That is to say, the operating deputies discipline themselves themselves and they are given and with its eloquent speech they produce the dominion from its subjectivity. The avenging congregation that celebrates has said him four common places to the regime could be transformed into impositora multitude. That is what it fears the totalitarian regime more and feeds the spectacle from the own mediocrity on its own deputies. In other words, the totalitarian regime works on it bases to control, but not to destroy, because one would lose the balance of the appearances and the same arms of the control. We could say that it places to " oposicin" uncontrolled in " no-lugar". At the same time, it long satisfies a yearning postponed by the controlled ones, the apparent one to share of the ether. That is to say, the access to the screen. Once intermingled both sounds of the harmful polarization the dominated one becomes rather less than a remainder.
It does not have nothing else democratic that to offer the ether. It is for that reason that, in surely misunderstood phrase while it spoke of insurgency, called to an ontological term. I have said it thus: the policy does not become of outside inwards, becomes of inside towards outside. The regime is nourished of the superficiality of the social components. When everything to that body seems to him most natural of the world, and it unfolds to exorcise with insults, it has done exactly what the totalitarianism of the 21st century allows, that is to say, the bud of the superficiality and executes what totalitarianism wanted, the abandonment of all imagination transcendental. We arrive this way at an incoherence of great coherence. The power has unfolded subtly and conformation feeds back the social it. The regime, thus, has created its own ontological model to which there is to oppose another one by means of other measures of value and of causing that the important thing returns to determine the forms, the measures, the procedures and the behavior.