Q&A Three Question Two

Why is anti-empiricism at the root of all totalitarianism (assuming this is so)? Is totalitarianism therefore impossible because our discourse is based on empiricism?

I know that the author does eventually argue that empiricism can also be a totalitarian ideology, but I don't believe that this is really consistent. If empiricism is free dialogue based on the available facts of a situation then totalitarianism can only happen when that dialogue breaks down, because the dialog must necessarily be discussing the facts of the situation which includes that totalitarianism is a negative force that does not create a space where rational dialog can be had.