When the moon is full the crazies come out. It's not really so. They're already there. People just notice them after the fact and associate the full moon with the fact they've noticed crazy idjuts running around during that time.
I really should research the subject more before plowing ahead. Sooo. That's what I'm going to do.
O'Sullivan's first law:
All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.
Now, this is just me thinking out loud.
Right wing thinking is essentially an out-growth of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of loosing power, fear of being cast aside, of becoming a minority.
It takes alot of energy to be that afraid. If you don't have anyone reinforcing that, then of course you're going to slide away from it and thusly become more and more left wing over time.
Also, many right wing organizations have some real evangelical roots or members who are devout followers of X religion. Left wing organizations typically aren't evangelical oriented or have members with strong evangelical roots. So if the organization doesn't have that, it'll probably drift left as well.
There is also the fact that because you look for something, you find it more often than not in a kind of internalized bias.
More or less, I think a lack of fear against X and a lack of religion will make an organization more likely to lean left over time.
If they have both religion and a fear against X? They'll be howling right wingers before you know it.
So, to sum it up, I think O'Sullivan's Law is probably right, at least on the surface of things.
O'Sullivan's Law states that institutions become more liberal because conservatives are not afraid to hire liberals nor intolerant of them, whereas liberal institutions remain that way because liberals refuse to hire those not in lock-step with them ideologically.
You couldn't have gotten it more backwards if you tried. You literally outdid yourself here.
I also saw a YT video the other day of some really sketchy shit where a smartphone was recording and the cop didn't know it, and you can hear him conferring with another officer to slap some bullshit charges on the guy, just because the guy reasonably and respectfully questions the cop. :/
His examples--underlined after his First Law--define what is not right-wing. O'Sullivan then seems to reference Robert Conquest's Second Law (of which I am unable to locate this original source).
Personally I find infiltration theories somewhat credible; however, I don't believe it is restricted to right-wing organizations. Capitalist governments/societies have infiltrated/influenced other governments, just as communism had in the late 19th century and beyond. The U.S. has historically planted the seeds of dissension in many countries over the last century. Russia likely has been using social media to influence the U.S.
June 26, 2003, 1:45 p.m. O’Sullivan’s First Law An eternal truth.
By John O’Sullivan
EDITOR’S NOTE: This appeared in the October 27, 1989, issue of National Review.
Robert Michels — as any reader of James Burnham's finest book, The Machiavellians, knows was the author of the Iron Law of Oligarchy. 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. To take a homely example, congressmen from egalitarian parties somehow end up voting for higher pay and generous expenses for congressmen. We can also catch an ironic echo of Michels's law in Stalin's title of General Secretary, as well as in the fact that powerful mandarins in the British government creep about under such deceptive pseudonyms as "Permanent Under-Secretary." All of which is by way of introducing a new law of my own. My copy of the current Mother Jones (well, it's my job to read that sort of thing — I take no pleasure in it) contains an advertisement for Amnesty International. Now, AI used to be a perfectly serviceable single-issue pressure group which drew the world's attention to the plight of political prisoners around the globe. Many people owe their lives and liberty to it. But that good work depended greatly on AI's being a single-issue organization that helped victims of both left- and right-wing regimes and was careful to remain politically neutral in other respects. Its advertisement in Mother Jones, however, abandons this tradition by calling for an end to the death penalty.
The ad itself, needless to say, is the usual liberal rhubarb. "In American courtrooms," it intones, "some have a better chance of being sentenced to death." That is true: the people in question are called murderers. But Al naturally means something different and more sinister — namely that poor, black, and retarded people are more likely to face the electric chair than other murderers.
Let us suppose this to be the case. What follows? A mentally retarded person incapable of understanding the significance of his actions cannot be guilty of murder or of any other crime. A law that punishes him (as opposed to one that confines him for his own and society's safety) is unjust and should be changed — whether or not he faces the death penalty. On the other hand, someone who is guilty of murder may be executed with perfect justice. His race or economic circumstances do not affect the matter at all. The fact that other murderers may obtain lesser sentences does not in any way detract from the justice of his own punishment. After all, some murderers have always escaped scot-free. Would Amnesty have us release the rest on the grounds of equality of treatment? Finally, Amnesty's argument from discrimination could be met just as well by executing more rich, white murderers (which would be fine with me) as by executing no murderers at all. Significantly, Amnesty's list of death-penalty victims" does not include political prisoners. America does not, have political prisoners, let alone execute them. Why, then, Amnesty's campaign on the issue?
That is explained by 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.
Is there any law which enables us to predict the behavior of right-wing organizations? As it happens, there is: Conquest's Second Law (formulated by the Sovietologist Robert Conquest):
The behavior of an organization can best be predicted by assuming it to be controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies. Examples: virtually any conservative party anywhere, the Ronald Lauder for Mayor campaign, and the British secret service. That last example is, however, flawed, since the British secret service actually was controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies in the form of Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, et al. In which case, Conquest's Law should have operated to make M1-6 a crack anti-Soviet intelligence service of James Bond proportions. But these are deep waters.
Incidentally, Bob Conquest, who also doubles as a poet and literary critic, presciently commented ten years ago on the recent controversy over the Mapplethorpe exhibition. His 1979 collection of essays, The Abomination of Moab (not, alas, published in this country), coined the term Moabites to describe the false friends of art as opposed to its open enemies, the
Philistines: "The characteristic of modern methods of destroying art is that they are carried out by those who far from being indifferent or hostile, are deeply concerned." The Biblical Moabites were the insidious enemies of Israel "who, from their capital at Shittim, infiltrated temple and harem and set the children of light whoring after strange doctrines." Today's Moabites have been out in force to defend both Mapplethorpe and a strange doctrine of — unrestrained government funding of the arts. The falseness of their friendship consists of their denial of any distinctions, moral or artistic or political, where Art is concerned. Morally, they argue that if Mapplethorpe's pornographic photographs are banned today, the Venus de Milo will have to wear a bra tomorrow. Artistically, they discern no distinctions between different works of art which would offer a general basis for providing or withholding subsidy. And, politically, they obliterate any distinction between the absence of a subsidy and outright censorship.
Once something is called Art, Bob told me over the phone, Moabites take. it to be transcendental and beyond human criticism: "In which case it is, in effect, a religion and thus debarred from federal funding under the First Amendment."