Posts Tagged ‘dark organizations’
Saturday, March 18th, 2017
Neoreaction basically offered two ideas which arose most likely from Samuel Huntington’s The Clash Of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order: patchwork, or officialized balkanization, and formalism, which is a libertarian principle taken to its extreme hybridized with the Fascist idea of government as a corporation.
However, it probably should have gone further after that, and instead of viewing the world through an economic lens, viewed it through an informational one. That is: we exist in constant memetic warfare, with culture wars the norm, as a species which is trying to produce its first enduring civilization after many have burned out. There is new ground to cover there.
In information science, we apply economic principles to the change in information that details patterns in our world. As such, we think more in terms of which ideas create momentum and win out, and how this changes the filters humans use to perceive the world, than the downstream of that, which is economics which is guided by human preference.
This leads us to an analysis of information monopoly as a way of locking ideas into civilization, and the context of this in herd dynamics which are divided between oblivion and stampede:
The notion of “radical monopoly” plays an important role in Illich’s critique of professionalism:
A radical monopoly goes deeper than that of any one corporation or any one government. It can take many forms. When cities are built around vehicles, they devalue human feet; when schools preempt learning, they devalue the autodidact; when hospitals draft all those who are in critical condition, they impose on society a new form of dying. Ordinary monopolies corner the market; radical monopolies disable people from doing or making things on their own. The commercial monopoly restricts the flow of commodities; the more insidious social monopoly paralyzes the output of nonmarketable use-values. Radical monopolies . . . impose a society-wide substitution of commodities for use-values by reshaping the milieu and by “appropriating” those of its general characteristics which have enabled people so far to cope on their own.
Professions colonize our imaginations; or as Michel Foucault (whom Illich’s language sometimes recalls—or anticipates) might have said, they reduce us to terms in a discourse whose sovereignty we have no idea how to contest or criticize.
In other words, society tends to formalism in the older definition, which means using explicit rules and procedures instead of being based in principle and the abilities of those who rule it. Each part of it, like every ethnic group, can be counted on to act in self-interest, which begins with seizing control and achieving monopoly.
Monopoly is not always bad… but usually, it is a path to entropy. When there is only one way to rise in a system, the conditions imposed by that method take the place of reality itself, and so a feedback loop begins that drives that dialogue farther from reality and more into the terms of the system.
Formalism creates dark organization in this way. By removing incentives from real-world results and defining them in terms of the system instead, it encourages manipulation of the system, and “inverts” all definitions and goals to reflect individual human needs instead of the goals of civilization, principle, meaning, purpose, future, past and other abstract intangibles.
If Neoreaction had understood formalism in this manner, it would have understood what a disaster formalism actually is, and instead advanced formalism a general theory of not entrusting power to any self-interested groups whose self-interest does not reward the self-interest of the civilization itself, and through that, its human ecosystem and its members.
Wednesday, September 28th, 2016
A riot is a form of protest. It is also a form of spontaneous criminal activity, or an emotional outburst. One might also see it as the failure of order, the loss of social structure, or a mass expression of a frustration that is so unspecified that the only tangible expression is to burn it all down.
From the people at Black Lives Matter riots across America, we hear the same message: institutional racism is keeping us down. However, this is after seventy years of the same forced inclusion policies that power affirmative action, civil rights, anti-discrimination laws, and the media push for “united colors” in all ads and movies.
Think of the last time you saw a movie where the entire cast was white. Or a presidential cabinet.
For that reason, the “institutional racism” explanation seems unlikely to most of us out here. We pay every day for diversity, you know. Every product is more expensive because of civil rights regulations and affirmative action lawsuits. Companies must hire minorities in order to avoid government interference, and so they do, and pass the costs right on to us. Plus we inherit the red tape, the constant riots, the no-fly areas, etc.
Since white people started to notice this, there have been two camps. The first is headed by a writer who is universally respect on the Right, John Derbyshire. He wrote a highly influential piece, “The Talk: Nonblack Version” in which he warned people about the dangers of African-Americans:
(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
The second group includes your author, who has been writing about this idea since the middle-1990s: the problem is not African-Americans — and yes, that term has more meaning for Rightists than Leftists — but diversity itself.
Diversity is the notion that more than one identifiable group — race, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, and most likely political alignment — can occupy the same space and work together to provide a government, economy and civilization.
Sometimes called “multiculturalism,” or by its original name “internationalism,” diversity relies on what legendary Right-wing writer Peter Brimelow calls the “proposition nation” and John Derbyshire describes as the “magic dirt” theory. This species of theory says that we must assume that all people are equal, and therefore when we subject them to the same laws and economic pressures, they perform the same way. It is an implicit argument for diversity, which Leftists view as a subset of class warfare designed to achieve equality.
The Alt-Right expresses one of its pillars as the idea that genetics, not laws and propaganda, determine the future of a nation. We cannot mold people into equal citizens. The first group would argue that is because of defects in certain groups; the second group argues that this is because different groups have different expressions of self-interest, starting with the need for identity and pride in who they are.
The question upon us then is whether diversity could work — that is, function as a policy which contributes more good than harm to society in accord with its goals — at all. Policies fail all the time; we implement them with good intentions, then realize that their goals are paradoxical or at least paradoxical to our goals, and then revoke them. Think of how Prohibition, which was more popular than diversity even, became enacted through a Constitutional Amendment and then repealed the exact same way.
The root of race realism is recognition that each group has its own ways, and that these do not apply to any other group; it also includes knowing that every group, like every individual, acts in self-interest, and that the interest of every group is to conquer all others and assert itself — culture, heritage, values, language, customs, calendar, cuisine and morality — through total control in as much territory as it can get. This is the Machiavellian realpolitik of ethnicity and is the only universal thing about humanity, mainly because it is not based on “human-ness” but on the needs of survival.
Diversity conflicts with this race realism. It supposes that you can dump random people into an area, enforce laws on them and bribe them with “good jobs,” and you will get the same results as you did with the people who invented those laws. This reverses causation: the original group created those laws as an expression of their culture, itself an expression of their ethnic makeup and values, and no other group will find itself compatible with those laws.
When seen through the lens of race realism, diversity cannot work because different groups are different and have different self-interests, therefore when combined in the same area, those self-interests will inevitably conflict. We all need different things, which is why we formed different ethnic groups in the first place, originating either from Hyperboreans (per the Traditionalists) or a migration from Africa and then parallel evolution as modern science alleges.
As a Southern man, one is more likely to be mugged by Mexicans than blacks — but the same is true for blacks, Asians and middle easterners. The orientals run rigged businesses which are notoriously good at extracting government aid; the Mexicans and South Asians steal by convenience and holdups; the blacks are known for violent muggings and gang violence; the middle easterners tend to run illusory businesses and focus on contraband and graft. These stereotypes exist for a reason, and they exist across ethnic groups; each perceives these behaviors in each other. This is not racism, but observation of generalities in our world.
Expanding from that however, what we see are conflicts between the type of society that people are genetically programmed for — an expression of their self-interest — and the society created here by Western Europeans. When one lives in the middle east, different behaviors are rewarded and these are handled by society there through designing itself to accommodate those enough to channel them toward somewhat productive results. The same is true of the other groups and their behaviors. When one lives in Africa, gang warfare is the norm.
We can verify that this is true because of stereotypes among different white groups. Western Europeans are perceived as priggish, moralistic and yet prone to deviance. The Irish are known for corruption as well as rigid and fanatical Catholicism. Southern Europeans are expected to participate in Mafia style activities, loud family fights and promiscuity. Eastern Europeans are known for missing the obvious, violent racketeering, and being willing to sell you their women for the right price (often, a Lexus with a gold package).
Even more, we have different castes. The Brahmins are known for being brainy, but also weak to social influences. The Kshatriya are known for their excellence in warfare and craft, but tendency to use pragmatic instead of realistic solutions. Our laborer-caste are known for needing to be told what to do, and requiring constant supervision to avoid slipping into day-to-day “white trash” behavior.
If we are going to be race realists, we must go all the way.
Among Western Europeans, there is little variation. We share Nordic-Germanic roots and are more similar to each other than to any other group. We like the same type of social order, use the same type of gut feeling to assess any action we might take, and have the same need for some kind of reverent or at least purposeful order. We are approximately the same, and other groups — including Eastern and Southern/Irish Europeans — seem alien to us, even if less alien than (in decreasing order) blacks, middle easterners, South Asians and North Asians (Orientals).
Growing up in the South, one knows many good black people. They are not the same as us, but they share many of the same values, which they achieve through their own ends. Their Christianity is different; their cuisine is different (and alternatingly baffling and irresistible); their neighborhoods and social ways are different. But it would be hard for a Southern man to say that “all negroes are bad,” because he knows many good blacks, if not most of the blacks he encounters. Still, they need a different social order and as a group, cannot exist within the white order, which is why after emancipation the white man left the black man to run his own neighborhoods and have his own businesses, schools, police and even courts.
The same is true of any other group. In a massively multicultural majority-minority city such as are common on our Southern border, the average white person knows Jews, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Iranians and members of every other group who are good people, that is, trying to do “the right thing” as best they can perceive it. And yet their needs are different and their methods are different in parallel, which reflects their self-interest as needing a society of their own.
The elephant in the room is pride. Every ethnic group needs to know it lives in a society of its own creation, designed for its ways and goals, which it guides. This gives it a chance to improve qualitatively to the point where the group can say it used its methods to overcome the challenges of nature both visible and invisible, and that its results are entirely the result of its work. This is the basis of pride, and it is part of self-interest.
Diversity takes away not just pride but recognition of self-interest from each group, and forces it to go to war with other groups in order to decide which values system will prevail. In the United States and Europe, the founding populations seem to assume that this issue is settled, and that our languages, laws, values, etc. will always be there. But those are negotiable. Diversity creates a battlefield where each group is forced to try to assert its values over those of other groups.
This is why members of the second group of race realists object to diversity itself, and not simply African-Americans. We do not want to live with even “model minority” groups like North Asians because that, too, is diversity. We recognize that it is unlikely that liberals and conservatives can co-exist for long, even within the same group, much as difference of religion — for example, Catholic versus Protestant — is unstable. We realize that any diversity, even one drop, destroys social trust and hope for the future.
We are what history refers to as “xenophobes.” Back in the day, we opposed slavery because it is a form of diversity. We opposed importation of Chinese workers not because we hate them, but because they would create diversity, and we know that any loss of unity leads to a death spiral of distrust, rebellion against the norm — some would say that the alarmingly teenage Leftist movement came from this — and struggle for power, culminating in social collapse.
The problem is diversity. Diversity does not work. It does not work because it cannot work. In any form — race, ethnicity, religion, politics — it fails and creates a ruin of society. This is why Leftists adore it: their goal is to create a dark organization in our society, attack it and subvert it, then dominate what is left and use that to transfer wealth and power to themselves. They are the parasites that arise when social trust is destroyed by diversity.
Our only future lies in ending diversity. This means that every person who is not of our founding group — Western Europeans in America, ethnic French in France, ethnic Germans in Germany, and so on — must go back to their continent of origin. If we end this as gentlemen, which we should because it is in our nature, we will do so by giving them reparations contingent upon repatriation, so that they may get a good start and we end this bad policy as friends and allies, not resentful enemies.
But it must end. Diversity is paradoxical; it is illogical; it is denial of obvious reality. Over the past 150 years, it has shattered America and over the past forty years, seriously damaged any integrity to Europe. The longshot of this is that it has deprived us of pride and made us into morose, angry, selfish and bitter individuals. Our only survival comes through ending diversity so that we can then tackle those other problems by ourselves, for ourselves, so that someday we may have pride again.
Thursday, September 1st, 2016
Finding the fountain of truth, or the Holy Grail or the Tree of Wisdom has been a human pursuit for a while now. This pursuit is flawed in the sense that gold has similar characteristics to fool’s gold which is often found in the same place.
A singular pursuit for “only” gold can therefore end up in failure despite good intentions. You have to be aware of the presence of fool’s gold too, because that would be a success in itself, despite being a failure relative to gold.
The positivist will stubbornly pursue a foolhardy quest to save the world and will be very disappointed when his horse breaks a leg. On the other hand, the arrogant pursuit of what one believes to be his entitlement is also destined to end in failure.
The fact of the matter is that success is available, visible and achievable despite the real and abundant opposition to it. Think about competition, the crab effect and parasitism and it is no wonder that success is in short supply and failure so easy to achieve.
One example of this is described by Jim Collins where he assessed more than 20,000 listed companies in order to identify only eleven successful feel-good stories. It is therefore difficult to believe that success and failure emerges from the same fountain. This is not about “hoping” or “thinking” to be successful, it is about actual success or failure. However, it is not binary either, there are grades of success or failure too, but it suffices for the sake of argument to estimate that the choice itself is binary with the outcome less so.
Therefore, one makes a choice and then manages the risk towards that selected choice. There is no other way to success. For example, should one desire a child the decision is fairly binary, but getting that baby delivered safe and sound requires a number of very serious hurdles. In fact, it’s quite an industry with insurance cover, labor law etc. and depending on boy or girl, sick or healthy, there is an entire world waiting (in anticipation) for that baby.
But, getting back to the fountain of success and failure I have to first refer to Maslow’s hierarchy of human potential. This is a simplistic reference and will undoubtedly require further investigation by experts in the field. However, it looks like this:
What Maslow found apparently was that some individuals were only motivated by their basic needs while others found self-actualization attractive. It is possible that an entire group of individuals share a potential for basic needs and likewise for self-actualization. It is therefore possible to imagine that a change-over in group potential happens in the area depicted as psychological needs. The assumption is that there are no other groups. In other words, one group is working its way up, while another group is working its way down ending up with both groups meeting in the middle, as it were.
It must be recognized that when Maslow defined this pyramid, he did not envision a group “working downwards”, but actually that everybody (and each) working their way upwards with some going further than others. However, when he sampled students for this study, they were already distributed in this fashion. So, it’s not just a question of getting wiser as you get older.
For example; a group that might have a strong(er) potential for “belongingness and love needs” could be collective societies whereas a more individualist societal group would exhibit a “need for Esteem”. There is no right or wrong here although it would be easy to start the accusation trade of insults at this point. Remember that it is a question of graded “chance” slowly changing in perhaps a linear fashion across both psychological needs as identified above.
Unfortunately, Maslow did not do an intelligence correlation as far as I can tell at this stage; however, what he did may help further investigation. In addition, self-actualization points towards people with emotional intelligence without guilt or shame. The group populating the self-actualization need category must be relatively small when compared to the basic need category. Although a limited number of people are born into the self-actualization group, most people (like myself) will have to slog their way ever upwards.
The last point concering single humans (which is what the pyramid refers to) is that it is fairly obvious that the basic needs individual will be a lot more focused on his safety than the self-actualization individual. One example is that collectivist societies exist precisely to “save the hive” (r-selection etc.). Another example is that the Mensa organization describes their participants as “dependents” meaning they require general support and not just to fix their washing machines, but to protect them. I can well imagine me and my entire family being quite defenseless while in a “heightened state of self-awareness.”
The next stage of this discussion starts by pointing out the risk of improving oneself. Let us assume that I have a basic need to survive as it were. That means I need food and water and while sleeping, some safety too. In fact, I will also need to be very aware of my safety while searching for water and food. Typically this sort of potential is quite an achievement and those people capable of doing it are sometimes called loners while staying on mountain slopes.
However, imagine you are a mountain lion when suddenly one day, you get that smell of a female lion. That will trigger those survival genes because unbeknownst to the lion, his genes know that his own survival improves with a family around him. The female genes know exactly the same thing hence a family is born. What really happened though, is that the individual risk for each member of the family has been reduced, causing them to have a better life expectancy. In other words, by moving into Maslow’s “belongingness and love needs” category the family exhibits a better potential not only to survive but to develop those tools only available to a group. In fact, those tools a single lion never would have had.
The important point here is that the lion is already programmed for group behavior. The same applies to humans. We are actually organized already without knowing it and although physically independent we remain psychologically dependent. In fact it takes effort “not” to mix with family, friends, colleagues and even strangers. Unfortunately in the case of humans, there is no natural organization beyond the natural family of which monarchy may perhaps be seen as an extension.
This is the point where organizations must be incorporated in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Recent studies show that organizations exhibit (on their own) similar traits as humans. Therefore an organization can also be categorized as “basic” (such as a school) or as having “esteem” (such as a professional society). Therefore organizations can also grow and improve themselves by learning and becoming wiser.
The above is the upside. The downside is where (most) humans decide not to improve, either voluntary (such as a hermit) or involuntary (such as someone caught up in a collective group). That also applies to organizations. Therefore, the deduction is that a single person cannot improve “itself” without an accompanying organizational change.
To reiterate: humans can only improve if their organization allows it.
The lion improved his life expectancy by taking on additional responsibility i.e. responsibility for himself as well as responsibility to his group. However, overall the risk is less, despite the added responsibilities. In fact one can say that the total responsibility is less although it is different when compared to being single. The real reason therefore, why emotional intelligence was identified, is because the individual will have to be able to adapt to something different in order to grow his potential.
The same fountain of hope can also be a fountain of despair because the individual or organization may not be able to adapt, in fact even refuse to adapt to grow its potential. This is quite natural and these people and organizations must be allowed to state that desire (Amish).
A test for the above hypothesis is to apply it to Western Civilization. In short it is an Individualist society that aspired to improve its esteem by colonizing the world. However, as they improved their potential they lost the capability to keep themselves safe. This opened the door to migrants and subsequent mayhem because the migrants do not care for esteem.
The mistake in Western Civilization is that it did not cover the loss of safety as individuals and organizations improved their potential. This new level of safety is not just more safety, but “different.” The benefit was accrued, but the organization never adapted to implement the “different” safety required by that improvement. Hence society improved to a point after which it was dragged back down, as is now evident in worldwide fatality increases and general loss of vision which previously equated to a Type 1 civilization.
This also goes some way to identify the mechanism that initiates societal entropy that previous civilizations missed. The human-organizational dependency was never explored and it would be a good time to start now.
Wednesday, June 29th, 2016
I grew up as a sort of late-comer in a large achiever type family, who managed things over my head, allowing me to simply go about my business.
Growing up like that was nice because the reliability of “my” society was fantastic. I mean things like family Sunday-lunches, family holidays happened regularly without any input from me. I literally never asked for anything or “manipulated” my parents because I knew “it” was going to happen. However, I do remember being bored enough during some holidays to wish for schools to start-up again.
Later in life I married and divorced when my girls were in primary school. I was devastated and tried to take custody but the Court said that unless I could prove my wife to be a bad mother, it was not going to happen. She was not a bad mother, so I had to move on. Later I married a single mother who came with a matriarchal mother-in-law assuming many of the duties to “look after” the young man destined to become my step-son.
I knew going in that this was going to be a difficult assignment. Having come from a society where people did nice things for one another so that they could increase the quantum of niceness in their local community, I adopted a position of accommodating the needs of these three new additions. I would have been a fringe father figure anyway as I was not a biological dad in this case, so I abdicated my fatherly responsibilities in order to allow the mother-in-law and mother to have the control they sought. It was the nice thing to do.
Some days later, I stumbled across this definition of Laissez-Faire, which is the principle that replaced top-down hierarchy:
2: a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action…[it comes from the] French laissez faire, imperative of laisser faire “to let (people) do (as they choose).”
Living on the southern point of Africa, I am not the only one being “laissez-faire” because the native tribal culture in the area around me is the same. In fact many commentators might say the entire Africa is “laissez-faire.” One native language term for it is (and this will be controversial) “emisebenzi” which Google translates as “jobs.” In this context a descriptive explanation might be that “we want jobs,” but that it’s OK if those come tomorrow.
Ten years after I became a fringe father figure, I saw the essence of SJW-type culture when three generations of family members attacked me with an accusation of being abusive. I had thought that honesty was important, and that people who did nice things should be rewarded in kind, but SJW-culture is different. It operates on pure opportunism: if they can get something from you by using one of their carefully-crafted categories of victimhood, the truth does not matter. Only what they want.
Naturally the allegations fell apart but here, now, I saw the face of laissez-faire: if you tell people to do whatever they want, you have opened the door to the lowest common denominator of behavior, since all behaviors are now equal. What people need to hear instead is a trinity: x behavior will be rewarded, y behavior will be punished, and anything else falls in z which gets neither punishment nor reward.
I may be in control now, but somehow I can’t prevent myself from wanting to be nice, hence I remain a “laissez-fare” father. Only this time I can see mistakes in real time.
One group I worked with came up with a managerial technique which uses “values” as a performance measure to align employees of any orientation. The practical outcome is that financial performance improves as adherence-to-values improve.
The same can be done with SJWs despite their lies. When applied as moral pressure, adherence to values determines whether a person is included in the group or not. It immediately becomes clear that some values should come before others. For example trustworthiness is important to become part of a group, even in criminal gangs. If you trust someone, you will listen to that person. This means you will be trainable and changeable, which means that knowledge can be passed on through the group.
That however implicates another important value: honesty. To achieve the desired outcome in training, the person being trained must be honest in admitting what succeeded and what failed. This is not just necessary for training, but happiness. Someone who approaches success and failure honesty is actually integrated with the task, and when he attains victory, will be able to take pride in his achievement because the impetus came from within. If his only celebration is more money or prestige, there is no personal component and so trainability is limited to technique, not goals or understanding.
The group affirms its values with every victory. Once you have achieved something, your group will acknowledge your achievement, which will lead you to have to acknowledge similar achievements by others. This bonds the group to its values. It is a mistake therefore to assume that people adhere to values if there is no reward or punishment involved. Achievement rewards, and the group bonds; but if they are not punished for failing to perform according to the values, they get to be in the group and experience that benefit without having done anything to merit it. This creates a parasitic and resentful psychology.
I realized the same rules apply in a family, which like a corporation, gang, military unit or tribe in the wilderness needs to bond itself through values. Being nice as a father exacerbates the lack of values in children because they are given membership in the family without having to do anything of their own, from an inner impetus, to contribute to it. When being good and being bad have the same consequences, it is more efficient to be bad, because you get the same benefits and can do whatever you want too.
Failing to punish activity outside of values will result in the entire societal environment rotting away. As clients using the method described above demonstrate, if values go down, the company eventually goes bankrupt. In a family, because financial solvency is not derived from the operations of that family, what collapses is trust and even enjoyment of your fellow family members.
The other side of this coin is that leaders must lead by positive example. A child will notice when you are busy and will leave you be, by playing on his own. However, if you sit behind a computer, all bets are off, because it looks the same as if you are sitting behind a television. Sitting behind a television appears to the child that you are doing nothing. Children speak the truth; televisions are literally “nothing.”
Young children learn survival from their parents, they want to sleep, go to the toilet, eat and drink. Anything that disrupts that will be cried over because it’s a threat. If you tell the child to keep quiet because you are watching television, the television becomes the threat. Later in life he will watch television and tell you to shut it.
A local sociologist expressed concern about an increase in teenage boys abusing and killing their mothers. Like SJWs, these people are showing the effects of dark organization created by a lack of clear values.
Instead of being “active” examples — washing floors, mowing lawns, washing cars — parents have become passive examples. This leads to the problem of promises. For example, a parent will watch television and to avoid an “important bit,” they will promise the child something like “just wait dear, we will take you to the playground/movies tomorrow.” This turns children into master manipulators.
Children learn from you. Little children raised on the “tomorrow plan” will learn to do the same to you. They will, long before they can tell time or read a calendar, ask you what you will be doing tomorrow. Through this they learn to persuade and eventually manipulate their parents as a way of working around the unclear values of “do as I say, not as I do” implied by a parent prioritizing doing nothing over interacting with the child.
Master manipulators live in the future by ignoring anything you tell or teach them. They have only one goal: the expectation they have in their brains — a “want” or “need” — regardless of the consequences. For them, consequences do not exist because without a clear values system, all that matters is whether they get what they want or not.
The failure to consider the consequences of actions planned and executed is a problem because the situation will turn violent and vicious if the expectation is not met. The (by now) well-known effect of a SJW “mob-attack” based on “words” is a clear example of the threat to some unknown future “expectation-loss.” The SJW, having grown up without values, knows only what they want and how to argue for it, and when they are denied it feels like a denial of their existence itself.
Parents have to manage children just as surely as we manage employees or soldiers. The grim, socially unpopular and thus suppressed truth is that laissez-faire leadership produces sociopaths. The mistake a laissez-faire father makes is to fail to be an example of engaging threats, because the engagement of bad things is necessary to enforce what is good and therefore, to give the child a target larger than his own expectations.
Children instinctively expect their fathers to make war against threats, whether a rattlesnake in the rose bed or criminals lurking around the back porch. They also expect their fathers to make internal war against bad behavior, both in the child and in the father, so that if the child needs attention and the father is watching television, the father stands up and turns off the device to instead affirm the positive values of the family itself by engaging with his child.
In a democratic society, the inability to enforce these values creates waves of alienated sociopaths like SJWs. A father and his son drive by a mosque on the way to church, and the son asks why they are not going to the mosque instead of the church. Pluralism does not provide a values-based answer, but an expectation-based one; saying “we just like this better” reduces an important life-choice to a triviality like which condiment one puts on french fries.
In that situation, the father has to either speak up the plain truth and say that Islam is not desired whether because it is foreign or bad, or he has to tacitly endorse the mosque and destroy values systems. If he says Islam is bad, he reveals himself to be cucked, because if it is really bad, he will be making war against it. His failure to do so affirms moral equivalence — good and bad are the same — in the mind of the child.
There is much more that one can say on this subject, but I do not actually have answers as to how things should be. All I know is, I am a laissez-faire father and it irks me.
Friday, June 17th, 2016
Exterminate all rational thought.1
Wherever human society goes, it creates the seeds of its own destruction. I posit that this occurs as a result of the increasing formalization of organization, meaning that instead of leaving choices to humans alone on the basis of their judgment alone, rules and structures are written down and enforced in an effort to perfect a process and also make it easy for a person of average ability. This explains why every human civilization so far has failed at the height of its power.
Formal order, or that which involves rules and procedures instead of generalized goals with latitude for the individual to succeed or fail much as they do under Darwinian nature, creates dark organization through the following methods:
- Absolutism. Rights and other one-way measures of authority take the place of choosing to approve or disapprove of actions on the basis of their likelihood of achieving the goal. In this way, authority takes the place of reality, much as in civilization social pressures replace reality as well. Both of these are subsets of the general pattern of the human ego replacing reality, and demanding that others acknowledge its reality as a means of denying possibly unpleasant aspects of existence.
- Selection bias.
- People: formal organizations select people who seek power or wealth for their own sake. Since formal organizations replace reality-based methods of selecting success, those who fulfill the needs of the formalized process are rewarded. This is simpler than making things simply work, which attracts both the less able and drives away the more able who find it tedious.
- Facts: formal organizations create a process of rationalism, or searching for some answer that fulfills a predefined objective. This objective occurs independent of the whole, or on the level of detail, which filters out noticing of that which clashes with what is being done at a lower level, which means that people robotically apply procedure to detail, and that higher-ups never hear about the inadequacies of their models.
- Careerism. Formal organizations reward doing what those above demand in preference to achieving a complete task in its own right. As a result, those who succeed are not the competent but the socially-competent, and people are driven by fear of not meeting requirements, not failing in their task. The person who produces irrelevant or wrong results which fulfill the needs of the process will be rewarded over the one who notices that something is amiss in the mental model being used, or achieves the task without doing all of the steps that please higher-ups.
- Subsets. By the nature of formalization itself, wider questions are reduced to pre-defined narrower ones. This both enables the process to work through deconstruction, or dividing big questions into many smaller ones, and through use of average people, who can obey recipes and rules but not (perhaps) ascertain what is needed and critically assess it on their own. The result is that the lost data becomes a “conspiracy of details” which although small fractions at each part of the process add up to a much larger amount on the level of the whole.
If you wonder why civilization always fails, it is because it its own worst enemy: the process of civilizing, when not stopped before it becomes formalization for its own sake, produces robotic people who are masters of details and oblivious to reality and the whole question of each task.
This manifests most in the workplace and school, but also undermines the social process. Instead of the role of being a good friend, people seek others who flatter them and meet their personal needs for objects such as people to engage in social activities with. This reverses selection for the best people, and instead creates a need for obedient ones who do not care about the consequences of their actions.
As such, formalization is a removal of responsibility. Instead of being accountable for end results, people are assessed by the fulfillment of tasks designed artificially: doing their work on homework assignments, filling out the right paperwork, saying the right thing in a political speech or social engagement.
Formalization rewards lowercase-c conservatism, or conformity to process, past successes and the opinions of others. Someone who does a task in a different way is at risk even if he succeeds, but someone who follows the process will be rewarded even if she fails.
It has long been clear to me that human “best intentions” are the cause of the decline of complex societies. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say, and our best intentions have us find a right way to do things, then write it down, and then to control others in order to force them to follow this one right way. From that comes a form of internal entropy, division and eventually, mediocrity and doom.
1 — William S. Burroughs, as cited in the movie Naked Lunch and derived from his early works.
Wednesday, May 11th, 2016
The title of this posting is not a mistake, but rather intended to show that (at least in my estimation) psychologists are (in toto) busy falling off the table by saying that spanking is bad. Some time ago the pepper-pot Albert Brenner rightly identified me as a positivist. After that, when I mentioned that emotions are an attribute to conservatives rather than liberals/SJWs (whom mostly express surface feelings based on a low average emotional state), he made the remark that Freud (and Jung) seems to have been the last of the real investigators in this area of expertise (my wording).
The thing is that the Patriarchy seems to have been under attack from all corners, despite it being relatively successful. (I am positive about that) Meaning that spanking is probably a Patriarchal thing and apparently a “white” thing, hence a bad thing detrimental to those poor children – especially the greatest generation?
The “Developmental Psychologist” Elizabeth Gershoff literally spent her life on researching and building the argument that spanking is bad . I asked a retired remedial post-graduated teacher if he supports spanking and he stated “only under severe circumstances”. I then asked a medical General Practitioner whom also assisted convicts receiving corporal punishment and he stated “convicts in general never returned for another “spanking”. In fact they hated it and think it worse than being raped in a normal prison – meaning they were not caught again or they moved to another town. Finally I spoke to a warden and he stated that corporal punishment was generally only given to serious first offenders as an alternative to actual long prison sentences. But he also told me, that “in his days” the principle “leaders” of a community (such as the Head of a School, the Mayor, the Religious Pastor, the Business Chairman, the Sheriff, the Judge and himself) would meet on a quarterly basis to discuss the current state of affairs, including problem citizens.
This is interesting because these “old guys” followed a multi-disciplinary process or perhaps an integrated process to address “punishment” and other solutions to benefit an entire society, of which “spanking” is basically a small part.
But Elizabeth is adamant:
“In a recently published meta analysis in the Journal of Family Psychology, Gershoff and University of Michigan professor Andrew Grogan-Kaylor sift through 75 studies, for a total data pool of nearly 161,000 children, and find “no evidence that spanking is associated with improved child behavior.”
She then follows that with a paltry;
“But Gershoff suspects spanking does lead to these detrimental outcomes. Or, at the very least, she makes the convincing case that spanking doesn’t do any measurable good.”
What she is saying is that data collected over approximately 4 decades indicate that spanking does not do any “measurable” good.
Business people in general like the concept of “carrot and stick” where the carrot (such as a bonus) is supposed to incentivize an employee and the stick (to be fired) positioned as the alternative. There are no counselling sessions, stress amelioration, sharing of feelings or other modern bed-side manners. The stick is therefore a widely accepted “punishment” technique literally used by everybody and I have never heard anybody complain about it. (If there are complaints – it is of no consequence)
Clearly punishment works well with humans. It works so well that cuckolded politicians are willing to sell their wives to prevent personal “punishment”. It works so well that youthful commentators would heavily criticize Christian people, but not Muslims (because Muslims are violent). It works so well that accredited journalists would fake facts to prevent bad imagery – a sort of victim mentality. It works so well that SJWs Always Lie ( via the author VoxDay) to prevent “punishment”.
At this point it is clear that there are more to “punishment” than mere psychology. But to illustrate the point that psychology has been on thin ice for a very long time, consider the following actual cases:
- An SJW mother and child go to see a psychologist (about the child’s deviant behavior). Using excellent bed-side manners the psychologist tells the mother that she raised her boy incorrectly between 3 and 5 years, but that it was not her fault because she was divorced. The mother simply moved on to discuss the “next” step. She did not ask what exactly went wrong so that she can correct her own deviant behavior, but mostly the 30 year old female psychologist did not even attempt to explain, even if she could. I doubt she could because she has never heard of the term “SJW”. There are strong indications that SJWs and liberals in general have mental issues, so how does this “developmental” psychologist specializing in secondary school children not know this?
- Psychologists are academically disinclined to investigate contentious issues simply by its very nature of appeasement (don’t worry – I understand – we all have the same problems – but we’ll help you through it – ok?) So they spend time on moral things like what is right or wrong (spanking) or on whether meat is actually good for you. It may well be that Albert Brenner was right to criticize psychology for not knowing things, in fact my opinion based on dark organizational theory is that psychologists know very little indeed. I recently confirmed this when speaking to a psychology student who said that this aspect did not feature in her curriculum (at all).
The concept of spanking has been racialized too by saying that it came from the “slave-masters” but some reference was also made that “beatings” are not actually spankings. There may be some truth to this because African tribal culture does not support “spanking”. This is confirmed by my own observation in South Africa, but Stefan Moleneux challenged me by referencing a non-tribal inconsequential black Christian church doctrine promoting “spanking”. In fact even in Muslim culture spanking is rarely applied. It may be fair to say (since I’m not a psychologist) that collectivists raise their children in a more collective fashion (i.e. the village raise them), than western families, where they actually would rather “cover” for each other than enforce some “punishment” (on whose authority?)
The question remains – is spanking for the good of society? Since western society is the most successful society ever – maybe it is. Punishment may start at spanking, but it quickly escalates in the adult world. In collectivist cultures perpetrators are mostly just killed (beheaded), but in western society a more gradual approach is taken and it appears “that” contributes to success. Here is a chart of incarceration vs 10% wealth showing the more successful a justice system, the better for the economy (broadly stated).
Spanking therefore is indeed better than not-spanking, for the child and for society as a whole.
Sunday, February 7th, 2016
Books have tackled the topic of “dark organizations” and lately academic rigor was attempted by Linstead et al. (including Garance Marechal at Manchester University). Initially it was thought that it was a psychological topic, then a sociological topic, so it came as no surprise that these academics concluded a multi-disciplinary domain as suitable for conversations around “dark organizations.”
So instead of diving into the detail of dark organizational case studies, it may be possible to simply discuss the issue in a random sort of way. For example a physicist mentioned entropy the other day saying that “if all roads leads to Rome and you are on a road, then it would be safe to say that you will end up in Rome!”
The conversation will then tend to move towards “where are you now?” and that is where the fun starts. How to answer that becomes more important because – will you be honest, or will you attempt to put things “into perspective” with a metaphor, or will you lie?
Typically a manager would repeat the rhyme currently pushed by the company:
Clearly he won’t say anything about himself, or his own career path, or his own frustrations. Does that mean he was being dark? Not at all. Withholding information is not a crime unless it aids and abets a crime. In the case of dark organizations there is no crime, however, worker unions have a wonderful term called “go slow” as an activity they propose as an alternative to “strike action.” Going slow may look like a dark organization because performance drops substantially, but it is not, because they are honest about it. They will look you in the eye, lying about their activities (assuming therefore that you know about the “go-slow”) requiring you to infer the reality of how a go-slow can be fixed.
So, if you are on the road where you are withholding information (or pretending), and additionally not being honest or following a “dishonest” process, then you generate a picture that is untrue and will end up not making sense to the audience. Darkness is, if you are on the road to no-where, you will most surely end up there. The result of ending up no-where, is that you will become mad, literally. Somebody estimated that 25% of people are mentally unstable. I am sure that is over-stated, but how would one know? DNA genetics statistics suggested the other day that psychological traits can be inherited. This seems plausible only if you include un-certifiable mental illnesses. If you can’t certify it, you cannot make laws on it meaning going dark is not a crime, it’s a condition(trait) that causes your company to go slow permanently.
It is quite limiting for managers to know they can’t prohibit dark behavior in employment letters, or punish it with a disciplinary policy. However, it is also comforting for them to know that they have this avenue should things go south. And things can get bad, as described by psychiatrist Howard Stein, so bad in fact that an employee can become traumatized and erratic while suffering limited memory loss (permanently). I know a mathematician that had to develop traffic light algorithms in a short time span, losing it, was “let go” and ended up divorced and living in a caravan/camping site. If this particular intelligent person had followed the dark road, he would not have gone mad (so quickly) but his boss may have lost it. Funny enough, as it turned out eventually, the company dropped the entire $6m product drive and the executive in charge had to leave himself, unable to explain what went wrong. (There were more trauma cases in case you were wondering.).
At this point the conversationalists becomes a little wary because they realize it can happen to them too. So the questions then attempt to determine the extent of darkness in society.
Re-direct to the American management topic of “hire and fire”. It is normal to say in a “capitalist” society we are proud to embrace the policy of “hire and fire” and that it’s normal to have “two” jobs. Meaning that when I talk to a bank employee, I should know that he won’t be there next time I visit. This makes it difficult for me (the client). And here I thought the customer is “king.” Not in America.
However, the push-back against hire and fire can be seen since it is quite visible. The auto workers union succeeded in bringing the American automotive industry to its knees. They are represented at Board level and can virtually veto any management decision. I am sure there are more qualified people able to describe this situation but I am also sure Daimler and Obama can tell dark stories about this.
Re-direct (again) to the American(ised) topic of “industrialization.” It is not a new concept since the “Industrial Age” however, industry bodies attempt to “industrialize” the industry (such as the automotive industry permeating every nook and cranny of society worldwide), not to forget about pharmaceuticals, or the oil and fracking industries affecting geo-politics through a plethora of lobbyists, but the latest and not least -– the election industry where “strategists” are now circling countries, let alone political parties. The point of any “industry” is to maximize its impact on society, in order to perpetuate the salaries and pensions of those working there. In other words –- it has nothing to do with clients or even voters. The next upcoming “industry” is the geographic information systems industry.
This motivates how the American middle-class is being marginalized, because they have become the target. This is serious stuff but the conversationalist feels better because he/she is not in focus here, the elite is, and it is easy to shift focus and blame to an amorphous entity that everybody will agree with.
So now that we are comfortable the question is –- “yes but, to what extent is this going on in business” (getting closer to conditions that may affect his salary and bonus). Unfortunately the author Jim Collins wrote a book tiled How the Mighty Fall which is about listed companies evaluated over a period of 10 years. Of those approximately 20, 000 companies only 11 passed the test to be called “Great” while the “rest” are clearly not. This requires further clarification however: a company performing at 20% of its potential is assumed to have failed and ignored. However, many of those continue to exist and do not always go bankrupt. I would suggest that a simple life-long multi-year revenue chart may actually be better to expose a dark organization.
The rising concern in dark organizations is multi-nationals able to pick the low fruit of tax havens en production facilities in the “world” and then to enforce their “policies” directly on local executives at will. Not to improve the local organization, but to improve the “salary silo” at headquarters (where-ever that may be).
At this point the conversationalist starts to see the bigger picture and the question (of a more concerning nature) becomes: “Yes, but where do all this come from?”
To answer that one has to investigate humans. How did humans evolve? What makes us do things? The answer is difficult but some light was shed by Dr. Victoria Horner with her research on differences between human and gorilla children’s learning abilities. The difference is that humans over-imitate while gorillas just imitate while learning. Both species imitate their parents in order to develop survival skills, but humans do it (slightly) differently.
It is possible to deduce that humans use tools and that by imitating the use of “tools” rather than “purpose” (food) that gorillas are interested in, humans developed a force multiplier projecting them to the civilization we have today. However, we have never learnt to “limit” tools because we have until now assumed that we will always go “forward” being optimistic and all, you know.
The gorilla learning needs understanding as well because some humans do that rather than learning tools (because tools are difficult). The gorilla is “aware” of the “purpose” of the actions he wants to imitate. In other words, the end-goal of the actions undertaken is what the gorilla learn(food), not the unnecessary technique. Some humans (a lot), whom in modern times could be described as SJWs, do that too. In other words, if you talk to them, they would focus on what your purpose(intention) is, rather than the detail of what you discuss. Their actions then will be determined by what they think your goal is, while they will NEVER inform you of their own goal/purpose. This is of course darkness personified.
The conversationalist now realize how fragile humans are. So the question becomes more security oriented, “yes, but how do we protect ourselves.” This is a very important question and most people think about the short term, but it’s actually the long term we should be concerned about. The crux of security is also in our early education between parent and child. According to Dr. Barbara Holtman researching a solution to South African crime, she (finally) suggested that children not be jailed and that alternative remediating education be implemented for them – to reduce crime that affects 25% to 50% of the population (2 million serious crimes per year). In other words, what she is saying is that we should raise our kids properly. As Donald Trump might say: this is yuge.