The American Crisis of Legitimacy

A great discussion is taking place at Zenpundit, The Glittering Eye and American Future on “How does a Democracy effectively fight an enemy who can recruit our own citizens to commit atrocities and still remain a democracy?” and what happens if “we abandon ‘E Pluribus Unum'” and more.
 
America is facing a crisis of legitimacy in which the fundamental ideals of the American experiment are losing their currency. We are seeing this in the education system were students are increasingly ignorant of American history and the ideas that are at its core. Alongside that ignorance is what they do know which is all the bad stuff, propagated by people who, in the words of Mark at Zenpundit, “accept the revisionist critique that America is itself a bad idea.”
In an interview with Brian Lamb on Booknotes historian Gordon Wood addresses this issue: 
 
WOOD: “…the thing about the American Revolution is that it created the ideology that holds us together. I think without that revolution, we would be, I don’t know, like Argentina, a nation without any kind of adhesive. We have an intellectual, and ideological adhesive that makes us one people, insofar as anything can, because we’re so diverse…
“…this is our great achievement, that we are a nation based on — based on beliefs. To be an American is to believe in something, not to be someone. To be an Englishman is still to be someone. And they have a hard time absorbing all these immigrants, and they’ve got a lot of them now, and they don’t know how to deal with it.
“We have this — this marvelous country which is held together, I think, by ideology, by a set of beliefs that came out of the Revolution. It keeps us together. You don’t have to be someone. You don’t have to have a certain ancestor. You can learn to be an American by coming to believe in these things — liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and so on. You don’t have to come from a certain race or ethnicity. That’s not true of most of the world.
“LAMB: Why don’t we hear much from people who came from other countries that live here, became American citizens, about the very points that you’re making?
 
“WOOD: Well, I don’t know. Maybe our educational system ought to be emphasizing this. But I think most Americans — it can’t be enough to be an American to go to McDonald’s. I mean, that can’t be the only adhesive that holds us together. It has to be something else. And it’s our history, and particularly the Revolution, but our whole history is what really holds us together. And if people can — can come to believe in that history or in the ideals that come out of that history, then that’s enough of an adhesive, I think.”
http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1672
 
I believe immigrants want to be Americans. By coming to America they have chosen to leave behind the kind of factional conflicts that have caused so much misery, but when they get here they are greeted by an anti-American multiculturalism that tells them that America is a horrible, racist, imperialist monster. I dated a woman a few years ago who taught English as a Second Language at the university level and she told me that in addition to teaching English she tells her foreign students the “truth” about America. Right from the beginning foreign students and immigrants are bombarded with anti-American propaganda.
 
The efforts of the left are dissolving that adhesive which has proven so successful at integrating so many different kinds of people into America, which is leaving us open to Islamist recruiters and creating a large population that sees no reason to defend America. We have to continue to find ways of articulating the ideals that came out of the Revolution in order ensure that they have sufficient currency within our culture. If we don’t they will disappear and we will really face some hard times ahead as the population breaks down into more particular identities and allegiances. In order to do this we have to join the battle of ideas and defeat the left’s post-modernist, transnationalist, multiculturalist ideology in addition to fighting the Islamist ideology.
 
Posted by Phil

Have the jihadists gone too far?

 In a fourth generation war, the enemy attempts to use the media and other institutions of the country it is attacking to its benefit. The images and reports of American soldiers dying in Iraq are used by the enemy as part of a strategy of demoralizing the American people in order to weaken support for the war here at home. But, as we all know, media is now a global phenomena and so the acts of violence that terrorists use to get airtime not only are shown in the US, but also in the Muslim world. As the terrorists in Iraq have taken to blowing up Iraqi civilians instead of just American soldiers, we are starting to see this having a negative impact among some of their supporters and others who are sympathetic to their cause.

I was browsing Austin Bay’s blog  http://www.austinbay.net/blog/ and came across an item that caught my eye. USA Today reports:

Al-Barqawi, known in militant circles as Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera from Jordan last week that militants in Iraq should revise their tactics, saying “the number of Iraqis killed in suicide operations has become a tragedy.”

…In the interview, al-Barqawi said suicide bombings should be carried out, only if necessary so that “no harm would befall Islam.” He also disagreed with al-Zarqawi on killing Shiites — a frequent target of attacks by al-Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent groups…

…Al-Barqawi, who wrote several books mostly on militant Islamic philosophy, is considered one of a few remaining terror ideologues, and he enjoys wide support among radicals worldwide.

…Al-Zarqawi defended attacks on Shiites, saying they had “sacrificed soldiers on behalf of the infidel occupier and supported them against the sincere mujahedeen.”

“After their support for the Crusaders, how is it possible for me to not fight them,” he said

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-07-12-zarqawi-statement_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

What will be the consequence of one of their prominent supporters and ideologists questioning their strategy, suggesting that even he feels they are going too far? And he does this on Al Jazeera which is broadcast all over the Middle East. While the jihadists have proven themselves to be media savvy, we can see by Zarqawi’s response that following the internal logic of their ideology can easily result in actions that undermine their cause.

 So what if the acts of terror that are supposed to weaken the will of the American people, instead end up weakening support for the terrorists within the Muslim world itself? This is a situation in which the terrorists could end up defeating themselves. The same ideology that can serve as a powerful tool in a fourth generation war can also be a fatal flaw.

Posted by Phil

 

Facts About Joe Wilson

Joe Wilson’s Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements,” by the Republican National Committee, GOP.com, 14 July 2005, http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5630 (from Drudge Report).

Why ‘s whisteblowing of Democrat operative was so important:

Fact #1:

 

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office

 

but

 

Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson – I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

 

CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.

 

Fact #2:

 

Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

 

but

 

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson’s Report.

 

Fact #3:

 

Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

 

but

 

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.”

 

Fact #4:

 

Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002

 

but

 

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip.

 

Fact #5:

 

Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife

 

but

 

“The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …”

 

Fact #6

 

Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

 

but

 

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson’s Report “Lent More Credibility” For Most Analysts “To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports.” “Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

 

Fact #7:

 

A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents:

 

but

 

“The [Senate Select Committee On Intelligence] Report … Said Wilson Provided Misleading Information To The Washington Post Last June [12th, 2003].

 

Fact #8:

 

Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate

 

but

 

Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In “A Little Literary Flair” When Talking To Reporters.

 

Fact #9:

 

Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction

 

but

 

“The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

 

Fact #10:

 

Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan “Centrist”

 

but

 

Recently, Joe Wilson Refused To Admit He Is A Registered Democrat

Jesusism-Paulism, Part III: Every Man a Panzer, Every Woman a Soldat

alpha_chi_ro_omega_md

Something is strange in the heart of Christianity

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Paul (Galatians 3:28)

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Paul (1 Timothy 2:12)

If we wanted an easy answer, we would say Paul (or “The Bible”) is contracting himself. Or that two different people wrote it. Or that it was just meaningless rhetoric. But Paul is followi Jesus’s pattern. In spite of reaching out to women far more than others around him, Jesus notably did not choose a single woman as a disciple. His inner-circle was a diverse lot — a tax collector, a Zealot, various fishermen, even a non-Galilean (Judas Iscariot) — but not one woman. What is going on?

If we view Paul objectively — as the hyper-lingual ex-State-Church secret-policeman with training in history, science, politics, philosophy that he was — we can see what he saw. We can read the tactics and strategies he devised and published so plainly, like Mao and Ho after him.

Paul saw what the 20th Century feminist Rebecca West famously saw while researching her magnum opus Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, and captured as

“The main difference between men and women is that men are lunatics and women are idiots.” Rebecca West (Black Lamb and Grey Falcon)

Black Lamb and Grey Falcon is a travelogue of ex-Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo) immediately before the Nazi invasion. Over and over again she saw the same pattern: men were swept away by far-away schemes and ideas (like lunatics), while women were so absorbed by families and personal relationships they ignored those same forces (like idiots). To Dame Commander West, men were idiotically refusing to focus on the real details of daily living while women were foolishly refusing to focus on the fate of their nation and culture. In other words, men are idiots for not engaging in long-term coalition building on a family level (in “tight” or “dense” networks) while women are fools for not engaging in long-term coalition building on the national and ideological level (in “loose” or less “dense” nets).

Rebecca’s West breakdown of mankind:

To an anthropologist this might be interesting. To a feminist, troubling. But to a netstruggle strategist, it is a description of the warriors and an opportunity.

Paul built his population of Christian warriors — what he called “wrestlers” — on this difference. Men would be maneuver-warriors. Women would be occupation-warriors. And together they would build a Christian future worth creating.

Paul’s breakdown of mankind:

Where else do we see the same breakdown?

Maneuver Warfare + Occupation Warfare = Victory

“PISRR” is an acronym invented by Col. John Boyd to describe the steps to victory. It stands for Penetrate-Isolate-Subvert-Reorient-Reharmonize. In netwar or “4GW” PISRR, like China with Mao or Vietnam with Ho, guerrillas build up from small cells in a very loose network to ruling and controlling a dense network. We can apply this to a Christian “attack” on a family:

Christian-Family PISRR

  1. Penetrate

    Preacher converts small number of family members

  2. Isolate

    Converts denormalize old beliefs

  3. Subvert

    Converts co-opt family (mini Roman takeover)

  4. Reorient

    Family power relationships further new beliefs

  5. Reharmonize

    Parents raise children in Christian home

The latter in the attack, the dense the network. It is no surprise then that the later in the attack, the more “feminine” the attack becomes. The first stage, Penetration, would be done by a preacher who finds a convert. The last stage, Reharmonization, would be done by mothers who raise their children to think of Christianity as natural.

It may help to think of the Christian take-over of a Family like the Nazi takeover of France.

German-French PISRR

  1. Penetrate

    Blitz shreds French lines, occupying little

  2. Isolate

    Mop-up attacks separate French troops from friends

  3. Subvert

    Collaborators co-opt nation (Petain’s Regime)

  4. Reorient

    French economy geared to German economic union

  5. Reharmonize

    New generation grows up “Vichy” (ABORTED!)

The Germans did not have the same force-structure conquer France as ruled France. As Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett said

It’s time to admit that you can’t have the same 19-year-old kid doing all these things

Indeed, and the Germans did not. The first weeks of the war were fought by panzers and other high-maneuverability low-density fighting machines. When we think of 1940, we think of tanks and the style of war that Erich Ludendorff created. But panzer brigades could hardly pacify France! Soldats — Germans in charge of walking-the-beat-style policework did that. Maneuver war needs panzers, but occupation war requires soldats.

What Paul’s ideas did for Christians, and the Ludendorff’s for the Germans, was to deconflict the elements of the attacking force. A PISRR victory requires two different forces fighting in two different battlespaces. The panzer-soldat deconfliction is what Dr. Barnett means when he talks about the separate “mixes needed for front-half [war waging] and back-half [peace making] portions.”

When forces for very different battlespaces are combined — when an attacker foolishly becomes “joint” — that attack loses. The French had “better” tanks fighting jointly with “better” soldiers, France lost her army to inferior tanks and nearly lost her history to inferior soldats. Like the Germans, the Christians started out weak, poor, and oppressed. Like the Germans against France thousands of years later, the Christians in Rome deconflicted the components of their movement, exploited each to its maximum comparative advantage, and won.

(Sidenote: The economic version of the easier victory an appropriately deconflicted force has over an inappropriately joint force has be known since David Ricardo, Spanish-Jewish-Britain, invented the doctrine of “comparative advantage” in the early 19th century. An extremely good introduction to this, leading up to point “R” on ” Figure 16: World production possibilities curve,” is available at http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/ric2.htm).

So now Paul’s words aren’t so strange or contradictory at all. He was setting up two different forces for two different struggles in two different arenas. Paul recognized and exploited the natural differences in men and women to further Christianity. Indeed, the grand strategist Tom Barnett makes almost the same distinction as Paul, for almost the same ends. Talking about his front-half force (the “Leviathan”) and his “back-half” force (the “System Administrator”), Barnett writes

That’s why I call the Leviathan your Dad’s military (“Don’t make me come in there!”) and the Sys Admin force your Mom’s military (“Oh, you make me so proud when you do that for yourself!”).

We can see the basic Panzer-Blitz-Leviathan-Fast-Father / Soldat-Police-SysAdmin-Slow-Mother divide as so…

… just as we can see that the feminization of religion is as self-defeating as the French joint tank-soldier method of losing the Second World War.

Centuries later, Paul’s creation would deform under the frictional heat of Islam. But such is a post for another time…

Update: Feministing links to an article that focuses on pitch and harmony processing instead of network density.


Jesusism-Paulism, a tdaxp series in six parts
1. Love Your Enemy As You Would Have Him Love You
2. Caiaphas and Diocletian Did Know Better
3. Every Man a Panzer, Every Woman a Soldat
4. The Fall of Rome
5. The People of the Book
6. Embrace and Extend

180 IQ Asians and Teachers of Disabled Children (Toward Strategic Despair on Free Movement of Muslims)

Reviewing Deleted Scenes Part III,” by Mark Safranski, Zen Pundit, 23 October 2004, http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2004/10/reviewing-deleted-scene-part-iii-to.html (from tdaxp).

The London Bombers,” by Russell Jenkins, Dominic Kennedy, David Lister and Carol Midgley, The Times, 14 July 2005, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1693739,00…..

Note: This post is not rhetoric. I do not know the answers to the questions I ask in this article. Caerdroia and others have asked themselves similar questions recently. — tdaxp

A while ago, I approvingly quoted Mark Safranski when he said

Somehow I think we can take precautions to screen out young Islamist males belonging to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaida without targeting 180 I.Q. Asian physicists and genetic engineers.

How likely is it than a 180 IQ Asian physicist is a suicide bomber?

About as likely as an Asian special ed teacher is a suicide bomber, I would guess

Mohammad Sidique Khan had a trusted job as a primary school teaching assistant working with children from poor and vulnerable families arriving in Britain.

Khan, 30, who ran an Islamic bookshop, was employed as a “learning mentor” in an inner-city district with a high proportion of asylum-seekers, homeless families and battered wives.

His mother-in-law, a highly respected Asian volunteer worker, was invited to Buckingham Palace to be honoured by the Queen for a lifetime of community work, particularly with women.

Khan was one of two learning mentors employed at Hillside Primary School in Beeston, which had such a high turnover that 75 per cent of pupils could change in a year. His task was to liaise with children’s previous schools on their special needs and to assess their learning skills. On their first day at school, children would rely on Khan, who was their official “buddy”. He was given the privileged position of sitting, with the head teacher, through interviews with new families to the area. Many were single mothers, fresh immigrants, refugees or victims of domestic violence.

medium_special_needs_terrorist.jpg
London Transit Bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan

So what is the point where we have to either crack down on nearly every country in the world or just Muslim countries? Where do we reach such strategic despair that refusing to admit hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims is better than refusing to admit a billion innocent humans?

Closing the borders of The Core to Gap-state Muslims would represent a major strategic win for al Qaeda. But if it stops these terrorist attacks that endanger regular business life in the Core it would still be beneficial to us.

Here’s another way to think about this. I started USD’s Computer Science graduate program mid-year, so I narrowly missed out on being in this class photo

medium_usd_computer_science_students.jpg
USD Computer Science Graduate Program Photo
Many Indian and Chinese students not shown,
as they work full-time on H1-B visas

Does it hurt the Core more to make it a hassle for these sorts to enter the United States, or making it impossible for foreign Muslim men to enter the United States?

At what point do we reach strategic despair, and seal our borders to this certain class of foreigner?