Notes From The Edge Of Tectonic Change…

What is it? A high impact change in culture, economics, politics and behavior from the micro to the macro. Multiple “power-shift” events occurring simultaneously.

Creative Destruction

Entire swaths sectors of the economy will disappear or will change so much they might as well disappear:

* America may well not be in the auto industry soon. “American car sales have dropped to an annual pace of nine million, from some 17 million in 2007. Even if sales increase considerably, that is likely to leave a lot of unneeded auto factories,” said The London Times.

* Financial services will have to be completely remade (by government?). Check "Eight Bubbles" mmap.

* Newspapers will start to vanish. Magazines are in worse shape. Books‘ channels of manufacturing, distribution, and sales are going though through upheaval. Check "Kindle" mmap.

* Broadcast media will become meaningless, replaced by digital delivery.

* Advertising will be next to feel the earthquake, after media.

* Large-scale retail will shrink and consolidate and then be transformed by a search-and-buy economy. 

* Business travel - including the convention and conference business - will take a huge hit in the financial crisis and much of it won’t come back, replaced by more efficient communications.

* Carbon polluting energy industries will shrivel, with or without govermant incetivized corruption.

* Residential and commercial real estate will have to restructure around a new capital structure. Homes will get cheaper but so much of homeowners’ equity has been wiped out in real estate and stock investments that apartments will be what’s built, when building returns. Commercial real estate had its own bubble and it will be hit with a double whammy as tenants shrink and disappear. Construction will, of course, decline.

* Health care was the one sector in this month’s employment report that showed growth. But we know that medicine, pharma, and insurance will undergo a forced restructuring.

* Computers are getting so small and cheap and open that that industry is under growing pressure. As every other device we have becomes smart and connected, the "computer" ( a physical box of switches) itself will begin to disappear.

* Universities are facing competition from each other and commercial newcomers online and have suffered huge blows to their endowments; they will have to change. We should be so lucky that elementary and secondary education will also face such pressure.

* Education is a growth opportunity but not in its current institutions. As industries are killed and turned upside-down, present and former employees will need to be retrained in technology, in the skills of starting and running a business, in entirely new skills. 

* Finally, consumer products of all sorts will have to change in the face of empowered customers and, in some cases, with competition from small competitors given the benefits of scale on platforms (see: eBay, Etsy, Amazon, et al). They will also face price pressure thanks to online comparison shopping. “prosumerism” and new retail structures.

* Government will grow but thanks to the empowered populace, it, too, will face fundamental change.

“Power-shift” - the process of transformation that accompanies radical innovation

The opening up of new markets and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as (“fill in the blank”) illustrate the process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one ... Current methods, processes, "things", must be destroyed to create the new. This always causes upheaval on ALL fronts. Microsoft, MTV, CNN, FedEx, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Burger King all started up in this kind of "crisis"

Current Transformational Issues

The change in our society and how it is structured are both causing and necessitating change in the economy, society, politics  and industries. The crisis is bigger than it appears in the rear-view mirror. It’s more than jobs lost and companies folding. It’s a new socio-economic realty, built on a new society that we are only just beginning to recognize if not understand.

Because of these changes, it’s hard to build a business model anymore out of screwing people - since when you do, we, the screwed, can rise up and be heard and fight back and make evil too expensive much more effectively that in times past. Our interconnectedness is also what made the complex derivatives & MBS’, CDS’ etc. - the toxic assets - that triggered the financial crisis possible - but that is all the more reason why we will demand transparency, our best antidote to evil. That will change how business is run in fundamental ways.

Frameworks:

Socio-political

• Don’t be overly optimistic about the impact of technology on the future of society, although it has the most immediate effect.

• Transformation phases (pre-development, take-off, acceleration, stabilization) can provide essential insights 

• Essential change in international relations & constructs - NATO-like organizations in every corner of the world.

• Relationships will become more "bottom-up" oriented as inter-connectedness becomes pervasive.

• Applies from the "bottom-up" socially

Global Restructuring

• A new economy built on a new society that we are only just beginning to recognize if not understand
• A great “compression,” as an economy built on perceived value reconciles with actual value (ex. - derivatives.).
• Emerging Markets - China/India/Latin America - financial expansion/contraction of these nations is accelerated.
• Globalization is not simply a trend or fad but is, rather, an international system. It is the system that has replaced the old Cold War system, which replaced the old empire-based Colonialist System, and, like that Cold War System, globalization has its own rules and logic that today directly or indirectly influence the politics, environment, geopolitics and economics of virtually every country.

"Great Power" dissolution - 

Instability

I don't forecast a 1776-style revolution to spontaneously erupt globally or locally. It will happen in stages, and it will spread among the classes (over, under, sideways, down…) and will be waged in many forms … over the Internet, in town halls, on the ballot as well as at the physical/literal "barricades". 

What will be the spark that ignites it? A final straw bailout? Another tax hike? Disappearing entitlements?  Or will it be the ultimate “let them eat cake” policy that pushes people past the breaking point? Who will break first? 

• The vast middle of transformative political-socio-economic change being wrought right now by globalization's spread/speed.
• Re-tooling military role - "war among the people" - get out of a big-war mentality and focus on the reasonable scenarios ahead
• Ditch the UN - NATO-like organizations in every corner of the world.
• The former middle class that lost their jobs, 401ks, IRAs, pensions … and even their homes?

• Jobless, blue-collar, and paycheck-to-paycheck workers, their credit maxed out and heading toward homelessness?
• The young and restless with dead-end jobs or no jobs, who believe their future has been stolen and want revenge?
• The artists and intellectuals on one hand, the hardcore conservatives and impassioned patriots on the other, united in outrage at Big Brotherhood’s control of the entire socioeconomic and political system?    

One of the above? Some of the above? All of the above

I hate to say it, but- 

• Jobless, broke and nowhere to go, “Self Storage” will soon live up to the meaning of its name. Down and out, thrown onto the streets … homeless Americans will empty out storage lockers of useless junk … to store themselves. When Panic strikes, it will only be a matter of time and a question of survival before they move in. Whether on their own or with family in tow, living in concrete and steel 4x8s will be a step up from sleeping in the streets or risking a night at a homeless shelter.

• The implications of a nation in decline are already in the making. As legitimate options to earn real money dwindle, the business climate for crooks and cons of every stripe and social order to invent new scams (and bring back old ones) to fleece easy marks, will expand across the social spectrum.  Pyramid sales – termed “multi-level marketing” by the people in the business – with promises of big bucks by hitting up friends, family and strangers to buy some of what the Pyramid boss is selling, will hook flocks of hungry suckers. The informercial business will also thrive as the newly out of work and the sunk in debt toss the dice on a get rich scheme that promises a money back guarantee. 

• Like other third world nations threatened by a heavily armed criminal class, a frightened public will be locking themselves in both day and night. Surveillance equipment, gates, bars, anti-theft devices, attack dogs, attack-proof products, security guards, identity theft and theft protection … any businesses and service promising “protection” will proliferate. 

• Anti-immigration movements will intensify as many of the problems ranging from increased crime, to loss of job will be blamed (rightly or wrongly) on the illegal population. Immigration will also remain a major Campaign 2008 hot button issue. A dark horse candidate with a populist bent and a strong anti-illegals position will find a wide voter base. 

• Wage riots and street protests will escalate in size and intensity as demands for better pay and income distribution become calls to action from out-of- work and the low-paid masses. As with other nations on the skids where the police are used to protect the powers, brute force will be inflicted upon the crowds and planted shills will turn peaceful protests ugly by inciting violence. 

• As major corporations fall and chain stores break apart, ample opportunities will be available for entrepreneurs to fill the gap the big guys left behind.

• European riots over austerity measures - measures brought about by financial carelessness, that was brought about by US “nuclear umbrella” of the Cold War era. Our defense budget is so high, so they can make theirs so low… and spend it on social welfare.

• Arab Spring - may be co-opted by Muslim Brotherhood, military orgs.

• Occupy Wall Street - has an element of “astroturf” to it, but many of the protesters are sincere.

What of it?

Now we talk about the emphasis on people, not technology ... though the interlinked digital infrastructure amplifies the issues considerably. 

“First, we shape our structures .. then, they shape us.” - Me

“The goddamn internets just let any idiot find out things without having to go through an approved corporate filter of 'What Happened' “ --  Tom McHenry, circa 1998.

Frameworks: Restructuring of Society: Back in the Roosevelt Days you had at most 10 groups who could influence policy making; today there are hundreds. In this new mosaic society, we need to rethink the fundamental systems of laws. Bureaucratism: most prevalent form of power in a system. Not capitalism or socialism. The flow of information and the flow of money; both are important. Power will flow to those sectors which regulate information in a super symbolic corporation. Bureaucratic power-shifts will occur.

Dynamic Equilibria? Don't ask me to “prove” any of this - just think about it.

Power is inherent in all social systems and in all human relationships.  It is not a thing but an aspect of any and all relationships among people. Hence it is inescapable and neutral, intrinsically neither good nor bad.The 'power system' includes everyone - no one is free of it.  But one person's power loss is not always another's gain. The power system in any society is subdivided into smaller and smaller power subsystems nested within one another (my note .. some call this 'holarchy').  Feedback links these subsystems to one another, and to the larger systems of which they are part.  Individuals are embedded in many different, though related, power subsystems. The same person may be power-rich at home and power-poor at work, and so forth.

Because human relationships are constantly changing, power relationships are also in constant process. Violence, which is chiefly used to punish, is the least versatile source of power.  Wealth, which can be used to both reward and punish, and which can be converted into many other resources, is a far more flexible tool of power. Knowledge, however, is the most versatile and basic since it can help one avert challenges that might require the use of violence and wealth, and can often be used too persuade others to perform in desired ways out of perceived self-interest.  Knowledge yields the highest “quality” power. due to its inherent utility.

The relationship of classes, races, genders, professions, nations, and other social groupings are incessantly altered by shifts in population, ecology, technology, culture, and other factors.  These changes lead to conflict and translate into redistribution of power resources. Conflict is an inescapable social fact. Power struggles are not necessarily bad. Fluctuations caused by simultaneous shifts of power in different subsystems may converge to produce radical shifts of power at the level of the larger system of which they are a part.  This principle operates at all levels,. Intra-necine conflict within an individual  can tear a whole family apart, power conflict among departments can tear a company apart, power struggles among regions can tear a nation apart.

At any given moment some of the many power subsystems that comprise the larger system are in relative equilibrium, unilke others are in a far-from equilibrial condition.  Equilibrium is not necessarily a virtue. When power systems are far-from-equilibrial, sudden, seemingly bizarre shifts may occur.  This is because when a system or subsystem is highly unstable, nonlinear effects multiply.  Big power inputs may yield small results.  Small events can trigger the downfall of a regime.  A slice of burnt toast can lead to a divorce. Chance matters.  The more unstable the system, the more chance matters. Equality of power is an improbably condition.  even if it is achieved, chance will immediately produce new inequalities.  So will attempts to rectify old inequalities.

Perfect equality implies changelessness, and is not only impossible but undesirable.  In a world in which millions starve, the idea of stopping change is not only futile but immoral.  The existence of some degree of inequality is not, therefore, inherently immoral; what is immoral is a system that freezes the maldistribution of those resources that give power.  It is doubly immoral when that maldistribution is based on race, gender or other inborn traits. Knowledge is even more maldistributed than arms and wealth.  Hence a redistribution of knowledge (and especially knowledge about knowledge) is even more important than, and can lead to, a redistribution of the other main power resources. Over-concentration of power resources is dangerous.  (examples: Stalin, Hitler, and so on.  Other examples too numerous to itemize). Under-concentration of power resources is equally dangerous. The absence of strong governments in Lebanon has turned that poor nation into a synonym for anarchic violence.  scores of groups vie for power without reference to any agreed conception of law or justice or any enforceable constitutional or other restrictions.

If both over-concentration and under-concentration of power result in social horror, how much concentrated power is too much?  Is there a moral/ethical basis for judging?  The moral basis for judging whether power is over - or under-concentrated is directly related to the difference between 'socially necessary order' and 'surplus order'.

REPOST - The Secular Roots OF Islam

I wish I had a COMPLETE copy of my War College candidate paper on "The Secular Roots of Islam". Back then (1986) we didn't have PC's or word processors to save things digitally, and they don't have it anymore due to their records deletion policy (every 5 years) so all I have are scraps! Any-who, for your info, here is the overview (flying at 100K feet) of my research:

1. Islam is not a religion, as we understand it... it is a socio-political mass movement, more like socialism or conservatism or Ayn Rands Objectivism, or even the "hippie" or "flower child" movements of the '60's & early '70's. The Koran is a ham-handed rewrite of the Old Testament, with a healthy dash of Arab, pre-Islamic pagan animism (references to "Jinns", "genies" & carnal pleasures in the afterlife, or Paradise).
2. There was no person named "Mohammad" who acted as a 7th century prophet in the Medina/Mecca region... no SECULAR references can be found for the existence of such a person, save for a single reference by the Greek historian Polymeades, who thought he was still alive in 685 AD. Mohamed reputedly died in 638 AD or thereabouts, according to Islamic scholars.
3. I advance the thesis that the content of critical sections of the Qu'ran has been broadly misread by succeeding generations of scholars, through a faulty and exclusive reliance on the assumption that classical Arabic formed the foundation of the Qu'ran, whereas linguistic analysis of the text suggests that the prevalent language of this region was the Syro-Aramic language, up to the 7th century. This suggests that the migration of Islam can be traced (using philological methodology as a basis for analysis) all the way back to Anatolian Turkey (@ 280AD), then on down though northern Saudi Arabia in the 6th century.
4. Despite the insistence to the contrary by Islamic scholars, no complete version of the Qu'ran existed until @ 740 AD, when one popped up in Damascus. By that time, the age of Arab Imperialism was well underway in N. Africa, Spain & southern France, when the Arab (more specifically, Bedouin) forces were stopped by Charles Martel ("The Hammer) in the battle of Tours in 732AD. The word Qur'an itself is derived from 'qeryana', a Syriac term from the Christian liturgy that means ‘lectionary’ ­ a book of liturgical readings. The book, being a Syro-Aramaic lectionary, with hymns and Biblical extracts, created for use in Christian services. This lectionary was translated into Arabic as a missionary effort. It was not meant to start a new religion, but to spread an older one.
5. Islam, as practiced by the Arabs & Persians (Iranians) of the Middle East, is markedly different than the method of practice in Malaysia, Indonesia and other S.E. Asian countries. Therefore, the aggressive, violent and bloodthirsty nature that is the conventional view of Islam in the West, is a unique expression of Middle Eastern culture. BTW, if you lived in that damned desert for millennia, you would be fooked up in the head too.
6. Unlike Christianity & Judaism, Islam has never undergone a revolutionary Reform movement. It has to, in order to integrate into the world community, or it will implode or ex-plode, or... God only knows.
7. I also advance the theory that this movement was encouraged early on by Arab warlords of the region, in order to achieve a more manageable population, united by a strict code of personal conduct, and a feeling of oneness (the Uma) coupled with extreme paranoia and violent attitude toward "the other". or in their parlance. "infidels". This provided the Caliphates of Damascus & Baghdad a pool of willing executioners for their aggressive policies, suitable for rapid conquest of the local region & beyond.

That's just an overview, and remember, my analysis was conducted using SECULAR (non- Qu'ranic) historical sources... there's much more, but I don't have time to expand on it here. But you get the idea. Now, my aim was not to discredit Islam, but figure out where the hell it came from, without all the superstitious rubbish clouding the picture. I sure wish I had a complete copy of the thing, but my goal in attending the War College was to make Major, not become a history professor.

The Psychology Of The Social Deconstructionist Movement.

OK, so in my previous post I outlined the most over-arching characteristics of what I call " Social Deconstructionism". Let's g o ahead and try to figure out not WHAT these folks believe-that is all too obvious-but WHY they believe such insane rubbish.

People who describe themselves (and are described by others) as "Social Deconstructionists", "leftists", "socialists", "social democrats", "Communists" and (in North America) "liberals" do have some things in common. And that is important. However unsatisfactory and apparently simplistic the Left/Right division of the political world may be, there is any amount of research showing it to be a powerful, ubiquitous and perhaps inescapable way of identifying both people and political parties (e.g. Budge et al., 1987; Ray, 1982; Bobbio, 1996).

An important part of what I proposed was that what Social Deconstructionists basically want does not have to be the exact opposite or mirror-image of what Rightists basically want -- and vice versa. This may seem at first surprising but does have some precedents. Kerlinger (1967) suggested that Social Deconstructionists and Rightists have different "criterial referents" and even thought that he had found in his survey research a complete lack of opposition between Social Deconstructionist and Rightist attitudes. Kerlinger's reasoning is interesting but that he misinterpreted his research results has previously been shown in Ray (1980 & 1982). Whether Social Deconstructionist and Rightist objectives are opposite or just simply different, how Social Deconstructionists and Rightists go about achieving their different basic objectives certainly generates plenty of conflict and opposition between the two sides.

My basic proposal, then, is that most (but not all) Social Deconstructionists/liberals are motivated by strong ego needs -- needs for power, attention, praise and fame. And in the USA and other developed countries they satisfy this need by advocating large changes in the society around them -- thus drawing attention to themselves and hopefully causing themselves to be seen as wise, innovative, caring, noble intellectuals  etc. Rightists by contrast have no need either for change or its opposite and may oppose change if they see it as destructive or favour change if they see it as constructive.

We will see below why one of the most consistent themes to emerge from the Social Deconstructionist's love of change is the claimed need for "equality". And the belief in "equality" also tends to lead to support for such things as redistribution of wealth generally, heavily "progressive" income taxes, inheritance taxes, foreign aid, feminism, gay rights and socialized medicine. Again for reasons explored below, Social Deconstructionists also tend to oppose religion and the churches and this in turn tends to mean that they favor abortion and oppose or obstruct religious schooling in various ways. So let us now briefly look at some of these characteristic Social Deconstructionist/liberal themes to see how they relate to basic Social Deconstructionist motives.

Human Nature

Something that Social Deconstructionists have had in common from the beginning is the rejection of any idea of "human nature". Basically, Social Deconstructionists seem to believe that "education" can change almost anything in human behavior. This root and branch rejection of heredity was of course what underlay Stalin's support of Lysenko's otherwise thoroughly discredited theory of evolution -- the idea that characteristics acquired in one's lifetime can be passed on to one's offspring, something Darwin rejected in toto. So how do such views flow from a yen for change? 

Quite obviously, any idea of human nature says that important things about human beings just CANNOT be changed and that does not suit the change-loving Social Deconstructionists at all. So Social Deconstructionists simply reject what does not suit them -- regardless of the enormous evidence in favor of inherited characteristics. The entire discipline of behavior genetics should not exist from a Social Deconstructionist point of view.

Conservatives, by contrast, not only have the view that there are important and essentially ineradicable inherited human characteristics but they share with Christians the view that those characteristics are of a "fallen" kind: characteristics of selfishness, aggressiveness, untrustworthiness etc. That Christians and conservatives share such a central belief about human nature is of course a large element in the general compatibility between Christianity and conservatism and the frequent opposition between Christians and Social Deconstructionists (e.g. "Godless" Communism versus the Roman Catholic church).

This conservative (and scientific) rejection of the Social Deconstructionist idea that human beings are infinitely malleable AND infinitely predictable ( an assertion Lord Keynes also posits), does of course pose a major threat to the Social Deconstructionist's assumptions, theories and programs and it is one that the Social Deconstructionist cannot really rebut so the usual Social Deconstructionist response is simply an ad hominem one: To abuse and demonize conservatives for lacking "compassion". Abuse, therefore and necessarily, takes the place of argument (Krauthammer, 2002). And in the same sentence, Social Deconstructionists will then accuse any perceived opponent of a total lack of rationality or logical thought! How did they get there?

The United States faces overwhelming fiscal problems. Our current level of government spending and future entitlement obligations are simply unsustainable. However, as concerning as these fiscal matters are, the biggest problem America faces has nothing to do with economics, but rather psychology. 

The strength of a nation reflects the character of its citizens. While America was once considered a nation of individuals fiercely independent and self-reliant, her citizens are moving closer to a state of dependence, characterized by irresponsibility and ambivalence. This change has been instigated by the politics of collectivism and the growth of the social welfare state. The most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.


To understand how this alteration occurs, one must first understand the psychological concept known as locus of control. In 1954, American psychologist Julian Rotter introduced the concept that describes how individuals could be divided into two basic groups, which represent two ends of a continuum (Figure 1): internals believe that their locus of control is within themselves, and externals believe that they are under the control of outside forces. According to Lee Harris, author of The Next American Civil War:


"[Internals] believe that they are the masters of their own destiny; they tend to be high-achievers, optimistic about their ability to improve their lot, and to discard bad habits. They believe in willpower and positive thinking. They are determined to control their own lives, for better or worse. [Externals] look on themselves as victims of circumstances, the playthings of fate. If they go to bed drunk, light up a cigarette, and burn their house down, they explain the disaster as another instance of their bad luck, and not their poor judgment, much less their bad habits."



Based on Harris's description, it is simple to understand why having an internal locus of control is desirable, while having an external locus is not. Furthermore, individuals can move along the continuum in response to external factors. American psychologist Martin Seligman's experiments provided an explanation for why and how movement occurs along the continuum.

This concept came to be known as learned helplessness. 

Learned helplessness explains how an individual can move from an area on the continuum characterized as internal to one characterized as external, and while this condition can be induced by pain, it can also be induced by many kinder, gentler ways. 



In "The Conscience of a Conservative", Barry Goldwater described what he believed would ultimately be the consequences of social welfare on the psyche of its beneficiaries.



"The effect of welfarism on freedom will be felt later on -- after its beneficiaries have become its victims, after dependence on government has turned into bondage and it is too late to unlock the jail."



Real-world examples of how modern entitlement programs have done harm to their beneficiaries are boldly presented in libertarian political scientist Charles Murray's Losing Ground. What makes this book stand out, according to Brian Doherty, senior editor of Reason magazine and author of Radicals for Capitalism, is that - 

“Murray does not rely on the 'welfare cheat' rhetoric ... he took a different tone and approach to the free market assault on welfare, speaking in a voice clearly concerned with the fate of the poor and blacks, about incentives and productivity and self-respect ... He uses trendline analyses to show that any improvement in the lives of the poor that happened after [the late 1960s wave of income transfer] programs went into effect was merely a continuation of progress that had begun long before the federal effort did -- and that the progress in most cases stopped as the 1970s began and the program's effects became clear. Crime and unemployment went up for the poor as the welfare state grew in the 1960s; income and educational achievement went down.”


According to Charles Murray, the author of "The inspiration for Losing Ground" - 


"grew out of sixteen years of watching people who run social programs ... I was struck by two things. First, the people who were doing the helping did not succeed nearly as often as they deserved to ... Second, the relationship between the ways people were to be helped and the quality of their lives became increasingly confused." 

Murray's policy recommendation to improve the social condition and self-esteem of America's poor, which emanated from his personal experience and dedicated research, was to eliminate all racial preference programs, institute educational vouchers, and eliminate all income transfer programs, later reinstating short-term unemployment insurance. 

Murray's research provides compelling evidence that suggests that social welfare programs are harming their recipients via the learned helplessness mechanism. 

However, there is something even worse than creating codependency on government through entitlement programs, according to Lee Harris. 

"This occurs whenever a deliberate campaign encourages people to think of themselves as victims. Victims are not in charge of their own lives and destinies."

 The victimization mentality is closely related to having an external locus of control. As a consequence of this mentality, people who consider themselves victims erect invisible barriers around themselves from which they cannot escape. Like Seligman's dogs, they give up trying because they don't believe they are free to succeed.

The victimization mentality is advantageous for left-wing politicians, who rely on their constituents' needing government benefits. Remember Hillary Clinton declaring, "I am the candidate for individuals who need government"? Unfortunately, the spread of this mentality foreshadows a poor prognosis for the survival of freedom in America. 

The Making of a Social Deconstructionist

The appeal of Social Deconstruction to the average person is simple: The Social Deconstructionist offers something for nothing. And that is always hard to resist -- fraudulent though it usually is. If the Social Deconstructionist offers to redistribute somebody else's wealth into your pocket, that is one hell of an appealling scam to those who stand to benefit from it.

But the Social Deconstructionist's advocacy of equality is not all it seems. The Social Deconstructionist's passion for equality is only apparently a desire to lift the disadvantaged up. In reality it is a hatred of all those in society who are already in a superior or more powerful or more prosperous position to the Social Deconstructionist and a desire to cut them down to size. Social Deconstructionists really aim at (and sometimes succeed at) the equality of making everyone poor rather than the equality of making everyone rich. 

This explains the common puzzle of why it is that modern-day "liberals" are still indulgent about the old Soviet system. As Amis (2002) points out, the many people in literary and academic circles today who once supported Stalin and his heirs are generally held blameless and may even still be admired whereas anybody who gave the slightest hint of support for the similarly brutal Hitler regime is an utter polecat and pariah. Why? Because Hitler's enemies were "only" the Jews whereas Stalin's enemies were those the modern day Left still hates -- people who are doing well for themselves materially. Actually, in Niall Ferguson's' epic "The War Of The World", he correctly points out that Stalin was persecuting non-Muscovite Russian ethnicities, while working for Lenin! So Stalins' racist policies were staggeringly more encompassing than even the Nazis'!! Modern day Social Deconstructionists understand and excuse Stalin and his supporters because Stalin's hates are their hates. 

Much the same explanation applies, of course, to the similar puzzle of why the French military dictator, Napoleon, is to this day generally regarded as a hero even though practically every family in the France of his day lost a son in his wars. The figures for Napoleon's Russian campaign alone are horrendous. He took 600,000 men into Russia but brought back only 70,000. In terms of loss of life, Napoleon's wars were every bit as bad for France as Hitler's wars were for Germany but Hitler is universally (and justly) reviled whereas Napoleon is still admired! Napoleon, however, justified all his actions as extending the French revolution to other lands and this explanation still resounds favorably with today's Left-leaning intellectuals. 

Such vast egotism and hunger for power and attention does of course make a mockery of the Social Deconstructionist's claim to be in favor of equality. Like the pigs in George Orwell's "Animal farm", the Social Deconstructionist wants to be "more equal than others". He wants to rule or at least dominate. Beneath his deceptive rhetoric, he is the ultimate elitist. He actually despises most of his fellow men and thinks that only he and his clique are fit to run everything. The last thing he wants is to be lost in a sea of equal people. This was of course amply shown in the Soviet Union, where membership of the Communist Party became the only pathway to the good life -- conferring on the member all sorts of privileges and access to goods and services not available to other Soviet citizens.

Another psychological motivation for Social Deconstruction that is sometimes mentioned is one that I have always had severe doubts about: Guilt. Or, more to the point, White Liberal Guilt.The claim is that affluent people feel bad (guilty) when they see how poorly others are doing and want to rectify that by getting handouts for the disadvantaged (but not from their own pockets of course). They are "limousine liberals". I have always seen this as just another Social Deconstructionist hoax: They may sometimes explain their motives in such a high-minded way but if they really felt guilty there is plenty they could do to help others rather than agitating to tax them to the eyeballs. 

The undoubted fact that Left activists and agitators (from the Bolsheviks on) tend to come from affluent families does not to me point to guilt as their motive at all. Rather the "limousine liberal" phenomenon shows me that those who have all that they want materially then seek other luxuries: such as self-righteousness, praise, power and excitement -- particularly the excitement of being demonstrators in the case of "rich kid" Social Deconstructionists. And if the young limousine liberal can have praise and self-righteousness along with his/her excitement what a good deal it is! It is much the same motivation that causes self-made rich men (such as Bill Gates) to become highly philanthropic. Bill Gates has power and wealth so he now seeks praise and righteousness.

There are, however, many other reasons for Social Deconstructionism:

Because of its pretensions to standing up heroically for various difficult causes, Social Deconstruction can seem "cool" to many of the unthinking young and not so young. Particularly in the worlds of academe, the media and entertainment, being Social Deconstructionist means being "in" with the "smart" crowd. Not to be Social Deconstructionist is to be left out. How awful! Even if such people can see faults in Social Deconstructionist thinking, they are afraid to come toward the Right for fear of losing the approval of others around them.

Some people become liberals because they are genuinely outraged by things that they do not understand and are unwise enough to want to change those things willy nilly. In particular, they may be genuinely grieved by the unhappy experiences of others and want to fix that ASAP without being wise enough to seek for means of fixing it that have some prospect of working or that are not self-defeating. They might, for instance, be disturbed by the impact of rising rents on the poor and propose rent-control as a quick-fix solution -- though a few minutes of thought or the most elementary inquiry should tell them that rent control will after a time also have the effect of degrading and shrinking the existing stock of rental accommodation and drying up the supply of new rental accommodation, both of which make the poor much worse off in the long run. Some are Social Deconstructionists because they are still young and unaware of most of life's complexities so that the drastically simple "solutions" and mantras proffered by the Left simply seem reasonable. Social Deconstruction has the appeal of simplicity.

Some Social Deconstructionists, again particularly the young, are idealists who find the imperfect state of the real world deeply unsatisfying. That there is some genuine idealism even among extreme Social Deconstructionists is shown by the exoduses from Communist Parties in the economically successful "Western" democracies that followed the violent Soviet suppression of the East German, Hungarian and Czechoslovak uprisings against Communist rule in 1953, 1956 and 1968. Once the real nature of Communist regimes became too clear to be denied, honest decent people whose wishful thinking had led them to believe Communist protestations of benevolence and good intentions saw the light and abandoned Communism. In the USA (in New York particularly), some liberal intellectuals even saw enough in the Soviet actions of those times to cause them to abandon "liberalism" and found neo-conservatism. Similarly in Australia of the 1950s and '60s, the Andersonian libertarians of Sydney were also intellectuals who might otherwise have been Social Deconstructionists but who were united by realism about Soviet brutality.

Some Social Deconstructionists know that they themselves are weird by general social standards so preach change towards greater tolerance for all weirdness out of sheer self-interest. As George Orwell said in "The road to Wigan pier":

"One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, Nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England...

"We have reached a stage when the very word socialism calls up, on the one hand, a picture of airplanes, tractors and huge glittering factories of glass and concrete; on the other, a picture of vegetarians with wilting beards, of Bolshevik commissars (half gangster, half gramophone), or earnest ladies in sandals, shock-headed Marxists chewing polysyllables, escaped Quakers, birth control fanatics, and Labour Party backstairs-crawlers.

"If only the sandals and pistachio-colored shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaler and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly. As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

Well, more on this later... I have to take an aspirin, and lie down for awhile.

The Social Deconstructionist Agenda

This is a re-post - read it anyway!

define: social deconstructionist

I’ve used this term “social deconstructionist quite a bit, and some have asked “what the hell is THAT?”. Well, he is my best effort at explaining - and it takes a bit of doing, so here goes.

There are many fractionalized groups in this (or any other) country with seemingly “diverse” goals and objectives. Eco-feminists, anarchists, anti-globalists, La Raza and the Atzlan Movement, environmental extremists, radical gay & lesbian activists, Black Nationalists, Code Pink - ists, Marxist-Leninists, pro-pedophila (NAMBLA), anti-war activists, the “all-sex-is-rape crowd, and on and on. Seems a lot of groups around that all have different axes to grind... it seems. But there is one corrosive thread that runs through all of them. They all share a common hatred of what they call “white skin privilege”. What does this really mean?

Actually, it’s fairly simple. All these groups believe that white, European, Christian male culture has “oppressed’ them, over the millennia. And like their Marxist-Leninist brethren, they have learned to use the dialectic to argue their point, but like all practitioners of dialectics (who can argue that the law of gravity is a capitalist fraud), their arguments are just more tedious drivel.

That’s why these people give -
• Islam / Middle Eastern
• China
• Africa (except Israel, which is a white conspiracy)
• Russia (non-white white people - oppressed folks ya know)
• Any non-Christian, therefore non-European religion (despite the fact that, geographically, Christianity is an Eastern religion)
• Eskimos
• Native Americans (you know Indians... it’s OK for me to use that term because I am 1/4 Choctaw)
• All of South (“Latin” - how ironic!) America
• Anyone who hates the West, America, Europe (ESPECIALLY self-hating Europeans!).
gets a pass. A pass on anything, no matter how heinous... blowing up women and children as a deliberate tactic, mutilating women, slavery, piracy, kidnapping narco-terrorism, illegal immigration (it's human right ya know), random murder... you get the idea.

Now, do they all work together, like the Big Oil Companies? Do they gather together to conspire against us like Bill Gates and the Coven of 13 does every Halloween, at the Lord Mayor of London’s house to receive their orders from SATAN! Hmmmmm, well no, I don’t think so.

But their mutual derangement springs from the same fount, so therein lies the relationship - Most intellectuals like to find ways of joining in the struggle of the weak against the strong. So they hope that their particular gifts and competences can be made relevant to that struggle. The term most frequently used in recent decades to formulate this hope is "critique of ideology.", deconstruction being the preferred term / method of late, a method of literary and social critique that originated in France in the mid-20th century. and based on a theory that, by the very nature of language and usage, no text can have a fixed, coherent meaning. Since nothing has any meaning, anything goes. No evil, no good, no nuthin’. Do your own thing, all over everybody. If you're going to San Francisco...

Years ago, when I worked at Computer Sciences Corporation, at one of our lunchtime “how to save the world” bull sessions. I asked (to no one in particular) why a politician would deliberately want anarchy... to what purpose, as a tool of change or whatever. I was genuinely confused about it: history is replete with deliberate incitement of anarchy, and it never seems to turn out well. Ken Beale, turned to me, without batting an eye and said -”because when you have anarchy, everyone - and I mean everyone - has a shot at power.. That’s why. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, all the same. You have a period of wild-ass anarchy, followed by a totalitarian dictatorship. You end up with Napoleon or Stalin.”

So the objective is anarchy - because they all want that shot at power, not as a utopian system, which would be unworkable due to the vagaries of human nature. And this will be the ultimate undoing of the present incarnation of the Democrat party, if they don’t get their own act together. They will get the anarchy that they will claim they want, in order to keep hold onto the ever more fractionalized base. But if it comes, the fractionalized base will turn on them, then turn on each other.

Or maybe not. Maybe we, as a nation, will muddle though this mess and get through more or less OK. But we will be changed by it. How we are changed is up to us, the middle 60%.

REAL History

According to the logic of the American myth, all dictators, from Oliver Cromwell to Saddam Hussein, are evil autocrats trying to destroy freedomand democracy. This is clearly not the case. They are a fundamental andnecessary part of the revolutionary transition, which leads to only one place, democratic market society.It is true that some of these dictators have gotten out of hand. This wasespecially a problem back when conquering empires was considered to beacceptable behavior. It is entirely possible that some dictators in the present and the future will also cause more trouble than they are worth. It is probably a good idea for the world to have an emergency process for the removal of revolutionary dictators that cause too much trouble. In order for such aprocess to work, the world has to understand what dictators are and why theyare here.

Theory One-

One theory, which is the conventional wisdom of modern America, is based onthe World War II experience. It says that the world is in the midst of a war between the forces of democracy and the forces of dictatorship. It equates thisto the conflict between good and evil. According to this theory, evil dictators—like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and their fellows—are fighting against freedom, democracy, and world peace. It comes to the conclusion that these dictators are a cancer on the world and must be destroyed in order for democracy, and all things good, to flourish.

Theory Two-

My theory is more complicated and is based on the entire flow of human history.It posits that the world is undergoing a massive revolutionary transformation of its economic, political, and social institutions. This revolution was set off by the adoption of markets as the primary mechanism for the distribution of food.Dictators are part of the revolution. War is part of the revolution.

Chaos and anarchy are part of the revolution. All of these things are temporary. They will not last forever. The end result of this revolution is democratic market society.If the democratic nations of the world are going to go out and remove dictators from office, they should at least know why dictators exist and why they are connected with violence. Here are two very different explanations. Only one of them can be correct. Which one is it? You decide.In accordance to my barely - literate friends, the graphic below will show you what I mean by a world historical, revolutionary transition through oligarchical societies to market systems - Enjoy

!

If this freezes, tryhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/rwagner337/3338901102/ and click on "All Sizes" to read it.

"But what about the poor...?"

Believing that poverty is a live political issue is a form of self-delusion by elite liberals for which conservatives should be very grateful — it leads liberals into vast wastes of effort. But it isn’t just liberals who get taken in. A conservative friend who was in on the email discussion said to me, in effect, “But what about the homeless?”. His argument was that homeless people are America’s ‘real’ poor, and he has a point. The trouble with taking that argument any further is that there are too few homeless people to have any effect on politics other than as an emotive issue that wealthy white activists can flog to make themselves feel more virtuous.

In 2003, the Census Bureau reported that 35.9 million persons “lived in poverty”.

What the report showed, in part:

– Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.

– Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning.

– Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

– The average poor American has more living space than the average (i.e. not poor) individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities.

– Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

– Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.

– Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

– Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn’t hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.”

I remind you all - this was in 2003, actually reflecting a 2002 framework.

Thoughts?

Fatal Purity and the Health Care debate.

With its striking images of an oppressed and riotous people razing a prison to the ground and of swift justice doled out to both the rich and poor by the cold, unsympathetic edge of a guillotine blade, the French Revolution is a period oft-romanticized by historians and story-tellers alike (even I couldn’t help myself just now).

The eternal notion of truth, conformity of thought with reality, impels us to say: This displeases me and annoys me, but it is none the less true. Still, human interests are so strong that Pontius Pilate's question often reappears: "What is truth?" One answer which we must examine is that of pragmatism.

Nancy Pelosi has informed her peers (slaves?) that they MUST vote for the health care bill, even at the risk of their political careers because "we need courage" to pass something comprehensive, not incremental. This is the very definition of "Fatal Purity" - to be so committed to a policy, belief or philosophical framework, as to reject even the very notion of anything else to do with same.

I hate to shift Nancy's paradigm, but even Abraham Lincoln had to conclude, during the Civil War (The War Of Northern Aggression as it is properly known in the South) that the Constitution itself is "not a suicide pact" - in other words principles are fine, but one is not required to drag others to your impending self-immolation scene.

In Pelosi's case, the Holy Grail of universal health care taking over a substantial percentage of the American (and God knows who else's - read the thing!) economy, thus control of the Great Unwashed, has imputed a serious condition… Look into the eye of a a serial killer, religious fanatic or a chicken and you will see it - her self-induced, quasi-religious ecstasy is bordering on public orgasm!

Well, be it so… but I would keep one thing in mind if I were her - that the bloody excesses, due to fatal purity, of The French Revolution did not lead to "Liberté, égalité, fraternité, French for "Liberty, equality, fraternity (brotherhood, for those living in Perryville, KY) for all.

It led to Napoleon Bonaparte.

A "Safe European Home"?

Riots in Spain & Greece, mass protests all over the rest of Europe - what's really going on here? Blaming this on the latest global financial meltdown is too easy, more a symptom than really a root problem. Why? Because the people of Europe have been promised a "safe European home" by their political leaders, and the leaders, from Lenin & Lloyd George to Merkel & Papandreou, for the last 90+ years - and they have failed to deliver. Therefore, hey... the people are pissed off.

In the grisly aftermath of World War I, European politicians were eager to guarantee, as best they could, a world safe from the death & destruction of war. However, the result of the Treaty Of Versailles only guaranteed a resentful Germany.

The Treaty of Versailles was neither lenient enough to appease Germany, nor harsh enough to prevent it from becoming the dominant continental power again. The treaty placed the blame, or "war guilt" on Germany and Austria-Hungary, and punished them for their "responsibility" rather than working out an agreement that would assure peace in the long-term future. The treaty resulted in harsh monetary reparations, millions of Germans turned into minorities in neighboring countries, territorial dismemberment, mass ethnic resettlements and indirectly hampered the German economy by causing rapid hyperinflation - see inflation in the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic printed trillions to help pay off its debts and borrowed heavily from the United States (only to default later) to pay war reparations to Britain and France, who still carried war debt from World War I.

The treaty created bitter resentment towards the victors of World War I, who had promised the people of Germany that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points would be a guideline for peace; many Germans felt that the German government had agreed to an armistice based on this understanding, while others felt that the German Revolution had been orchestrated by the "November criminals" who later assumed office in the new Weimar Republic. Wilson was not able to get the Allies to agree to adopt them, nor could he persuade the U.S. Congress to join the League of Nations. The result was A Germany ripe for Adolf Hitler to exploit. The recounting of Hitlers crimes during the war need not be done here, as it is an expansive & well understood topic of it's own.

The destruction of Europe and the destruction of a significant portion of the United Kingdom's cities (via aerial bombing) would also ruin the reputation of the imperial nations in the eyes of their colonies. Coupled with the enormous expense incurred in the war, an empire was perceived to be an unnecessarily expensive possession. This would enable the rapid decolonization process that would see the empires of the United Kingdom and others swept away.

The European Union grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which was founded in 1951 by the six founding members: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (the Benelux countries) and West Germany, France and Italy. Its purpose was to pool the steel and coal resources of the member states, and to support the economies of the participating countries. As a side effect, the ECSC helped defuse tensions between countries which had recently been enemies in the war. In time this economic merger grew, adding members and broadening in scope, to become the European Economic Community, and later the European Union.

But here is the "crux of the biscuit" - the politicians of Europe, from the UK to France, Germany & Greece promised, and fully intended to provide a "safe European home" to the people of The Continent.  We are seeing the result of that today - the ever expanding social services, submission to the trade unions, and unsustainable birth rates (Germany & Italy's birth rate is below replacement level - guarantees a lower tax base) have led to the crisis we see today in Greece, Spain, France and all across Europe. Protestors don't want their subsidies cut, they want their money, so they protest the austerity measures necessary for these nations to survive.

They want their "safe European home". But there is no money. So what to do?

Years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending and failure to implement financial reforms left all European Nations badly exposed when the global economic downturn struck. This whisked away a curtain of partly fiddled statistics to reveal debt levels and deficits that exceeded limits set by the eurozone, particularly in Greece. If Europe needs to resort to rescue packages involving bodies such as the International Monetary Fund, this would further damage the euro's reputation and could lead to a substantial fall against other key currencies.

Has Europe learnt nothing from the 1920s when Germany was, in many ways, in a similar situation to Greece today? Prevented from raising exports to service its foreign debt (reparations) by mercantilist policies, Germany embarked on a disastrous course of deflation and depression which paved the way for the horrors that followed. Today as then, deficit countries cannot simply save their way out of crisis, they must have the opportunity to grow their way out. And this is also the only way to limit the damage to surplus countries, who are otherwise also destined to lose out in terms of growth, employment and financial stability. Greece, indeed all Europe, all the globe has just got to feel the pain for a while. Riots will ensue in Europe maybe even here in the US, but I think a cultural reassessment and adjustment will follow. Or not.

Remember, in fluid unstable economic times, wars often start - the promise of a "safe European home" once again rings hollow.

Capital Punishment - a freak Gonzo perspective.

 Thinking about the death penalty (capital punishment to you wonks out there). We could easily pass these reasons off as barbaric and unnecessary…if they didn’t actually work. The crime rate gap between Singapore and the United States, for example, is rather vast; in fact Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. In a country where smuggling over 50 grams of heroin is certain to result in the same punishment as slaughtering another human being, obviously, a criminal has to decide if breaking the law at all is really worth their life. 

1. Justice

2. Retribution

3. Deterrent to Crime

4. Religious Doctrine

5. Removal of a Threat to Society

6. The Fairness of the Death Row Process

7. Necessity - Under the law of most militaries throughout history, the crimes of murder, mutiny, treason, and desertion during a war time warrant a mandatory, (and even on the spot) death sentence. However, during a time of war, where survival of an army and even the civilization that army is represents is at stake, death may be the only reasonable punitive tactic to employ. Under full abolition of the death penalty, some of the criminals who would see lives lost through their lawlessness or cowardice would have to waste the time of those fighting the war through the lengthy judicial process, and in war, time and manpower makes all the difference.

8. Cost - awful, but it IS a consideration. Incarceration costs can reach into the hundreds of thousands, PER prisoner.

9. Life Imprisonment Changes - you can be pardoned, reduction via appeal or government intervention.

10. More Humane than other Forms of Punishment - Compared to “incapacitation”, which is a kinder phrase for lobotomy, or sentencing a criminal to solitary confinement for the next 25-50 years, executing a criminal may seem like a more humane option. A criminal sentenced to life without parole will never again see daylight, and will have to consider the consequences of their crime until the day they die.

But the real reason, IMHO, has nothing to do with these. The real reason has to do with the rights of the STATE (meaning, the nation-state framework). It has to do with the “slippery slope” argument. It is cold, but rational and logical.

Consider this - if you remove the State’s right (in the US, the People are the State, as the recent election demonstrates) to take life (under very strict guidelines - due process for example), what is next? The States right to - levy taxes? What are the consequences to that? How about provide for the common defense? Anti-war folks LOVE that one. Want to remove that? How about the right of the State to --- do anything? How about eliminating the State period? Anarchists and those who truly understand Marx would love that one. After all, Marxs’ final compelling point in “Das Kapital” was the withering away of the State - not a super-powered, uber-nation.

Once the right of the State to legitimately murder (because, after all, that’s what I’m talking about) it’s citizens, albeit under strictly defined, strictly controlled circumstances, is taken away, you have established a dangerous precedent.

The precedent that the State has no absolute rights at ALL.

Just another bizarre rambling of a fully blown mind - what say you?