Posts Tagged ‘dark organization’

The Risk of Simplification

Wednesday, January 10th, 2018

A wave of chaos swept Earth in the years leading up to 2017, unleashed by the collapse of world order in the 1990s with the Soviet Union. That in turn created many incentives, mostly among those who want to simply continue the chaos so they can profit from the lack of order. Under cover of darkness, many atrocities go unnoticed.

One example of this was how reporters would dox a particular policeman while they set up a camera crew at his house to televise the expected “protest.” But the most insightful example was when a stock trader told me that he prefers volatility after it was expressed to him that from an operations research perspective, volatility is bad for the economy. Trading stock can be bad for people in that their finances become insecure, but for those who want to make money, market chaos provides an opportunity to take advantage of the herd-like human responses to such disorder.

Part of the reason for this chaos is that people are more informed due to education and the complex systems that regulate our society. Most will say that the middle class is an indicator of the success of a society. But that makes the middle class a target; investors see it as a honey pot that they can raid, and economists and politicians hope to use it for their “trickle-up” policies. All of these deplete the actual success that society has been systematically working toward.

This creates an unworkable future. How did we get here? We might be able to clarify this issue without simplifying it by using a narrative approach. The story starts with humans emerging from nature and hunting around for food and shelter.

Early humans formed families, later expanding to groups while staying in areas they are familiar with. Later on they started traveling where they came in contact with other groups. Engaging other groups opens up three possible responses:

  1. Assimilate the two groups into one to expand survivability
  2. Fight for defense or treasure
  3. Trade and contacts for future benefit

In most cases however, trade was selected which explains how harbor towns became quite prosperous such as Athens, Rome, New York, Sidney, Cape Town, London and St. Petersburg. The in-country towns/cities did not have the same opportunity and unless they were located at a crossroads, or on a large deposit of minerals such as Johannesburg’s gold deposits, or Kimberley’s diamond deposits, or Alaskan Oil deposits, nothing would really “grow” other than human populations.

But technology also facilitated growth in rural towns when underground trains made London the most efficient city in the world, and airlines made America the most efficient country in the world.

This is where we must take a breather and think about what happened. Different groups of humans came together in business centers resulting in trade-language development. Mostly what happened here was that normal languages were oversimplified in order to trade. With respect to technology something similar happened because initially people were in awe of it and it became very popular, but then people normalised it and thought it was their “right” to have access to such technology. In other words, normal people (like politicians) think technology is “simple” and can be “given” to anyone at anytime.

In both cases, it can be demonstrated that simplification increases human risk, despite having the “appearance” of “growth” and “prosperity.” Let’s group this language and technology risks under the banner of pidginization.

But before we forget about it, the reason we got to the pidgin problem in the first place was because of different groups of people starting to trade, while refusing to assimilate either way (for thousands of years). Let’s group that risk under diversity since it’s caused by “diverse” group interaction. Therefore despite all humans being human, it has become clear that although diverse groups can trade, they can’t assimilate which is a risk nobody wants to manage, so they (idiotically) encourage it.

Essentially what humans have done was to form groups that work well internally, then expanding to trade with other groups without managing the diversity risk, then working together and even developing technology during which pidginization is actually (also idiotically) encouraged.

While all this “progress” happened, the risk of simplification simply accumulate. There is an old adage that state that “all profit carries risk.” But because the risk is difficult to manage, (lazy) rich people decided to privatize profits and socialize risks in a process called externalization.

This risk of simplification however, was totally ignored (by federal government risk experts) and only partly mentioned by Geert Hofstede in his seminal book Culture’s Consequences.

The problem with wealth is that it can disappear very quickly, while the accumulated risk that caused the wealth not only remains but becomes larger over time. Some people say, “Yes, but usury allows me to keep my wealth.” They are wrong because the risk accumulation is more than the usury received.

In other words, while short-term profit can be gained, it is as a trade-off for far greater long-term damage, which explains the inevitable decline of (once) massive organizations, resulting in the “growth” of toxic dark organizations (such as the FBI deep state).

We are playing ourselves by a classic illusion here. While we watch the foreground, things change in the background. Our currency loses its buying power; our stable societies become chaotic and disorderly; our people degenerate into weird blue-haired obese whiners who hate everything good, sane, healthy, or real.

As 2018 dawns, we are seeing that all of our plans for profit worked out poorly because we did not include the risk of simplification and standardization that comes whenever a group of people compete for nothing but money because their egalitarian — mixed-caste, diverse, permissive, pluralistic — societies offer us no greater meaning than what we can buy and the lock on our door to shut out the increasingly broken and chaotic world.

Why Gorka’s Retreat Could Help Trump

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

The spate of resignations from the White House is an attempt to retreat and regroup, not a withdrawal. Obama did the same thing early in his presidency, as have many others, once the battlefield reveals itself and new demands must be met.

As the most recent departure, Sebastian Gorka has attracted the most derisive comments, but his exit shows the existence of factions in the White House and the necessity of settling these for the administration to function at all. Gorka has stated that the anti-MAGA factions have won, but as an administrative question, what matters is more that the entire staff can implement the will of its chief executive.

Any factional resignation in any organization calls to mind the point of that organization, which begins with a concept derived from safety. Safety is important, because in its civilizational context as measured over the last 40 years (or so), statistics revealed that the life expectancy correlation with GDP/capita is 61%.

This means that births must be in balance with deaths. We see this in nature where grass-eating animals balance with flesh-eating animals. These ecosystems are present in all organizations where there must be a number of balances, one of which is cooperation.

The term cooperation is closely associated with the context of consolidation of democracy. However, just like optimization is required with safety, so is optimization required with “cooperation”. Too little or too much cooperation increases death/mortality.

Taking the White House as just another organization, it is possible to say that a factional break-up of that organization is a good thing because it reduces too much cooperation. The factions will each move towards its own zone of authority, allowing each faction to be economically efficient.

On the other hand, if a factional breakup did not occur, the organization would have enforced “full” cooperation between the potential factions, thereby turning one faction into a Dark Organization just like the Justice Department’s “deep state”.

Trump had the choice to have factions work in parallel or to force diversity upon his staff and to make warring factions work together. A White House where the factions are broken up will continue to operate at 80% efficiency, but forcing them to try to operate together reduces efficiency to 20%. Trump opted for greater efficiency with the knowledge that his staff are his employees, and whatever they think, are charged with carrying out his orders, and he prefers them to be more efficient than entrenched in factional warfare.

In the bigger picture, Trump is reorganizing for his own reasons. As a strong leader, he may want a hostile group to counterbalance his ideas, and by sending out discontents like Bannon and Gorka, he is able to spread criticism of his administration as being not extreme enough in pursuit of its goals, which gives him outside pressure that he can use to justify more radical acts.

On top of that, this is most likely a plain old reorganization. Trump needs a group that works together well just as he needs to keep the media distracted, and these departures keep the newspapers confused about his actual goals and operating methods. In addition, former staff like Gorka and Bannon are now cut free as evangelists for the Trump vision in their respective fields.

Media operates in the pocket between when an action occurs and when it is understood, and Trump benefits from introducing chaos and complexity so that actual understanding occurs after the media asserts its interpretation of events, which keeps everyone guessing. But in the meantime, his new streamlined team is more likely to operate at high efficiency.

Update: Introduction to Dark Organizations

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

The original Introduction to Dark Organizations now requires an update as part of my ongoing effort to apply management consulting and risk management solutions to human civilization, through the lens of the Alt Right.

The emergence of “toxicity” in its organizational, rather than individual sense became quite noticeable recently. The term “toxic” is used in an attempt to indicate an extractive “darkness,” because dark characteristics imply defensive organizations while “toxic” refers to an extraction of the last gasp of wealth and power from the host organization that encloses the dark organization.

However, it is the “dark” dead body that is toxic, causing new employees to unknowingly abuse the defensive system they inherited by extracting its last gasp for self-benefit. After all, the smell of death has a strange effect on man and animal.

In other words, the old guard that worked hard but then became unknowingly defensive, due to modernity, is now being replaced by younger flag-carriers who recognize a staggering organization only able to provide that last gasp of opportunity for wealth before it falls over. This “last straw” is not an attempt to “salvage” the organization, it’s about using the “dead horse” as a step to access a higher personal objective of “class”. This class is available in the after-dinner-club

It is like kicking (your own) dog while he is down, only in an unknowing manner. In a psychological sense that might be viewed as contempt, because you are working with people you respect only to find out they can’t handle modern pressures and there is nothing they can do about it. So you don’t react by confronting them, you react by beating them at grasping for the last remaining straws of wealth, while positioning to join a class devoid of moralistic limits. After all, it is about survival of the fittest (or so it is motivated).

Effectively these new entrants to the “game” are infected to become toxic hyenas in the same organization, but not necessarily the same industry. For example, the Prime Minister of Hungary does not have this problem.

One global example can be used as circumstantial evidence (other examples are possible):

It is contained in an article by VDARE describing how Angela Merkel may have been bribed to accept migrants. Angela Merkel may have been the German Chancellor for ten years, but in terms of the global “after-dinner-club” she is a newcomer. Since their official reigns ended, Cameron and Obama have been working feverishly to get into this club. Clearly Merkel wants to join them after her dog’s demise, i.e. the collapse of Germany.

Based on this article (and the same type of article can be written for Cameron and Obama and indeed was written about Blair), Merkel is feeding off German society by making them pay for migrants, which makes her look good in the eyes of Soros and others. This may seem simplistic, but more in-depth arguments would require an entirely separate book, similar to the 600 page version written on Tony Blair’s Broken Vows.

However, the term “toxic”, as applied to a single, decomposed body, anticipates that multiple hyenas are gathered for the feast, meaning that Merkel is not the only one, there are many and they are from all party political persuasions, such as Jean-Claude Juncker and Jeremy Corbyn. The victim of this hyena mob is European civilization, which these dog-kickers apparently view with considerable contempt. But what would activate these newcomers to become so ferocious? In terms of this article, they were bribed, but what grand vision could possibly bribe them?

It appears to be the promised carbon tax regime pushed via the global warming scam that is worth an estimated $100 trillion.

In summary, organizations tend to be healthy until “pressures” causes the original structure to become defensive in an unknowing (to those employees) fashion. One could say that the organization protect itself causing its wealth to deteriorate to about 20% of its original ability. This takes time, meaning that a new wave of employees will enter the organization not knowing about the 20% effect.

However, they will eventually pick-up that the organization “is going nowhere” causing them to cast their eyes towards external opportunities. These do appear, but with the proviso that assets under their control be brought with. (Salesmen are always asked to bring clients “over”) In this case these employees become hyenas without knowing it, trampling on a dead organization in order to gain access to the after-dinner-club (in this global case).

This organization is therefore “toxic” because its dead corpse serves only to infect every newcomer touching it. Discussions regarding a possible revival will however have ended, when the dark stage was reached i.e. when value dropped below 20%. Darkness (from its original structure) can be maintained for a long while, but as the new generation enters the “game”, decline is accelerated and bankruptcy encouraged, grabbing the last remaining assets.

Metaphorically, it could be said that the body shrinks in its old age, only to be devoured by hyenas (of all shapes and sizes), opening space for the next lion. Or in reality, a dark organization will eventually become toxic thereby affecting everything around it. In Rome it took hundreds of years, in modern society, it may accelerate to fifty (or within this lifetime).

Externalization Creates Dark Organization

Tuesday, April 25th, 2017

Western man is externalizing himself in the form of gadgets. – William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

Civilization is an uncertain bet. Like the oxidation that allows us to breathe, it also creates secondary effects which must be managed, such as free riders and calcification. Most societies try to manage these through external control, and this proves to be a fatal mistake, but it remains popular because it avoids questions of natural selection, namely evolution toward higher self-control.

Externalization appears tempting because it involves no change in the individual. Instead, centralized forces dictate standards and rules, and the herd equally obeys them, which provides the least friction because no person is disciplined more than any other. This allows mental convenience and attracts people to the idea.

The process of externalization occurs through proxies, or external symbolic “games,” which serve to both represent and obscure reality. Instead of doing what is right, we do what the moral code says we must. Instead of finding a place where we contribute, we measure salaries. Laws take the place of values, and gadgets and entertainment take the place of meaningful time expenditure.

Replacements for reality are comforting because they take a vastly complex target and reduce it to the comforting tangibility of numbers and rules. By making this lawless world comprehensible to our minds, they take away fears and give us direction, but it is not a positive direction — toward something — as much as a selection from what already exists.

For this reason, externalization is naturally backward-looking and navel-gazing. Without some forward purpose, humans have nothing to define their lives except personal convenience, and this removes meaning from existence and leaves individuals in a circular process of wanting more and then being unsatisfied with it. The addict finds himself lonely when the drug effects wear off.

Like other types of formalization, externalization occurs by creating a procedure for every aspect of life and limiting choice. This in turn makes people passive and dependent, since they rely on the external source for the list of options available to them. None of these choices have existential or spiritual meaning, so they become mostly interchangeable, varied only in amount of money or status.

The ugly hyper-competitive social scene common to modern society arises from this externalization. When we measure our lives in terms of gadgets and artificial targets like workplace performance, there is nothing to do but compete for those, and because they are unsatisfying, to keep competing until it exhausts us. This is a perfect method of control.

Those who compete in limited spheres such as these games fear any who do not play by the rules. This gives rise to a manic need to limit inclusion in social groups, and through them the rest of society, through those who are obedient to the basic assumptions that allow the games to exist. Such societies look for ways to exclude people, and force mass activities on the group in order to indoctrinate them.

For example, in schools in the modern West, it is considered common practice to ask students to “share” or tell to the group a personal experience. This opens up the individual to judgment by the herd, and if the individual passes that judgment, makes them feel some debt to the group. The moment of inclusion produces a squirt of dopamine in the brain and safe, happy and comfortable feelings.

In turn, the focus on inclusion and competition for acceptance creates dark organization by encouraging people to manipulate appearance, symbolism and the rules of the game in order to succeed as efficiently as possible, which means with the least amount of risk or exertion to the self.

Our pathological altruism is one form of this behavior. It is easy to very publicly give money to a charity for blind disabled retarded transgender third world orphans; doing this a few times gives the individual status points. It is harder to every day act in a moral way that encourages qualitative growth within individuals and civilization.

This shows us the appeal of virtue signaling: to signal once is more efficient and mentally more convenient than trying to make every act we do into a morally correct action. Doing the latter is a lifetime commitment that requires near-religious levels of commitment, while the former involves a few public relations events plus anarchy.

Pathological altruism is one form of dark organization. It happens when a group within an organization turns against that organization, but uses the methods of that organization to achieve its goals. This only occurs when the goals of the group are corrupted by creating a proxy instead of measuring results by reality.

This trap ensnares human civilizations time and gain. Our best intentions lead to us creating proxies, and then the tool becomes the master and those dominate us, destroying our civilization. Democracy, equality, Leftism, diversity, feminism, liberty, class warfare and freedom are just subsets of this failure that like the best euthanasia, creates a warm sensation before the infinite coldness of death.

Why Do Civilizations Die?

Saturday, December 3rd, 2016


A specter haunts humanity: the knowledge that our best societies tend to implode after a relatively short time. It makes us wonder if thought itself betrays us, or if there is something dark inside of us that destroys all we hope for.

The actuality may be more prosaic. Civilizations tend to pursue the same goals, and over their lifespan, reach a point where they lack inherent purpose because their former purpose, having stable civilization, has been achieved.

At that point, errors arise. Specifically, the human tendency to collapse inward without a purpose gives rise to individualism, or the desire to reduce the risk of doing wrong by making wrong and right arbitrary categories determined by human intent alone. If you mean well, then whatever you did was acceptable, even if it turned out badly. This gives rise to ideology.

There must be a center to life. It is either found in purpose, which requires accepting reality as it is, or the self, which is formed of material reactions. Reliance on the self creates individualists who then bond together into groups through a form of collectivized individualism known as Crowdism.

This viewpoint is necessarily “dark” because it denies good, which requires purpose that acknowledges the need for balance and harmony with the order of nature, which is larger than human intent can encompass. Good requires interacting with reality and improving our lot in it according to the terms and structure of reality, and this offends the ego because it makes purpose, not the self, the focus of living.

Control is the method used to achieve the Crowdist agenda. Control occurs through “means over ends” thinking, which rejects ends because they create a goal that competes with the self. The darkness in humanity is the part of each of us that wants to be the most important thing in the world, replacing reality and the divine.

Our time derives its dark nature from this pursuit of Control, which creates neurosis by removing purpose and replacing it with methods that do not achieve their aims. In that shadowy and conflicted mental state, people become agents of destruction. This is how civilizations die.

On to today’s video…

Vikernes identifies the problem of civilization as civilization itself. He may be confusing civilization with empire or cities because he mentions the Roman and Greek empires, but not the civilizations of Western Europe that arose before and since. They were distinct from the larger empires in that they were mostly rural and did not attempt conquest and standardization.

What seems more likely is that cities and standardization bring with them the desire to protect people from the risk of being wrong. They insulate people against risk by putting them in jobs, instead of production/ownership roles, and by creating laws, guide the unwary sheep away from their natural dysfunction which might make others avoid them, creating the selection pressures necessary for evolution.

In short, cities are dysgenic, but the root cause of that is the desire toward administration and management of those who are not united by a common purpose. This shows a response to loss of shared purpose and the rise of individualism.

For a civilization, the most important goal — that which it survives on, above all else — is clarity. It must have a clear purpose. Its leadership must be singular and not divided by special interest groups with their fingers in the pie. Its standards, culture and values must be clear, so diversity is fatal. Any failures of these give individualism, always a lurking evil, the power to take over.

Succeeding civilizations on the other hand tend to give way to individualism because they are unwilling to state a purpose beyond the creation of the civilization, which makes the ego of the individual take precedent.

Alternative Right provides an alternate with an analysis of miscegenation and its popularity with dying societies:

High functioning White societies, like Canada, built by Europeans adapted to the harsh conditions of the last Ice Age develop overactive economies that then create degenerate societies that are unable to successfully reproduce. (Note: I use “degenerate” here in a strictly technical sense, to merely indicate a society unable to maintain a birthrate of 2.1 per woman among its core population).

Unable to reproduce, these societies, in order to maintain property values, customer and client base, and taxpayer numbers, then, with the connivance of the ruling class, suck in lower functioning populations attracted by the higher living standards they are unable to achieve in their own lands.

We must ask first whether the economies are overactive, or whether that is the result of people acting individualistically. When people have purpose, they are content with enough; when they do not, they seek more than they need as a form of symbol of their importance. Social order, including caste systems, keeps this in check, but when the wrong people are allowed to have wealth, society unravels.

People refuse to reproduce for two reasons. For some, it is simply selfishness or the immediate consequences of it. They embark on an orgy of sensual experience and as a result, never get around to having families. For the vast majority however it is a sense of not fitting into a society that has become hostile to goodness and sanity, believing that life is fundamentally bad and without meaning, therefore, why reproduce?

Especially: why condemn children to the same misery that has the would-be parents feeling terrible about life? Living in a dying civilization has existential consequences, meaning that it disturbs the sense that life is good and has purpose. That feeling of well-being is replaced with uncertainty, anomie, isolation, and atomization. People become islands in themselves.

The managerial society gives rise to what we can dark organization, or the rise within an organization of an inner cult dedicated to some purpose other than that of the organization. In this case, the civilization is the organization, and the dark organization is the gang of collectivized individualists within it.

Control produces dark organization. It does so by removing the sense of shared purpose, and instead, trying to create unity through uniformity. Control regulates means and not ends, and assumes that by getting people to do the same things, it can influence them toward a goal. This works, at first, but then decays as despair spreads through the population.

We find ourselves in a decaying civilization now. While it is similar to Rome on the surface because of its quasi-imperial nature and highly organized system, at its core it resembles Athens, which went down the path of individualism over two millennia ago. See how much of this resembles our present day society.

…And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.

…This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.

…See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the ‘don’t care’ about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city –as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study –how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people’s friend.

…Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others –whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

…he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

…his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many.

Civilization decline begins with the idea that we are not here together in collaboration, but for ourselves alone, and are entitled to whatever our intent desires without concern for the results of our actions. This lack of cooperation requires motivation to be enforced instead, and it is done so by the powers that be controlling who gets access to wealth. That in turn makes people selfish, cruel and vengeful.

The reason that the greatest civilizations die is that they go down this path of control. They standardize, make uniform and employ utilitarianism as a way to keep the herd under control, but the lack of direction to the herd leads to breakdown. Soon there is nothing but attention whoring, usually through political gift-giving and virtue signaling, and empty pursuit of personal desires which never satisfy.

For a civilization to avoid this path, it must retain a sense of purpose and a clear hierarchy and power structure. With a goal, we can assess every one of our actions as pushing us closer to that goal, or holding us back. Only the former are desired. This allows us to reject those who fail, and promote those who succeed, in the method of natural selection, but without using means-based control.

The West had this wisdom long ago. It is hubris for humankind to try to design a “perfect” society, such as the figurative Utopia of Plato’s republic, because perfection is the enemy of hierarchy and selecting our best of every generation, pushing down the rest. Nature once managed us through these methods, and when we discard them, in our arrogance we chase ruin.

Future Survival – Part 5: Goals

Tuesday, November 29th, 2016


The alternative to allowing someone else to just wash a civilization over all of us is that all of us can actually decide on how it’s going to go. And as with any survival effort, there needs to be a goal.

The television program The Ultimate Survivor states that its “goal” is to teach viewers how to survive while inside each episode, the “goal” is to reach civilization. But what should civilization’s goal be?

Clearly the program expects it to be “organized refuge” which is different to what nature could provide. This shows us that the organizations designed by man and those designed by nature are opposites, which means the human organization needs modification to fit into its environment.

Whatever the human organization is, it must be maintained, it must be (re)designed, it must be imperfect and must take care of its own waste.  Thus if it looks like being organized takes a lot of effort, it sure does, but the benefit is enormous, hence civilization.

But then some commentators might point out that not all organizations are effective or even may be over-organized. The answer to that is that over- or under-organized groups are in a condition that is actually not organized, thereby requiring effort (again) to get organized.

But what are the current goals of organizations in general? An easy method to find out is to track where most M.B.A. graduates work. They work in the financial sector and they will tell you that their main objective is to increase shareholder value.  In other words, the goal is simply more money. This is also (and especially) not aligned with nature.

One of the longest running monarchies in the World is the English House of Windsor. They may have changed the name, but still, their opinion on what their goal was/is would be important. What is known is that the monarch stated somewhere that “family” is most important. On the other hand, when the monarch meets with a foreign leader, she generally asks: Is your country “stable”?

It would appear that a civilization based on “stable families” is a more natural approach, but would that be a goal? After all, if that was a goal, what would the measuring criteria be and who will measure it? Unless of course we leave that up to each family within a set of limitations, for example: A family can never be bigger than 5 members (on average) measured across 5 generations.

This puts the topic of population on the table, where humans do not have predators hence they over populate the earth. Some insight into the condition of man has identified however, that the predator is in each one of us. Each person can psychologically consume himself, but can also save himself.

The natural solution is to kill off the “predators” but since that is not possible humans will have to find a middle path. In terms of a civilization “predators” are deemed a risk and should be managed as such. This means that families do not really need to be “controlled” while risk management is in place.

Stable families are therefore not a civilizational goal, but it could be an enabler.

The following reference on Organizational Goals apply where one extract is as follows:

For example: Many organizations mention environmentally friendly behaviour as a goal of the organization. However in a study of organizations actually including environmental friendly behaviour as an organizational goal, very few had corresponding operative goals, i.e. very few delineated how such behaviour would be implemented in the different departments of the organization.

Additional examples: Most prisons have rehabilitation of prisoners, preparing them for re-integrations into society as their official goal, however in practice, most of their operative procedures involve aspects of custodial care. For many voluntary organizations, especially in these days of funding cutbacks, the community service which is their official mandate or goal takes secondary precedence to the fundraising activities which will ensure their survival.

There is undoubtedly a disconnect between “goals” and survival. Goals are used to create a “favorable” impression whereas money rule the roost because money determines survival in the market. Another way to view this is that, like Hillary Clinton, all of our organizations have public goals which guarantee social success by making people feel favorably toward the organization, but these are balanced and often obliterated by the need to accomplish private goals, which are the socially unpopular things a company must do like increase revenue, fire idiots, and cut back on loafing.

Another reference explains the difference between goals and objectives. One extract applies as follows:

Goals and objectives provide organizations with a blueprint that determines a course of action and aids them in preparing for future changes. A goal can be defined as a future state that an organization or individual strives to achieve. For each goal that an organization sets, it also sets objectives. An objective is a short-term target with measurable results. Without clearly-defined goals and objectives, organizations will have trouble coordinating activities and forecasting future events.

In other words, without real goals — those oriented toward survival, and not social success or appearance — organizations will not be able to forecast future events. This is very interesting because it demonstrates that the future is not unknown. Therefore, pursuing a disconnected goal will lead to the wrong future.

An individual or even a smallish group can survive in the bushes for quite some time, but having gone to all the trouble of setting up an organization that benefits said “group” to a large extent, what goal will ensure the survival of that organization? After all, the organization does not die when its founder/group dies.

Organizations that “survive” follow a proper blueprint that “determines a course of action and aids them in preparing for future changes.” It follows that a “blueprint” is the goal where successful blueprints will cause those organizations to survive.

Those that do not survive must go bankrupt, in other words they must not be allowed to self-perpetuate in their “dark” state. Once they go bankrupt, their debt should be taken over by successful organizations that are able to effectively recover those assets. If not, those assets should be allocated as waste and managed accordingly.

There is actually a company that provides “blueprints” to those that struggle. Its flyers state that following this method “charts a clear path to you desired goal, visually and measurably.” They also reference Jim Collins’ work where the “Twenty Mile March” is a typical doctrine representing that blueprint successful organizations use.

Blueprints guarantee survival. Think of antelope on the plains: the group follows a natural blueprint, or pattern of behavior over time, that limits its exposure to predators. The method works even if individuals are weakened by hunger or disease.

Human organizations need a similar adaptive blueprint which takes into account the necessary aspects of organizations in nature and shapes them for human needs. This means rejecting the idea that individuals are so powerful they can deny the pattern that protects the group.

The blueprint in The Ultimate Survivor demonstrates that even powerful individuals are made weak by a bad blueprint. While we depend on exceptional people and they are more trustworthy than rules, some patterns just work.

It is not surprising that the term “culture” is used for both bacteria and human organizations. Human organizations arise through an accumulation of methods that have worked in the past. They grow organically as a result.

Over time, however, their original blueprint no longer applies because the civilization has beaten back nature and chaos. What then? A new blueprint must be formed, and this requires adapting the patterns of nature.

How Humanity Transitioned From Power To Control

Monday, November 28th, 2016


Over at The Financial Times, Edward Luce writes that the American era is over with the demise of globalization, and the era of “strong power” is back:

Mr Obama took office at a geopolitical inflection point. As he prepares to leave, few any longer dispute the fact of relative US decline. For all his high aspirations, Mr Obama was unable to stop the process.

…The US-led international order as we knew it for 70 years is over. The era of great power politics is back. An ebullient Russia, led by the strongman Putin, and an increasingly confident China, led by the strongman Xi Jinping, will deal with a wounded America led by strongman Trump. The long-term trajectory is towards China.

The era of great power politics refers mainly to the fact that there was no superpower status nation-state which kept the rest in line, so it was open competition on the basis of self-interest. Not surprisingly, this led to “strong power” or more authority to the heads of state.

But this leads us to a question: What if the great powers age never ended, but instead transitioned into a propaganda war?

This explains the radical shift toward manipulative imagery instead of pure military might. That in turn led to the war for hearts and minds that created the ideological age.

In new right circles, we tend to refer to that type of power structure as “soft totalitarianism” or “decentralized totalitarianism.” Perhaps its best explainer is Vaclav Havel, who writes of the passive coercive power that such systems demand through ideological conformity:

One legacy of that original “correct” understanding is a third peculiarity that makes our systems different from other modern dictatorships: it commands an incomparably more precise, logically structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is almost a secularized religion. It of fears a ready answer to any question whatsoever; it can scarcely be accepted only in part, and accepting it has profound implications for human life. In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority.

In these systems, people are rewarded for conformity and punished for deviation, including — most importantly — the failure to participate. If you want to have a career, family, house and friends, you must join the franchise, like a union, gang or cult.

These systems start with the assumption that they are right and then use that position to portray all who fail to participate as being by the converse wrong, which justifies their exclusion. In this way, it incentivizes every person to re-interpret reality according to the ideological narrative, and excludes those who do not join the herd.

To see this in action, witness an anatomy of “spin” as it works to advance the Leftist narrative by attributing Leftist actions to the Right:

These facts as they circulated from Dallas sent shock waves across the world, suggesting that Castro or perhaps Soviet leaders were behind the assassination of an American president. Indeed, a spokesman for the District Attorney’s office in Dallas soon asserted that President Kennedy had been assassinated as part of a communist conspiracy.

…It was to be expected then that prominent public officials and journalists would look for ways to deflect attention away from Oswald’s possible ideological motives and toward other possible causes of the crime. In the same issue of the New York Times, adjacent to the report from Dallas, readers found an unusual opinion article penned by James Reston, the Washington bureau chief of the Times and at that time the dean of national political journalists. The article was titled, “Why America Weeps: Kennedy Victim of Violent Streak He Sought to Curb in Nation.”

…Two narratives of the assassination were thus juxtaposed on the front page of The New York Times on the day after the event. One was based upon the facts, which pointed to Oswald as the assassin and to the Cold War as the general context in which the event should be understood. The other was a political narrative, entirely divorced from the facts, that pointed to “extremists on the Right” and a national culture of violence as the culprits in the assassination. Both interpretations could not be correct.

…Upon hearing that President Kennedy had died, Chief Justice Earl Warren, soon to head the official commission that investigated the assassination, issued a statement to the press: “A great and good President,” he declared, “has suffered martyrdom as a result of the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.”

Truth was reversed by the simple interjection of opinions by those at the top of the ideological hierarchy. Others conformed; those who did not were marginalized, and that was used — as a complex ad hominem argument — as proof of the unfitness of their opinions. History was re-written.

This shows us a transition from power to control. Power is either exercised upon a population, or with their consent to its general correctness (authority) even when disagreeing with a specific act. This is the nature of strong power.

The postwar American hegemony on the other hand operated through control, which is a type of managerial state that takes advantage of dark organization within itself by making ideology align with the personality weaknesses of individuals that generate dark organization when they rebel against social order or organizational goals.

Control is the root method of civilizational destruction. This is an opposite to strong power, which opposes dark organizations by setting up clear goals and rewarding only those who achieve them. Control rewards only those who obey ideology, which is a substitute for reality where having the right opinions is more important than achieving results.

The new strong power age has positive implications for those who want a traditional civilization. It ends the “we are all one” and “everybody is important” mythic dogma required for Control, and begins to implement the values standards necessary for authority. As part of this, it promotes culture and morality over financial convenience, which will be a vast change from the gradual assimilation of society by financial interests that has dominated the West in the near past.

Future Survival – Part 2: Design

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016


Civilizations arise because — well, we don’t know why exactly. But it certainly is not because a single person designed them. The closest approximation to the single civilization designer is the type of social engineering that comes from George Soros or the Soviet Union, where men think they have God-like abilities based on how good their intent feels to them and their social groups.

The concept of design is a typical STEM activity and generally it sounds like “mechanical control.” The concept of control, although very successful in terms of automation, appears to have damning effects on people. In other words, it is suggested that “control” turns people into numbers allocated with predetermined functionalities, because it treats them as equals engaged in the exact same role.

This means that what control achieves is not what the discipline of automation was intended for, which was to help people and organizations. The problem perhaps is that the purpose of control was never a civilizational purpose, but is an individualistic one that accrues power for the individual and elites at the expense of civilization.

Control is the opposite of authority. It focuses on the individual by giving it a number and treating it exactly like all other individuals, whereas the correct use of authority is to focus on the health of the organization as a whole. If individuals and organizations were able to focus on their “purpose,” they would be able to “design” such a civilization.

This leads to one of the great paradoxes of our existence: even an exceptional individual person cannot design a civilization. We can only participate in one by upholding a role which is specific to our abilities, and by acting in accord with the principles of that civilization within the context of that specialization.

An intelligent, forceful civilization does not need central control. Nature already does that for us; we just need to understand it. In a recent article the incompetence of Americans to control, or even to understand, their own actions was described thus:

In fact, about half of all children born in the United States are an unintended byproduct of sex, rather than a conscious choice.

Nature allows us to reproduce, but we just don’t get it. Historic reaction to this took three general forms as follows:

  • Turn all women into feminists and men into metrosexuals (Liberalism).
  • Decree the law of single child families (China).
  • Allow tribal conflict where the winner kills all men and children, and take all women.

If you have been to Africa, you will see women working the fields, not men. In Africa, women provide sex, look after babies, make food and work the fields. For example, if they need to go to the toilet while working in the fields, they will just squat down right where they stand. As the West heads toward third-world status, its women will have to re-educate themselves for this job description.

A more intelligent approach is to take the long term view by promoting informed choice which will confront people with their (realistic) prospects. This requires government not to control birth, but to refuse to provide economic assistance so that individuals regulate births based on their own circumstances. By treating everyone equally, control prioritizes the unplanned over the planned.

The pitfalls described by Paul Warkin of an engineering-based civilization design can be addressed by using nature as a central control as well as implementing a maintenance-oriented civilization.

This approach would result in a “spiral” of reactions whose ultimate destination is impossible to predict. However, while it might not attain a Type 1 civilization, it is also not sure that Type 1 is in fact our purpose. In fact, the focus on Type 1 could be an assumption that prevents us from seeing our needs.

Any design is based on requirements which are generally derived from purpose, experience and also projections and estimates.  History shows (in my opinion) that conservatives over-simplify things while liberals make things overly complicated.

This may be counter-intuitive because conservatives want to keep “things as they are” whereas liberals want to “improve” things to the point where no improvement is possible through anarchy plus subsidies. In this process conservatives use force-multipliers that increases the power of civilization without fixing its broken direction, while liberals add rules to entrench their improvements and thus their own power. The defensive approach of liberals is more effective at maintaining power in the short-term, as history shows us, but then becomes unstable and self-destructs.

History also show that humans either like “stability” or creative disruption. For example, Asians are very stable while Euro-descendants are creatively disruptive. The difference between the two is the level of violence. (Ignore collective societies because they are not deemed as civil in this sense).

The ideal is in fact being not too clever, but also not too dumb. After all variation does promote conflict which in project management circles helps to finish the job. In other words, humans do like saber-rattling, in fact humans perform way better under temporary stress situations.

But then, if we understood nature, this would be common cause.

But also being intelligent help humans to optimize their survivability. This should be seen in universal context of course, but until better guidelines are developed, the safety technique required is to optimize health, security and systems (nature and human systems)

Using the philosophy of realism would enable humans to surpass the conundrum of Left versus Right. It will allow for the design of a civilization spiral that reaches upward toward quality using its understanding of nature. A civilization designed as an ecosystem, or one in which unequal people fulfill specialized roles, would be one where organizational safety and realism — with maintenance of that civilization as a subset — take precedence over the attempts of rulers to cement their positions of power.

“The most important resource to mankind is organizations”, says Nick Land, but we have never realized it, till now. The civilization of the future will focus on organization, not the individual, and attempt to adapt to nature as an abstract order in addition to a wild place surrounding. If humanity survives, it will be through this path away from control.

Control Makes People Broken

Monday, October 31st, 2016


Ye are not other men, but my arms and legs; and so obey me. — Captain Ahab, Moby-Dick

As societies mature, they need methods of holding people together so they can cooperate toward goals, which express purpose and values in tangible form. They have lost their original goal, which is to have civilization in the first place, because they have achieved it.

At this point, the growing civilization faces a more difficult task than ever before: it must unify its citizens toward purpose, including self-discipline to uphold moral standards, without a pressing threat. It is easy to unite people when famine or invaders threaten, but otherwise, people default to the Simian “everybody do whatever they want to.”

The only way known to make this work, throughout all of history, is to make citizenship contingent upon people being useful and understanding the purpose.

Since this is not only true but obvious, a movement immediately forms in every society like mold on cheese. This is compromised of individuals, acting in their own self-interest, who desire to be included despite lack of contribution or purpose, and they form a collective to use peer pressure to enforce their inclusion under the guise of universal inclusion.

This usually follows a diversity event, or interaction with other cultures such that sufficiently different people are included in the society. Once the people are markedly different, one can no longer point to the values of that civilization as absolute, but most widen values so that all can be included. At that point, the values seem arbitrary and people agitate against them because they secretly desire “everybody do whatever they want.”

At the moment that a society accepts universal inclusion, it commits itself to control, or the habit of having (1) a centralized authority that demands (2) uniform, or “universal,” obedience to the same rules. Purpose has been replaced by rules, which are a proxy or symbolic substitute for purpose. Rules are popular because they can be easily gamed, or subverted in intent while staying within boundaries of the rule as written.

Control is destructive because it forces people to externalize the process of making decisions to the rules. People no longer think about the consequences of their actions; they think about the rules, and whether they will be seen as good or bad for their attitude toward the rules. Authority and leadership are replaced by power.

In long term physical consequences, control creates societies that are destructive for the same reason that red tides — algal blooms that absorb all the oxygen and choke all life in ponds and oceans — are devastating. With no need to be focused on purpose, people expand in every direction chaotically, and this encourages reckless growth in order to sustain the vast number of people doing nothing particularly important.

The greatest damage however is done inside of people. When they defer responsibility to external forces, they lose the ability to make decisions. This in turn savages their ability to understand what is important, and what their own values are. Soon only two things exist: against-the-rules and permitted by dint of not being prohibited. This fosters random behavior, perversity, parasitism and other human ills that civilization needs to keep in check.

People in such societies are made neurotic. They no longer know what is real, only what is rewarded with popularity. Like lemmings, they would march over a cliff by following the person in front of them. They are entirely regulated by social control, or what others think of them based on appearance, and so “reality” becomes alien.

For this reason, they never know what the outcomes of their actions will be, and start to become conformist or prone to negatively restrict their actions to what has become popular in the past. This creates a herd instinct that focuses people on trends, panics, fads and precedent and punishes any who deviate through social censure. That in turn creates a headless society, like a circle of people each following the other.

At this point, people begin to feel pretty bad at an existential level, or the depth at which one considers the meaning of life and the value of existence. Nothing they do that is good will be rewarded, and any attempts to break out of groupthink will be punished. A dark organization has arisen that opposes creative and realistic thinking.

The only way out of the ensuing death spiral is to effect an artificial bottleneck, or filtering of the population for its most fit, in this case those that still understand the purpose. Either that group must leave and set up a new civilization, or it must exile the purposeless.

Among diseases, the spread of this mental virus is unique because it attacks the strong. Civilizations that rise above the minimum now must contend with a threat from within, and many people are frightened of the type of strong authority — with consequences of potential exclusion — that this return to health requires.

In the modern West, we have needed such a purge for some time. It is not because these people are bad but because their purpose is elsewhere. If we want to restore the greatness of the past and rise to new greatness in the future, we need a civilization unified on that purpose.

Election 2016 presents a moment ripe for such a decision. Half of the country wants a third-world style socialist government, and the rest wants something going in the opposite or, better, a healthier direction. Whichever side wins will destroy the other, so the bottleneck is coming whether we like it or not.

The Dark Organization Of Western Civilization

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016


The concept of “darkness” conjures for the average reader an image of something concealed, its motives unknown. With that, there is both fear of that which wishes to harm us, and hope for times when the public is being unreasonable that necessary actions can be taken out of sight of the herd. Darkness takes the form of one of two opposite mental images:

  1. Criminals hiding in shadows or even the Mafia as a “dark” organization corrupting “honest” politicians.
  2. Heroes such as Batman camouflaged by night preparing to protect normal people against the extractive elites.

A descriptive term for darkness however, in a technical sense, is “defensive behaviors.” These arise in response to perception of an attack. When defensive behaviors arise, it becomes immediately necessary to ascertain where the attack is coming from and who the attackers are.

In a worst case scenario, we do not know who the attackers are or what techniques they use because they live among us, meaning our traditional “defenses” are insufficient to detect this risk or threat. For example, many say that our problems were caused by the Baby Boomers. This means that those generations addressed own risks while ignoring the possible risks of the solution they implemented.

My father fit within this model. He would eagerly develop amazing solutions, but in my own observations he failed to address the risk of those solutions, because he was optimistic and altruistic perhaps.  Industry developed the System Engineering process to address this particular problem, but it was a quality control that ambitious people clearly did not like.

Dark organization receives little attention from public institutions. No one is interested in funding it. Ironically this gives rise to the hypothesis that donors are defensive about understanding dark organizations. One wonders why those who work within democracies would be defensive when they have the popular vote supporting them.

This gives rise to two possibilities for their motives:

  1. The need to self-perpetuate against the “threat” of short election cycles combined with change in voter “feelings”.
  2. The need to self-perpetuate against the “threat” of the elites’ demand for money combined with their own “wannabe” demand for money.

Some pundits claim that the problem started with the French Revolution where the French Monarchy was dismembered. However, interaction with French people highlighted the absolute fact that being part of “royal bloodlines” in both France and Germany is a distinctive feature, with influence brought to bear on any activity and decision made today.

When confronted with it, most people would acknowledge the “natural” urge to be part of a monarchy because — as it has been suggested — human genes might contain a familial organizational requirement. We act in favor of that because the promotion of similar genetic profiles allows us, or something very like us, to live on.

A very successful monarchy was the British monarchy but when recently asked if they could (please) take America “back,” they responded that a decision made in the 18th century (by the people) to the contrary made this impossible. What they refrained from saying is that they initiated the entire de-colonization process in the 20th century thereby abdicating all control. In this process they denied back-up promised to their countrymen in those colonies, essentially leaving them to die. Today, they decline back-up to the people within the once Great Britain itself, by allowing free reign immigration that would not have made any sense a century ago.

When the genetic seeds of a nation wish to be ruled by the monarchy, but the monarchy wants no part of them, this points to a dark organization. Both governments and monarchies have become defensive because of the rise of an upper class whose success enables them to pressure both real elites and government, which forces those authorities into a defensive position.

In this dirty fight between the elites, governments are being targeted too. If a politician does not do as he is told, his “popularity” will be negatively affected, including the use of physical and economic hitmen. The politician will therefore increase his attempts to circumvent the elite by manipulating the electorate (in parallel) in order to self-perpetuate. If successful he will join the after-dinner club of upper-class wannabes circling the globe. What is interesting is that this club includes people from the ranks of over-paid “expat” corporate executives also circling the globe.

The struggle between real elites, Cathedralist elites and governments leaves normal people in the middle. Instead of asking “don’t you love me anymore?” we now ask “don’t you love my vote anymore?” Those votes convey power, but they cannot defend a group against the other groups, because power now exists in darkness because in democratic societies it is socially unacceptable to mention the actual underlying Machiavellian methods necessary to hold power.

The Cathedralist elites represent a dark organization because their goal is to act against the interest of civilization so that Cathedralist elites can advance their own power. Whereas the real elite were happy with castles, the wannabes are not happy with even that because they will never have full power until they smash down the actual elites and the normal people who vote.

This frustration causes the Cathedralists to seek to destroy everything like spoiled children. These are “our” people and although not true elites, they are creatively disruptive to the natural order of things thereby representing the real attacking mob “force,” causing the defensive behaviors of Western Governments and real Elites worldwide.

The wannabes have managed to hi-jack the United Nations which originally only focused on finances and security, they have managed to subvert the New World Order claimed in 1991 (barely twenty-five years ago) and they are busy destroying the Western middle-class which compares favorably with Roman decline. Like a wasp egg injected into a paralyzed spider, for them to grow they must consume all around them.

As this battle rages for control of the West, problems pile up. Philosophers agree that democracy is a flawed concept. Economists warn about recessionary bubbles. The talking heads on television promise a blissful, climate-controlled peace of prosperous equality. No one has a clue.

This suggests that instead of further pursuing our failed methods, we should do some serious introspection searching for the door whence we came into this room. To do introspection one needs to be self-aware of yourself, organization and your civilization. This means thinking outside the power struggle consuming it.

A look at the most momentous political changes of our age shows that introspection in process. Nigel Farage and Donald Trump appear to be self-aware outside of the system, while Hillary is self-perpetuating by using the methods of the system, and will only recreate it.

This is the type of struggle that defines the end of civilization through the dark organizational process. The votes are less about the specific issue or candidate, and more about whether we want to continue with a system that is hamstrung by internal conflict. I vote for leaving, because dark organizations never leave anything for us.

Recommended Reading