So this is maintaining control, not gaining it. In my younger more innocent years I did think about what it would be like to have totalitarian rule over the world. The issue I kept running into, though, is that a dominated people aren't free and aren't happy, so it makes little sense from a human rights perspective. If I were a totalitarian leader, I'd be heartless and power-hungry; ruthless. It's basically the anti-Willavel.
I'd probably use religion to keep the ignorant surfs in line. Nothing gets sheeple to follow you like religion. "Do what I say" isn't as impressive as "do what god told me to tell you". I suspect it's why monarchies were linked to the church in the past. Get fake religious scholars on 24 hour religious networks repeating the bullshit and most would follow if not out of respect then for fear. I'd probably invent an enemy, like "insurgents" for those for whom the fear of god isn't enough. I'd even fake a few attacks to give said enemy the illusion of actually being a threat. If I was ever losing popularity in the polls? Bam attack an insurgent stronghold and bring some enemies to justice. I'd probably also really jack up the bullshit on cable news, and include more crap like American Idol that can distract people. No free media would exist.
I'd basically be Bush. Does everyone get that? How Bush want's to be a totalitarian ruler? Clear enough?
|