Your Personal Political Heroes (and their quotes)

131106-thomas-sowell-e1482948567641.jpg
This one is funny considering Sowell is, IIRC, a big fan of market deregulation and other trickle-down nonsense.
 
Ayatollah, would you be so kind as to tell us how you feel about being back in Iran?-Peter Jennings
Nothing. I don't feel anything.-Ayatollah Khomeini

I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing that I’ve ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it’s time for Negroes to defend themselves.-Malcolm X

I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.

God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare.

My ambition is much higher than independence. Through the deliverance of India, I seek to deliver the so-called weaker races of the Earth from the crushing heels of Western exploitation in which England is the greatest partner.

- Gandhiji
 
I wanted to know the best of the life of one (Muhammad) who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind. I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle.-Gandhiji
 
“Only in the detached from reality world of goofy Hollywood and modern academia could a mass murderer like Che Guevara be turned into something of a cult celebrity.”

Paul Kengor

“. . ideology. . . is an instrument of power; a defense mechanism against information; a pretext for eluding moral constraints in doing or approving evil with a clean conscience; and finally, a way of banning the criterion of experience, that is, of completely eliminating or indefinitely postponing the pragmatic criteria of success and failure. —Jean-François Revel1”
Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy
 
“The vision of the anointed is one in which ills as poverty, irresponsible sex, and crime derive primarily from ‘society,’ rather than from individual choices and behavior. To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by ‘society.”

Thomas Sowell
 
1)Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.

2)Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.

3)There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance the next time.


The one and only, Malcolm X
Islam is a declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men. Thus it strives from the beginning to abolish all those systems and governments which are based on the rule of man over men and the servitude of one human being to another.

Sayid qutb
<{pranko}>
 
Literally cited this quote to open up my law school apps' personal statement:

"A sense of duty pursues us forever. It is omnipresent, like the Deity. If we take to ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, duty performed or duty violated is still with us, for our happiness or our misery. If we say the darkness shall cover us, in the darkness as in the light our obligations are yet with us."

- Daniel Webster​

It reads like poetry but that's just how Webster spoke. Daniel Webster was one of the most highly regarded orators and lawyers of his time (of any time). His time was a crucial one in US history, perhaps the most crucial, when the very nature of the US Supreme Court and Judicial Branch and judicial review (and, by extension, the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances) were being substantively crafted and established. As a trial attorney, Webster is said to have shaped and had more influence on the Marshall Court than anyone save for Chief Justice Marshall himself. See: McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden (Webster litigated 8 of the most commonly studied foundational Con Law cases in US law schools)

As an example of Webster's influence, Marshall's famous "the power to tax is the power to destroy" was actually lifted from Webster's closing arguments in McCulloch:

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."

Webster eventually became referred to as the "Great Expounder of the Constitution" due to his role in the formation of constitutional law
 
Last edited:
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty."

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."


-Thomas Jefferson
 
I'm wondering why the revolutionary has "no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property or even a name of his own"? What could've possibly caused this state of desperation? The miseries of the common people were not created by the revolutionary. He exploits them to effect change within an oppressive environment, which is not of the revolutionary's making.

The revolutionary was already doomed from the start, not by the mere fact that he decided to become a revolutionary, but a desire not to live in shackels. What a dumb quote.

I don't think modern people are truly capable of understanding that quote, because to them a "revolution" is something far different to what it may have been, compared to, for example in Nechayev's case, a revolution against the regime of the Czar and aristocratic hierarchy, enforced through brutal methods of punishment. He is speaking of the mental state that was required, to achieve a revolution in that day and era. A mental state that was hardened against any sort of sentimental weakness, which may cause the revolution to fail.

From the modern perspective where being a "revolutionary" means putting up a whiny post on Twitter, then yes, his words do not make much sense. No "revolutionary" of today's age would feel the sense of impending "doom" as clearly as Nechayev and his "nihilist revolutionaries" would have (who were mostly sent to Siberia for life or executed). They were men who accepted that they were essentially "living dead", and mere instruments of a change that they felt was necessary. A change, that indeed, was eventually realized.

The nihilists, represented by Nechayev, and the subsequent Bolsheviks, culminating in the rule of Stalin, were never under the impression that there weren't going to be millions and millions of people dead as a result of the revolution. The common people were going to suffer, and that, to them, was necessary, so that the existing power structure could be brought down. As Dostoyevsky (a man who was somewhat learned of the nihilist/socialist talking points at the time) explains through his character "Shigalyev", the commonly accepted number of casualties among the nihilists, caused by the revolution, would amount to tens of millions dead, by starvation, warfare or disease. 90% of the people that remained, would be virtually enslaved so that a higher level of production could be reached, to bring mankind further as a whole, in the hands of the 10% that took power. And so it ended up being, during Soviet rule of Russia.

The plights of the "common people" was, as ever, wholly secondary to the lack of power experienced by the revolutionaries under the current state.
 
Last edited:
"There is but one unconditional commandment, which is that we should seek incessantly, with fear and trembling, so to vote and to act as to bring about the very largest total universe of good which we can see.Abstractrules indeed can help; but they help the less in proportion as our intuitions are more piercing, and our vocation is the stronger for the morallife. For every real dilemma is in literal strictness a unique situation; and the exact combination of ideals realized and ideals disappointedwhich each decision creates is always a universe without a precedent, and for which no adequate previous rule exists."

-William James

These guys are not my heroes but some I like:

"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."

“Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

And I think this one is just beautiful. One of the first philosophy books I read for pleasure. This is also similar to Aristotle's philosophy. The state is the only thing keeping us civilized. Like that Stones song. Rape. Murder. It is just a shot away. The world is always hanging by a thread.

Nature (the art whereby God hath made and governes the world) is by the art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an Artificial Animal. For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs, the begining whereof is in some principall part within; why may we not say, that all Automata (Engines that move themselves by springs and wheeles as doth a watch) have an artificiall life? For what is the Heart, but a Spring; and the Nerves, but so many Strings; and the Joynts, but so many Wheeles, giving motion to the whole Body, such as was intended by the Artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that Rationall and most excellent worke of Nature, Man. For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in latine CIVITAS) which is but an Artificiall Man; though of greater stature and strength than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; The Magistrates, and other Officers of Judicature and Execution, artificiall Joynts; Reward and Punishment (by which fastned to the seat of the Soveraignty, every joynt and member is moved to performe his duty) are the Nerves, that do the same in the Body Naturall; The Wealth and Riches of all the particular members, are the Strength; Salus Populi (the Peoples Safety) its Businesse; Counsellors, by whom all things needfull for it to know, are suggested unto it, are the Memory; Equity and Lawes, an artificiall Reason and Will; Concord, Health; Sedition, Sicknesse; and Civill War, Death. Lastly, the Pacts and Covenants, by which the parts of this Body Politique were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that Fiat, or the Let Us Make Man, pronounced by God in the Creation.

-Hobbes

Freud on guilt or shame:

Civilization, therefore, obtains mastery over the individual's dangerous desire for aggression by weakening and disarming it and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city.\

And I recently heard this one by Maya Angelou:

"One person standing on the Word of God is a majority."

“Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.”

Voltaire
 
Last edited:
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty."

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."


-Thomas Jefferson

The first one is not Jefferson. First known appearance in print was in 1914, and the first known attribution of it to Jefferson was in 1994. Also doesn't read like something he would have said.
 
I don't think modern people are truly capable of understanding that quote, because to them a "revolution" is something far different to what it may have been, compared to, for example in Nechayev's case, a revolution against the regime of the Czar and aristocratic hierarchy, enforced through brutal methods of punishment. He is speaking of the mental state that was required, to achieve a revolution in that day and era. A mental state that was hardened against any sort of sentimental weakness, which may cause the revolution to fail.

From the modern perspective where being a "revolutionary" means putting up a whiny post on Twitter, then yes, his words do not make much sense. No "revolutionary" of today's age would feel the sense of impending "doom" as clearly as Nechayev and his "nihilist revolutionaries" would have (who were mostly sent to Siberia for life or executed). They were men who accepted that they were essentially "living dead", and mere instruments of a change that they felt was necessary. A change, that indeed, was eventually realized.

The nihilists, represented by Nechayev, and the subsequent Bolsheviks, culminating in the rule of Stalin, were never under the impression that there weren't going to be millions and millions of people dead as a result of the revolution. The common people were going to suffer, and that, to them, was necessary, so that the existing power structure could be brought down. As Dostoyevsky (a man who was somewhat learned of the nihilist/socialist talking points at the time) explains through his character "Shigalyev", the commonly accepted number of casualties among the nihilists, caused by the revolution, would amount to tens of millions dead, by starvation, warfare or disease. 90% of the people that remained, would be virtually enslaved so that a higher level of production could be reached, to bring mankind further as a whole, in the hands of the 10% that took power. And so it ended up being, during Soviet rule of Russia.

The plights of the "common people" was, as ever, wholly secondary to the lack of power experienced by the revolutionaries under the current state.

There is some truth to the old adage - '1000 years of revolution has done nothing but change the face of the oppressor' - or something like that, can't remember who said it.

That being said, making absolute statements on the motives/methods of all revolutionaries is not good logic.
 
His fighting ended up putting the weak and needy in the chains of a whole new oppressive government though so what good is celebrating his supposed courageous fighting when it was all for naught?

Because, under that oppressive government, the weak and needy have much, much better lives with access to education, health care, and employment opportunities.

The "all for naught" suggestion is just ignorant. Even outside of the Cuban people, he helped turn the Latin American tide irreversibly against direct US political dominance.
 
Last edited:
And because it was made by a guy named @Trotsky I will list my favorite Trotsky quote. It was the only one I still remember from A Revolution Betrayed:

Leon Trotsky — 'You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.'
 
Because, under that oppressive government, the weak and needy have much, much better lives with access to education, health care, and employment opportunities.

The "all for naught" suggestion is just ignorant.
There are reasons to criticize Castro but I don't think its fair to put him on the same level as any old Arab kleptocrat or other Communist villains of history like Stalin or Mao like some people seem to. Yes his regime is oppressive and Cubans aren't free but he succeeded in breaking the power of the landholding oligarchy, significantly reduced economic inequality, and established well functioning social services which improved the lives of the poorest Cubans. All of those issues are issues that most of Latin America still struggles with today. To be fair, Cuba might be the least free Latin American country but I'd rather be born poor in Cuba than in Brazil or Colombia or virtually any other Latin American country with maybe a few exceptions.
 
There are reasons to criticize Castro but I don't think its fair to put him on the same level as any old Arab kleptocrat or other Communist villains of history like Stalin or Mao like some people seem to. Yes his regime is oppressive and Cubans aren't free but he succeeded in breaking the power of the landholding oligarchy, significantly reduced the economic inequality, and established well functioning social services which improved the lives of the poorest Cubans. All of those issues are issues that most of Latin America still struggles with today. To be fair, Cuba might be the least free Latin American country but I'd rather be born poor in Cuba than in Brazil or Colombia or virtually any other Latin American country with maybe a few exceptions.

I'm much more critical of Castro than I am of Che, but I think Castro did a lot of great, courageous, and honorable things too. But ultimately, he was clearly corruptible. Che was not.

And because it was made by a guy named @Trotsky I will list my favorite Trotsky quote. It was the only one I still remember from A Revolution Betrayed:

Leon Trotsky — 'You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.'

Haha, i just realized I forgot old Leon. I'll have to add some of his later tonight.
 
Back
Top