The title of this article is, of course, taken from one of the most famous and very controversial political novels of the 20^th century, George Orwell’s 1984; it is, perhaps, still even much more widely read than Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, though the recently exploding sales of that work seem well on the way toward rivaling 1984. What comes immediately after the full colon of this article’s title ought, therefore, to be fully self-evident and with no need for any elaborated explanation.

But, nonetheless, many may seriously question how the here stated claim that Jean-Jacques Rousseau had adored tyranny can be logically related to what gets called the Obama nation; the latter’s conception of modern politics promises, however, that the socialist State can truly increase the range of freedom of its citizens, which is not always recognized correctly as being the revised enlightened despotism of a (modernist-oriented) democratic despotism.

Tyranny with a Human Face

Important related reading, for better substantiating this contention, would easily include: Paul A. Rahe’s Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect, and The Perfectibility of Man by John Passmore; also, there are extremely insightful books by J. L. Talmon: The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy; The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution: The Origins of Ideological Polarisation in the Twentieth Century; and, in addition, his Political Messianism – the Romantic Phase; one can, in addition, profitably read: Rauol E. Desvernine’s Democratic Despotism.

Tyranny is, thus, at its “best” when it successfully tries to enthusiastically portray its so often quite grandiose intentions as the open provoking of “true” freedom, meaning the inherently contradictory idea of forcing people to be (“authentically”) free, which has been, in fact, the insane, secularist-antinomian goal of the Left since at least the 18^th century. This is made fairly manifest in the prominent thinking, among others, of Rousseau who has, generously, inspired generations of energized revolutionaries and, coincidentally, their ardent sympathizers, the fellow travelers.

Back in the late 20^th century, for instance, many people had, lovingly, spoken of “Marxism with a human face,” though, curiously, none of these same expositors of such nonsense would have ever suggested a Nazism or Fascism with a “human face,” which speaks volumes. This kind of sentimentalism, in an ideological pose, thematically came from Rousseau.

Ideological Modernists Enslaved to an 18^th Century Fanaticism

He, a quintessential intellectual, was publicly and historically noted for his loving of mankind in general, as an abstraction, though, however, hating any particular person he had encountered during his life. Good reading about this type of individual can be well found in Paul Johnson’s interesting book, which is simply entitled: Intellectuals.

Rousseau, basically, had created the terrene, nominalist-inspired religion of humanity, an abstractionization of a broad humanitarianism that presumes to develop into an altruistic attitude, which then worships the idea of Man as a God substitute; the eventual and perfect shrine, as it were, of such a situation is the totalitarian State.

The intermediate and imperfect destination is merely the social-democratic/collectivist State, with its social-market economy, as seen forever in the quest for utopia. Important reading on that subject, by the way, would be such good books as Thomas Molnar’s Utopia, the Perennial Heresy. Collectivism, therefore, yet has its many worshippers who actually do think that statist slavery is really a new form or condition of modernist freedom.

Yes, verily, this kind of rather decidedly metaphysical fanaticism qua utopianism, moreover, still sadly enslaves many millions of minds today; these deluded people are, unfortunately, horribly enthralled by an ideological fixation (ersatz religion) that insanely portrays the highly controlled, regulated, and bureaucratized existence of atheistic collectivism with the popularly assumed height of all and any genuine freedom actually said to be attainable on earth.

There is, therefore, the proper need to understand that it has been an essentially inverted yet still fundamentally religious aspiration, often unrecognized as such, and conveniently disguised as a purely secularist-materialist philosophy; Marxism, however, when correctly examined, has always been finally perceived as a sort or kind of inverted Christianity, with its utopian kingdom of the blessed (the proletariats) placed on earth, not in Heaven.

Such a major ideological thrust is, e. g., clearly behind the present attempt to massively control health care through a national-socialist health care system that will, eventually, control, either directly (the vast majority) or indirectly (discrete minorities), almost everyone in this country, except for the power elite, of course; they will be, in effect, the domestic equivalent to the top echelon of the nation’s communist party apparatus ruling this country.

Some History of the Collectivist Ideal

Back in the 19^th century, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, an atheistic socialist, ended up entirely astounding himself when he had, amazingly for him, come to the very same conclusion that had been reached by, among others, Henry Edward Cardinal Manning; namely, all political differences of whatever nature were always, without any exception whatsoever, ultimately traceable back to religious differences among the disputants; nonetheless, this, at first, had really shocked and surprised Proudhon.

But, those who have studied, critically and carefully, radicalized theological systems or faiths, especially as they came out of, e. g., what gets often so positively called the Protestant Reformation, recognize the truth of this reality. However, the vast majority of revolutionary socialists had, strenuously, denied any such connection regarding what would be revealed as the ultimate religious origins of their (metaphysically) radical or clearly extremist beliefs.

But, what needs to be said, particularly concerning the 19^th century, is that socialism turned from trying originally to only persuade the (entire) society to fundamentally change toward the utopian collectivist ideal and then hit upon the more powerful notion of capturing State power to enforce the ideal upon any reluctant people. The arming of (religiously-inspired) utopians, especially communists, has resulted, of course, in literally producing the horrible deaths of many tens of millions of people throughout the world.

By the late 19^th century, there was the increasing division, however, between the democratic socialists who eventually became the neo-Marxists (those who want to be doing the revolution from within) and the still classical Marxists (doing the revolution against) the existing State; the latter, as can be factually and historically observed, dedicated themselves to massive butchery, violence, torture, imprisonment, oppression, suppression, etc.

The killing and mass slaughter, therefore, did not totally stop, even in the 20^th century, after the extensively tyrannical work of Mao, Stalin, Castro, et al. Today, one sees that the ideologically-driven attempt to turn America from being just a presently ordinary welfare-warfare State into an all-encompassing, European-style, social-market economy/socialist State revolves around the theological understanding qua collectivism best suited to human beings in their holistic human lives, not just their economic lives.

This is not simply idle speculation because socialism, in fact, has always sought to achieve a comprehensiveness of a religious nature so that no significant part of a person’s life would be left uninfluenced or, hopefully from the point of view of collectivism/statism/tyranny, substantially uncontrolled in some way, shape, or form. Currently, the future of America is genuinely at stake, more than ever before in its history, due to the now attempted neo-Marxist revolution, within its borders, being done actually from the top on down in this economically troubled nation.

Reality and Utopian Designs upon Reality

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President of the Acton Institute, is someone who is yet overtly hopeful regarding the present important public debate, since it is so critical, because the ever needed attention of the public is now being directed toward the question of socialism as being opposed to the free-market economy. This highly imperative debate, he freely acknowledges, will focus requisite awareness upon the central issues, in terms of basic first principles, that should be discussed. But, he realistically concedes, in this context, that either extreme, as an ideal, is not at all possible of attainment in the real world.

A thoroughly comprehensive, idealized version of a (true) free-market economy, placed entirely and correctly within the limits of the rule of law, would only exist, therefore, as just a utopian ideal. Nonetheless, one can still rationally and reasonably come to the proper conclusion that this asserted ideal “is not one incompatible with justice, morality, and good economic thinking.”1

Whenever people are mainly or totally directed by the nature of the socialist paradigm (the collectivist herd mentality), there is the rather logical and marked tendency to then continuously retreat from personal responsibility and a life lived in freedom; in contrast, the kind of economy directed by the ideals of free economic activity, maintained under law, encourages freedom and enhances personal responsibility, as both the natural and, ultimately, God-given right of a free people.

Rev. Sirico, a staunch defender of free-market economics as a truly moral means of conducting economic activity, both intriguingly and keenly notes “that socialist theory is rooted not in good economics but in religious commitment.” This open presentation of the collectivist ideal, done by the socialists themselves, exists now, in the early 21^st century, as usefully and instructively “revealing a truth that has long been suppressed.”

He, insightfully, sees this kind of weird religious revelation related to the metaphysical thinking of Rousseau, as it, thus, definitely “includes a version of the fall from grace.” That actually misanthropic French philosophe had conjured up his own version of a pristine kind of earthly Garden of Eden where (idealized or abstractionized) man once supposedly existed in a pure condition of “perfect equality and happiness before the introduction of the division of labor…” and so, as expected, “… Everything we call civilization, he calls decline.” Centuries later, Robert Musil had trenchantly referred to this inverted chiliastic consideration as the ideological “second reality.”

The only reputed and favored relief from the then presumed degeneracy and decadence of modern civilization, according to that Enlightenment thinker, is to willingly and joyfully establish “an omnipotent state and a wish for the end of dissent from his ideal state.”

And, consequently, Rousseau, a dedicated statist, greatly hated traditional religion in general and, of course, all of Christianity in particular, not very surprisingly, because the (dedicated) Christians always maintain that “their primary loyalties are to God and not society.” Rev. Sirico, correctly, adds that “The same would be true of anyone serious about authentic faith” and, moreover, also very tellingly adds that “the intellectual battle really comes down to a theological battle.”

In the age of modernity, collectivists, therefore, practice the modernist religion that, e. g., has been ideologically known as statism, meaning, in effect, the religion of the State. And yet, when examined correctly, it is really historically as old as the most ancient despotisms, autocracies, etc. The defense and pursuit of freedom, on the other hand, has been the notable exception to the observed general rule that oppressive, reactionary regimes have dominated the recorded history of the human race; and, furthermore, the greatest economic engine of basic progress, for raising up many tens of millions of people out of poverty, has never, in fact, been socialism but, rather, the free-market economic system when operating properly under the rule of law.

Transformation Nation: Slavery As Freedom

This struggle goes on in the minds of many people, including such neo-Marxists as is Obama whose thinking is supposed to be filled with the best of intentions. His public attitude has been perceived correctly, on many occasions, by those who see clearly his ideological preferences, not the mass-media distortions of the truth repeatedly designed to protect him and, moreover, confuse the American public.

He refused, for instance, to attend the important ceremonies of the 20^th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, an event that brings great rejoicing to all freedom-loving people, on this entire planet; this is, of course, because it gloriously commemorates the ending of the Soviet Empire’s occupation not only of East Germany, as a satellite/slave State, but the freedom given to all the former colonies once held by the evil grip of that communist slave-master regime.

Obviously, being a committed collectivist himself, Obama was not ever about to give any further publicity to a past event he had greeted with extreme sadness; his revealing lack of being there was, thus, not any extremely minor or, perhaps, simple diplomatic or political faux pas, in any way whatsoever. His extremely shameful, necessarily disgraceful, and forever unpardonable decision was quite plainly intentional, not accidental, inconsequential, or haphazard in nature.

America, under his most deliberately Leftist leadership, has totally given up any former claim or thought about the USA being the known and proud champion of liberty-loving peoples anywhere on earth, meaning in any set terms specifically condemnatory of the forever immoral ideology of communism.

In speaking to the nature of the leadership of the current Administration occupying Washington, DC, John Bolton, a former US Ambassador to the United Nations, has so publicly noted that Obama is the first post-American president, though he does not yet say he is, in truth, an anti-American one. Of course, it has, also, been widely, broadly, said that he is really the first postracial, postmodern, post (you name it), etc. “Prime Minister” of the future transformed nation. None of this, however, ought to be completely surprising in that he has, as is known, publicly surrounded himself, for decades, with many people who truly hate the United States; it is well said, proverbially, that birds of a feather do flock together.

Furthermore, if this first African-American Chief of State’s actions and words are, now, carefully weighed, thoughtfully considered, and sagaciously measured appropriately, as with, e. g., his refusal to celebrate, meaning in person, the above-noted anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, then one can logically conclude he is, also, clearly the first anti-American president; this is, furthermore, fully observed in his absolutely and publicly rejecting or, in effect, repudiating (the true meaning of) the doctrine of American exceptionalism; such is not an inconsequential, slight, or insignificant matter, as so often is rather cavalierly alleged by the drive-by or mass-media pundits, by the supportive Leftist commentators.

Furthermore, as actions are said to speak louder than words, his then completely conspicuous absence, at such notably historic ceremonies, which are forever aimed, ultimately, against communism, had shouted very loudly more than mere words, as to, thus, his inner-most beliefs and feelings, his intensely heart-felt thoughts and heavily predominant motivations.

Forever encountered to be so publicly apologizing for this country, even to its enemies no less, Obama is, therefore, a quite manifestly committed, neo-Marxist ideologist so willfully seeking, at a bare minimum, to ideologically, economically, and politically, transform America into a mostly collectivist State on a European model. In Europe, as is known, a social-market economy having an at least 10% permanent unemployment rate is considered fairly normal; America’s official rate, currently, is about 10.2%, though the effective rate is about 18% and the overall percentage is about 25%.2 This country is now undergoing the aforementioned transformation.

But, concerning the true long-term desire actually involved, that is really only a temporary or intermediate goal. Because of his neo-Marxist ideological beliefs, he wants, therefore, to finalize the victory of the Obama nation, meaning, ultimately, the future worship of tyranny.

Conclusion

The only firm way to avoid such an unpleasant future guaranteeing a diminished prospect for America’s upcoming generations is, therefore, to support free-market economics, as the only viable economic and moral means for substantially sustaining fundamental civil social liberty and human freedom under God. Such is the public policy position, the uninhibited advocacy, of the Acton Institute and other institutions that do not then axiomatically consider free-enterprise activities to be either immoral or economically unfair to people.

The evil alternative is the sentimentalized view of a reified humanity (Rousseau’s vision) clearly devoid of genuine truth, impartial justice, and basic reality as is held by radicals and extremists, meaning those intent upon forcing people to be “free” in a supposed utopia; this is, of course, based upon their entirely intramundane religion of statism.

Notes

1.) All quotes taken from: Acton notes, September/October 2009, Volume 19, Number 8, President’s Message, p. 1.

2.) The effective rate includes both those who are still receiving unemployment benefits added to the others who no longer receive those payments but still are unemployed and looking for work, as part of the potential labor force in the economy; the overall rate adds in the jobs that probably could have been created to then provide employment for those who would wish to enter the labor force. Supporters of the Administration, moreover, now openly say that a jobless recovery still is to be positively seen as a perfectly viable and real recovery nonetheless. Of course, if there were a Republican president in the White House today, this very bold contention would be, however, widely denounced.