Tyrannical leaders similar to Napoleon led their countries into times of war, despair, and economic depression, and during these times the people’s quality of life deteriorated significantly. Although they may differ in their methods used to rise to power, dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Muammar al-Qaddafi abused their political power and forcibly oppressed their citizens to make irrational decisions that brought harsh repercussions.

            First used by the Ancient Greeks, the term tyrant commonly refers to a violent, ruthless, and unreasonable ruler who independently gains absolute control over his nation and uses a multitude of different strategies to gain supporters which become loyal to the tyrant (Tyrants). Under this definition, Napoleon of Animal Farm can easily be proven to be a tyrannical mastermind as he also came to power by force rather than election. In addition, he exercises the use of propaganda with the help of Squealer to trick the less intelligent animals into believing that conditions were improving as they were obviously becoming much worse than before Napoleon ruled. Much like this method, some politicians may use false promises of restoring peace, granting freedom, or solving economic problems to procure a large number of followers (Tyrants).  This utilization of misinformation and trickery is simply one of many tactics which tyrants employ to increase their authority and control. After coming into power, by using the manipulation of propaganda and the blind loyalty of many supporters, a tyrant can pass his or her own rules or amend existing ones to further establish their dominance over the people. Most of the time, the new regulations would only benefit the oppressive ruler and ultimately cause the circumstance of life for common people to plummet (Tyrants). In the course of history, infamous authoritarians such as Adolf Hitler have used these tactics to assert themselves as tyrants and hurled their nations into times of anguish and hardship.

            Early in his life, Hitler became intrigued with the ideas of anti-Semitism and mass political manipulation. These beliefs are what enabled him to quickly escalate his social status until he created the Nazi party in 1932 and received enough recognition that President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor (Adolf). He made great use of his enormous support base by eliminating all other political rivals and then appointing himself as Fuhrer when the president finally died (Thomson). During charismatic and motivational speeches, Hitler made promises to fix the economic problems Germany was faced with from the depression, (promises which he would not keep). He exploited these fabricated assurances to keep the nation loyal while established his own police force and an immense system of propaganda, which allowed him to achieve complete control (Adolf). With these in effect, Hitler was free to do as he pleased while the people were unaware of his decisions, causing very little opposition. As the economy remained in a global depression, Hitler had no way of restoring stability and therefore he blamed Jewish people as a scapegoat for all the complications which he could never fix. His Nazi party which he created to gain many of his followers supported this nationalist plan, and the persecution of Jews throughout Germany soon ensued (Thomson). Using his propaganda system, Hitler convinced the people of Germany that they would need to prepare for war, and then six million unemployed citizens were put to work. The erratic decision for Hitler and his brainwashed army of Nazi soldiers to invade many nearby countries in Europe caused world a war to be waged on Germany. As Hitler and his army campaigned across Europe, conquering huge amounts of territory, he employed his “final solution” plan to imprison and kill all the Jews in each new land he took under his control (Adolf). This had major effects on the people as the Green Police shut down all Jewish businesses and worked to instill fear in the citizens. As Hitler and the Nazis made their way into the Soviet Union, they were faced with such heavy opposition from the Red Army that he recruited everyone from young boys to old men into battle with very little training (Thomson). As many people began to see how Hitler’s plans were causing conditions to sink tremendously, assassination attempts were conducted by some of his highest military officers. This internal disunity caused enough turmoil for the American soldiers to invade Germany, eventually conquering Berlin and brought the war to an end (Adolf). Hitler’s inability to successfully come through with his plans shows how tyrants’ ineffective manners of authority lead to disastrous outcomes, not only for the tyrant, but for the entire nation.

            While some rulers slowly evolve into tyrants using manipulation, others quickly establish themselves as corrupted and irrational leaders, but usually both ways cause a similar end result. Muammar al-Qaddafi, a pious Muslim and Arab nationalist, began plotting to overthrow the Libyan king as early as when he graduated from college. He entered the military and speedily climbed through the ranks, until in 1969 a group of officers and he seized the king’s monarchy and took control for themselves. Qaddafi was pronounced the commander-in-chief of armed forces and chairman of the new governing committee, the Revolution Command Council (Muammar). He immediately began employing his radical nationalist ideals by creating many harsh and restrictive rules which conveyed his personal Islamic principles. Policies such as the removal of foreign military bases, expulsion of Jews and Italians, monopolizing other countries’ oil resources and a ban on alcohol were approved without consensus from the Libyan citizens. This caused Libya to be partially isolated by those Qaddafi wronged and made the Libyan citizens suffer trade implications and some sanctions to be placed (Wallechinsky). After 1974, Muammar was becoming more known in the international prospect for his erratic and unpredictable actions. He began financing a wide range of terrorist organizations and had teams of Libyan agents go to murder exiles in foreign countries (Muammar). Qaddafi’s increasing terrorist activity brought growing conflict with the United States government and in 1986 British warplanes bombed several cities in Libya, killing or injuring multiple civilians while they were attempting to kill him (Wallechinsky). Other such acts which caused his people to suffer was the establishment of cleansing committees, which were originally intended to help people in the workplace be equal. Instead, the groups operated to identify and kill anyone who opposed Qaddafi and could make an attempt to revolt (Muammar). Muammar al-Qaddafi was quick to develop tyrannical behaviors and abuses his power to oppress his people, while only focusing on his own values, which causes the populace to suffer greatly.

            While tyrants and dictators both establish themselves into rule by ways of deceit, half truths, and military utilization, the natures of their rules are radically different though they both result in deteriorated living conditions for the people. Such as how Hitler used the Great Depression to gain supporters and then caused World War II to destroy most of Germany. Similarly, Muammar Qaddafi overthrew the government using his military control and when he came into power he allied himself with terrorists, which brought forth destructive bombings on Libya. They both made unreasonable decisions which brought harm to their people when they were only focused on furthering their power and trying to accomplish personal goals.

Obviously, people who are fleeing tyrants of the Old World will still immigrate. People fleeing Hitler-types will still enter the U.S., and people running from Idi Amin-types will still come to American shores. Refugees from Stalin will continue coming to America. Those fleeing civil war, like the Rwanda conflict of the 1990’s, will continue to seek refuge. People who have escaped the brainwashing of Mao will continue to apply for immigration. With any luck they’ll enter. People running from the King of Saudi Arabia will certainly come to the U.S. People running from the likes of King George will continue to apply. People running from nuts like Osama Bin Laden will try to enter. People seeking to escape the latest Castro variation will be ready to immigrate. Regardless of the information on the immigration form, people fleeing from every two-bit tyrant of the Old World will continue to come.

If we do not inform immigrants of the unidentified dead, newcomers will come here with rosy expectations that do not mesh with reality. They’ll expect a utopia. They’ll be disappointed.

Living in America isn’t a day at the beach. The wise course is to inform people. Tell them before they arrive that America isn’t Heaven. Anyone with delusions about that shouldn’t come.

Detectives try to identify the dead but it’s not easy. Some of the bodies or remains are over 50 years old. The process itself is grossly depressing.

Who will guard the guardians? Who will watch the watchers? The ancient problem persists. Detectives are usually with the government. Not every detective is the most honest individual on the planet.

The American government should be honest. All immigration forms should include information about the unidentified dead. America has an estimated 40,000 dead bodies that have yet to be identified and may never be. The government should inform potential immigrants of this fact. We’ll be a more honest nation.

We then can expect immigrants to be more honest.

We often present ourselves as a sort of Disneyland. We show potential newcomers fields of grain and beautiful people. Hollywood-types-living-in-a-perfect-place is the image. Reality, however, is quite different.

Americans are in one sense like much of the rest of the world. When we’re bad, we’re bad; when we’re good, we’re good.

If you say yes to the second one, you probably wouldn’t want to after you hear about what war means. If you say yes to the first on then you probably already know.

The word “War” can make you think about people fighting. It can make some people think about men wearing green camouflaged clothing, holding guns and rifles in their hands while hiding in tall grass. They stay there, waiting, watching, getting ready to pounce on their enemies who are just like them, also waiting, also watching and also getting ready to pounce back.

The men who are made to fight in these wards have families, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and wives. The worst part of war is that at the end of the day, some men are going to die and there is no way for the family to stop this from happening. Instead they are made to wait for their return, always wondering, always worrying, always waiting and always dreading to hear their doorbell ring to tell them that their loved one will not be returning to them, ever.

Yes, “WAR” is an ugly word but war is also a necessary thing that has to happen. Since the beginning of time, war has probably always happened. Men fighting against other men, for territory, for respect or even for victory. Even animals have war and do battle against each other for these same reasons.

The main question is “WHY?” Why bother fighting, arguing, trying to prove a point to the opposing player? We tend to say “everyone is entitled to their opinions” but in the end someone’s got to be right and this is why we have war.

People are fighting for their own personal victories all the time. They need to have it to show that they areright and someone else is wrong. Winning is like a drug to us, it’s something we need to have.

If we didn’t have our victories what would be the point in living?

Why would we humans even bother trying?

We need then to prove to ourselves that we are worth something in this life. That we have a purpose, that we have a rigth to be here, alive on this earth, today.

Our little victories and wins, they make us feel alive. They are what gets us high, higher than any drug induced hallucination. The feeling of being a winner and of knowing you’re the best, that no one else can best you or fight back against you is exhilirating.

“I’m the best. No one else can defeat me, not know, not ever.”

Tyrants rule based on this theory. They win their battles and hold high opinions of themselves. Even the people who live under the rule of these tyrants, they have their own battles and petty arguments but it’s always going to be there, at the back of their minds.

“My opinion is better than everone else’s and it has to be obeyed.” This is the mantra that spurts our wars and leads innocent ment into battle.

Yes, “WAR” is an ugly word, but only because we made it so.

Misanthropic and Anti-Utopian Disaster Ahead

Such is the easily observed public attitude of Nancy Pelosi and such other dedicated leftists who eagerly support the Culture of Death; she genuinely thinks, for instance, birth control will boost the nation’s economy; this is since there will be, by definition, less mouths to feed; such is her obviously Malthusian pessimism concerning, one supposes, more mere human trash that can be, thus, properly avoided from appearing on this endangered planet.   The best way to eliminate the creation of biological hazards is to exterminate people; the logic is frighteningly simple as it is rather quite evil as well.

Although the primitive thinking of Malthus has been systematically disproved (by, e.g., the economist Julian Simon, etc.) many times over, she surely represents the general consensus of most leftist opinion concerning the great need to restrict population growth whenever possible, which is the basis of what gets called freedom of choice, in America and the Western world, regarding human sexual reproduction.   And, of course, there are many actual and suitably morally dangerous implications revolving around such nihilistic thinking.

It is generally thought, for instance, that Pres. Obama will easily come to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA); however, more likely is it the politically effective case that he will take a clever, cunning, and sly Machiavellian way out by trying, through Executive Orders and other means, to essentially achieve what the FOCA would do; this will be for 1.) skillfully avoiding a formal and direct confrontation with the conservatives, 2.) giving the appearance of being more moderate than might be supposed, and  3.) achieving the disarming of many opponents who would be more intensely energized and focused if he were to seek an aggressively direct activation of FOCA.

Most people do not know just how militantly pro-abortion Obama really is, since they have not closely followed his entire political career.   Abortion could become the major focus of sustained political opposition to his Administration; he knows that.   It is often forgotten, nonetheless, that more than 10,000 times more people were arrested for right-to-life protests in America than was ever the case for, e.g., the entire modern civil rights movement.  Therefore, the Great One can achieve essentially and indirectly almost all of the ultimate goals of a FOCA without directly confronting the right-to-life people, within the context of American society.

This clearly leftist ideological thrust sought now by the pro-abortion, pro-death, forces that have backed the supposed need for FOCA would, therefore, tip the balance of power rather heavily toward the Culture of Death.   Among others, there was someone who tried to give a most profound and deeply thoughtful warning.

Prophetic Warning Unheeded

Leo Strauss, an often unappreciated 20th century philosopher, had tried, valiantly and repeatedly, to urgently warn Western, and especially American, academics, philosophers, political scientists, intellectuals, and other people against trying to recreate the terrible intellectual, political, social, and cultural conditions that he had, in fact, experienced during the German Weimar Republic.   For this, he was and is still generally vilified and mainly condemned; sometimes, criticism of him accused him or intimated strongly that was just some kind of fascist or, at the least, a clearly authoritarian-minded thinker.   

Of course, there are, in adamant opposition, many Straussians who have a very different and extremely positive view of his good efforts to champion freedom of thought, political tolerance, civil liberty, and moral responsibility.  These are, therefore, two absolutely opposed views as to what exactly Strauss had intended to teach; both views cannot be right; one must be, finally, wrong.  Too many people forget, e.g., that tyrants can,  sometimes, get themselves elected, which means that democracy is never a simple or absolute guarantee of the certain and confident protection of all social civil liberty and civic freedom.

Unfortunately, Strauss often gets mainly interpreted, usually through a number of his students, who did not necessarily follow properly the intellectual or philosophical strictures of their teacher; some chose the dark side of seeing classical political philosophy as a convenient means of creating power structures or seeking power for themselves; thus, even good tools of thought can, of course, be wrongly perverted toward many bad ends by (imperfect) human will and its perversity, which, theologically speaking, often gets classified, appropriately, as sin.

Although he did not explicitly take on any purely religious angle, he was yet intimately concerned about promoting sound morals and ethics.  In his important philosophy book, e.g., Thoughts on Machiavelli, Strauss properly noted that the evil teaching of that thinker was not simply the advocacy of amoral behavior in gaining and keeping political power; rather, Machiavelli’s dark teaching that neither good nor evil really exists is the truly most evil assertion of that shocking advocate of modernism in cognition, which, of course, rejects all Christian teachings.  

Some important books by Strauss significantly include: Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, Persecution and the Art of Writing, Natural Right and History, The City and Man, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis, and his On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon’s Hiero, among many others that could be interestingly cited.

Strauss, to only quickly here give a bare outline, had critically stressed the moral and philosophical superiority of classical politics, classical political philosophy, as being true philosophy; this is over and against the evil of modernism, of modern politics, seen best in the destructive thoughts of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Marx, Lenin, and all those who seek power on earth, which, in effect, creates an anti-philosophy.   In terms of political modernity, therefore, even democracy does not guarantee that truth will win against the effectiveness of public lies because, among other salient and highly important reasons, truth ought never to be put to any vote, democratic or otherwise.   This lack of respect for the truth, furthermore, gives rise to horrid regimes dedicated to various degrees of power worship as a substitute for religion in a society and culture.

Part of the direct implications of such an anti-philosophy or ideological thinking creates the necessary conditions that do then give rise to a Weimar Republic; in turn, this quite horrible situation, Strauss vehemently insisted, must eventually lead to a despotic or totalitarian regime as a simply logical consequence of the deification of Man, through the transformation of philosophy/politics into ideology, the rationalization of the secularist-oriented or materialistic worship of power on earth.

Therefore, the ultimate and integral success of anything that successfully reaches the genuine level of a FOCA must lead to the rapid degradation and degeneration, decline and demoralization, of American society and culture that will be, in turn, strongly reflected in its politics, sooner or later.  This will be called here the phenomenon and process of Weimarization, the democratically-inspired secularist-oriented attempt to go full force into the nominalist realm of promoting deconstructionism, as a nihilistic manner of thought, in all areas of national life and culture.  

A Passion for Death

Every (degenerate) Weimar-style regime necessarily carries within itself the vile elements of its own appropriate and requisite destruction; thus, institutionalized moral chaos, brought about by an ideology-obsessed politics integrally indifferent to truth itself, cannot be rationally forever sustained in the raw face of forces that are, logically, even more ruthlessly indifferent to truth.  

The truly dire, socio-suicidal consequences will then become quite inevitably devastating as this nation’s social, cultural, moral, and spiritual core rots intensely within itself until the attendant chaos calls for what few people may really want but what the many will, nonetheless, simply deserve.

Strauss, justly famous for practicing the magnanimity of ancient classical thinking, readily forgave the vast bulk of today’s political scientists and political philosophers because he said they were truly ignorant of two highly important matters; they know not that they do fiddle and that they do so while Rome (America/the West) burns.   Or, perhaps, as T.S. Eliot more simply put it: This is the way the world ends, This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper.   Decay and decline of morals and attendant political structures need not be that overtly dramatic to still be that effective and conclusive.

At a certain point in the course of events, moreover, there develops a compulsive passion for death that pervades, directly or indirectly, virtually every social, cultural, and moral institution; a civilization decays and dies off, especially as its leadership classes lose faith in the very basis for their own existence.   This is a great part of the meaning and unspoken significance of the predicted victory of the Great One over an inadequate specimen of the old order; he, John McCain, is convinced of his own obsolescence, as is easily evidenced by the kind of tepid campaign he ran that had then guaranteed his quite well-deserved defeat.   

The former main leaders of American political society, principally the WASP upper-class of society, could not, therefore, put forth even an adequate candidate for the highest political office in this country because of their degenerate natures; surely, it’s well said that a fish rots from the head down to the tail.  This loss of faith in themselves is part of what seems to be the historical cycle often remarked upon of wooden shoes ascending stairs and polished leather boots descending those same stairs.  

The question may be now raised, profitably, as to if a certain critical mass has been reached such that there is the point of no return as to the full ending of all that exists, as to its being, thus, greatly prefigured in the last national election.  Future events and actions will help to tell the truth of such speculation.

Part of the shocking proof of things is that, e.g., well over 50% of this nation’s Roman Catholics who had voted had ended up voting for a very militantly pro-abortion candidate, which is, of course, absolutely contrary to every moral teaching of their church concerning the needed defense of life, especially innocent human life.  Symbolically speaking, it was easily equivalent to have aggressively voted for the enthusiastic crucifixion of Jesus Christ because, as Scripture (Gospel of Matthew) truly teaches, “in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.”  

If these and other so-called Christians, in this country, can act and think the way they do, what can be said of the majority of the American population itself?   This lust for death, as the American birth rate (meaning minus illegal aliens) demonstrates, produces, first, moral sterility and then physical sterility because both the will and intellect had, previously, become substantially sterile. 

It is the end result of a fulfilled modernism seen best in a non-Christian society and culture, meaning Japan, which leads toward an inevitable fatalism in terms of their deliberate racial destruction; after them, comes Europe; but, America will, definitely, eventually catch up if the major trends basically persist; for demography, as has been well said many times, is destiny.

And, Weimarization, therefore, logically shows the way for fulfilling that nihilistic destiny, more than what most people in this country may be now willing to admit openly.  Seen in this highly brilliant and revealing light, it becomes clear more than ever that, e.g., abortion is not really a single issue matter; it is, therefore, an entire constellation or galaxy of tremendous issues whose center is the always heroic fight against the Culture of Death epitomized manifestly by abortion and, moreover, by all that it necessarily means, both directly and indirectly considered.  

America’s Future Considered

The achievement of anything like the FOCA in America will, therefore, be so highly and irrevocably indicative of the final battle in this culture war; this is supremely ever because the overt moral and spiritual line will have been necessarily crossed, as to the greatly improper and immoral rendering of something to Caesar that only, in fact, belongs to God alone.  

Will democracy and democratic values still suffice, furthermore, as people will be then forced, by law no less, to fully descend into the ever damnable pit where Satan celebrates his empirical victory?

Have we no will as to whether we shall be a predator or prey? What we do with our lives is decided by who, what, and why we allow of ourselves to be subject to. From the instant we are each born, we are brought into a family; a network of relatives, adoptive parents, or sponsoring organization. By them we are first introduced to society. Through these initial bonds with people, we become exposed to communities, then institutions of education, religion, and governments. After learning culture, ideologies, and fellowships, we begin to establish what will be our culture: our beliefs, behaviors, norms, and taboos; from these we build our relationships. Once we have established these ways for our lives, they can not be taken from us, unless we are willing to surrender them.

Even under the scrutiny of a tyrannical government whose sole purpose is to exploit the resources of its nation, we still have the choice to choose if we will live or die under such a regime. How we will live in a harsh society remains our decision to decide. This is the difference between “existing” and “subsisting” or “living” or “surviving”. No one or anything can take from us our freedom of choice, no matter where or how we live. The writers of the United States Constitution eloquently said, “We are born with inalienable rights…” We have the right to be who we want to be no matter what circumstances we experience. It is our lives, so we choose to live or die for those whom or what we cherish as more important to each of us.

There may always be bullies in this world, but no one can take any worldly possession from us. We are the ones who will evaluate the worth of what is to be given and then determine what shall be the price of what is removed. Often tyrants believe they can terrorize people to conforming to their will; while the truth is each of us will choose to submit to their cruelty and dictatorship in order to sustain some quality of life. This only offers those whom would impose their mandates upon the so-called sheep a false sense of security in their control. For at some point a victim will decide they do not want to be victimized anymore and at some limit will someone who is suffering decide they do not want to suffer the pain anymore. Our existence is not just about the survival of the fittest, but our co-existence together. This world is no one person’s or group alone, it belongs to all to share and manage collectively; that is the price of our freedom. We each individually choose to live or die based on what we each value the most. No one can take that choice away from us.

Though during my early years I was unknowingly an agent for this concept, I have come to detest this belief about life forms because it simply is not true. Nonetheless, people adhere to these phrases, most unreasonably because they simply do not understand what system of belief they accept and some others typically use it as a justification for their abhorrent and sometimes sociopath behaviors.

The progenitor Charles Darwin noted suggestions of why animals react the way they do distinguishes his observations as a comparison to man in his likeness of combat for food, copulation and territory. But many of the animals he had an opportunity to observe do not act solely in the manner he noted. One theory as discussed in the book Don”t Go Ape, Darwin! addresses the issue of life forms not instinctively following a drive to narcissistically survive, but most life forms (with exception of the most intelligent) are social and therefore follow after social patterns.

There is no doubt conflicts occur among similar and other species. But what Darwin proclaimed was merely the surface of a more complex social system. He failed to note that with most conquerors come with the victory social responsibilities. And with these responsibilities are attached sacrifices for the entire social group, of which might often lead to serious injury and/ or death of the conqueror. With these conditions the concept of “survival of the fittest” has no meaning. Merely, the life form’s social group continues because of the stronger conqueror’s sacrifice.

Another aspect of the social nature of life forms which often overlooked is animals even in the tiniest microscopic forms respect territories; this is as much a social event as it is a method of survival. Further expository of these social processes and other theories are explained in Don”t Go Ape, Darwin!

As mentioned earlier intelligent species or more specifically human beings can detract from the social order that life forms instinctively follow. Humans can rationalize themselves out of social order. However, humans as a whole for the sake of preservation of civilization typically will not allow anti-social conditions to happen for too long, at least during our present reign of morality. Each community and its government has established laws, norms, taboos, morals, ethics, etiquette, and protocols which members of the community are expected to adhere. Such practices are a necessity in order to maintain civil order. That being said, the roles people accept fit into the congruency of social order.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution induces chaos into our realm of social order. It promotes anti-social behavior as an instinctive acceptable condition. On the basis of “survival of the fittest”, bullies, tyrants, dictators, elitists, snobs, narcissists, mass murderers, fascists, racists and anyone who are disgusted with the weak and poor can redeem solace for their actions; they after all would be executing the domination their species. There may always be bullies, but let us not give them a license to be one.

We as human beings are better than wasting our cognitive skills for conflagrations and control. We as intelligent beings should distinguish ourselves by improving our social responsibilities and quality of living for all on this world. We should not squander our very selves, all other life forms and the world’s resources on who shall have dominance. Darwin wrote about an eventual genocide of the weaker species. What if for once his prediction is correct? We annihilate ourselves because of our own self-centered stupidity.