Two good quotes breaking the political paradigm

Hat tip to Attack the System.

In the nineteenth century, a liberal was a person who championed individual liberty in a context of laissez-faire economics, who defined liberty as the absence of coercion, and who regarded the state as an ever-present threat to personal freedom and responsibility. Today, a liberal is a person who champions social justice in a context of socialist economics, who defines liberty as access to the means for a good life, and who regards the state as a benevolent provider whose duty is to protect people from poverty, racism, sexism, illness, and drugs.

-Thomas Szasz

I am a child of the South. [Head of DHS] Janet Napolitano tells me I need to be afraid of people who are labeled white supremacists, but I was raised around white supremacists. I am not afraid of white supremacists. I am concerned about my own government. The Patriot Act did not come from white supremacists, it came from the White House and Congress. The Citizens United decision [granting corporations full political personhood] did not come from white supremacists; it came from the Supreme Court. I am willing to reach across traditional barriers that have been skillfully constructed by people who benefit from the way the system is organized.

-Former congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney

Advertisements

4 responses to “Two good quotes breaking the political paradigm

  1. In light of your ‘Crisis of Unity’ essay, what’s your take on the site and Keith’s outlook? I reckon his pan-secessionist anarchism could be a conducive meta-framework for setting up a Promethean society.

    • I haven’t read their essays which may explain more than I’ve picked up from the blog and the about page. It’s quicker to say what I question about it than the numerous admirable points. What I doubt is that smaller political structures tend to individualist anarchism, because they’re still collective structures.

      For that matter it’s awfully difficult to reconcile collectivist and individualist anarchism. From my point of view, the three fatal flaws of politicized, hierarchical society are collectivism, force, and orthodoxy, forms of which and instances of which are responsible for virtually everything that’s severely wrong with corrupted society. You can’t gloss over this three-headed plague I often write about (because it’s central to my social diagnosis), or smooth it over by pluralism. You have to encounter it. You have to understand it. You have to undergo an ideological and psychological change that is conscious of the combined triple problem. Plenty of forms of anarchism don’t even effectively recognize 2 of 3, much less all 3; orthodoxical thought is as much a danger among anarchists as others.

      • Yeah. A lot of the flak Preston picks up revolves round his willingness to work with cultural conservatives, racialists, et al to shut down the system, as well as more liberal types. Of course, such types are orthodoxists and collectivists of the first order. However, separation would free heterodox individualists from their influence and society, allowing something more conducive to Prometheanism to be formed by such persons.

      • Or, it will create instability and crisis that makes us even more vulnerable to being squelched. That is another possibility, and you have to ask yourself which is more likely, depending on certain predictive factors like resources and numbers and ideological influence. A few places where many people of various individualist, anarchist and heterodox flavors were optimistic about working with stronger groups they disagreed with fundamentally against offensive states were revolutionary Spain, pre-Progressive era America, terminal Tsarist Russia, and the Shah’s Iran. Bear these examples in mind—the American individualists got off the easiest, but their influence was almost totally usurped by their “allies” for decades.

        I’ve nothing against alliance on common ground. In fact, I have written and intend to write more on that. But one has to do it very carefully, with no illusions about ground which is not common. Furthermore, IMO, it’s important to have zero confidence that political change is good for the sake of change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s