Tag Archive

Totalitarianism doesn’t always arrive with jackboots and slogans. Sometimes it comes wrapped in compassion, weaponizing language to divide citizens into moral castes of “the good” and “the guilty.” As James Lindsay warns, every ideology that builds itself on purging an “enemy” eventually devours its own believers. Today’s soft totalitarianism operates not through force, but through narrative warfare—using labels like “Maple MAGA” or “anti-equity” to silence dissent and enforce ideological purity.

The Totalitarian Mindset in Our Midst

The belief in any totalitarian system is that there is some ‘enemy’ that holds back society. Once that enemy is destroyed and purged, society will flourish, or so the cult belief goes.” —James Lindsay

 The Endless Enemy

James Lindsay’s observation is not a history lesson it’s a warning. Totalitarian movements always begin with the conviction that society’s ills can be traced to a corrupt class of people who must be identified and eliminated.

The logic is seductively simple: If only the enemy were gone, we could be free. But when the promised harmony never arrives, the search for hidden enemies intensifies. The hunt becomes perpetual, the paranoia self-sustaining. Every failure is blamed on infiltration, every setback on the persistence of the impure.

This cycle of purification is as old as ideology itself, but today it is being revived in softer, subtler ways—through moralized language, social shaming, and bureaucratic enforcement of political conformity.

The New Form: Narrative Warfare

In modern liberal democracies, totalitarianism doesn’t need guns or gulags. It begins with words. The authoritarian project of the 21st century is linguistic—it manufactures enemies through labels, controls discourse through moral accusation, and demands conformity under the banner of compassion.

In Canada and across the West, we see this in the weaponization of language: “Maple MAGA,” “anti-equity,” “white adjacent,” “problematic.” These aren’t analytical categories; they’re *filters of suspicion.* Once the label sticks, a person’s character and arguments no longer matter. They are marked.

This dynamic is a form of narrative warfare—the use of moralized storytelling to delegitimize opponents and consolidate cultural power. It’s the precondition of soft totalitarianism: control the story, and you control reality.

  Weaponized Intersectionality: A Framework for Division

One of the key delivery systems for this mentality is **weaponized intersectionality**. Originally coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe overlapping forms of discrimination, the concept has been repurposed into a political sorting mechanism—one that divides society into immutable identity classes of “oppressors” and “oppressed.”

|Tactic |How It Works| Effect on Society |

| Labeling & Name-Calling | Terms like “Maple MAGA,” “far-right,” or “white adjacent” pre-empt debate and morally quarantine dissent. | Delegitimizes citizens instead of arguments; silences conversation. |

| Moral Purity Tests | Demands that allies demonstrate constant ideological conformity (“anti-racist,” “affirming,” “decolonized”). | Creates fear of speaking or questioning; enforces orthodoxy. |

| Institutional Capture | Activist vocabulary embedded in policy, HR, and education under “diversity” and “equity” mandates. | Bureaucratizes ideology; punishes dissent within organizations. |

| Perpetual Enemy-Hunting| “Privilege” and “bias” are re-discovered endlessly; the enemy is never gone, only hiding. | Normalizes suspicion; sustains revolutionary fervor without end. |

Each tactic reinforces the other. Together, they recreate the same cycle Lindsay describes: a social order sustained by perpetual purification.

The enemy is not gone; it is merely “in hiding.”

  The Moral Mechanics of Control

Modern totalitarianism thrives on moral certainty rather than state terror. It convinces ordinary citizens that they are participating in justice, not oppression. To question the narrative is to expose oneself as suspect, and so the culture of fear spreads horizontally—through HR departments, social media platforms, and educational institutions.

This is how freedom erodes without a coup or revolution: through social coercion disguised as moral progress.

The power lies not in force, but in the internalization of guilt and fear. People censor themselves before anyone else has to.

 What We Can Do About It

1. Recenter Universal Principles

Defend equality before the law, free inquiry, and human dignity—not inherited guilt or group virtue. Anchor civic life in the moral universals that totalitarian ideologies deny.

2. Name the Dynamic

When faced with ideological bullying, describe what’s happening: *“This is an attempt to morally disqualify rather than discuss.”* Naming the tactic exposes the manipulation and halts its momentum.

3. Build Parallel Forums for Open Debate

Create independent media, civic associations, and discussion circles where disagreement is respected. The antidote to coercion is community.

4. Refuse the Language of Division

Reject slurs and invented terms designed to fragment society. Language is not neutral—it’s the primary weapon of soft authoritarianism. Don’t wield theirs.

5. Practice Moral Courage

The first act of resistance is speech. Speak calmly, truthfully, and consistently—even when it’s uncomfortable. Silence is the oxygen of control.

Conclusion: The Old Lie in a New Form

Totalitarianism does not march under the same banners it once did. It arrives softly, wrapped in moral rhetoric and bureaucratic language, persuading good people that they are fighting for justice. But as Lindsay warns, every ideology that builds itself on purging an enemy eventually devours its own believers.

The only true defense is to reclaim our shared humanity—to judge one another by deeds, not descent; by actions, not affiliations. Freedom, as it turns out, depends not on the absence of enemies, but on the courage to refuse the hunt.

—

 References

Lindsay, J. (2025, October 9). Why totalitarianism always produces mass murders. [Tweet]. X (Twitter). [https://x.com/ConceptualJames/status/1976724498213667156](https://x.com/ConceptualJames/status/1976724498213667156)
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.
Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language.
Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
Popper, K. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies.