Some Observations & Thoughts On Dictators

During his presidential campaign Barack Obama’s image was of nothing less than our nation’s savior. Substituting for the lack of any legitimate reasons to accept this image as based on reality were two significant factors: his personality cult and his impressive oratory skills.

As President of the United States the image of a messianic Obama has been discredited. He knows that Americans do not want his agenda but he is determined to impose it on them anyhow. President Obama gets in front of cameras and pretends that we want his agenda and that it will benefit us once it is implemented - never mind what he has been doing is the type of things that other collectivist-socialist dictators have done.

Is that to say there is the potential for Obama to became a dictator of sorts?

Before answering that, let’s briefly consider his life before he became president.

Barack Obama was heavily into alcohol and drugs in his teenage years because of a personal identity crisis. He was brought believing in Marxism. At Columbia University in New York he majored in political science and international relations. Obama stayed there working in the private sector for a few years and then moved to Chicago to become a church's "community organizer" on behalf of the poor. For three years Obama was the group's director. Obama went to Harvard Law School and edited its Law Review. After graduating, his book, Dreams From My Father, was published and he got involved in voter registration campaigns. He was a constitutional law professor at University of Chicago for twelve years and joined a law firm specializing in civil rights and neighborhood economic development. He then served on the boards of a few 'community' groups and worked with ACORN. In 1996 he was elected to the Illinois Senate and in 2004, to the U.S. Senate. He is another politician with a socialist/communist philosophy who has created a personality cult and has impressive oratory skills before a crowd. As president, Obama wants to “fundamentally transform America.”

Barack Obama the man is not especially impressive. That is exactly why his presidency is worrisome.

Consider some men with similarly unimpressive lives - before they became dictators.

Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) was a zealous follower of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's philosophy. He received a law degree and was a mediocre small town lawyer, choosing to represent the poor. In 1788 Robespierre was elected to the French legislature. He and other deputies formed a "Society of the Friends of the Constitution," or, the Jacobins. Like many dictators who would follow him, he had impressive oratory skills when he was before a crowd. Robespierre maneuvered himself in to power and was the first modern totalitarian-collectivist dictator. He mobilized the country for war against “enemies of the revolution” be they domestic or foreign and implemented terrorism as a means to furthering political ends. Robespierre was guillotined by political opponents who were next on his list to be executed.

Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) studied Karl Marx’s writings in the university and his revolutionary activities got him expelled, and he went on to attend another university more successfully. He, somewhat like Robespierre, practiced law and took mostly cases about real property out of his interest with the peasants’ conditions. He became more involved in communist revolutionary activities and was arrested for plotting against the tsar and imprisoned, then exiled to Siberia. He lectured at Geneva University and helped found a communist newspaper. Lenin produced numerous writings that developed his version of Marxism as applied to the Russian peasantry. He seized power in 1917 with the intent of making Russia the leader of international communism which would go on to economically surpass and defeat the capitalist West.

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) held odd jobs like teacher, soldier, journalist, editor, professional revolutionary. After breaking from the socialists he formed the fascist party. Mussolini had exceptional oratory skills before a crowd. Serving as Mussolini‘s political model was Lenin. As dictator his plan for Italy was a revival of the greatness of the Roman Empire in national socialist form. He was assassinated in 1945 as the Allied armies were overrunning Italy.

Adolph Hitler (1889-1945) failed to become an artist and architect and spent time in a poorhouse. When the First World War broke out he enlisted in the Army, and while recovering from a mustard gas attack he suffered a disorder. Hitler convinced himself that his purpose was to save Germany. He joined the German Worker's Party. Hitler developed exceptional oratory skills before a crowd. Hitler went on to model the Nazi Party after Mussolini's fascist party. His party's disastrous "Beer Hall Putsch" to overthrow the Bavarian government landed him in jail where he wrote Mein Kampf. After being released from prison he won legality for his party which he reorganized and maneuvered his way in to government and total power. Tens of millions were slaughtered by his government. He intended to lead Germany to a thousand-year reign of glory but committed suicide when the Russian Army was overrunning Berlin.

Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) attended seminary in the 1890's and joined a Marxist underground which resulted in his expulsion. He then found work as tutor and clerk. Stalin joined the Social Democrat Party and organized labor demonstrations and strikes for which he was arrested and exiled to Siberia. He escaped a number of times from Siberia. He joined the Bolsheviks and became their bank robber. Escaped after each arrest. One robbery of a coach netted a few million and resulted in some 90 people killed and wounded. Of Stalin, Lenin said he found the just person he needs. Stalin was made editor of their newspaper. After Lenin's coup Stalin moves into party positions of more and more importance and power. Lenin has a stroke in 1922 and the party is in Stalin’s hands when he dies three later. Personality cult. Tens of millions were slaughtered by Stalin’s government.

Mao Zedong (1893-1976) had a few years of formal education and discovered communism while working at Peking University in 1918. Three years later he was one of the founding members of the Chinese Communist Party. Mao worked his way through the party's ranks and got involved in labor struggles but became convinced that the peasants were the revolutionary vanguard and violent revolution was necessary. He allied himself with other insurgent groups and formed their Red Army. He purged his territory of opposition through revolutionary terror, a prelude of what he was to eventually bring to China as a whole after achieving power in 1949. Mao also developed a personality cult. Tens of millions were slaughtered by Mao’s government.

Fidel Castro (b.1927) was an excellent student and active in sports. In the late 1940's he became involved in revolutionary activities in Dominica and Columbia as a university student in Havana and may have been involved in murders and assassinations. Castro had exceptional oratory skills before a crowd. He briefly practiced law and then ran for parliament, but the election was cancelled after a coup. With his brother Raul, he formed an underground movement to overthrow the government. Castro was captured in an attack on an army barracks and sent to jail. He was given amnesty and went to Mexico where he met Che Guevara and made contacts with the Soviet KGB. In Mexico he formed his guerrilla group that would later seize control of Cuba.

Pol Pot (1928-1998) studied in France on a government scholarship. Spent most of his time in French communist revolutionary circles and was deported after failing his studies. Joined the revolutionary movement in Cambodia. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia in 1975 and in implementing agrarian communism killed millions.

Daniel Ortega (b. 1945) was a mediocre student and while attending university in Managua in early 1960's became active with Sandinista communists and went underground. He was arrested after robbing a bank and released from jail in a prisoner exchange. He went to Cuba for guerrilla warfare training and returned to fight in Nicaragua, taking power in 1979 and implementing communist dictatorship.

Hugo Chavez (b. 1954) had a career as a military officer, led a failed coup in 1992. As a student Chavez formed his philosophical beliefs based on various Latin American nationalists and communists, as well as those of the European Marxian-strand of communism, also Noam Chomsky and Jesus, whom he calls “the first socialist.” He is attempting to implement in Venezuela a “socialism for the 21st century.”

The striking similarity they have before they became dictators is there was nothing striking about them. Nothing “larger than life” that would be consistent with having a significant role, either for good or bad. Before they were dictators they were "nobodies."

All ten of those infamous dictators - and Barack Obama - were failures or mediocrities who became zealots at an early age - secular equivalents of religious fanatics. None have done anything productive or creative and were arrogant second-handers. They had no qualifications or experience for governing or leading (other than some with military experience to whatever extent). They made very little of their own lives when left to themselves. They were political intriguers and political maneuverors, captivating speakers, writers perhaps, or even outright thugs - but they knew all that is wrong with society: "injustice," "inequality," "victimization," "oppression," or whatever, and how to finally fix it. From that they developed self-images of being a glorious messiah/savior. Of course, a savior needs an omnipresent villain to justify how he governs, be it “counter-revolutionaries,” “capitalist exploiters,” “the Jews,” “imperialists,”  - or “the last eight years.” Each of them maneuvered or forced their way in to political power in which their personality cult and oratory skills played important roles. All these self-righteous dictators with their grandiose plans for national greatness and glory utterly ruined their countries - or are currently in the process of doing so.

It is disturbing that the general characteristics of these dictators are seen in President Barack Obama.

After winning the election Obama often appeared with his seal of the “Office of the President-Elect” - for which there is no such office - displaying his eagerness for power.

Then there is this revealing anecdote from TV host Ed Shultz:
“First of all you walk into the White House, in the West Wing, and there are picture [sic] all over, I mean everywhere! Of President Obama! I mean, of his life in the first year as president of the United States. Now I don’t know if that’s the way it is with every president, but it was almost a shrine. I mean, well, here’s a picture of Obama the president with his kids over here. There he is getting on Air Force One. Here he is with some military people. Here he is on the line working the line at one of his campaign stops. I mean, just, it was just one picture after another! (laughs)”
That is significant because a common characteristic of a dictatorship is iconography of the dictator is ubiquitous, like in Saddam’s Iraq, Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, etc.

Furthermore, President Obama, a Marxist, has numerous Marxist and Maoist advisors and staffers. Obama’s policies and agenda conflict with what Americans want and conflict with freedom and the Constitution.

The men who have been dictators of the modern collectivist-statist-socialist variety from Maximilien Robespierre - the first modern dictator because what he did is a model for later dictators - to Hugo Chavez, there is a definite “type” of man. Barack Obama is also of this type, but to what degree he follows them remains to be seen.

Obama: By Interfering in Your Lives I Fulfill Mine

Barack Obama gave a speech in France; (this is the transcript: REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AT STRASBOURG TOWN HALL) the ideas in it being more suitable to the docile serfs of Europe than self-reliant Americans - but Obama hopes to change that.

The most revealing part came at the end in the question period. What he said in the body of his speech can then be better seen in light of this. Here is his answer to a question:
But having said all that, I truly believe that there's nothing more noble than public service. Now, that doesn't mean that you have to run for President. (Applause.) You know, you might work for Doctors Without Borders, or you might volunteer for an -- or you might be somebody working for the United Nations, or you might be the mayor of Strasbourg. Right? (Applause.) I mean, they're all -- you might volunteer in your own community.

But the point is that what I found at a very young age was that if you only think about yourself -- how much money can I make, what can I buy, how nice is my house, what kind of fancy car do I have -- that over the long term I think you get bored. (Applause.) I think your life becomes -- I think if you're only thinking about yourself, your life becomes diminished; and that the way to live a full life is to think about, what can I do for others? How can I be a part of this larger project of making a better world?

Now, that could be something as simple as making -- as the joy of taking care of your family and watching your children grow and succeed. But I think especially for the young people here, I hope you also consider other ways that you can serve, because the world has so many challenges right now, there's so many opportunities to make a difference, and it would be a tragedy if all of you who are so talented and energetic, if you let that go to waste; if you just stood back and watched the world pass you by.

…but you'll have a great adventure, and at the end of your life hopefully you'll be able to look back and say, I made a difference.

Let's see if we understand this. If, according to President Obama, you think only about yourself, how to improve your life and pursue your goals, you get “bored.” Not making a difference in others’ lives is “letting the world pass you by” - after deciding that improving and living your own life is “boring” and “unfulfilling.”

Please, Mr. President, speak for yourself. There is no justification to project your emptiness on everyone else.

How Obama descibed himself is exactly like what Ayn Rand wrote in The Fountainhead about "second-handers": "They have no self. They live within others. They live second-hand." The reason is because they "have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation - anchored to nothing ...the source of his actions is sattered in every other living person." Obama concluded that prime concern with his life was boring and diminishing - and that is what must happen if one goes about living one's life as a second-hander lives. "He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has suceeded. He can't say about a single thing: 'This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me.' Then he wonders why he's unhappy. Every form of happiness is private."

Holding that the individual pursuit of happiness is necessarily ultimately “boring” is not based on reason - nor is deriving from that that serving 'the greater good' brings fulfillment to one’s life.

Notice that none of these “noble” public servants, like our Comrade President, ever explain how merely shifting perspective and purposeful effort from oneself to the collective transforms “boredom” and “emptiness” to “a larger purpose.”

If it is true that being concerned with oneself is boring and ultimately empty, then it is true for me, you, him, her - everyone. If the individual life has no meaning and satisfaction to offer how can any collection of lives mean more when they are made of - individual lives that are meaningless? Why do things for others if they themselves are individual nothings like you are? Imagine a group of people who share this view getting together and saying, “we all have been pursuing our lives and goals and found them boring, so to fulfill and enlarge our lives we’ll serve the good of all.” This is utterly bizarre, even surreal - but this is what this view necessarily implies. If one person's life equals zero, or, 0 x 1 is equal to zero, then how does 0 x 1,000,000 (for that many people's lives) equal something larger than zero? Concern only with yourself diminishes your life - but concern with others who have “boring” and “diminished” lives equals: enlarging your life!? How is the sum worth more than all its individually worthless parts? Comrade President’s conclusion is a whopping non-sequitur, so “making a better world” is not “a larger project,” according to his own premises. It is just as "diminished" and “boring” - if not more so! - as is making his own life better.

Even putting that aside for a moment, just how is a “noble” public servant going to achieve his goal of "making a difference" in others’ lives if they are similarly “bored” and “diminished” by being concerned with themselves? What can he do for them that they cannot? There is nothing moral or noble about this. What gives Obama the right to take it upon himself to use others as a means of removing boredom from his life by meddling in their affairs? To think that he finds that to be a “great adventure”!

So where exactly, Comrade President, does your “fulfilling” of your life by “nobly” “making a difference” in mine end, and my liberty to live my (not-boring) life begin?

Public service is most noble? Look around. Is the ACORN voter-fraud group Obama worked with, noble? What about corrupt, career politicians who serve the public as a phony way to really serve themselves? Is the corrupt Rod Blagoevich “most noble” for being a public servant? How about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who brought us the mortgage fiasco? What is noble about the countless other “public servants” of their ilk?

What this adds up to in the "noble " practice of serving that "larger purpose" is explained by Comrade President in the body of his speech:
We also know that the pollution from cars in Boston or from factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, and that that will disrupt weather patterns everywhere. The terrorists who struck in London, in New York, plotted in distant caves and simple apartments much closer to your home. And the reckless speculation of bankers that has new fueled a global economic downturn that's inflicting pain on workers and families is happening everywhere all across the globe.

The economic crisis has proven the fact of our interdependence in the most visible way yet. Not more than a generation ago, it would have been difficult to imagine that the inability of somebody to pay for a house in Florida could contribute to the failure of the banking system in Iceland. Today what's difficult to imagine is that we did not act sooner to shape our future.

Now, there's plenty of blame to go around for what has happened, and the United States certainly shares its -- shares blame for what has happened. But every nation bears responsibility for what lies ahead, especially now, for whether it's the recession or climate change, or terrorism, or drug trafficking, poverty, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we have learned that without a doubt there's no quarter of the globe that can wall itself off from the threats of the 21st century.

The one way forward -- the only way forward -- is through a common and persistent effort to combat fear and want wherever they exist. That is the challenge of our time -- and we can not fail to meet it, together.
**************

This is our generation. This is our time. And I am confident that we can meet any challenge as long as we are together.

**************

...our fates are tied together -- not just the fate of Europe and America, but the fate of the entire world.

The rest of the speech, like the above excerpts, casts every problem and proposed solution through the perspective of collectivism. We are all interdependent, we are all responsible to and for each other, even if separated by an ocean, and collective action is the only way forward. We need more "noble" government officials interfering in and controling as much of our lives a they can. He says nothing about individual freedom and flourishing - other than primary concern with it bores and diminishes oneself.

Then Comrade President gives us insight in to his larger philosophical beliefs:
We know that transformational change is possible. We know this because of three reasons: First, because, for all our differences, there are certain values that bind us together and reveal our common humanity: the universal longing to live a life free from fear, and free from want; a life marked by dignity and respect and simple justice.

Bound together in our humanity and common values, in a utopia of effortless existence: a heaven on earth with the negative safety of not fearing and not wanting and having unearned dignity and respect. Like a second-hander, he means "dignity and respect" as coming from others, not oneself. Then one has "dignity and respect." How is that vision of society supposed to inspire anyone? What rational person would want that pathetic fantasy world? And where in Comrade President's utopia does independence of purpose and values along with the struggle to achieve and earn them fit in? How can it in a world of men who lack desire to grow one's own mind and self because they have automatic dignity and lack of want? Of course, he fails to answer how dignity and respect are possible for induividual lives that are necessarily "boring" and "diminished."

Next, Comrade President reveals where his philosophical roots lie:
Our two republics were founded in service of these ideals. In America, it is written into our founding documents as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In France: "Liberté" -- (applause) -- absolutely -- "egalité, fraternité."

America was founded on the principles of individualism, that a man is free to live his life as he sees fit provided he violates no-one's rights; that he must work to support his life and reap the fruits of his own labor; that government exists as the means of securing these and similar ends - a far cry indeed from the stagnant, heaven on earth he mentioned.

That, in its modern guise, has its roots in the French Revolution and is expressed in its egalitarian-collectivist slogan that perverts the concept of liberty. The American ideals and the French ideals are not the same, but like many collectivist-statists who want to stealthily impose the shackles of French "liberte" on free Americans, our Comrade President package-deals the two as if they are related. "Freedom from fear and want" came from FDR, who in turn got those phrases from the Soviet constitution. (We know how free from fear and want Soviet citizens were!) And it is the French Revolution that gave us communism and socialism (not to mention political terrorism). It is the French Revolution that served as the model for communist revolutions and coups from Lenin's in Russia to Pol Pot's in Cambodia.

It is highly worrisome that an American president is inclined philosophically to the egalitarian-collectivist-statist ideas that led to and grew out of the French Revolution. Obama's words are eerily similar to those of the villans in Ayn Rand's novels. But those are the kinds of philosophical ideas that are suited to people who find placing prime concern on one's own life to be "boring and diminishing" and therefore need to find a "larger purpose" of "making a difference" in the lives of others.
What if, hypothetically, all our lives were fabulously successful and problem-free, Comrade President? What would a handful of "noble" public servants like yourself who got bored by pursuing your own diminished lives do to "serve a larger purpose"? You all would have no real reason to interfere in our lives and lacking that, you would be facing utter irrelevancy in your own - deservedly so.

What to do then?

That's easy. Simply concoct "problems" and "crises," "fears" and "wants" that (allegedly) can only be addressed by government interference and government-imposed collectivism.

This way out of your own irrelevance you then publicly rationalize as "serving a larger purpose than oneself."

How noble.