From Jennifer S. @ Harvest Liberty. A rather even-handed critique of the ideas and goals endorsed on this-here site.
A question for her: what if the whole notion of a “culture war”, rather than secession, is the “diversionary tactic”?
Secession has some support from anarchists and proponents of liberty. Keith Preston, founder of the American Revolutionary Vanguard, calls it “liberty fostered by decentralized particularism” (1); and he cites the ideas of Voltairine de Cleyre, an early individualist anarchist and pioneer feminist who suggested “an ‘anarchism without adjectives’ whereby society would operate as a collection of voluntary communities independent of ‘one size fits all’ utopian pipe dreams for the remaking of mankind” (1). Preston also cites contemporary support in the work of left-anarchist, Kirkpatrick Sale, who points to Vermont as a model and determines that: “Peaceful, orderly, popular, democratic, and legal secession would enable a wide variety of governments, amenable to all shades of the anti-authoritarian spectrum, to be established within a modern political context. Such a wide variety, as I see it, that if you didn’t like the place you were, you could always find a place you liked” (1).
Yet if I’m honest with myself, secession is not really an option either. I have never believed in separate but equal. The last thing we need is real walls to replace our societal ones. And if I am even more honest with myself, I am not willing to go through even a peaceful, democratic and legal uprising over this. Because if I truly sit with what has happened, I can’t help but to see it as a diversionary tactic employed by a greater power broker than the National Organization for Marriage. In the end, secession is for me a cop-out, a surrendering white flag in the greater battle that I am beginning to understand is being waged.
To a point Preston’s defining of The New Totalitarianismis helpful. He explains how the idea of political correctness, first engaged in American universities, has now become the ruling paradigm. He posits that the radicals of the 1960′s in the end have not overthrown the U.S. empire, but rather have taken it over for their own agendas, merging with the “older, pre-existing political, economic and military establishment” (1). Preston then traces the current ideology of this American ruling class to Marxism and sees it as a “re-application of Marxist theory to cultural matters, where the ‘official victims’ of Western civilization replace the proletariat as the focus of a dualistic struggle for political power” (1). And he goes on to describe how that ideology plays out:
“1. Militarism, Imperialism and Empire in the guise of ‘human rights,’ ‘democracy,’ modernity, universalism, feminism and other leftist shibboleths.
2. Corporate Mercantilism (or ‘state-capitalism’) under the guise of ‘free trade.’
3. In domestic policy . . . ‘totalitarian humanism’ whereby an all-encompassing and unaccountable bureaucracy peers into every corner of society to make sure no one anywhere, anyplace, anytime ever practices ‘racism, sexism, homophobia,’ smoking, ‘sex abuse’ or other such leftist sins.
4. In the realm of law, a police state ostensibly designed to protect everyone from terrorism, crime, drugs, guns, gangs or some other bogeyman of the month” (1).
Personally, I’m okay with some of the currently held assumptions of the ruling class. I’m not keen on racism, sexism or homophobia, for instance. So in some respects, I am Preston’s cultural leftist. But at a deeper level, I can’t help but to resonate with his ideas. Because while I hold certain beliefs, I do not wish my views to be force fed to others, at home or abroad. Each individual is their own authority and entitled to make up their own mind and heart on every issue under the sun. And where the problem begins for me, as I’ve said countless times, is that place where individual authority becomes righteousness, where belief becomes an action that harms.
In my book, the born-again Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin is as entitled to their opinion as I am entitled to my belief that Love=Love. I may seek to engage them in discussion, they may pray for me, but neither of us should ever seek to inflict our way of life on the other. And as I’ve also said countless times, I’ve no clue how my kids will turn out and I want a society that protects them whoever they may be. Under the current ideology, we have given government access to the most intimate aspects of our lives. And sometimes the agenda of that government might be in line with our beliefs, but it could as easily express an opposite belief. The point is that if we allow government to implement policy at the level of intimate, individual decision, it can forever intrude and the harsh flashlight of the night raid could easily be blinding you next — whoever you are.