The total state will kill you for being old



The United Kingdom’s daily efforts to censor speech and undermine its farmers have left the once-great nation resembling a communist regime. Yet its leaders remain determined to continue their march toward dystopia — now by targeting elderly citizens with state-sponsored euthanasia. The push for legalized euthanasia has reached British shores, accompanied by grim subway advertisements and endorsements in the Economist.

Canada’s monstrous euthanasia program should serve as a warning for other Western nations. Instead, the U.K. seems intent on diving headfirst into this moral abyss. The growing embrace of industrial-scale medical suicide is no coincidence; it reflects the natural trajectory of the modern totalitarian state.

We are governed by an elite seemingly intent on overseeing the suicide of the West.

Every elite class requires a political formula — a narrative to justify its authority. For the managerial elite, that formula is expertise and efficiency. In a complex world dominated by massive bureaucracies, these sprawling systems demand the technical knowledge and managerial skill of those at the top.

Bureaucracies thrive on uniformity, and the managerial elite depend on predictable outcomes to deliver the promised efficiency and material abundance. This obsession with control fosters a need for social engineering — a new kind of human subject, malleable and obedient to the designs of the ruling class.

In the modern total state, control extends to every aspect of life, including death. The push for euthanasia reflects the ultimate expression of this ideology: a system that dictates not just how people live but when and how they die.

In 2009, the debate over the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare” as it became popularly known, was in full swing. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) famously warned that government-controlled health care would inevitably lead to “death panels” that would decide whether patients could continue receiving treatment. The media mocked Palin, labeling her ignorant and accusing her of spreading misinformation about the ACA. But her warning has been vindicated. The link between dependency and sovereignty is undeniable — when the state assumes responsibility for an individual’s care from birth, it will inevitably influence decisions about when that individual’s life should end.

In 2016, Canada introduced its Medical Assistance in Dying program. Like other state-sponsored euthanasia initiatives, MAID was initially marketed as a compassionate option for terminally ill patients to end their suffering. The messaging focused on dignity, self-determination, and the idea that the program would be a rare solution for extreme cases. By 2022, however, MAID accounted for more than 13,000 deaths annually — a 31% increase from 2021 — and represented 4.1% of all deaths in Canada. Far from serving only the elderly or those in chronic pain, MAID has facilitated the deaths of poor people unable to afford rent and people suffering from mental illness. In a striking example of the slippery slope, Canada’s euthanasia program shifted from offering a “dignified” end for the terminally ill to ending the lives of young people grappling with anxiety over the cost of living.

The managerial revolution that began in the 1930s and 1940s led Western governments to build modern welfare states. These welfare programs, like Social Security in the United States or the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, relied on massive bureaucracies and experts who claimed they could predict human behavior, including fertility rates and life expectancy. Policymakers structured these welfare systems like Ponzi schemes, assuming continuous generational growth would sustain them. A sharp decline in birth rates created a crisis for social planners. In response, many governments embraced replacement-level immigration, both legal and illegal, to offset demographic decline.

When immigration failed to stabilize their systems, managerial states turned to euthanasia to ease demographic pressures. What began as a welfare state’s reliance on predictable human behavior has now devolved into using death as a solution to economic and demographic challenges.

As a man who lost his wife after a painful battle with cancer, I understand on a deep level why the arguments for euthanasia can seem compelling. Watching a loved one suffering in a situation that will not improve is heart-rending. But mass industrialized euthanasia is a terrible solution to a very difficult problem. The state is not killing you to spare your dignity; it is killing you because you are inconvenient.

While it is unpleasant to discuss, those who no longer wish to live are rarely deprived of the means to end their lives, except in cases of total medical incapacitation. Modern technology can extend life far beyond its natural duration, and patients should have the right to refuse such interventions if they choose. However, transforming suicide into a large-scale, state-run procedure is a dangerous step with predictable and troubling consequences. When the extermination of human life becomes just another bureaucratic task, the value of life inevitably diminishes to a mere statistic.

Bureaucratic institutions, once established, naturally seek to expand their missions and jurisdictions. Managers within these systems are incentivized to increase their power by broadening the scope of their operations. Programs designed to address specific problems often evolve into blunt instruments, searching for new applications. This tendency is a troubling feature of all bureaucracies, but it becomes particularly alarming when the mission involves ending human life on a large scale.

As it becomes increasingly clear that mass immigration will fail to resolve the economic challenges facing Western nations, calls for state-sponsored euthanasia will grow louder. Advocates will present industrial suicide cloaked in the language of compassion, but these programs are destined to morph into the “death panels” Palin warned about.

The same heartless bureaucrats who outsourced jobs and opened borders for economic gain are not championing euthanasia out of genuine concern for dignity. A ruling elite that truly cared about its nation would address the spiritual and material issues preventing family formation, community building, and the broader factors that make life meaningful. Instead, we are governed by an elite seemingly intent on overseeing the suicide of the West.

Union bosses serve the total state, not American workers



The International Longshoremen's Association and its 45,000 members went on strike Tuesday, threatening to paralyze 36 U.S. ports along the eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast. The already fragile American logistical system gives the union significant leverage, but the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene has made the need to re-establish supply lines even more urgent.

Conservatives have traditionally opposed unions, but a recent shift in focus on working-class conditions during the Trump era has made many on the right more sympathetic to collective bargaining. However, as ILA President Harold Daggett declared “I will cripple you!” many conservatives found it difficult to reconcile their newfound support for labor with the brash statement from a leader seemingly indifferent to the struggles of suffering Americans.

Soulless corporations aren’t the heroes here, but neither are labor unions. Ultimately, both are part of the same destructive system.

Those on the right must learn a hard truth: Big union bosses don’t serve the working class; they serve the total state.

In 1911, sociologist Robert Michels published “Political Parties,” a study on power dynamics that closely examined the inner workings of German labor unions. The book became foundational in what is now called “elite theory” or political realism, due to Michels’ formulation of the iron law of oligarchy.

The iron law of oligarchy asserts that complex organizations, no matter how democratic or egalitarian they claim to be, will inevitably elevate a small group of organizers into a ruling class, transforming the organization into an oligarchy. The organized minority will always lead the disorganized majority. As Michels put it, “It is organization which gives dominion of the elected over the electors. ... Who says organization, says oligarchy.”

The Industrial Revolution radically transformed the relationship between individuals and their labor. Subsistence farmers and guild craftsmen, who once had a direct and personal connection to their work, suddenly found themselves thrust into the alienating environment of factory wage labor. Scale became a significant factor, yet society has largely overlooked its impact.

As production and consumption scaled up, so did labor negotiations. Workers could no longer have individual discussions with their bosses about wages because their bosses were simply cogs in a much larger machine. The boss was no longer an individual owner with meaningful decision-making power but a manager representing a faceless conglomeration of investors. Collective bargaining became the only way for workers to leverage their labor against the vastness of massive capital.

In his analysis, Michels discovered that, despite labor unions claiming to represent workers, union leaders often put their own interests above those of their membership. Union bosses may start as common workers, but their skills quickly elevate them beyond their peers. They transition from performing daily labor to full-time organizing and activism. Their days are spent speaking with politicians and negotiating with CEOs, which separates them from the very conditions they aim to improve.

Labor leaders inevitably realize their personal interests differ from those of the average union member. They are best served by becoming influence brokers within the ruling class rather than securing benefits for workers. In the end, it is the organization and its influence that serve the leaders, not the leaders who serve the organization and its constituents.

While I support American workers earning a wage that allows them to raise a family, own a home, and even strike for that cause, this is not the primary interest of the ILA or Harold Daggett. Although he may be negotiating for higher wages at the moment, his primary goal is to demonstrate influence, not to serve the long-term interests of the working class.

The ILA endorsed Joe Biden and supports the Democratic Party, which is responsible for allowing the nation to be flooded with cheap foreign labor from illegal immigration. In addition to increasing crime and the cost of living for his union members, this influx of illegal labor drives down wages for native-born Americans. But the ILA and Daggett don’t care, because workers are not their real concern. Their true goals are power and securing a position of influence within the oligarchy.

Daggett, unfortunately, embodies the image of an oligarchic elite pretending to be a champion of the working class. As a labor boss, he earns over $900,000 a year after bonuses, drives a Bentley, and owns a 76-foot luxury yacht. The Justice Department has accused him of being connected to the notorious Genovese crime family. Daggett beat a 2005 racketeering charge after the decomposing body of a key witness was found in the trunk of a car outside a New Jersey diner. He lives like an oligarch because he is one.

Many laborers deserve better wages, safe neighborhoods, and affordable housing. The recent shift by many on the right toward supporting the well-being of average American workers is a positive development, but we must be cautious not to embrace corrupt oligarchs posing as labor leaders. Soulless corporations aren’t the heroes here, but neither are labor unions. Ultimately, both are part of the same destructive system.

The Total State Warns Tyranny Has Already Triumphed

Auron MacIntyre makes the case that our liberal democracies have been irredeemably co-opted by the deep state and other powerful interests.

Political organization in the total state



We now know that the FBI labeled Donald Trump’s supporters as a distinct category of domestic extremist. While this formal step toward the criminalization of political opposition in the United States is horrifying, it should not really come as a surprise.

After all, the FBI and Department of Justice have spent the last few years repeating the lie that “right-wing extremism” is the most serious domestic threat to the nation. Federal law enforcement agencies cook their statistics on politically motivated domestic threats by excluding groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa from the category of left-wing violence, thereby removing the most egregious example of domestic terror in recent memory — the riots of 2020 — from the data. It is clear that the Democrats are accelerating their efforts to make organic right-wing political organization a criminal offense leading up to the 2024 election, and this poses a serious threat to those who still operate under the assumption that they are protected by the First Amendment.

Popular political organization is a fundamental right. From the Boston Massacre to the Sons of Liberty dumping tea in Boston Harbor, protest has been woven into the American identity from the beginning. American schools regularly praise civil rights or anti-war marches from the 1960s; media depicts the leaders of these movements as national heroes who changed the course of history. It is no wonder that conservatives, who have routinely watched the left get its way after popular political action, would seek to organize their own movements in response to a government that cares little about their concerns.

When the right begins to organize, however, conservatives soon learn that a very dangerous set of forces is arrayed against them. A small misstep can turn into a legal disaster.

After months of leftist rioting and looting where government buildings were placed under siege and militant activists established autonomous zones, many Trump supporters were understandably confused about the rules surrounding popular political actions. The vicious persecution of protesters involved in the events of January 6, 2021, quickly made it clear that the American judicial system had bifurcated: one standard for friends of the regime and one standard for its enemies.

Even more disturbing than the politically motivated prosecutions, however, was the number of federal agents or informants who were present in the crowd that day. It remains unclear just how many of the protesters were working with or for federal law enforcement agencies. But it is clear that the number was high and that some of those individuals played a role in shaping the events that unfolded.

Every totalitarian government knows that in order to maintain control, officials must keep the populace jumping at shadows, terrified to organize or take action.

Groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, which have been identified as flash points by the Biden administration, appear to have been deeply infiltrated by the domestic security apparatus. FBI agents and informants have also played a prominent role in engineering other “right-wing” plots like the planned kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The regime leaders are looking for a very particular type of domestic enemy that will justify the expansion of policing powers, and they are more than happy to manufacture them if necessary.

While the January 6 protest has given the regime its most viable pretext for ratcheting up persecution, federal law enforcement has often decided to intimidate political opponents with no real justification.

The Justice Department threatened parents who showed up at school board meetings to protest doctrines like critical race theory and trans ideology that were being forced onto their children by progressive activists masquerading as teachers. Dozens of parents have been investigated by the FBI for daring to challenge the government’s victimization of their children.

We also know that agents from multiple FBI field offices surveilled and investigated Catholics who attend the traditional Latin Mass, singling them out as potential domestic extremists. When you cannot attend a church service or disagree with a school board member without drawing the attention of the national police force, you no longer live in a constitutional republic. You live in the total state.

Now, to be clear, the Biden administration is unlikely to ban all opposing political parties in the United States. At least not formally. For all of their delusional ranting about the rise of a Christian theocracy, most establishment Democrats understand that the Republican Party, as it is currently constituted, is a valuable asset to the regime.

Let’s be honest: Republicans are glorified losers and they are comfortable with that role. Any political party that believes power is bad and should never be used, even if you happen to win an election accidentally, is no real threat to the ruling elite. Most Republican politicians will pretend to care about advancing the ball on one or two issues, but in reality, they are happy to collect their salary, be honored at the local Rotary Club, and call it a day.

The Republican Party is a safe place for marginalized middle America to park its political energy while being farmed for political donations and tax dollars. If a candidate like Donald Trump comes around threatening to provide real opposition, he can simply be slandered and indicted until the “opposition party” goes back to picking safe losers like Mitt Romney or Mike Pence. No reason to destroy a perfectly useful pressure release valve.

While many conservatives had been unsatisfied with this dynamic for a long time, Trump galvanized that feeling into a movement with real momentum. People can and should criticize Trump for his lack of personal discipline and inability to realize the type of change necessary, but the energy he captured was real, and it scared the establishment for a reason. The left called George W. Bush a war criminal and John McCain a baby-killer, but they never tried to put either man in jail to keep them from running for president. Trump may not have been capable enough to pose a threat to the swamp, but the spirit he captured was one of real opposition, not the safe and controlled neoconservatism that has played Washington Generals to the Democrats’ Harlem Globetrotters for so long.

That is why federal law enforcement has largely focused its efforts on parents, traditional Catholics, and meme makers. While Republicans squabble over how much taxpayer money to launder through foreign vassal states, real political discontent continues to grow in the organic communities that have been abandoned by our political elites. Every totalitarian government knows that in order to maintain control, officials must keep the populace jumping at shadows, terrified to organize or take action due to the high probability that agents of the state are working to criminalize their activity. This tactic is particularly effective in our current environment, where Americans believe instinctually that they have the freedom to organize but are also aware that simply making a meme or standing in the wrong crowd can completely ruin their lives.

In politics, the organized activists always beat the disorganized masses, which is why preventing effective organization is the first priority of our aspiring total state. So how should those who recognize this fact organize if they know that the state is actively looking to manufacture scary political enemies that it can parade around to increase its power?

The first step is to avoid giving the regime easy targets, but as we can see from its targeting of parents and churchgoers, the regime is happy to focus on groups that are usually seen as benign. The smartest move for most conservatives is to start local, securing control of sheriff’s offices, county commissions, and school boards.

Large national-level demonstrations are not likely to bring sweeping change and are far more likely to become targets of subversion. Capturing regional political control is often a thankless task. But that kind of diligence can create a bulwark against a corrupt administration seeking to punish dissent.