Orwell's 1984 and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 combined?

[festive1]

Eritrea is a totalitarian state, as is Rwanda and Ethiopia, North Korea and Cuba are also generally considered surviving totalitarian systems.

This isn't about totalitarianism this is anti-communist propaganda, the exact same type that was used in the cold war, He blames totalitarianism yet does not include suadi arabia Iran but includes north korea and Cuba, what do they have to with africa????

Absolutely nothing. This was intended to be examples of other totalitarian systems in the world, not an all inclusive list. Saudi Arabia and some other middle eastern and African regimes, such as Equatorial Guinea, correspond to Max Weber's definition of sultanistic regimes, which are a close cousin to totalitarian regimes. However, these systems are based on theocratic or nepotistic principles rather than an overarching political ideology. Iran is arguably a theocracy, and although repressive does contain some social autonomy and democratic elements, therefore, it is not totalitarian.

It is absurd that you should suggest this.

why? he makes no case against fascism and is also painting the Rwanda massacres as some kind of leftist revolt, this is hysteria, the genocide was caused by decades of european colonialism, they seperated the races by which looked the most WHITE, there is no such thing as hutu or tootsi these are foreign imagined races defined by the Germans, this has nothing to do with communism so WHAAAAT???? is this part about rwanda???? This the same old line, of communists and nazis are the same thing just one speaks russian, and one speaks german
[/quote]
The colonial legacy was significant in the Rwandan conflict, however, the fundamental problem there was political. The problem is fundamentally a struggle for political power, not ethnic dominance.

how can you say the eritrean secret police the EPRD (which he even admits was disbanded in 1989 wink) is the KGB, a bunch of half starved prisoners who can barely aim a gun are not the same as CIA of the Soviet Union. Yet you don't beleive that if FOX news did some shitty story about written by 14 year old about alqueada and showed a guy wearing a turban in the desert with a AK-47 with the caption reading Asmara, Eritrea a since most americans have never heard of this ocuntry before, everyone would beleive it? why?????

The police apparatus in Eritrea is still alive and well. The fact of the matter is, Eritrean prisons are filled with thousands of people who have been caught trying to flee the country or avoid military service, which is compulsory. There are more journalists imprisoned in Eritrea than anywhere else in the world, per Reporters without Borders. The entire population lives in fear.

completley leaving out the fact that outside infulences even exist in africa by simpy dimissing the whole country as isolationists,

A state can be totalitarian without being isolationist. It is convenient to control information in a totalitarian system, and therefore many totalitarian systems are relatively isolated.

so by isolationist he's refering strictly to the media which i imagine is due to propganda laws in this country something many fascist dictatorships have. But changing this words defintion as well to make his point that communism is what's wrong with africa, and fascism isn't perfect but if those are the only to choices fascism is the better one
[/quote]
Not quite sure how you are getting a pro-fascist argument from this piece? Both communism and fascism are totalitarian ideologies, which very few people would assert are positive for those living under such systems of governance.

there might not be "international headlines" but there are news reports, that your government chooses not too accept based on "legitamacy concerns"

Very few outsiders are allowed to travel to Eritrea. There is no independent press. Simply because North Korean press says something does not mean it is true, it is the same in the case of Eritrea, any press coming out of the country has been screened by the government.

independent from whom?? there are about 5 US media companies?? how many exist in Eritrea? again this is an argument about media isolationism presented as Eritrea being somewhere that people aren't allowed into asi if, it's in a walled off castle ontop of a very steep mountain, this is on the red sea, next the damned Suez Canal............. one of the largest busiest shipping routes in the world, DID THEY BUILD A FUCKING FENCE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT?
[/quote]
Nope, no fence you don't know about. They still have more journalists imprisoned than anywhere else on the globe. This piece is about totalitarian systems in Africa, it is not intended to be a defense of the American media. The American media is not controlled by the US government, however much it may be dominated by a handful of companies.

---

These are private companies doing these things,not the government,

bullshit, you might wanna see things this way.......... but when Halliburton dumps toxic waste in your backkyard you blame America not the current CEO, you really wanna explain to me why america should not be held responsible for their "companies" dumping toxic waste all over Africa?

Just the ones that meet the generally accepted criteria listed above.

I dont accept that criteria, that's a typical fascist trait, redefining words, and rewriting history

Here's the case for Rwanda:
[hide]
a
Paul Kagame, Rwanda’s president, is proud of his country’s political achievements, the way it has healed “the deep-seated wounds of a shattered society in need of both justice and reconciliation.” Challenging outside critics advocating greater democracy, Kagame ripostes, “it was precisely a system of pluralistic politics that played a major role in the genocide, as newly formed parties with shared extremist ideology outperformed the former one-party state in mobilizing the population to commit mass murder.” Nevertheless, “Rwandans do have a voice in their own affairs,” and he claims the country has adopted a system of decentralization, imihigo, and that the high turnout in the 2010 elections proves the government’s popularity.20
Despite these democratic pretentions, Rwanda’s economic success and apparent “good governance,” the political system bears all the hallmarks of totalitarianism. President Kagame acknowledges the need for authoritarian measures, and the usual repressive apparatus is in place. Again, to cite Freedom House, this includes dominance by the ruling party, the RPF; control of the media and civil society; a lack of academic freedom and freedom of assembly; and a non-independent judiciary. Rwanda gets credit for its gacaca courts, its efforts against corruption, and the high percentage of women represented in the parliament. Rwanda scores a down-trending, but relatively respectable “5” in Freedom House’s ranking of civil liberties, and a “6” in the political freedom category, situating it in the same class as Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Djibouti, and Mauritania (as well as Russia).21
Perhaps this can be ascribed to the regime’s talent for packaging itself for international approval. Indeed, propaganda and indoctrination have been highly effective in legitimating the regime. As Rentjies concludes, “the use of the instruments of knowledge construction has an extraordinary impact on the relations of those in power with both their own citizens and the outside world.” He suggests this may be due to Kagame’s experience as head of military intelligence in Museveni’s NRA. This has been successful with the international community, but also “domestically, the RPF has decreed one single truth and devised instruments (legislation, intimidation, ‘re-education’, silencing alternative voices) to avoid its being challenged, at least publicly.”22
The Rwanda case may also be cited for the government’s mass mobilization techniques. The gacaca courts failed to achieve significant popular participation until this was made mandatory. The famous umuganda brigades require every Rwandan citizen to devote one day of the month to cleaning public spaces. The re-education centers for former genocidaires have also attained some notoriety. The government’s attempts at social engineering include rural transformation through villagization, crop regionalization, and the forced elimination of thatched huts.23 Although all these efforts have socially beneficial justifications, in practice they are often coercive and assert the control of the state over the individual.
If the perspective of a single dissident can shed light on a totalitarian regime, as sampled in the case of Ethiopia, then the experiences of a large group of poor farmers may provide another form of illumination. In October 2010, the author met with a group of about 300 local residents of a district some 100 kilometers outside of Kigali who were holding a workshop on reconciliation sponsored by an international donor. The group was almost evenly divided between survivors of the genocide and ex-prisoners or family of prisoners. In the course of the workshop, some participants seemed to express a willingness to make efforts to reconcile. Typically, one participant emphasized that, after being released from 15 years in prison, he was struggling to survive and support his family. But as far as his neighbors were concerned, they had said they forgave him for what he had done, and there was no longer a problem between them. It was apparent that one of the incentives for participants to attend the workshop was the 1500 RWF ($3) “transportation allowance” each of them collected at the end of the program. Yet at the conclusion, several relatively well-dressed police and local government officials intervened to make it clear that all participants were expected to donate $1 of their allowance to help build a new classroom for the local school. Virtually every participant dutifully did so, and they were each given proper receipts, but it was poignantly clear that most did so with some regret, even if uncomplaining, since even $1 is a lot of money in such a poor community. What was not clear, watching the officials handling the money after collecting it, was how much would actually go to build the classroom.
Such passive objections to the totalitarian regime have been more scientifically documented by Susan Thomson in her study, “Whispering truth to power: The everyday resistance of Rwandan peasants to post-genocide reconciliation.” As Thomson observes, the Rwandan government’s policy of national unity and reconciliation “structures the interaction of individual Rwandans with the state and with each other. On paper, it is a set of mechanisms that ‘aim to promote unity between Tutsi and Hutu in creating one Rwanda for all Rwandans’; in practice, it disguises the government’s efforts to control its population while working to consolidate the political power of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

---

I would love to stick to rwanda and eritrea right now, because I imagine he's using Ethiopia more as an 'example' of a large scale widespread "slightly dilluted" version of what's happening in Eritrea. Do you have any more, maybe something more specific about Rwanda? does he mention their history at all or does the whole thing start at kagame's presidecy like nothing ever happened before, I have a secret for you Rwanda isn't proud of it's shitty heritage (not everyone is) norare they "proud" of it's shitty white man's name, for its shitty heavily poinoned land or it's people

the whole things reads like "the Cherokee's are so proud of the their American heritage".......sounds right! but ummmmmmm no the fuck it's not

And this is devolving... rapidly... The points you are making are making less and less sense. You have obviously never been to any of these places and it is unclear where you are getting your information. My husband last visited Eritrea in 1992, but has since been unable to get a visa. He last visited Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Equatorial Guinea in July 2012. Your objective seems to be to denounce the US government or dismiss this piece as a work of American propaganda. I'm bored with this. I feel I have made the case that totalitarian systems do exist, which was my original intent. I'm over my case of, "Someone is wrong on the internet." You can be wrong, it's fine by me.