Despotism is the real obscenity. “You know it when you see it . . . “ According to the
U.S. Supreme Court Obscenity Definition:
1) A thing must be prurient in nature.
2) A thing must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or
3) A thing must violate the local community standards If it meets all three of
these things, it is obscenity.
The common meaning of despotism is a government or political system in which the ruler exercises absolute
power. Thomas Jefferson does not restrict absolutism solely to an individual: “The concentrating [of powers] in
the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised
by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one”.
An oligarchy or a plutocracy are easily understood as arrangements that thrive upon the abuse of power. “Because
I can do it”, is not a valid measure for any society. The debasement of a public community is invariably offensive.
What is more horrid than tyrannical rule? What political or social value remains when citizens are reduced to bond servants?
The catch is whether there is a remnant of an honorable community standard that resists the forces which design and implement
There dwells the reason why most inhabitants bow to the dictates of their puppet masters. They relinquish
the practice of their natural right for self respect. Without seeing the obscenity within despotic rule, no community standard
can maintain meaningful value. The legitimacy of a commonwealth is destroyed when the individual is crushed. John Stuart Mill
said: "Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing
the will of God or the injunctions of men."
The relevant point Mill makes is that suspect authority may claim providence from their supreme
being as justification for their version of social order. In order to conform with their social doctrine, oppressors
would eagerly re-design God.
Isn’t this the exact danger that predictably follows when a government pretends to be a democracy? When
constituents believe they are governing themselves by casting a ballot for elected federal office, the tyranny of the majority
is inevitable. The omniscient intelligence of the plurality has seldom demonstrated the wisdom to rule themselves. The inherent
sovereignty of the individual can be easily confused to believe that any action is acceptable conduct. When codified into
the public realm, the whims and greed of the general population is only superseded by the lust for power from the elites who
The quandary to tame unbridled excess by the civilian or by the overlord cannot be found in democracy. The
oppressive reaction that flows from the will to force the individual to accept the injunctions for popular tranquil order,
always imposes some version of coercion. Man made laws subjected to multiplicity demands, plays into the hands of the elites.
Vying factions with incompatible visions allow the aristocracy to impose their form of governance.
Note the dilemma implicit in John Stuart Mill: “The only part of the conduct of anyone for which
he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of
right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
The utilitarian approach that seeks harmony within society, retains an absolute dominion over one’s
own being. The obligation of a citizen to the general society requires self tempered behavior. The flaw is defining that individual
sovereignty means, any personal conduct envisioned, risks betraying the purpose upon which that autonomy
is based. Thus, each individual, while being imperfect, retains the responsibility for his own individual accountability.
The discovery that is so lacking - in this post modern age based upon an abstruse notion of an all interdependent
society - is fundamentally a defective concept. Our essential answerability is not to government, our own community, or and
abstract society. Not even to all of humanity. Only accountability to GOD is necessary. His invention is not a project in
development or a substitution by committee. No temporal court can exonerate the obscenity of State homage.
|American Revolution fought Despotism
|Without INDEPENDENCE you are a slave
The answer to defeat despotism is found in the revelation of INDEPENDENCE. While not a perfect guarantee for victory or a
formula to replace a fallen human nature; autonomy among your own similar kind, is the inherent right for governance. Independence
is the antidote to despotic corruption. Relief from mob lunacy, under the domination of gangster direction, is found in the
model of an authentic Republic.
Voltaire proclaimed: "The true character of liberty is independence, maintained by force." Is it
a surprise to anyone that the struggle for self rule has been met with the hammer end of a gun butt? Bullets kill, while blows
to the head generate docile captives.
The fear of genuine self determination is the nightmare of every ‘so called’ democratic government.
Overt totalitarian systems make no pretense, dissolution never can be an option. Is it any wonder why despotic regimes often
collapse from within by the infection of their own disease? However, in most cases, another dictator simply moves in under
the guise of a reformer. Phony administrations that falsely claim to be a republic are much more deceptive. The cause for
this deceit is motivated by the same desire to act as a despot, but to peddle the perception that the people are in charge.
Even if such an illusion was true, and the majority will became policy, where is the justice for the remaining objectors,
who want their own independence?
Despotism is based upon force, but is it inevitable that only violent rebellion can liberate and establish
independence for an enslaved community? While history illustrates that the remedy for tyrants requires elimination - the error
with only exile or eradication - is that the architecture for administration seldom changes in any meaningful manner. Reform
schemes have cosmetic substance. They customarily are directed at preventing individuals from real power access. Aspirations
for independent association among distinct groups, according to the canons of do-good social reformers, are continuously blocked.
If you presume that enforcing the will of dissimilar, incompatible and irreconcilable factions - as a majority
determination - is legitimate; you have just placed injuction in the seat of a man made god. The instinctive human
drive to be free is universal, while governments are innately disposed to decree as despots. The inherent contradiction should
be self evident. For doubters the chronicles of conflict confronts your denial.
A true Republic has not been realized within the American experience. The promise of Jefferson’s ideal
was betrayed by the enactment of a dubious contortion of incoherent representation. The rise of a central authoritarian government
rule was assured with the acceptance of the federal constitution. The obscenity abides not with the intent or even the provisions
within its structure. The obvious omissions that allow for the natural inevitable corruption of politicians to pervert the
system, is the actual failure.
Without distinct safeguards to prevent the consolidation of a privileged politcal class, the experiment was
doomed. Inconsequential limits on the role and scope for a central State, were expunged, when political parties select allowable
candidates and manipulate the votes of a bewildered electorate. Yet, the greatest miscarriage is to empower a star chamber
bench to interrupt the meaning of natural rights.
Those who see the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law, fail to understand the nature of intrinsic sovereignty.
The debasement of our inalienable and unconditional right for self rule has been the primary function of the despots who control
the levers of the federal government. Surely, no free mortal needs a supreme court to define the obvious obscene . . . Only
unfeigned independence can achieve inherent autonomy.
SARTRE - November 11, 2004