at a recent Town Council meeting, that membership of the Police Joint Action Group was ‘by invitation only.’ What did Cllr Dewis mean? Was he saying that the whole system is so well organised that the police will not tolerate unknown representatives on the Police Joint Action Group? What a pretty state we have got ourselves into. Anyway back to comedy.

At last years’ festival, as I’ve already said, we had two very able stand up comics. The audience were seated in the garden of the Merry Monk, a small group of about four adults and two children came in and took front seats on the garden bench immediately in front of the ‘stage.’ The comic began warning the parents that their children’s vocabulary might widen considerably during the acts. Mum took this as an invitation to interact with the comics. She said that her little darlings were clever and already had a wide vocabulary, presumably having had glowing reports from literacy hour, and that her children’s dreams were fascinating. Oh dear!

Eventually the language became slightly bluer and Mum left. You could almost see the relief on the stand up comic’s face. Immediately two couples arrived and took the spare seats on the bench. Two stunning blonde girls and a couple of so-so men; the comic immediately alighted on his new material with glee.

When he’d asked: ‘Is this the sort of town where everyone is doing everyone else?’ I’d laughed like a drain. The comic had pointed at me and said: ‘Thank you for your honesty madam.’ This got a laugh and finally they knew they had to focus on the introspective citizens of Oakham, rather than on any wider political or cultural issues.

The couple on the right were milked for a few gentle laughs. The leggy blonde girls made their way out to the ladies loo to adjust their go-to-bed hairstyles and lipstick. Turning to the second male the comic gently asked: ‘And where did you two meet?’ The deadpan answer came winging back: ‘At the bar two minutes ago.’

‘Pity,’ said the comic, ‘you make a lovely couple. Why aren’t you a couple?’ The man in the audience answered: ‘My missus wouldn’t like it and to be honest mate I’ve already been there.’ A riot of laughter ensued. ‘Oh so you know each other?’ ‘Yes we’ve known each other a long time.’ The laughter began to die down. However, the man in the audience, slightly disconcerted by the unexplained hilarity which his perfectly straight remarks had attracted, felt he needed someone else in the camp into which he’d painted himself added: ‘And so’s my friend Adrian at the back.’ He pointed his thumb behind him.

The poor girl wandered back into the garden of the Merry Monk completely oblivious to the fact that she had been the butt of the first really good joke of the evening. Her escort was clearly disconcerted that his quite factual explanation of his relationship with the girl had created so much laughter. The comic in mock embarrassment cringed in front of the microphone: ‘I don’t know where to put myself.’ Any prepared material was thrown out and he concentrated for the rest of the evening on audience interaction. You couldn’t write this sort of material, it was gold dust. When all else fails concentrate on the audience.

The comedy circuit is a small world. When Andy Watson let it be known that he was coming to Oakham he probably received commiserations. Oakham is a now a notorious graveyard for stand up comics. Andy was told to forget his prepared material and focus down on the audience. Bad advice. We had four Aussie cricketing teachers from Brisbane in the audience. Andy Watson had a nervous laugh, which became increasingly worse and irritating as his act hit rock bottom. The Aussie teachers became vociferously abusive. The visiting Antipodeans were expecting a stand up comic with some prepared material they could relate to. Dissonance of cultures erupted in Andy Watson leaving the stage early. His counselling bill will probably exceed the small payment he accrued by a factor of ten.

Justified criticism of the ruling elite is never tolerated in Oakham. Martin Brookes has blogged a letter from Joy Everitt, Chairman of the Festival Committee, saying that she cannot accept Cllr Brookes as a Council representative on the Festival Committee. What, you may ask, did Martin Brookes do to start a whispering campaign against him?

At last years festival he took a picture of the then Mayor, Jan Fillingham, drinking in Cutts Close as she watched a band playing. Her party’s deck chairs were prominently placed centre stage in front of the bandstand. Martin Brookes took a picture of Jan Fillingham, Sue Tyers and friends with empty bottles and glasses at their feet. He also took a picture of the prominently displayed notice in Cutts Close saying that Cutts Close is a ‘designated area’ and the police have the right to stop drinkers consuming alcohol in the environs and vicinity of Cutts Close. He also displayed a local newspaper cutting in which Cllr Jan Fillingham, who has not attended Council meetings for six months, boasted that she had been part of the Council initiative to stop alcohol consumption in Cutts Close. He had merely been exercising his right to free speech and pointing out the hypocrisy of local Councillors on his Flickr’ account.

What happened? The local Council were involved in complaining to Flickr’ and got his account closed down. When Martin Brookes opened a blog instead, the Council wrote to him saying they were considering banning him from using the library facilities due to the nature of his blogs. Presumably they have tried to close down his blog and failed. A vendetta of extraordinary proportions has ensued. Unfortunately the police always refuse to take action against local Councillors and their friends and appear to do the bidding of local Councillors instead. I am told that leading citizens were allowed to continue drinking in Cutts Close this year during the ‘Churches Together’ event, yet a sober man drinking a beer was escorted off to pour his beer away. Such double standards are indicative of a tyrannical one party State. If the law applies it should apply to all. Not it seems in Oakham.

Oh yes, the answer to my riddle - previous post:

ANSWER: A Totalitarian Society is a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralised control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

One of the first casualties of a Totalitarian State is a sense of humour. When the ruling elite drink with impunity in Cutts Close and run a vendetta of such uncivilised proportions against a local Councillor outside their little cosy coterie, (Martin Brookes demands that Standing Orders are adhered to in Town Council meetings and proper procedures followed) we are no longer on the slippery road. We have embraced totalitarianism. I rather think that no more comics of any stature will be coming to Oakham. Sadly Oakham has become the graveyard of comedians and democracy.

Riddle me ree

Well riddle me riddle me riddle me ree
What is the definition of a totalitarian society?