Tyranny, Constitutionalism, and the Nihilist Candidate: Mitt Romney

Tyranny, Constitutionalism, and the Nihilist Candidate: Mitt Romney

By Joseph Andrew Settanni


Free government, unfortunately or otherwise, is the historical aberration or abnormality versus the typical prevalence of variants of despotic regimes seen through the ages. Thus, liberty under law is exceptional wherever and whenever it may exist. Even tyrants, after all, have spoken the mesmerizing language of liberty, as with, e. g., that contemptible butcherer of civil social order, Robespierre the Incorruptible.

For this reason, liberty undefiled has been precious because, among other major reasons, it is, in fact, substantially rare and, moreover, if not properly guarded from possible corruption (into mere license) or plain destruction, gets destroyed eventually.

Of course, modern tyranny (being enlightened by religious ideology or secular ideology), starting with the Puritan and French Revolutions, normally and publicly proclaims its intentional benevolence, when crushing civil liberties and civil rights in the process of spreading such assumed benevolence, as with democratic-socialist regimes today.

This is especially true, moreover, if they claim to be democratically based in their lust for power, which then produces even more hardened consciences as a result. The proclaiming of the desire to promote freedom does not, axiomatically, create its attainment in the doings of obsessed fanatics, of committed ideologists who may, also, assume that they are merely being pragmatists.

Equally, the often related concept of self-government implies that people can, thus, govern themselves well enough from the bottom up, instead of being harshly or otherwise dictated to from the top down, or, at least, that has been an ideal. On the other hand, democratic despotism easily suggests what the actual practice of democracy can really accomplish, contrary to often asserted democratic ideals, as with, in a related example by analogy, the alleged “enlightenment” of an earlier enlightened despotism in much of 18th century Europe.

As with Rousseau, therefore, all ideological regimes think that they have the right to force men to be free in pursuit of what may be correctly perceived as Utopia, the New Eden on earth, by whatever euphemism: Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Feminism, Anarchism, Socialism, etc. The vast majority of the (envy-filled) utopians do side with Rousseau, with tyranny, in the need to have authoritarian (or worse) regimes, which would make Plato’s ideal Republic seem like a paradise in practice versus the actual hells of totalitarian experiments on earth.

In that obvious sense, all modern, ideological revolutionary movements are actually, when studied closely, reactionary, not progressive as is always so falsely alleged; they wish to, essentially, regain, maintain, or reinforce the basic authoritarian pattern of what has been historically acceptable, for the mass of human beings, for many millenniums. Of course, it is not easy for most people to understand how those who think of themselves as progressives are really the true reactionaries; and, in this sense, it can be fairly said, in truth, that tyranny is on the side of recorded history, not otherwise.

History as Educative Prologue

The great weight of history, admittedly, as to prescriptive conduct and actual practice, how nations and peoples have actually lived, has so certainly favored oppressive regimes of various types, kinds, and degrees, not freely constituted states with liberated populations. The proponents of free government, of the political order of liberty through the exercise of freedom, have then to (successfully) argue the rightness of such a cause, though most people are ignorant of this truly important fact, especially in the Western world these days. Freedom, as per social civil liberty, is not a natural political condition that, furthermore, must (somehow or other) just exist automatically.

Too many people, beginning about in the dawning 20th century, simply came to assume that democracy and democratic practices are, meaning simply were, the prevalent norm; such an uniformed view is usually due to the viewpoints of presentism and historicism, not true historical reality as to worldwide political history. Also, one must honestly note the increasingly poor quality of contemporary education as it contributes substantially to such ill-informed cognition mainly, though not exclusively, through the aforementioned broader ignorance, which is persistent enough.

Long ago, Lord Acton, presumably inspired by the intensive grand optimism of and belief in Progress of the 19th century, had then nobly set himself the (later unfinished) task of writing up a full history of the idea of liberty; moreover, he, quite sincerely, thought it to be so extremely important for the needed political and moral edification of mankind in its great struggle up from ignorance, barbarism, oppression, and suppression of many untold centuries. The task was surely inspiring, though left mostly undone nonetheless.

However, looking intelligently and carefully back at the tragic 20th century and into the second decade of the 21st, there would, validly, appear to be a then much greater and certainly more substantial need for composing a vigilant history concerning the subject of tyranny. Why tyranny?

The horror-filled 20th century, in obvious terms of its truly massive wars of destruction, many genocides, war crimes, ideological-terrorist regimes, etc. consuming over 150 million human lives (at a conservative estimate), legitimately suggests why tyranny, not liberty, ought to be a prime and logical topic for, thus, cogently writing about in rather extensive detail; and yet, related thought will be also given to the often overlooked influences of secularism, materialism, positivism, and hedonism in the Western world.

It would, therefore, seem highly reasonable and correct, fair and justifiable, to try to rightly account for the deaths of these tens upon tens of millions and, in addition, the necessarily related tortures, injuries, and sufferings of at least another 150 million also affected by tyranny in that same century. But, more to the point, this nearly worldwide phenomenon of tyranny (aka statism) did not end in the last century; many terrible regimes involved intimately with oppression, suppression, and repression have, therefore, continued, more or less, into the present era, of course.

The struggles against it, the effects and affects coming from it, and those both directly and indirectly who had either suffered as a result or fought the consequences of such statism had actually engaged, either directly or indirectly, literally many tens upon tens of millions of people. Thought, therefore, appropriately needs to be rendered concerning the basis of what occurred in term of at least defining it and illustrating this matter by considering the ways and means that men have sought to control it.

This then absolutely monumental and international subject, as has been here noted, is definitely worthy of substantial and substantive study and qualifies easily, as an understatement, for greatly profound research, investigation, documentation, and such allied writing. Beyond any rational question, this important topic, therefore, is certainly not an obscure one and ought, logically, attract the valid interest of (at least) many millions of readers who need to know more about tyranny and, more importantly, the political and other means to combat it.

However, in fairness, the historical record shows convincingly that the existence of tyranny, as to the oppression of the mass of mankind, is the natural condition of humanity as to political reality itself. Those who do enthusiastically support what is called Big Government, especially as part of the Iron Triangle: Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor, along with the government-media complex, do have the bulk of recorded history on their side as to the, thus, preponderant orientation of sustainable rulership practices in this world.

Weberian sociology has inundated modern consciousness with the alleged benefits of routinization, bureaucratization, and rationalization; a high technology civilization has proven vulnerable to attack; all this plus modernization, industrialization, and hyper-regulation have combined to then produce the Regulatory State, which has contributed to the usual reflexive response to a crisis or disaster: “the government ought to do something.” It appears, consequently, counterintuitive to then really think otherwise as would libertarians rightly fearing the oppression coming from imagining the subservient need for an always growing political dependency consciousness.

Free government is, therefore, manifestly the genuine exception to the general rule. The supporters of any anti-tyrannical order must make the obvious case that free political institutions encouraging self-government, as well as free-market economies, are both substantively and substantially better for people in more than just pragmatic or utilitarian terms of reference.

Oppressive regimes, especially if not acted on by external powers, can and have lasted for centuries, while free governments, on average, do not have as impressive a historical track record. And yet, athwart tyranny and its compelling nature, there have been efforts at trying to achieve or sustain a constitutional political order.

Constitutionalism v. Tyranny

Such a vast and complex theme, involving, necessarily, many subjects related to the chosen topic held to be more appropriate than speaking about liberty (as to a history thereof), must be properly broken down into many sections and subsections of thought; this is for composing a series of separate studies all contributing toward an informed and much expanded knowledge of this rather important theme.

One way that regimes or political orders violate the lives and/or property of their citizens or subjects is through violations of or outright destruction of the assumed (organic) or, perhaps, written constitution of the country, nation-state, territorial entity, or empire. Countries, e. g., are normally said to either have written, as with the USA, or unwritten constitutions, as with, for instance, the British Constitution. It is a serious question related to what is called political epistemology.

Where an actually written constitution exists, in fact, as the fundamental law of a nation or other political body, that document itself does not need to be interpreted by judicial authorities, only laws enacted under it are or can be made subject to judicial or other interpretation as to their proper constitutionality.

Thus, US Supreme Court Justices or other Federal judges are not to be ever engaged in the process of actually interpreting (aka legislating about) the US Constitution; its very written nature, in explicit and cogent terms of political epistemology, precludes any such odd process in being totally improper, contradictory, unlawful, and, by the way, fully subversive of the overt intent involved in having a particular and scripted document as the Law of the Land.

This country’s basic political contract was/is, however, only composed for a representative republican government, not a democracy nor a democratic republic nor a republican democracy; and, this is not a mere semantic quibble; a democracy and a republic are two different kinds of regimes by definition; definitions, furthermore, are meant to yield meanings and constitutions, especially written ones, are meant to establish limits.

While there are, of course, democratic elements to the national government, these do not, in fact, come to then define the right nature of the republican government in set terms of its Law of the Land, as to the proper interpretation of its existence as such. No national referendums or plebiscites, e. g., exist in this nation, meaning as to its, thus, official and known political processes, which clearly indicates the overall political structure’s overt nondemocratic nature; (essential) republicanism, therefore, correctly prevails, through a representative regime as to its constitutional order, which is here a rather important point to make regarding civil administration within this country.

This nation’s fundamental political charter, the US Constitution, is not, in fact, written in any language foreign to most Americans nor, of course, was it foreign to almost all of the population of this country, even at the time of its adoption, thus, no interpretation of it is required as such.

Furthermore, anyone can carry around a copy of it in their pocket; annotated versions, moreover, exist; one can, also, download a copy directly from the internet; it is not, therefore, an obscure manuscript demanding any tremendously esoteric elucidations thereof; the people, it can be so added here, are supposed to have access to it. There is no effort to hide it from the general population nor is knowledge about its existence held by only a few select people; but, the clear redundancy of what has been said is, obviously, for the sake of making an important heuristic point.

The very purpose of a written constitution is meant to integrally negate the need for interpretation of it because the reason of its very existence as such mandates, logically and legally, the circumscription of that form or kind of government made then specifically subordinate to its constitution. One can note here, furthermore, that this is a most vital point of political epistemology, though too often overlooked, deliberately or otherwise, by so many so-called constitutional scholars, jurists, academicians, and others; they are ideologically quite intent upon vividly putting into practice their own interpolations and extrapolations of artfully devised “constitutionalism” and, consequently, bastardized constitutional law itself; equally, cunning tergiversation rules their ideological consciences as needed.

In the classical understanding, meaning by definition, a constitutional government is to be a government of laws, not of men; a constitution designed, in fact, explicitly in its public format to be one document, regardless of the number of pages or amendments, is overtly composed to be then self-explanatory in its forever basic compositional nature as to the political-legal principles involved. Certain processes of amendment can and should exist to better uphold, not to deviate from, the intentions of such a legal thing existing to be the fundamental Law of the Land of the political entity or nation so concerned.

Amendments seeking to really change the true or essential nature or existence of a constitution are, by definition, always legally wrong; what ought then to be done, if wanted by the political authorities or representatives of the citizenry/subjects, is to then write up another constitution, not to misdirect, undermine, or corrupt an existing one; any of the latter attempts, among other results, corrupts civic virtue.

A written constitution’s truly basic legal and political purpose is, therefore, to prudently delimit and circumscribe the legally constituted government; constitutional government is, thus, an intentionally, deliberately, restricted or delimited form, type, or kind of political government; it is a regime of necessarily and distinctly limited powers, often set up with appropriate checks and balances, to logically restrict the branches of the government from exercising clearly raw and undiluted power qua brute force, meaning especially against the populace.

Admittedly, the aforementioned extrapolation and analysis, the presentation, in effect, of one kind of constitutionalism through a written document, is a theoretical exposition of the way things ought or are supposed to function, not the reality usually involved. Even if, e. g., three branches of a general or national government, executive, legislative and judicial, are supposed to properly exist in their pure and official forms, this is rarely, in fact, the empirical case.

What is to be plainly de jure is, usually, not de facto true. Equally, though often not considered, the ongoing onslaughts of materialism, hedonism, positivism, pragmatism, and secularism do often influence legal and other thinking in contemporary society, in a contemporary world bereft of (belief in) God. Irregularities or nonconformity with constitutional conduct and its cognate principles arise more and more as a political order ceases public acknowledgement of there actually being a Supreme Being; deified Man then ideologically becomes, as an ersatz religion, the measure of all things as is seen in the glorified State writ large, in the Hobbesian Leviathan.

In the USA, judicial legislation, the very definition of judicial activism working against judicial restraint, is de facto in existence (and, thus, should be classified as unconstitutional); executive legislation, as with Executive Orders, also surely exists; and, of course, congressional adjudication and Federal regulatory legislation (meaning not actual laws enacted by the Congress) are also de facto real, though none of these things are supposed to exist de jure. All should then be held as being, by definition, manifestly and without question unconstitutional; this is certainly because they are functionally and operationally improper to the nature of constitutional government, of needed checks and balances, when that regime exists under an actually written constitution.

The US Constitution, in fact, does not recognize such accumulated things as to any official constitutional principles of American, representative republican government. Pure theory has, of course, little to do with empirical reality as to what gets done and, moreover, by which branch of government. Realism is discussed here, though condemned, as is pragmatism, the modernist handmaiden of all ideology. But, what is really being said?

On a routine basis, all branches have and will, therefore, fully act unconstitutionally by doing things that are, more or less, extra-constitutional, unconstitutional, or just more plainly anti-constitutional. All this is, moreover, a substantial part of the unfortunate political reality in existence in this country since (at least) the adoption of the Constitution of 1789, which had, in fact, fully replaced the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1781. But, might does not make right, except, one supposes, under dictatorships.

By definition, thus, all such acts, regardless of when, how, or which branch is involved, are tyrannous. Tyranny, when best understood, is not the then subordinate question of the one (a king, autocrat, or dictator), the few (an oligarchy, representative assembly, or aristocracy), or the many (the people, a democracy, or an amassed rabble). Therefore, a truly tyrannical regime, as with, e. g., what has been even described as a democratic despotism (founded largely upon envy of the rich), still then empirically exists totally regardless of its particular basis in fact, meaning the supposed form of government said to officially exist. Even Napoleonic or plebiscitary democracies are, consequently, still tyrannies.

Realization of this highly important consideration and critical thought is a greatly liberating kind of enlightenment regarding the practical, not theoretical, basis of political reality, meaning, thus, as to the correctly known existence of what can be appropriately perceived as being a tyranny, plain and simple. Intentional or deliberate subversion, done by any of the alleged exceptional exigencies of war or other abuse, of a nation’s constitution leads, therefore, down the road of tyranny, which ought to be properly understood as such; one perceives that proper constitutionalism, the rule of law and not of men, is then, furthermore, disrespected necessarily.

The purpose of traditional constitutionalism, as opposed to revolutionary times, is to set basic and, sometimes, quite strict limits upon the powers of the political order, the body politic, having or seeking rulership over the people. Constitutions, however, as has been said, do exist of two usual kinds: written and unwritten/customary (organic). Great Britain, in contrast to America, has one composed of a long compilation of laws, codes, traditional practices, and judicial decisions that have created a tremendous volume of case law, as an organic/natural growth of law, covering many hundreds of years. Neither, however, create any absolute guarantees against tyranny.

Unwritten, basic governmental charters logically do require judicial interpretations, creation of a vast amount of case law, of and for such a “dispersed” or composite constitution, unlike what exists for the USA, as has been, in fact, earlier commented upon correctly in this article; so, in the former case, it is essential and a truly logical and legitimate part of such a governmental system to have judges capable of interpreting the Law of the Land for Great Britain.

But, be that as it may, an abused or ignored constitution, whether of a scripted character or not, is not really an effective bulwark against corruption, injustice, and oppression if the political players will not adhere to the fundamental rules of the game. Most of the world, as a consequence, has then gained disrespect for mere “paper” constitutions that do not stop popular passions, dictators, or efforts that do really promote (unconstitutional) acts of democratic despotism by whatever euphemism(s).

Thus, e. g., any truly “living, breathing constitution” is inherently corrupt because this explicitly means that the fundamental rules (aka the Law of the Land) can and will be changed during play to suit political fiat and, as often its companion, political expediency in the grand name of a then supposedly more exalted higher purpose, meaning usually certain ideological dictates of various kinds. One can see that judicial legislation, executive legislation, and legislative adjudication are, thus, by definition, always illegitimate and unconstitutional, according to the very principles, in America, of the US Constitution specifying, in fact, three separate branches of a representative republican government.

Constitutionalism, when rightly understood, is the important political effort to, in effect, prevent the exercise of raw, undiluted power against the people of a country, whether of the majority or the minority concerned; it, thus, properly stands for the ever needed mitigation and dilution of such power as based upon the rightful authority of a constitution, a free political order of a defined Law of the Land, as the then supreme governing document of that government, meaning government qua governance.

Otherwise, it, meaning power, would be figuratively and often the reality of an iron fist slamming into one’s face every morning, noon, and night as to the fairly routine reality of such a regime, a despotism, an autocracy, or, of course, a tyranny.

While, e. g., it is perfectly true that the American Bill of Rights is not ever meant to be a suicide pact, however, the cart is not to be put before the horse, the part is not to be taken to be greater than the whole, and, for yet another analogy, the worship, as idolatry, is not to be made greater than the god itself. Though all regimes encompass governments, not all regimes are legitimate governments, as with the notion that killing in self-defense is not murder; not all killing is illegitimate, while murder is a form of killing, of course, though always wrong.

There is a vitally crucial principle necessarily being enunciated and involved here that is wrongly too often forgotten at the peril of those who claim to be true supporters of free government versus a tyrannical regime. A great chasm, as should be forever known, forever correctly separates bending a constitutional-political principle from, on the other hand, totally and irrevocably breaking it. Despotic regimes seek to emulate or re-create the normal reality of regimes by reverting back to the regular historical pattern of, in general, the few ruling over the vast majority of the denizens, which is contrary to a genuine, constitutional political order; free governments, therefore, seek to maintain a legitimate order.

Constitutional government, unlike non-constitutional regimes, is primarily for the safety and security not of itself, which makes of the assumed political order an idol to be worshipped, political idolatry. The growth of absolute power, which is the tendency of its basic nature, is imperial power that, by inherent design, has integral contempt for anything to do with the genuine notion of constitutionalism, except to pay it mere lip service when convenient to do so.

Imperial rulership may be defined as the attempt to perpetually centralize, in a unitary manner, all political power at one source for the absolute exercise of that power, which is ever directly opposed to the notion of (modern) constitutionalism, especially as it pertains to free government as the political order.

Support for true constitutionality, therefore, means upholding the authoritative principles of such government, a composite, not unitary, political order of some kind, by recognizing that law is not an end in and of itself, as with the always corruptive notions of positivist legalism, but, rather, justice as the terminal purpose of the existence of all true law.

Furthermore, classical Natural Law principles must, logically and rationally, inform the causation, creation, and maintenance of any proper system of jurisprudence, or else legality becomes just a euphemism for force, the exercise of raw power, without warranted authority being so necessarily connected to it. Just because something is said, through nominalist reductionism, relativism, and subjectivism, to be legal, therefore, does not then imbue it, axiomatically or otherwise, with the valid substance of true law, of constitutionalism.

Law, the basis of which is to reside with prior authority, and legality, what is held to be enforceable in terms of the power to do so, are not always, in truth, the same thing, contrary to the ever nominalist teachings of legal positivism. Thus, it should not be surprising that all ideological “jurisprudence” (e. g., as could be based upon Nazism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Syndicalism, etc.) is then opposed, axiomatically, to classical Natural Law teachings; this is clearly because constitutionalism becomes, under such systems, a bad joke; mere law qua law cannot, as a result of ideological fiat, simply be or become then lawful by merely being dependent upon itself, which would be a form of idolatry.

Ideologies claim, of course, that power creates the authority to allow the development of a system of law or that, in effect, establishes an unwritten constitution giving the regime the legality necessary for the promulgation of its law. And, this is really why most political revolutions, ironically, have occurred, in fact, from the top down, not from the bottom up, as is too often romantically portrayed. Reality is often too prosaic, though, among other features, it is in the nature of tyrannical regimes to ignore or set aside constitutional governance to wrongfully pursue the ends of power, to pervert justice within the political order.

As historic examples of prominent note, Lincoln, FDR, and Obama, though being three quite different men from three different eras, had actually conducted revolutions from the top; there was no dramatic storming of barricades in a fight against the Federal government; they, obviously, had then controlled the Federal government itself for their own set clearly revolutionary purposes and, moreover, in the aforementioned imperial manner and style in, thus, rather effectively exercising unconstitutional power.

Of course, not just or only presidents have acted imperiously and arrogantly; the US Supreme Court has, numerous times, done so; individual Federal judges, moreover, have many times done so; there have, in addition, been eras of Congressional supremacy when, in fact, neither the then existing President nor the Supreme Court could constitutionally control the historical or political course of events, as with, e. g., the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson or the resignation of Richard Nixon.

Consequences of Tyranny: Depravity, Degeneracy, Decline

At different times, America has, therefore, seen imperial presidencies, imperial congresses, and imperial judiciaries acting athwart the Constitution of this nation. Such politically-legally abusive actions were unconstitutional, also called extra-constitutional or anti-constitutional depending upon the preferences of the particular commentators during such unfortunate eras, when tyranny, by whatever name used, had vigorously held sway. Only genuine respect for constitutionalism, however, can come to save this Republic from its now seemingly destined internal corruption and destruction, though it does not take a crystal ball to yet perceive matters with crystal clarity.

As a contemporary example, if the High Court should find any major part of Obamacare or all of it to be plainly unconstitutional, it is expected that the arrogant Chief Executive will, as did Andrew Jackson with his vile opposition to the great Chief Justice John Marshall, simply, in effect, ignore any such decision and seek, therefore, effective ways and means of substantially deploying Obamacare; this is as to its functionally and operationally major provisions; and, of course, this would then surely be, by definition, tyrannous conduct seeking the imposition of the power of a unitary regime.

It would be then inherently unlawful, according to the demonstrated principles of representative, republican constitutional government and, also, certainly proper legal grounds for rightly seeking an impeachment. Unsurprisingly, nihilism and, consequently, nihilistic politicians do get bred in such an inviting environment, where, as Lord Action said, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But, Obama (the Scourge of God), unfortunately, is categorically unimpeachable because, among other major indisputable reasons, the Republican Party really fears too much the invidious condemnation it would receive, as to the alleged historical and political infamy, of impeaching the first Black President.

He has, therefore, a manifestly protective skin coloration that then greatly wards off this legal possibility forever, in his egotistic and vain drive toward omnipresent imperial rulership and a successful autocracy, founded upon a democratic despotism; however, there can still be the formal or “official” appearance of assumed legality, of course, while, in practice, it would be hard, nevertheless, to completely distinguish such absolutist conduct from a real dictatorship in this country; reality, thus, matters more than legal fictions; power replaces authority and, by the way, the Constitution itself.

What is really in perceived action here, meaning after all the political and other distractive camouflage is intelligently removed, is then one of the ancient Seven Deadly Sins: Vanity. And, it is egoistic human vanity, more than anything else, which will actually kill this country sooner than any, e. g., imagined or real acts of Islamic terrorists multiplied a million fold.

Sadly, neither liberals nor leftists nor conservatives, neither paleoconservatives nor neoconservatives, as to the extant commentators or pundits of this era, have correctly and profoundly identified how this ancient human sin has evilly wormed its way deeply into the American character, heart, mind, and soul in about the last 50 (at a minimum) to 60 years of this country’s history.

Only the truly much deeper cognition and greater sentience of the traditionalist right has, so perspicaciously, seen into the ugly source, the core, of the ever increasing depravity and degeneracy, decline and decay, of basic Western-American ethical, moral, and spiritual values. A fundamentally secularist-oriented cognition has become supremely dominant, especially among the nation’s elites who hate this country so intensely.

Because “progressive” society and culture are supposed to be more advanced and sophisticated well beyond the prior, unenlightened eons of time, people today, of course, cannot detect the exact nature of the poison that is bringing death and destruction as a consequence of its (intellectual) consumption, which is done so willingly; assumed moral and ethical progressivism qua enlightenment, moreover, breeds an enervating noetic myopia, a decidedly false consciousness, completely then unable to see the figurative knife plunging ever more steadily at the heart of this nation. What has happened?

God Denied is a Nation Lost

God is mocked and ignored. A secularized, hedonistic, materialistic society and culture, as so surely fundamentally exists today, no longer has the once needed and vital theological-religious perception both to obviously recognize and reject actual sinfulness and sinful thought and behavior. Godlessness, (a generally regnant atheism) itself is, therefore, thought to be only simply natural and normal, not the direct contrary. Of course, millions do, naively, still wish to believe that a Christian nation exists.

But, depravity has become publicly celebrated, praised, promoted, and rewarded extravagantly as with its ideologically-based diversity, tolerance, pluralism, multiculturalism, affirmative action, Feminism, homosexual rights, etc. Only someone quite politically ignorant or a fool would be entirely surprised as to the debased condition of contemporary America, after several generations of increased ideological barbarism. Likewise, what can be known as a related consideration proven, time and again, in recorded history?

Tyranny and its furthered advancement logically go so well with strident secularism and materialism, as is proven with Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, of course. And, as is known, the leadership of such ideological movements is usually filled with hedonistic swine, while Machiavellian principles do prevail. Furthermore, a morally-debased people have, thus, never continuously maintained their freedom, which can be seen, e. g., in the often ever revealing history of the ancient Roman Empire with its bread and circuses. An American version of the Weimar Republic will, most likely, be created in general substance, if not ever in full or entire form, of course.

As this country then degenerately sinks toward, to all basic intents and purposes, a practical atheism as now being the very predominant sociocultural norm, it is not widely understood and comprehended, much less really believed, that the vast majority of the American people are determined – as to the final bottom line – to go to Hell. And, as a satanic public triumph for exorbitant vanity, this is certainly why Obama, a supreme representative to an extraordinary degree of the vain mood of 21st century America, will then be reelected. He superlatively exemplifies the dominating ideological spirit, the Zeitgeist, of this vilely decadent era with its contemptible and vile passions, its collectivist lusts and perversions.

And, the clearly degenerate, upper-class/country-club leadership of the Republican Party, moreover, in nominating the nihilist Mitt Romney, do so knowing full well that he will lose; his campaign will, thus, deliberately be oriented toward a calculated and knowing failure; this is because the party leadership (and he and his inner circle) do not wish to be involved with defeating an African-American President, as was seen with their favored choice of John McCain that had then allowed for Obama’s initial election.

One should come to perceive that Romney is the Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush (2nd failed run as a neoconservative), and McCain candidate for November 2012; all of them had, quite willfully, alienated the hard-core elements among the conservative base of the party and, consequently, lost their election efforts. Q. E. D. The spiraling down into the Weimarian cesspool with its ever popular passions will, therefore, become inevitable until some terrible bottom is reached—why?—because every people get the regime they deserve.

This is not, however, a supposed matter of a merely assumed inevitability or (presumed) fatalism in disguise; on the contrary, millions upon millions of active individual wills, as votes so cast for several generations, had, thus, freely contributed to the then logical consequences involved. Politicians (as paratroopers) do not shockingly fall out of the skies suddenly as if they are an invading army. Elections, in fact, were held; in modern times, moreover, despotisms usually tend to be popular and self-imposed regimes since the worst (and most demonic) form of enslavement is surely, as known, self-enslavement.

Conclusion

As Edmund Burke had, sagaciously, written centuries ago, a people’s passions forge their own fetters. The only plausible way out is, however, the conducting of a violent counterrevolution against the anti-constitutional imposition, by whatever euphemism, of a dictatorship in America, of, in effect, dictatorial rulership in this country, for many scores of years to come.

But, the dangerous result of that, a civil war, may not prove propitious to say the least, though it may be noted, e. g., that the sale of guns in this nation has, in fact, grown almost geometrically in recent years; it is fairly surmised, on average, that many of the suspicious citizens of this spot in North America are, one suspects, openly nervous about the future; hatred and fear of the government has, moreover, palpably increased along with its demonic drive for continuing and massive power.

The regime, therefore, would have to substantially disarm the people before it could successfully seek to actually impose absolute power over them. The rest, as Machiavelli would say, is left to fortune. One positive (though dubious) result, however, if the above scenario would prove true, should then be the total invalidation of the myth of the doctrine of “American exceptionalism,” meaning the domestic version of an English liberal (Whig) concept allied naturally to the secularist god term of Progress.

The USA, subject to the natural processes of earthly decay and decline, would become just another failed political experiment, among the many that do and will ever exist in this world, not the one and only purported exception in all of recorded history. Contrary to the ideology of conservatism, America is not God’s chosen nation. But, in any event, the destruction of a country, especially one’s own, is not a pretty thing to see.