Bill Whittle Gets “It” – “This is a once-in-history idea” – Now what?

I came to this by Bill Whittle via a post by Zombie:

In fact, in all of human history, there has been only one genuinely progressive, genuinely liberating idea: a lightning bolt across the pages of history – the why in 1776, the how in 1787 – the idea of limited government, god-given rights, personal liberty and rule by the vast collective wisdom and industry of the common man, and not by the bored, pampered and self-hating elites that have run everything before and since. This is a once-in-history idea. This is why we have to conserve it. We have to conserve this fundamentally liberal idea.

Brilliant! I don’t think it would be possible to sum things up with less words without loosing clarity.

So if that is “It”, what is the opposite?

When a society – after generations of hard work, sacrifice and hardship – reaches a certain level of prosperity, “Progressives” like Bill Maher, Janeane Garofolo, Rosie O’Donnell and Gaius Gracchus – that last Progressive died in 121 BC – assume that the prosperity is endless, and push for more and more people to get more and more goods and services for less and less work. Why? Because – as today, in America, as with the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottomans, the Mongols, Rome, Greece, Eqypt, Babylon… They do it for political power. They live for political power. This “Progressivism” is ancient, recurring, tyrannical and ruinous.

And we voted for it. Just like the Romans did.

It is not just the opposite of “It”. The opposite is the norm course of events.

Whittle explains how the USA got to where it is in terms that made me think of 5GW:

And so they asked themselves: if the vanguard of the revolution wasn’t going to be the worker, then who would it be? And the answer they came up with was: the dispossessed.

The Neo-Marxist revolution would not attack the capitalist economy – that was too successful. The target of the new Marxist revolution would be the Culture.

Marxist philosophers like Antonia Gramsci, and later, Saul Alinski – personal hero to such present-day fellow travelers as Chris Matthews, Hillary Clinton and, of course, The President of the United States – started to create narratives – stories – about America. This rapidly evolved into a philosophy called “Critical Theory” and the idea of Critical Theory was to attack the dominant culture – that would be us – from all sides, simultaneously.

[...]

The objectives of the Frankfurt School, of Gramsci and Alinski in their assault on the culture, were laid out in detail and were very clear: Eliminate not only the voice, but the very idea of reason. Destroy history. Delegitimize shared morality. Medicate instead of discipline children. Promote the idea that problems are so complex that only elitists, experts and academics can discuss, let alone solve them. A later pair of American Marxist philosophers developed what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy: overwhelm America’s social systems – welfare, health care, immigration, etc. by telling people they were owed things, and by intentionally overwhelming them, cause them to collapse – leaving nothing but smoking wreckage, and no where to turn but to the government.

This is certainly “Secret War” or “War of Hidden Movements”. Most of us don’t even know it is going on. Whittle calls even says:

we are in an information war, a battle of narratives…We are, together, soldiers in this narrative war for America and for civilization

The first part sounds like Memetic Engineering. The second part sound like Strategic Citizen 5GW.

So…how do “we” win? Using a Titanic analogy he gets to:

We need to ram the iceberg. We need to hit it head-on. We need to put in all the power we have – all of the power – and go right at the heart of that monster. Because everyone talks about what the iceberg did to Titanic, but no one talks about what Titanic did to the iceberg.

That sounds like degrading the 5GW into a 4GW. Maybe.

Any Specifics?

We, for the first time in human history, have an example of what a free society looks like. We, for the first time in history, are children of the only real progressives in all of human history. And we, for the first time in history, have the technology that allows common people to talk to each other, to encourage and inform each other, and to make an end run around the suicidal elites and their suicidal, dying media organs.

Is that it? I think (and it sounds right to me) he is suggesting every meme/false-story/false-narrative on the  must be challenged whether it it is in public or in our institutions with four intermediate ends in mind:

  • Slow/prevent/rollback the memes opposed to “It”
  • Convince the undecided to join on the side of “It”
  • Discourage those opposed to “It”
  • Encourage those on the side of “It”

What is the end goal for “It”? How about this blast from the past:

[...]that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

So now what?

Dont Tread On Me Flag

Correlating Freedom and Successful Capitalism: Dahl’s Framework For Prosperity

At Reason:

What is productivity? Simply getting more output from the same or less input. Dahl showed in his talk the institutional context in which productivity improvement flourishes. His findings will gladden the heart of any libertarian, and anyone else who wants a prosperous future for the billions of people on this planet who are mired in poverty. He began by asking why South Asians and Cubans are more productive outside of India and Cuba? Why do Russians have the highest per capita income of any ethnic group in the U.S., but very low per capita income in Russia? Why are Mexicans five times more productive in the U.S. than in Mexico?

The answer is that productivity flourishes when people are free, safe, and justly treated. Dahl calls this the framework for prosperity. “This principle holds not only for nations, but for any organization or institution that seeks to unleash its potential to achieve improvement and growth,” declared Dahl.

The article has supporting graphs.

The Four + “N” Freedoms – Updating Roosevelt

FDR listed as his Four Freedoms:

  1. Freedom of speech and expression
  2. Freedom of every person to worship in his own way
  3. Freedom from want
  4. Freedom from fear

Barnett suggests a Fifth: Freedom of Access to Technology

I would add a 6th: Freedom to Own Property and Engage in Commerce.

What else should be added?

Defining Anti-anti Barbarism

The Belmont Clubs Defines Anti-anti Barbarism:

The result is a civilization in the “process of committing suicide”, whose dominant ideology is anti-anti-barbarism, where the highest value is not to oppose even the greatest evil.
[...]
Terror, if it is anything, represents the ultimate challenge of barbarism against civilization. And if the great centers of Western learning, the giant flagships of its literacy as represented by newspapers, magazines and television stations cannot rouse themselves to oppose terrorism then in some fundamental sense it has already pre-surrendered. And this ethos of surrender, this “anti-anti-barbarism” will inevitably manifest itself in all facts of public life; a life which has been converted into a moral vacuum. Polygamy, endogamy, special dispensations for cults, the inordinate fear of giving offensive; these endless and futile accomodations to maintain a void which is rapidly being filled not by the same indefinite vapor, but is instead being occupied by a very definite point of view. A point of view that stipulates when one must wash, pray or what one should eat; that knows even the genders of vegetables. When the moral relativists cast the truth table from their ivory towers they forgot that anti-anti-bararism = ~~(~p)=~p, where p stands for civilization. It is in a word barbarism.

It is this sort of thing that makes me scared for the survival of America as Idea and America as Nation/State.

The starting point was this Democracy Project essay:

Another term for this anti-anti-barbarism is post-modernism. Balch defines post-modernism as, “the belief that people can have whatever ethics they like, an ‘anything goes’ attitude.”
[...]
I asked Maimon Schwarzchild what he thought of this post-modernist theme on campuses. He wrote me back, “I must say, my own sense is of civilization committing suicide.”

That article notes a grass-roots response by students to post-modernism:

Post-Modernism meets its match, More God. Our students aren’t so easily manipulated to vacuity as many professors might preach. Their “god”, like those similar false ones that came before, fails to meet mankind’s sense or needs.

Are You a Klingon? Err Klinger? Klingite?

Arnold Kling (of Econlog) writing in TCS Daily:

In my view, there are three foundations that together distinguish the Kling school from other approaches to economics and political economy.

1. Economics should be subsumed under the general study of human behavior, not the other way around.

2. What matters most for economic performance is firms entering and leaving the market. Free entry and exit produces economic growth over time, which is more important than the allocation of resources at any given point in time.

3. Government is not a person. It is an institution.

I think I am a Klingamaniac.

Public Choice Theory of in Two Bullet Points

From Jane Galt:

1) People are often stupid
2) Bureaucrats are the same stupid people, with bad incentives.

Appeasement Theory of War

In Spiegel On-Line:

As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement — a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II — Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission. All the Europeans can hope to gain in this asymmetric conflict is a temporary reprieve, a honeymoon period that could last 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. Anyone on death row breathes a sigh of relief when his execution is postponed to some indefinite time in the future.”
it.

This is the Appeasement Theory of War:

The Appeasement Theory of War states that war is caused by one side in a conflict appeasing (signaling weakness, submission, lack or resolve, or lack of interest) causing the other side to keep pushing until an invisible line to be crossed thus causing war to break out. The aggressive side is usually surprised when this happens because of the signals sent out by their opponent. The Appeasement theory of War suggest that to avoid war, one must act decisively to threat, and that an actor’s threat (a fuzzy calculation of other’s perception of one’s power and other’s perception of one’s willingness to use that power) must be accurately signaled to all other actors.

Appeasement fever is rising in the west, god help us all.

Link to a Classic Essay by David Brin: “Star Wars” Despots vs. “Star Trek” Populists

Here is the Link at Salon.
Here is a related at Creative Destruction:  The Empire Is The Good Guys, Revisited

Free-Rider Brainstorming

A post by Larry Dunbar on the Free Rider Problem got me thinking:

The concept “free rider” comes from economics. Free-riding occurs when an actor has no incentive to perform an activity, but benefits from other actors doing the activity.

It is really a problem of incentives and lack of negative feedback. The international system is not controlled – so how does one go about creating proper incentives and feedback systems when there isn’t much in the way of compliance enforcement?

Hey, now this sound like the prisoner’s dilemma. If both sides take benevolent actions, both sides get a reward. But if one sides cheats ( takes a non-benevolent action), the cheating side gets an over-sized reward relative to the other side. So, to get the over-sized reward, both sides cheat thinking that is the best choice. The dilemma, when both sides cheat there is a small under-sized reward.

The international system could be thought of as a series of over-lapping parallel prisoner dilemma games. If large numbers of actors can be convinced to be benevolent (buy into a global rules set of incentives, feedback systems, compliance, and enforcement), then there will be large rewards.

Anyways, I think there is rich untapped material in the concepts of microeconomics and behavioral economics that can applied to any emerging 5GW theory.

I am interested in 5GW theory (among other things) as another means of creating global actors who act in mutually beneficial ways (global rule-sets) leading to economic growth, human capital maximization, security, liberty, opportunity, enrichment, and peace for all.

Oh crap, am I an idealist?

Total Social Movement Organizations as Global Actor

From StrategyUnit: a description of a Global Actor he calls “Total Social Movement Organizations” or TSMO – which is also another possible successor /competitor to the dominant state form the nation-state:

Hamas and Hezbollah function as a network of charities, religious movement, social movement, political movement and military force. Only such an organization can easily enlist the people as human shields at the face of death. I doubt Hamas was using much if any coercisve force to encourage the Human Shields – faith in Hamas and what it represented was enough.

An organization that combines the full spectrum of human activities – from religious to social justice to military force – will be a resilient force compared to the secular (Post?) Nation-State system that exists in the Wetern countries. They will not replace Western style Nation-States, but will be adapt challengers in the world stage.

I have been kicking around ideas along these lines for awhile. I read Bobbit’s gigantic and impressive book on the evolution of state forms a while back. My thoughts are forthcoming on the possibilities, evolution, and forms of the Post-Nationalism State (Postnat-State) and the Global Actors it will compete and cooperate.

Update: I have updated the links.

“America needs a new elite”

Zenpundit writes:

While we can differ on details, I am more or less in agreement with Fabius that America’s elite, both Left and Right, have failed the people and the soldiers in Iraq with their uncertainty, fecklessness, paralysis and addiction to self-absorbed partisanship. America needs a new elite, the old one has lost heart, nerve and to a certain extent -their head. They lack the will to prosecute the war on terror and the skill to execute it well. I’m not sure we’ll see great improvement in statesmanship either until the Boomers start yielding their place to GenX’ers.

Zenpundit is onto something.

I am not impressed with the National Leadership presented by the boomers.

Honestly, I am not impressed with the “Boomer” managers and executives I have interacted with my entire career (I am on the old end of the GenXers).

Greatness for America comes from a diverse set of human capital where merit should be king. That seems to be in decline.

Perhaps it should be the mission of GenXers and GenYers to minimize the damage being caused by action and inaction of the Boomers.

Nobel Prize Winner Phelps on “Dynamic Capitalism”

Edmund Phelps writes in the opinion Journal on “Dynamic Capitalism:

There are two economic systems in
the West. Several nations–including the U.S., Canada and the
U.K.–have a private-ownership system marked by great openness to the
implementation of new commercial ideas coming from entrepreneurs, and
by a pluralism of views among the financiers who select the ideas to
nurture by providing the capital and incentives necessary for their
development.

The other system–in Western
Continental Europe–though also based on private ownership, has been
modified by the introduction of institutions aimed at protecting the
interests of “stakeholders” and “social partners.”

Let me use the word “dynamism” to
mean the fertility of the economy in coming up with innovative ideas
believed to be technologically feasible and profitable–in short, the
economy’s talent at commercially successful innovating. In this
terminology, the free enterprise system is structured in such a way
that it facilitates and stimulates dynamism while the Continental
system impedes and discourages it.

When building the massive
structures of corporatism in interwar Italy, theoreticians explained
that their new system would be more dynamic than capitalism–maybe not
more fertile in little ideas, such as might come to petit-bourgeois
entrepreneurs, but certainly in big ideas.

Friedrich Hayek, in the late 1930s and early ’40s, began the modern theory of how a capitalist
system, if pure enough, would possess the greatest dynamism–not
socialism and not corporatism. First, virtually everyone right down to
the humblest employees has “know-how,” some of what Michael Polanyi
called “personal knowledge” and some merely private knowledge, and out
of that an idea may come that few others would have. In its openness to
the ideas of all or most participants, the capitalist economy tends to
generate a plethora of new ideas.

Second, the pluralism of
experience that the financiers bring to bear in their decisions gives a
wide range of entrepreneurial ideas a chance of insightful evaluation.
And, importantly, the financier and the entrepreneur do not need the
approval of the state or of social partners. Nor are they accountable
later on to such social bodies if the project goes badly, not even to
the financier’s investors. So projects can be undertaken that would be
too opaque and uncertain for the state or social partners to endorse.
Lastly, the pluralism of knowledge and experience that managers and
consumers bring to bear in deciding which innovations to try, and which
to adopt, is crucial in giving a good chance to the most promising
innovations launched. Where the Continental system convenes experts to
set a product standard before any version is launched, capitalism gives
market access to all versions.

Globalization has diminished the importance of scale as well as distance.

Instituting a high level of
dynamism, so that the economy is fired by the new ideas of
entrepreneurs, serves to transform the workplace–in the firms
developing an innovation and also in the firms dealing with the
innovations. The challenges that arise in developing a new idea and in
gaining its acceptance in the marketplace provide the workforce with
high levels of mental stimulation, problem-solving, employee-engagement
and, thus, personal growth.

Dynamism does have its downside.
The same capitalist dynamism that adds to the desirability of jobs also
adds to their precariousness. The strong possibility of a general slump
can cause anxiety.

Why, then, if the “downside” is so
exaggerated, is capitalism so reviled in Western Continental Europe? It
may be that elements of capitalism are seen by some in Europe as
morally wrong in the same way that birth control or nuclear power or
sweatshops are seen by some as simply wrong in spite of the
consequences of barring them. And it appears that the recent street
protesters associate business with established wealth; in their
minds, giving greater latitude to businesses would increase the
privileges of old wealth. By an “entrepreneur” they appear to mean a
rich owner of a bank or factory, while for Schumpeter and Knight it
meant a newcomer, a parvenu who is an outsider. A tremendous
confusion is created by associating “capitalism” with entrenched wealth
and power. The textbook capitalism of Schumpeter and Hayek means
opening up the economy to new industries, opening industries to
start-up companies, and opening existing companies to new owners and
new managers. It is inseparable from an adequate degree of competition.
Monopolies like Microsoft are a deviation from the model.

I have been meaning to write an article on this, but I am backed up with stuff. So I am trying to clear my backlog (tossing stuff, or doing short posts for future reference).

Here are some thoughts:

  • “good” globalization (based on dynamic capitalism) vs “bad” or so-so globalization (based on stake-holder capitalism). What does this mean for PNM theory which relies partially on unfettered support for globalization to shrink the gap?
  • Entrepreneurial Capitalism = Dynamic Capitalism. “Good Globalization” = Entrepreneurial Peace Theory?
  • Reference Postal’s The Dynamist blog and book
  • Bobitt’s successor state forms need more work. His “market-state” is a post-nationalism dynamic-capitalism state. Another competing form could be the stakeholder-state (post-nationalism, stakeholder-capitalism). The other forms are…[heh for long simmering post.]


“Liberals become conservative by backing into it…”

Commenter Romeo13 at Hot Air wrote:

Naw… you all don’t get it….

Liberals become conservative by backing into it…. because they are backing away from the Nuts out there on the far left…. and keep backing… and backing… until they look around and realize that they have become conservative…

That is what did it for me.

SLOE/Future (Security, Liberty, Opportunity, Enrichment for the Future)

Zenpundit writes:

Should the major parties fail to generate some new, creative and relevant ideas in a short time horizon – something that is not likely to happen in my view – it means that 2008 is wide open for somebody “outside” the system who can bring both vision and financial wherewithal to the table as an independent candidate. And of the two, the former is far more important because via the internet the vision will attract the financial muscle.

I left a long comment which I am now also using as my own post:

A visionary could organize around something like:

SLOE/Future

Security
Liberty
Opportunity
Enrichment

–> Future Oriented

Security –> from bad guys: transnational, national and local

Liberty –> free to organize and associate etc as one wants (includes religion, contracts, etc)

Opportunity –> all humans should have lots of opportunities to achieve there potential (opportunity creating stuff = good stuff)

Enrichment –> of wealth, knowledge, experience etc, for all members of ones community (local, national, global). All humans should be uplifted by the exercise of liberty and opportunity maximization

Future Oriented –> No status Quo! I want 200 year life spans, cheap limitless energy, asteroid mining, orbital communities and mars settlements – a better future of all humanity!

I will give a listen to any pundit with ideas for a SLOE/Future.

Update: This older post of mine should also be checked.

LGF has an exclusive trip report from Khatami’s CAIR Dinner

LGF has a trip report from former Iranian President Khatami’s CAIR Dinner that you can read.

One interesting observation from the writer:

But one thing above all stood out when Khatami was speaking (I don’t know if it was Arabic or Persian). Apparently his language has no equivalent for the English word because he always said the word in English. Democracy.

Actually is that true? Is there a Farsi/Persian or Arabic word for Democracy? I go to think the Greeks left something to the ancient Persian language. How about a Kurdish word for democracy (it too comes from old Persian)?

Anyways, it was a good LGF post, well worth reading.

Update: “Guy” in the comments suggests an equivalent Farsi word for democracy.

Wednesday Night Links

Shining City has: Fetal Shark Attacks

Arnold Kling’s Suggested Ed Reform

TV Squad investigators are all over the Lost video clues

ISC Incident Handler on Information Security Standards

Islam Is The Problem?

Alt-History links

On the War: Reasons for Optimism (5 part series) by guest Owen Johnson at Swinkwrapped. I have read them; FuturePurpleSlog needs to write a post on it.

Why Do They Hate Walmart? I don’t shop there, but I like the idea of Walmart efficiency being added to banking and other services. The whole point is innovation of product (different,needs,style) and process (faster,cheaper,better). Competition (for the rewards = profit) foster creativity (incentives for progress) and Entrepreneurs. Better product,processes give people more life options (less misery, more happiness, human potential used).

Culture Jamming. Hmm… 4GW/5GW/InfoWarfare technique?

Lastly: Star Wars Burlesque – Not Safe for Work –>

Continue reading

Democracy != Elections, Modern Democracies are…

It bugs me when I hear simplistic statements suggesting that the simple act of a society voting designates it as a democracy (even more so then the republic vs. democracy faux argument).

Once and for all, Democracy Does Not Equal Voting! It is so much more then that.

Presenting The Modern Democratic Nation-State

Why Promote it

  • Democracies don’t fight each other (Democratic Peace concept)
  • Democracies don’t mass enslave/murder their citizens (Death by Government concept)
  • Democracy gives individuals their best chance at achieving their personal goal, whether those are economic, entrepreneurial, familiar, artistic, etc. (maximizing human potential and return on human capital)
  • Democracy enables prosperity
  • Democracies are future focused and constantly getting better at the above.

Characteristics

  • Secular, Republican form of government at all levels with regular elections with secret ballots for most powerful government positions
  • Governed by the majority view with protections for the rights of the minority.
  • It must support a competition of ideas, which requires critical debate, freedom of speech and the ability to criticize power without fear of retribution.
  • Civil liberties and political rights (human rights)
  • Strong civil society with power distributed into multiple points of authority (governmental and non-governmental) to enable checks and balances.
  • Market-based economies with Property Ownership
  • Equality of Opportunity
  • Large Middle-Class
  • High Literacy
  • Equality for all in a predictable, transparent legal system.
  • Elites much be based on merit, not hereditary
  • Universal (or near) Suffrage
  • Competitive political parties
  • Abraham Lincoln’s – Democracy is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
  • Equal opportunity to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Property Ownership, Personal Advancement
  • Freedom of religion, privacy, etc. (Concept: Bill of Rights, Natural Rights, Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc).

Any questions? Did I leave anything out? Leave a comment or an email.

Dispatches From An Alternative Universe: Democrats Reorganize for Victory

TCS Daily has a wire service report from an Alternate Universe:

WASHINGTON (SatireNewsService) — Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), flanked by former Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and other Democratic leaders announced today that the long awaited Democrat plan for victory in the 2006 Congressional elections had been completed.

Holding aloft a thick binder entitled Muscular Democrats — A Comprehensive Plan for Something Other Than Moral Victory, Lieberman said, “this plan pulls Democrats back from the precipice of treason onto the solid ground of loyalty that America’s opposition parties have always occupied during times of war.”

If the Dems can not be serious about national security, I can not consider them legitimately for national offices.

The USA is worse off for this. We need two legitimate parties.

I always told my friends the key to a Democratic presidential victory in 2004 was nominating someone who would 1) go over-the-top of the Republicans on national security issues, 2) support and push for one or two pet conservative/libertarian cause (flat income tax, national vouchers for education, radical pension/social security reform) and 3) be a moderate/centrist democrat on everything else. That guy/gal would have won bigtime in 2004 and 2008 and 2012…you get the idea.

Instead, they treated as legitimate nutcase candidates like Kucinich / Braun / Sharpton. Former interesting moderate Dean morphed into a lefty nutcase in front of us. Strong national security democrats Graham and Lieberman were ignored by the party. Finally they nominated lightweight lefty Kerry with runner-up (and junk science trial lawyer) Edwards.

Our Lucky Constitution and Entrepreneurialism

I was reading this at an Althouse post:

The writer makes a connection between our old Constitution and our willingness to fight wars. Do you see that connection?

Some thoughts offhand:

  • Could the same things that lead to stable constitutional rule set lead to a greater willingness to be bold?
  • Is war-fighting willingness to change and shape the world to make it a better place, to not be cowed under, another expression of American
  • What is the essence of entrepreneurialism anyways: risk-taking for a better relative and absolute group and personal future (powerful incentives, optimizing forces).

Trusim in a Phrase at the American Thinker That Is The Key To Much Misery and Wasted Human Potential In The World

From The American Thinker:

But let us not forget the grim lesson of the last two hundred years. It seems that nobody will accept democratic capitalism without trying something else first.

True.

Required Reading: Phatic Communion’s Revised OODA Series

Phatic Communion‘s series on the Revised OODA is required reading.

It extends and improves upon the OODA concept, has first coverage of EBO that makes sense, and ties it all nicely into the Generations of Modern Warfare framework.

I am still digesting the first three parts before going onto the rest.

Here is an archived version of one of Phatic Communion’s graphic (I put a copy on Flickr for blogging convenience):

Phatic Communion's Enhanced OODA - mapped to the Generations of Modern Warfare Theory categories

I Notice No Protest Babes: A Good Sign

LGF has photos from a pro-islamofascist rally in Berlin.

Note: No Protest Babes are present.

Paranoid Anti-Semitism

Shrikwrapped writes:

As with a paranoid patient, the delusions, unless confronted (in a patient with medication), spreads and poisons all relationships; their delusions contaminate their own ability to think and adequately evaluate reality. The Muslim Jew-haters are becoming increasingly bizarre in their beliefs, unable to evaluate the impact of their own behavior, and more and more isolated.

I never really understood anti-semitism. My Austrian-born Grandfather was a bit, as I recall, but neither of my parents are.

I think the anti-semitism/anti-Israel meme has somehow joined the memeplex of the Left. Being anti-semitic (hard or soft) endears you to the leftist community and vice versa.

O’Sullivan’s First Law

O’Sullivan’s First Law:

All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don’t like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels’s Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy (from the same reference):

This states that in any organization the permanent officials will gradually obtain such influence that its day-to-day program will increasingly reflect their interests rather than its own stated philosophy.

The above is an effect explained by Public Choice Theory aka Public Choice Economics, which in turn explains much of the effect of humans in organizations.

Thank you Jayson of Edgewise for hepping me to this!

Updated: I made a type with Jayson’s name.

“Either Support Civilized Men Or You Support Savages”

AtlasShrugged covers the Pro-Israel rally in NYC complete with photo and video goodies.

I found her comment – Either support civilized men or you support savages – as the main framing point for me on the Israel vs. Islam/Arabs debate.

I know which side I come down on.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 224 other followers