An excerpt from Jonathan Morris's Right Brain + Left Brain = No Brain I thought was hilariously in tune with the current liberal establishment thinking:
Vote Democrat and all of your wildest dreams will come true.
His blog, ReadJDM, is funny and insightful. Check it out, you frickin' idiots! GOSH!
James Leroy Wilson has put together a short and to-the-point essay that further solidifies my advocacy for the cultivation of an individualist identity as part and parcel of the struggle against authoritarian, false collectivism. In The Separation of Soul and State Wilson acknowledges arguments that the state could be seen as inevitable in the human experience. But he soundly and succinctly rejects the typical corrollary: "loyalty to one's government" is not necessary, even if the state is. This makes sense when one looks at past abuses by the state - in every case a large group of people surrendered their loyalty to their own conscience in favor of allegience to an institution:
Yes, we may prefer one set of laws to another. But behind them all is a history of massive criminality and naked violence. Loyalty to the present government should exist only as obedience and compliance, and only to the extent we are convinced it is better than any available alternative, but should not exist as an end in itself. By divorcing the soul from the State, we would become more resistant to the State's ridiculous claims and recognize its blatant hypocrisies and injustices. We would see that our country in no way resembles what it says it is, let alone what we would wish it to be. We would then see more clearly when it is time to secede, shoot the bastards, support a coup, or take some other "illegal" action.
Here's some conclusions I've drawn from the ideas in Wilson's essay:
Resistance to the state is the natural act of humans. Even if the state is never fully abolished, it can only become a monster with our consent. That means never substituting state interests for our own, even when they momentarily align. In other words, think for yourself. Just because people have historically acted a certain way within a cage of oppression and marginalization is no testament to the true nature of human beings.
From Matt McIntosh:
...I guess political infeasibility is the price you pay for getting to the heart of the matter.So true. It's little gems like that line which keep me going back to Catallarchy, not to mention the very astute observation about the economics of illegal immigration from which that excerpt originated. McIntosh makes the same points about "social engineering wars" that are always overlooked in politics.
As an aside, I had brought up similar issues of enforcement to a conservative blogger whom I know. You shouldn't simply be able to rattle a nationalistic saber and get the country to ask "how high" - you need to think this shit through, people. But... that's a problem we've been having for some time, and I doubt this debate will put it to rest.
According to Kevin, the current issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies concentrates on critiques of mutualism and Carson's rebuttal. I'm anxiously awaiting the print copy of the Journal, but Kevin links to pdfs of the current issue's articles. However, I wanted to make sure the Mises Institute knew of the interest in mutualism, so I went ahead and not only subscribed but also sent an email explicitly stating why. I encourage you to investigate the debate between two of the most authentically libertarian schools of thought. My heartfelt congratulations to Kevin on both his book and the well-deserved attention his work is receiving!
I can't believe it! And she's using WordPress! Good to see ya back, girl.
I'm suddenly very aware of - and interested in - the persistent discussion throughout the political community with the left. Understanding the existing opposition to the status quo is crucial to developing a strategy of resistance and reform - to whatever extent you think that's necessary. Opposition to the waffling and blatant obfuscation of systemic supports of the current mercantilist, statist establishment motivates and defines me as a leftist. Those who are like me and share a general analysis of the situation align themselves with the libertarian Left specifically, sure, and there are big differences between us and some more statist radicals that I would not gloss over. That distinction is personally important to me, but it's also easy to quantify: I'm anti-state; they're pro-state. With the preliminary work of defining goals made clear, cooperation on common goals is possible and justifiable.
Ostensibly, there are "liberals" who may or may not share the leftist view of radical action and rhetoric against the current political trends in the world. Those who reject it often point out the superficialities that are so important to establishment political interests. I'm not saying image isn't important - I share some of the criticisms of Leftist outreach and activism. Where I draw the line is when a one sided criticism is made of the movement outside of any understanding of context. I believe this context is sorely lacking from Joe Miller's recent analysis of liberals and the left at Bellum et Mores:
I've been trying for a while now to articulate the distinction between liberals and leftists. I know that there are all sorts of trends on my side of the political spectrum that I find quite distasteful. Multiculturalism. Relativism. Marxism (and its bastard post-isms spawn: postmodernism, poststructuralism, postcolonialism and deconstructionism. Yes, I know the last one isn't a 'post-ism'. I think that it deserves (dis)honorable mention here, though.) It's these sorts of ideologies that spawn the blame-the-U.S.-for-everything mentality that pervades the academy. I, for one, get tired of the assumption that my Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker means that I must agree with the latest Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly librul bogeyman. Liberals end up, in the popular mindset, being equated with every leftist loon out there.
You should read the whole thing. Miller makes good points to be sure, but I cannot accept some of the implicit premises.
It's not everyday that I read a political post that touches me. The blogosphere is full to bursting with the type of invective that obscures the heart of human endeavor. I've certainly contributed my share, and I realize that it doesn't aspire to the highest standard of what citizen journalism can be.
That is why I was so impressed with how Adem Kupi captured perfectly what being a libertarian in this statist, corporatist world means - at least in terms with which I'm emotionally resonant. In the context of all the controversy about the libertarian Left's support for the actions of the non-libertarian Left, Kupi points out an interesting undercurrent in the internal libertarian dialogue. And I think it informs any analysis of the general differences between the left and the right in approaching the political problem:
I see fraud as much more dangerous and fundamental to crime than force. Force is the end point, the bottom line of last resort. But force creates counterforce as the United States government keeps revealing, though they don't seem to be learning the lesson very well. What is more difficult to overcome is being tricked into giving up some piece of life force for ersatz goods. This is the fundamental scheme that the financial criminals and governments use to assert their primary dominance over the people of the earth.
Liberty, in my opinion, is merely the absence of Crime. Crime, not as defined by legislature, which is another form of fraud, but the normal, everyday intuitive sense of crime. Murder, assault, theft, rape, swindles, that sort of thing.
I just realized that there was a pretty in-depth discussion of corporate repsonsibility for state capitalism and corruption over at Kevin's blog, where he responded to a post I wrote addressing libertarian issues in the Abramoff scandal. Hey, if you can't bring the smart people to you, go where the smart people are. Lord knows Kevin works his ass off to maintain a blog that is consistently challenging, insightful, and revelatory. I'm looking forward to the more integrated, centralized left libertarian discussion site for which Brad is calling. As I learn more about the leftist approach to libertarianism and anarchism in general, I'm finding more reasons to respect and study the writings of my allies on the libertarian left. It would be wonderful if we could create a LewRockwell.com-style site focused on perspectives unique to our movement, such as cooperativism, anti-corporatism, and organizational theory and analysis.
UDPATE: Brad points out the need for a new domain for this discussion and activism site. Any ideas? Please feel free to register your suggestions in the comments below.
Looks like I'm no longer on LibertyFilter, the libertarian feed aggregator site. Wonder why that is - my guess would be the spiritual topics about which I've blogged. S'ok - I wasn't getting paid anyway.
UPDATE: Putrimalu explained that I'm not kicked off. Whew! Next thing you know, I'll be getting paid!
A recent video report from the BBC highlights some of the problems and feelings of soldiers returning from Iraq who were deeply affected by the experience. It seems that a significant number have decided that the war was wrong - some going as far to apologize to the people of Iraq. It's clear that all the people who said this wouldn't be our Vietnam were 100% wrong. The psychological damage this conflict has inflicted on Americans and Iraqis will endure in our collective consciousness for a long time.
As an American with a brother serving in Iraq, this video scares me. I can only hope that this war will inform the national conscience and effect a greater sense of responsibility for our national actions and moral accountability. I don't have a lot of hope that a politically powerful antiwar movement can be summoned yet, but if the nation can look squarely at this tragedy, come to terms with it, and learn the lessons - not the story of the geopolitical strategic mistakes, but the faith in hegemony and wreckless investure of power in political institutions - we can heal and become a better country for it.
While it scares the shit out of me that my brother is directly involved in this difficult task, I have to admit that part of me is glad somebody of such heart and integrity is there representing our people. I'm not sure exactly how my brother feels about all of it, but I do know that he feels he can make a difference. I hope the rest of us can meet that challenge without the need to go through such danger and loss.
Inspired by my current reading of Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, you can now purchase the anti-corporate personhood t-shirt! Note that I'm not making a profit off this; I just wanted to design a slogan and start spreading the word.
Offhand, an extremely interesting passage from the above mentioned book, which illustrates exactly how screwed up our current system is:
Before there was a single genetically modified food product on the market, Monsanto, a leading provider of agricultural products to farmers, including Roundup, the world's best selling herbicide, and a pioneer in genetically altered crops, sent lobbyists to the White House in late 1986 to meet with Vice President George Bush. "There were no products at the time," Leonard Guarraia, one of the Monsanto executives at the meeting, told the New York Times in 2001. "But we bugged him for regulation. We told him that we have to be regulated."
And so, the Times reports, "the White House complied" and Monsanto got the regulations they wanted from the EPA, USDA, and FDA.
At Brad Spangler's blog there's a great letter of libertarian solidarity with French protests against CPE which I've signed as a supporter of the Movement of the Libertarian Left. I encourage you to lend your support in their own revolutionary struggle against further consolidation of state market power.
This essay by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. shows just how screwed up the priorities of the warmongers are:
As I mentioned in my piece on irresponsible reporting, there is far too much emphasis on blatantly inflammatory words and pictures -- any opportunity to focus attention on tired stories like Abu Ghraib or an angry politician's loaded comments about "no WMDs" or an "impending civil war."
Thanks to the short shrift given it by many members of the mainstream press, too few Americans appreciate or grasp the magnitude of the fact that the first session (since last December) of a freely elected Iraqi parliament convened on March 16: A result that would not have been possible had it not been for three risky albeit remarkably successful elections since January 2005.
It just made me crack up when I read it. The entire basis of the war - WMDs - were proven phony. Our troops were caught torturing helpless prisoners. The country we "benevolently invaded" is on the verge of a complete meltdown. But, no, forget all that, America - Smith thinks you should concentrate on the fact that, in some far off corner of the globe, a group of elite middle easterners are sitting around a table discussing politics.
I think what we're witnessing here is a total implosion of legitimacy on the part of the conservative movement. But I'd enjoy it more if it wasn't putting American lives at risk.
I'm aware of the praise for Firefly that has been shown by several bloggers. However, I must admit, the whole Buffy the Vampire Slayer legacy of Firefly creator Joss Whedon turned me off. I've had friends tell me that Buffy was a decent show but come on - it has a character named "Buffy" in it. However, I finally broke down and watched Firefly given all the praise it's gotten. I'm kind of rediscovering science fiction: I read a great book called Fire Upon the Deep and have been enjoying the first seasons of Farscape and Battlestar Gallactica, both of which I believe are great shows. And I'm an old trekkie who doesn't really think Star Wars counts as sci-fi.
So believe me when I say that Firefly is the greatest science fiction television show of all time, and possibly one of the best TV shows ever, period. Yes, I really do mean that. I'm awful at describing things I like to others, but I'll try.
The story is a cross between Old West adventure and space opera - Whedon describes it as a portrait of the kinds of people history always stepped on. These characters happen to be fiercely individualist, in the pioneer spirit. They fought against and lost to the Alliance that controls the system. Seeing no place for themselves in the world the Alliance is building, they seek dangerous, unsteady work on the fringes of civilization, fleeing and (every once in a while) grudgingly submitting to Alliance intervention. Because they reject the civilization imposed on them by force, they find themselves dealing with crooks, gangsters, thugs on a regular basis. This necessary dirty work never corrupts their moral compass - they see it as a lesser evil than submitting to tyranny.
I really don't have any excuse for being away so long. I've been working pretty hard, and when I'm not working I'm relaxing. Got some chores done this weekend and got some reading out of the way. I'm kicking around some draft posts, just haven't gotten any of them good enough yet.
So until I get you a decent post, go read this article about RSS if you're don't know what it is - it will change the way you use the internet
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Social Memory Complex (http://socialmemorycomplex.net) © 2004 - 2020 Jeremy Weiland
