Posts Tagged ‘leadership’

Understanding r / K Strategies

Tuesday, October 24th, 2017

The Right is obsessed with finding the root of our downfall, and it will be our doom if we let it continue. We are wondering how deeply the rot goes, which is another way of wondering out loud what we can trust in a wasteland of failed ideas, lies and corrupted institutions.

In my reading of history, the answer is simple: any time herd behavior takes over, which always happens, human institutions begin focusing more on unity than purpose, and through that lose unity, because focusing explicitly on unity causes us to concern ourselves with bribing and cajoling people to stay in line. That then empowers them to act in chaotic, selfish ways.

Our society hit this one hard simply because we were good. We rose above the rest, and beat all of the relatively simple challenges of early civilization, but that meant that we then encountered other challenges that were harder. We leveled up, and the new level boss is more of a beast machine than any of the others.

People keep looking for “automatic” reasons that we failed, all of which are essentially versions of, “well, that’s just how things happen, everything fails over time.” This attitude is an artifact of our time, where everyone is having a screaming tantrum in order to avoid seeing the truth:

This was a choice. We made a bad choice. It did not need to happen. We screwed up and wasted centuries and many lives.

There, I feel better now that I have gotten that out. I know the temptation to rationalize/justify is immense, and I am sympathetic to those caught in its grip, because who wants to face the fact that most of their lifetime is wasted on garbage, their society is thrown in the dungheap, and almost all recent achievements are landfill? But that is what equality does really well: destroy things.

Out there, everyone has someone to blame. The white nationalists blame Negroes and Jews; the Left-wing Jews blame the white nationalists; the poor blame the rich; the middle class blames the politicians; the politicians point out that the middle class voted for them, without complaint, for a hundred years. On and on it goes.

In fact, as written about on this site, what kills civilizations is the same thing that kills other human organizations: they focus on their members instead of their goals, creating entropy because each member, when encouraged to do so, will name something different that they want as a way of demonstrating that they are unique. This enables them to stand out from the crowd and socialize with others more effectively.

As Anonymous Conservative was kind enough to point out, this puts me and people who think like me at odds with most theories of our decline, including the notion that imbalance between r/K reproductive strategies is the origin.

In my view, the r/K strategy differences are inherent to humanity because of the way the standard distribution works. In any group of things, there will be variation of any given attribute that approximates a bell curve; for this reason, there will always be mostly r-strategy people in the lower castes, and K-strategy people will occupy the upper castes.

AC’s explanation of r/K strategies shows the deeper problem, however:

One microbe might find that other species of microbes would take their food, or even eat them, and these threats too, had to be dealt with through expenditures of energy, and the production of still other materials. The food available to them was limited in nature, and thus they would evolve complex machines designed to only digest a specific compound or compounds, to exploit a specific niche. They might even evolve to alter their metabolic processes, extracting energy less efficiently, but producing metabolites which killed their competition.

As a result, these organisms would spend a lot of the energy they consumed doing a myriad of things to survive, and this energy would, as a result, not go into reproducing. In nature, any microbe which did not have all of these adaptations would be quickly killed, and would be a Darwinian dead end. Thus those I isolated were programmed by eons of evolution to expend a lot of energy on a lot of complex efforts to keep themselves alive in their natural environment. As a result of all of this magnificent complexity, they grew quite slowly following their isolation.

On Tryptic Soy Agar, however, millions of cells would each grow freely, absent any selective pressure like that applied by nature. Invariably, a few would lose a gene here or there, which would disable some of these complex adaptations to their natural environment. These cells, now unburdened by these complexities, would channel all of their energy into reproducing their simpler descendents, and they would grow faster. Instead of preparing to fight off the microbial hordes, they would simply focus on converting substrate into new (simplistic) cells, thereby reproducing as quickly as possible. They would out-populate their more complex peers, and eventually become the defacto form of the isolate.

In many areas of life, and in the West since the Mongol invasions, the simple truth has been that whoever produces the most people will not be clobbered by his neighbors, and when it comes time to launch industry, he will have plenty of warm bodies to do that, too. This probably goes back even before agriculture, when warring bands ran at each other with swords and spears.

In fact, the history of Europe may be that of a roving band of people who avoided such behavior, and as a result were able to refine themselves to a higher degree of ability, even if that meant that they had to avoid conflict by remaining nomadic. When they settled in Europe, they became prosperous, and this allowed them to become bottom heavy with r-strategy people.

For many centuries, an aristocratic system kept this in check by relegating proles to subservient roles. After enduring many crises, including the Mongol invasions, the Black Plague, Islamic invasions, religious wars and the imperial wars following the rise of ancient Greece and Rome, the European aristocracy gradually began to fall behind in numbers.

Eventually, the mercantile middle class — people who were good at making money, but were not bright enough to foresee the problems with their desire for more — and the proles joined together and overthrew the aristocrats. Since then, our civilization has been in the final stages of decline.

My guess is that the decline began even earlier, after the end of the nomadic days, when the rise in fixed civilization essentially made the leaders beholden to spend most of their time taking care of the rest of the herd. This is the nature of any human group, and the only solution is to have a strong internal hierarchy, but that was weakened by crises.

If we make a bad decision, we can later stop doing that thing and then reverse it, and it is that for which I argue. Instead of seeing a two-stroke cycle by which society gets good and then inevitably fails, so that it is no one’s fault, and then society gets good again, I see that we made a bad choice and must resolve to never do that in the future.

Another view of this can be found through a view of population roles:

According to Eric Gans, the first human scene, upon which we can model later ones like that sketched above, is more precisely specified. Here we have a desirable object, presumably some food item, at the center of the not yet human group: these advanced, highly imitative apes, have their appetite for that central object inflamed, made into desire, by the awareness of the desire of all the other members of the group. This intensifying desire overrides the animal pecking order that normally maintains peace within the group—the alpha animal eats first, the beta animal eats when the alpha is finished, and so on. The alpha could never withstand the force of the group as a whole, but animals never “organize” themselves as cooperative, coordinating groups. Now, as all start to rush to the center, the animal hierarchy is abolished. What takes its place, according to the originary hypothesis, is the sign—what Gans calls the “aborted gesture of appropriation.”

…I’ve explored in a couple of recent posts the problems involved in the process of institutionalization. There’s nothing new here—in one of the commemorations I’ve read recently for the just deceased science fiction and military writer Jerry Pournelle, I’ve heard attributed to Pournelle the observation that in every institution there are those who are concerned with the primary function of the institution, and those concerned with the maintenance of the institution itself. Anyone who has ever worked in any institution knows how true this is, with the exception that plenty of institutions don’t even have anyone concerned with (or cognizant of) its primary function any more. Those concerned with the primary function should be making the most important decisions, but it will be those interested in institutional maintenance who will be most focused on and skilled at getting into the decision making positions. But someone has to be concerned with the maintenance of the institution—those absorbed in its primary function consider much of the work necessary for that maintenance tedious and compromising. (The man of action vs. the bureaucrat is one of popular culture’s favorite tropes—in more fair representations, we are shown that sometimes the bureaucrat is needed to get the man of action out of holes of his own digging.)

If we go back to the simple scene outlined in the beginning, we can see this is a difference between those who are first on the scene, and those who are second—for simplicity’s sake, we can just call them “firsts” and “seconds.” The seconds establish the guardrails around the firsts as the latter do their work, and they make for the “interface” between the firsts and those who gather around the scene (the “thirds”). They will also decide which resources get called for and which get through to the firsts, who are too busy to see to such details. There is no inherent conflict between the firsts, seconds and thirds, but there is the potential for all kinds of conflict. The firsts (and the first among the firsts) should rule, and should be interested in nothing more than enacting all the signs of deferral that have been collected through successive acts of rule. Even defense against external enemies is really a function of enhancing the readiness of the defenders of the community, and the community as a whole, and doing that is a function of eliminating all the distractions caused by desires and resentments, with the most attention dedicated to where it matters most. The seconds should be filtering information coming from below, marshalling resources, and transmitting commands and exhortations from the ruler. And the thirds, the vast majority of the community, should be modeling themselves on and ordering their lives in accord with the hierarchy constitutive of the community.

Like r/K strategy theory, this explains how people corrupt their own organizations, but not the cause. The fundamental cause is a failure of hierarchy, usually brought on by many sustained threats, and its replacement with an order based on social concerns, like what is popular and who wants to do what.

The West has avoided this realization for some time because it means that we are the source of our own failure, and that we must actually change in order to fix it, including rejecting the idea of equality. External “this just did it to us” theories make it easy for the individual to continue his path of hubris without accepting responsibility for the role of individualism in our decline.

Swarms: The Intermediate Post-Democratic And Pre-Hierarchical / Tribal Reality

Friday, October 20th, 2017

In this stage of technology and social organization, many seek a holy grail of sorts in the idea of the swarm. A swarm consists of small autonomous objects that coordinate with each other without having to use a centralized authority to pass messages.

For example, a drone swarm is dropped on a target with a general idea, like taking out anti-aircraft weaponry, but then collaborates improvisationally to determine what to do. There are no formal leaders per se except for those who sent the swarm out in the first place.

In this way, swarms resemble what most of us think of when we hear the word swarm: insects. A swarm of bees act for their queen, but take on roles in an ad hoc manner when in the field; a swarm of locusts just eats everything in sight. We might say that swarms are semiconscious.

Our brains use a technique like swarming which has an analog to threading in computer science. Many ideas present themselves, and only those which are compatible with one another are selected, and that general type is compared to what is perceived externally. This presents the most internally consistent and most realistic options.

Democracy avoids the swarm by instead creating something more like a yeast bloom. In this, many equal organisms participate only in what rewards their immediate nutritional needs. They are thus both individualistic to the point of being oblivious to larger reality, and acting as a collective, where each individual does the will of the group so that the individual gets his own reward.

The “yeast bloom” approach fails because it is linear and invariant. As long as there is food, there will be more yeast, until at some point there is no more food, and then all of the yeast die. If you wonder why our society tends toward extremes in reasoning, it may be this basic model: we are either thriving or about to suddenly die, and people are trying to guess which.

If we designed a society around a swarm, it would consist of people who were basically autonomous but responsive to a hierarchy, or multiple levels of authority. At the bottom level, there are cells of a few units, with a leader, and those leaders report to someone above them, who reports to someone further above, eventually reaching a command and control level. That is where humans are different.

We need kings, and leaders beneath them, but in place of some universal overlord of all, we have principles, cultures, religion and basic belief. We are fully of the swarm, in that our overlord was set by our mission when deployed, and this task of adaptation to our environment has produced evident principles over the centuries. We know the basics, but no one but our leaders can understand them.

Swarms can re-orient after loss by identifying local leaders and having those select the leaders above them. In contrast to mass voting, this consists of recognition of evident traits in those leaders, which is not a matter of preference but of analysis. People follow those who are able to lead.

If the 20th century had a metaphor, it was the assembly line which produced identical parts. As we venture into the 21st, it has become clear that the problem with identical parts is that they are unable to achieve the flexible response that is needed for changing conditions, so we are transitioning to swarm-based thinking.

As democracy collapses, the idea of equality — including “one person, one vote” and the idea that all people should be treated the same way despite unequal contributions — will itself become distrusted, leading to the recognition that we need leaders. The balkanization that happens when formerly-diverse republics fragment will transfer focus to local leaders, and those by recognizing that they need more, will then re-form the constituent societies of our former state, but do so separately, preserving the swarm.

For a swarm to work, all of the units must be highly compatible and able to both understand the signals sent by others, and act according to values or principles shared by the others. This requires a greater compatibility than ideology or economics can provide, and so the unity will occur at the level of genetics, so that there can be no errors in transmission as occur with education.

While many think of insects when the term “swarm” is mentioned, our actual future is like a group of drones dropped over a battlefield. They separate, then group up in small clusters, then take on specialized roles with some commanding, some observing, some acting and some helping the others. This provides maximum efficiency and flexibility.

To modern people, swarms seem paradoxical because they are individuals acting together for something more than self-interest or shared interests; they are acting toward the principles for which the swarm was deployed. Culture, heritage and values rule over the hand-to-mouth logic of purely economic or ideological living.

As the age of ideology fades, our human future will look more like this swarm, and less like a horde of insects or yeast, ravenous to the point of being suicidal, unleashed on an environment that they will consume, then move on to another, never reflecting on the choices or possibilities available to them.

Through doing this, we will come to understand ourselves better as individuals. Like drones in a swarm, we will each take on generally specialized roles (watcher, leader, fixer, helper, worker, warrior) and understand ourselves in this context so that if we do it well, we will feel good about ourselves, instead of comparing ourselves to some idealized person who wins everything at once.

From the perspective of this future, we will see the years of the age of ideology as having been as chaotic and disorienting as they have been. But without that burden holding us back, like a chronic infection, we will be able to take on more ambitious projects without our human linearity and individualism getting in the way.

And the Childless Should Not Lead Them

Thursday, May 11th, 2017

So when you hit fifty, you’ve pretty much reached your career pinnacle and you have no desire to move to a new place, what’s next? What are you there for? How does a man find a why instead of a dead end? What makes that man continue to stretch his time preference and gaze to the final visible extent of time’s vast horizon? If you are a normal American man approaching this tragic age of limitations, lamentations and the annual prostate exam, the answer is obvious – the children.

If your kid is in Little League Sports, you’re still in the gym if you want to help out with the team at practice. If the kids have a hard class or two at school you are reading and learning again to help them with the struggle. Reading about the tuition at your college has you thinking and planning again. Their future primarily; not yours.

You see, the man living a successful life at fifty has hit a new phase thereof. The Hindus called this phase the 6th stage – renunciation. Your success is increasingly measured by what you give to others instead of what you acquire yourself. Your mark upon the world is through the deeds of your progeny, not through yours. Quite literally, it ain’t all about you anymore.

To live a successful life and to reach a stage like this at peace with yourself and in any state approximating inner harmony, you have to cross the liminal threshold that gets you there. Your why at age fifty should have to do with your children. They are the optimistic bet that you have placed on your own ability to create a better future. They are also the key to letting go and living for others instead of merely pursuing the small-minded agenda of self-interest.

I bring you a pair of gurus to explain the things that fly high over the head of JPW…

A Realization of the sixth stage tradition would confess the transcendence of the conditional self and only the Transcendental Self is affirmed. Identifying with only the Transcendental Self. The sixth stage of life is the process of awakening to The Transcendental Self, The Perfectly Subjective Truth of all conditional beings and of the entire cosmic mandala of conditional worlds. In the sixth stage of life, one is no longer perceiving and interpreting everything from the point of view of the individuated body-mind with its desires and goals. One stands in the Transcendental Position, Awake as the Very Consciousness that is the Ground of all that exists.

To the self-focused Homo Economicus, Transcendentalism sucks. It’s making a considered decision against fundamental instinct, to let some other dude hork a bit of your stash. It would be nice if they said “Thanks” instead of just taking you for granted or assuming you were too ingenuous to change your own diapers. If you’ve ever brought up kids; you’ll know this basic and fundamental appreciation isn’t guaranteed unless you train them in it. So, yo Sparky; why transcend?

There really is something in it for MEMEMEME. Self-denial on behalf of those who you love and care for is enlightened self interest. This is particularly easy to understand and practice when the person you give things up for carries forward your family name. Then, it becomes analogous to putting money in the bank. They become the extension of you. You, therefore can except the condign diminution of self. Again, it truly hinges on you transferring your ego to your kids. Your kids heal you of your solipsism.

So what might happen instead if you never have any kids. Well, it remains all about you. Legitimate altruism is replaced by some form of virtue signaling or acquisitive empire-building. You increasingly realize that your death is not the passing of the baton. The less religious you become, the more the impending and mordant finality. The humiliating and frightening knowledge of our picayune existence is assuaged through a sense of continuity.

So what happens when this frightened, humiliated adult, who will have no future lineage beyond the self is in a position that requires a massive level of altruistic giving on behalf of others? What sort of legacy do you get from someone who can’t even produce a legacy for their own family line? A few outliers could do an exceptional job, but the median and the mean? I would assume they would do poorly. I would assume the approach of death would predictably shorten their time preferences and cause them to correspondingly discount the future that the rest of us will live through long after they and all of their kind have departed the harrowing passage of our mortal coil.

These days any ambitious and ruthless hunk of animate meat can lead a nation. Nobody named Bush, Clinton, Obama or Trump would ascend the throne as a Platonic Philosopher King. Being the head gorilla doesn’t require you to be any less simian. Unless, you are personally motivated to actually do the job – not just acquire the title like one more Cal Ripken League Participation Trophy. To do the job you ultimately have to convince yourself that greatness lies in a willingness to strive on behalf of others. The paralysis of self-love must be overcome to lead others.

And yet so much of Modern Europe is lead by an elite that has no children to get them across liminal threshold of broadening self-love to include anyone beyond the self. The Z-Man points out the fact that leaders of France, The UK, Scotland, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden, the Netherlands and the EU are all childless. They are not entrained to even see a future that their genetic line will have no part in. Their skin is not in the game that they play on behalf of their people. Is it not fair to inquire as to whether their hearts are in it either?

Whatever you think of Barack, The Donald, W or Hillary, all four of these people have offspring potentially impacted by any important decisions these individuals will or have already made. Perhaps that’s what The Big O meant when he said he didn’t want his daughters punished with a baby. Those who play stupid games tend to win stupid prizes. Perhaps it sucks even worse when you win those prizes for others.

When you have no stake beyond the next election, you can play as stupidly as you want to with regard to what prizes you win on behalf of people beyond your time horizon. Does anyone really still believe Frau Merkel bothers with what happens to the #Rapefugee victims in Cologne ten years from now? Why should she? This is not her Germany. That nation will effectively wink out of existence the same time she does. It’s like that when your skin is in the ground instead of in the game.

Why Leftism Is Obsolete

Thursday, April 13th, 2017

A quick refresher on the disaster that was the first Leftist revolution:

The Jacobins instituted the General Maximum, a regime of price controls that eventually covered all foodstuffs and a long list of other basic goods. Violating the Maximum was punishable by death. This of course caused widespread shortages and famines. The Republic responded by sending troops into the countryside to seize crops from farmers to feed the capital. The people’s state that had freed the peasantry from their parasitic feudal masters had itself become for them, in a few short years, an even more voracious parasite.

The new Committee of Public Safety, under Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre, then initiated the Reign of Terror: a wave of political violence, including prison massacres and thousands of beheadings, that made the political repression of the overthrown regime look tame in comparison.

…The Republic’s worst single atrocity was the War in the Vendee. An anti-revolutionary rural population revolted against Paris’s attempt to conscript their sons into war. In crushing the insurrection, the Republican government killed as many as over a quarter of a million peasants. Rebel prisoners — men, women, and children — were executed in mass crowds by gunfire and drowning. A state massacring its own people at such a scale was at that time almost unprecedented.

This essay is flawed because the writer goes on to repeat the tired Leftist lie that nationalism arose with the French Revolution. What the fools mean is that nationalism was formalized at that time in defense of the nation-state, but they do not mention that nationalism was a natural instinct and common practice among tribes who saw themselves as bonded in larger groupings such as “the German tribes” or “the Frankish tribes,” all of which were seen a lesser parts of the general idea of European-ness, which even back then divided them into West, South and East clusters of tribes.

However, he points out handily the problem with Leftism: it is unstable, namely because it is based on what the Crowd wants, and what the Crowd wants is the sum of what its individuals want, which can roughly be described as acceptance into society without having to contribute more than obedient behavior; they want freedom from the obligation to behave in a constructive, moral way all of the time.

This is what equality means. The person who does ill is equal to the person who does good, which makes doing ill more efficient and profitable. The serf is equal to the noble. This basically creates a prole holiday where no one is responsible for anything beyond transactions and the pursuit of personal pleasure, which turns people against each other and makes them resentful.

In turn, this naturally makes an unstable society. People do the minimum and act according to ideology through a process known as conformity, but their participation is half-hearted and they do only exactly what they are obligated to; in the meantime, they have no need to do right and good, so when their participation is done, they feel justified in taking or exploiting anything else.

Society at that point deepens its engagement in what we call The Napoleonic Cycle: first, a violent revolution on some pretext; next, a purging of the dissenters and those whose assets can be taken; then, new rules which intensify old problems; finally, as society crumbles, permanent warfare as a means of keeping everyone in line and scared for their lives.

This is the face of Control. Leadership brings people together toward a goal; with Control, the only goal is more Control, and it uses pleasant illusions as a justification to keep itself in power. The end result is that people are forced into equality and conformity so that they can all do the same exact things, day after day, as a means of maintaining order.

Leadership on the other hand is cooperative. Leaders have more power because they have no need to justify themselves. They act as they think is best. They have beneath them a hierarchy of many levels, instead of the two-stage elites and masses model of Control. In this hierarchy, people act as individuals, participating unequally toward the same ultimate goal using different methods.

Nature resembles Leadership more than Control. Aristocracy is a form of leadership; military rule can be. Democracy always starts on a positive note and then, as the lack of standards encourages each person to go their own way, becomes more authoritarian as the society fragments from within. It always ends in a tyranny because democracy is unstable and cannot function for long.

Control creates a bad psychology of self-deception in order to accept that Narrative advanced by those in control, and in doing so, it twists people by making them obedient to the formal system of rules and simultaneously oblivious to the evident and commonsense truth of what they are doing. It steals their ability to have purpose. Witness how this self-deception works:

In one experiment Trivers and his team asked 306 online participants to write a persuasive speech about a fictional man named Mark. They were told they would receive a bonus depending on how effective it was. Some were told to present Mark as likable, others were instructed to depict him as unlikable, the remaining subjects were directed to convey whatever impression they formed. To gather information about Mark, the participants watched a series of short videos, which they could stop observing at any intermission. For some viewers, most of the early videos presented Mark in a good light (recycling, returning a wallet), and they grew gradually darker (catcalling, punching a friend). For others, the videos went from dark to light.

When incentivized to present Mark as likable, people who watched the likable videos first stopped watching sooner than those who saw unlikable videos first. The former did not wait for a complete picture as long as they got the information they needed to convince themselves, and others, of Mark’s goodness. In turn, their own opinions about Mark were more positive, which led their essays about his good nature to be more convincing, as rated by other participants. (A complementary process occurred for those paid to present Mark as bad.) “What’s so interesting is that we seem to intuitively understand that if we can get ourselves to believe something first, we’ll be more effective at getting others to believe it,” says William von Hippel, a psychologist at The University of Queensland, who co-authored the study. “So we process information in a biased fashion, we convince ourselves, and we convince others. The beauty is, those are the steps Trivers outlined—and they all lined up in one study.”

In real life you are not being paid to talk about Mark but you may be selling a used car or debating a tax policy or arguing for a promotion—cases in which you benefit not from gaining and presenting an accurate picture of reality but from convincing someone of a particular point of view.

When people are given public rules, they obey those rules by filtering out everything else they must do, which makes them insincere and prone to believe in illusions. When they are then rewarded for those illusions, they internalize them. This is how societies die, by cherry-picking data and filtering out the non-conforming information, then imitating the illusion in round-robin until the system collapses.

The dysfunctional behavior of government is explained by this as well. Under Control systems, people are told what to do and that if they fulfill that and do not violate the narrative, everything else is acceptable. For this reason, they view their role as conformity to ideology and not generalized morality, which creates a permissive situation that is prone to abuse:

Investigators showed the children more than 1,000 photographs that included pictures of Sri Lankan troops and locations of where the children had sex with the soldiers.

“The evidence shows that from late 2004 to mid-October 2007, at least 134 military members of the current and previous Sri Lankan contingents sexually exploited and abused at least nine Haitian children,” the report said.

After the report was filed, 114 Sri Lanka peacekeepers were sent home, putting an end to the sex ring.

Some of this may merely be third world sexual ethics. Practices that appall us in the West are commonplace in most of the world, and may serve as a necessary social control mechanism. There is no universal sexual morality, but more advanced moral standards offer certain benefits that may not be visible to all people (call it “sociological esotericism”).

However, more likely the situation is that you give people power and then identify a task for them, and so long as they are doing that task, they will use their power in abusive ways. The same practice is true of bicycle riders in the US who are given right-of-way and use it in a passive-aggressive manner, or even hall monitors in high school. Power without responsibility to morality invites abuse, and Control systems replace morality (in addition to: heritage, culture, family, integrity, chastity and eventually sanity).

Now consider this drama:

Congressional Democrats are demanding that key ObamaCare payments be included in the next spending bill, raising the possibility of a government shutdown if they are not.

The calls come a day after President Trump on Wednesday threatened to cancel insurer reimbursements in an effort to force Democrats to negotiate on healthcare reform.

Around here, when the Prole Holiday flag is flying proudly from the pole, people behave badly because there is no responsibility. They are more anonymous people in the industrial city, and can behave like selfish ingrates because they “gave at the office,” or in other words, they have performed their Control function and everything else is now fair game, with no moral standard.

People avoid looking you in the eyes as they cut in line in front of you, block aisles in the grocery store, drive in blithe ignorance of others, throw litter directly into national parks, urinate on monuments and engage in potentially thousands of other low-grade antisocial behaviors. Prole Holiday means you do not have to say you are sorry.

During the last government shutdown, this changed. Prole Holiday was suspended; the normal masses of people milling about the streets vanished, probably because they decided they should do something functional for a change. The passive-aggressive people stayed home. The remaining people started greeting each other, engaging in courtesy, and looking each other in the eyes again.

Leftists are playing a dangerous game with government shutdown, and Trump may force them to it. He wins the longer the government stays shut down, not so much because he can golf and spin-kick alligators at his Mar-a-Lago retreat, but because people will start doing things for themselves and others again.

Charities become the source of what welfare displaced, and they have standards, so even the guy who mumbles about alien abduction and probing non-stop will comb his hair and stop molesting kids so he can get his daily soup. Neighbors get to know each other, and start neighborhood watch groups. People interact informally, naturally and with the intent of making society work again.

If this went on for, say, three months, it is possible that people would begin to snap to and question how much of this government thing we actually need. Normal functional people benefit from none of this stuff, but work more than twice as long to pay for it and because of its myriad rules, laws, regulations, advisories, intercessions and the threat of intervention.

As a result, the people who do nearly everything in society would do just fine without government, and the others would be forced to make themselves useful or go hang out at the soup kitchen over at Our Virgin Of The Holy Legume. This would invert the inverted order we have now, where the strong work for the weak, and would be more pleasant for those who get just about everything accomplished.

A government shutdown would also break the Control structure. Instead of the combination of apathy and deference that comes with micromanaging authority, people would take responsibility for having not a rule-abiding society, but a moral and qualitatively good one. It would more resemble the America of old and might even improve upon it.

Let’s Burn Harvard, Before It Is Too Late

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016


The ephemeral “transitory” nature of today’s communication became quite noticeable when Hillary exclaimed: “What difference does it make?”

At 3:00 am lives were on the line but four hours later no additional lives were affected. Within 4 hours even (and especially) American lives did not matter anymore, to such an extent, that in four years she has forgotten about Ambassador John Christopher Steven’s brutal rape and murder by Muslims.

An alternative option was experienced yesterday when my son was taught (at school) that Jesus just walked away when people spat on Him. That was deemed the right thing to do because time heals everything.

But today it is not an option because my son can’t in typical stubborn fashion shrug his shoulders and say, “I don’t care,” because “time” is not available anymore.

Hillary did not learn from her mistakes and the people that (will) spit on my son, will also not learn. Therefore, time is still important, not to heal, but to prepare, recuperate or to re-group: not to defend, but to attack.

Social media reduces “time available” to interact with normal people and as such cause mental effect on such users. But I would like to take a different approach to re-energize “time” in the #altright, towards politically motivated thinking of project schedules, milestones and deliveries.

Since the concept of time has been simplified into disconnected “transitory” snapshots (by media), the opportunity is herewith taken to re-construct two separated snapshots into a coherent time-based snapshot (as an illustration).

The first snapshot appeared on August 29, 2016 with the release of Robert Stuekers’ book  The European Enterprise: Geopolitical Essays, which hypothesies that that imperial “structures” are being replaced by rampant globalist structures, and argues for a renewed European approach.  Globalism has been going on for ages (actually) and it is therefore no wonder (from a project manager time-based perspective), that deliveries could be expected in the current year.

What few of us realized, is that we have been complicit. We are actually inside this project; we are not outside on some island philosophizing the merits of globalization. That was already done 20 years ago. The concept of globalization was formulated after WW2 resulting in slowly accelerated implementation schedules using technology. The acts and outcomes of this plan is (still) neatly categorized and filed (away) by historians under an assortment of bewildering categories.

But time is fleeting, because merely a month later in September 2016 (according to a next disconnected Twitter snapshot), Tom Bower published a book called Broken Vows, Tony Blair: The Tragedy of Power. This is categorized as a biographical book describing the working life of Tony Blair over thirty-odd years in 600 or so pages. The timing of its release may not bode well for the Presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, because Blair also failed at representing “labor,” used the same #PayforPlay strategy, had similar email problems and pushed the same open borders policies.

Tom Bower did us the favor of providing a practical view of the globalist project that we can digest in a re-constructed time-based snapshot. It provides actual proof of the Globalist Geopolitical project also discussed by Robert Stueker, and in doing so exposes The Bush Dynasty, the Clinton Dynasty, NATO, UN, World Bank and the British free-fall to Brexit. (Even the Russian drive to a multi-polar scenario)

And within all this, as Mike Cernovich said, “Yet, here we are.” Within one month, we had access to the written words describing sixty years of effort that does not show any sign of changing course. This is not a Titanic where everyone is going to die, it is a Dark Organization with the express objective to stifle dissent, destroy the middle-class and keep those dazed masses of any race or identity where they belong – away from the Establishment. In other words: screw civilization; the Elites will just keep whatever they have taken, thank you very much.

American common sense thinking has been totally undermined by this liberal-democratic ideology thereby affecting and literally scaring the average citizen into submission by psychologically using politics-of-fear such as “the Russians are coming” etc. This can be compared to being in a burning home where the owner just wants to run to the outside. The opportunity not to be missed however, is that many “owners” have realized is that this (right here, right now) is a creative burning platform galvanizing each citizen to start a dialogue on real issues.

The first thing to consider when thinking about the liberal Tony Blair, is that he was elected by the Labor Party which is similar to the US Democratic Party. But after his resignation his labor constituents refused to say “Thank you” essentially because he broke his vows.  Also, knowing that the New World Order push liberal-democratic ideology as their preferred political solution, makes a review of his “liberal mind” even more interesting.

According to the book The Liberal Mind: The psychological causes of political madness by Dr Lyle H Rossiter, the following deductions can be made:

  • The strength of the community is destroyed by Government usurpation of welfare.

  • The liberal state is a proper source from which to gratify the longings of the people for various forms of parental care.

  • Infantilizing people result in a broad based crippling of their competence to the detriment of those people.

It is clear that the reason the NWO is pushing liberal democracy is because they know they will benefit from its failure (e.g. Soros). That it will fail is certain, but then as Hillary said: “What difference does it make?”

When looking at Blair through a liberal lens, knowing, that he knows it is a flawed ideology, makes the revelations of his conduct even more insightful. Therefore, knowing that he is going to fail motivates comparison of his actions to those described in Jim Collins’ book How the Mighty Fall. In this sense it could serve as measurement of how civilizations fall as well.

The commonality between the Bower and Collins books is that they refer to a chronological order i.e. organizations fail in sequential fashion and biographies are also recorded in sequential fashion. What was found, incredibly, was that the biographical chapter headings reflected the same language, used as markers that indicate organizational failure.

Therefore, without requiring in depth evaluation, it is quite apparent, that strong language similarities exist between these two books, as can be seen in the table below:


Collins: Sequential Organization Failure Markers

Tony Blair Biography

Stage 1.1

Success entitlement, arrogance

Part 1: Chapter 1 The beginning (of “New” Labour 1997)
Note: The “exuberant” language preferred by Nr. 10 p 221
Note: the adopted “language” was used to disguise the reality of Government p 221

Stage 1.2

Neglect of primary flywheel

Part 2: Chapter 19 The same old tale (not fixing bureaucracy)
Part 3: Chapter 44 Targets vs Markets (it’s all been a failure 2006)

Stage 1.3

What replaces Why

Part 1: Chapter 7 Old King Coal (support uneconomic coal pits)

Stage 1.4

Decline in learning orientation

Part 1: Chapter 6 The Battle plan (unable to wage foreign wars)

Stage 1.5

Discounting the role of luck

Note the phrase “vainglory” on p 67 Blair selling military benefits he has no idea about.

Stage 2.1

Unsustainable quest for growth, confusing big with great

Part 1: Chapter 4 The Gospel

Stage 2.2

Undisciplined discontinuous leaps

Part 2: Chapter 20 The Blair “which?” project?

Stage 2.3

Declining proportion of right people in key seats

Part 2: Chapter 21 Instinct and belief (Appointing unqualified people based on loyalty)

Stage 2.4

Easy cash erodes cost discipline

Part 3: Chapter 43 Cash and consequences

Stage 2.5

Bureaucracy subverts discipline

Part 1” Chapter 8 The wall crumbles (migrant policy masking)
Part 1: Chapter 10 Frustration (teachers)

Stage 2.6

Problematic succession of power

Part 3: Chapter 47 Self-destruction (last 9 months of premiership)

Stage 2.7

Personal interests placed above organizational interests

(Blair did not see “one” organization)

Stage 3.1

Amplify the positive, discount the negative

Part 3: Chapter 41 The Great Game (Afghanistan/Iraq)

Stage 3.2

Big bets and bold goals without empirical validation

Part 2: Chapter 22 Hither and dither (Attacking Iraq)

Stage 3.3

Incurring huge downside risk based on ambiguous data

Part 2: Chapter 23 The bogus students (Migrants)

Stage 3.4

Erosion of healthy team dynamics

Part 1: Chapter 9 A Government adrift

Stage 3.5

Externalizing blame

(Blair never trusted officials)

Stage 3.6

Obsessive re-organization

(Blair was re-elected twice resulting in 3 re-organizations)

Stage 3.7

Imperious detachment

Part 2: Chapter 31 Knights and knaves

Stage 4.1

A series of silver bullets

Part 1: Chapter 13 Saving the NHS

Stage 4.2

Grasping for leader-as-savior

Part 2: Chapter 32 Restoring tradition

Stage 4.3

Panic and haste

Part 2: Chapter 33 Lies and damn’d lies

Stage 4.4

Radical change and revolution with fanfare

Part 2: Chapter 34 Sabotage and survival

Stage 4.5

Hype precedes results

Part 1: Chapter 14 Everything is PR

Stage 4.6

Initial upswing followed by disappointments

Part 1: Chapter 15 Clutching at straws

Stage 4.7

Confusion and cynicism

Part 1: Chapter 17 Unkind cuts
Part 2: Chapter 35 Confusion in the ranks

Stage 4.8

Chronic restructuring and erosion of financial strength

Part 2: Chapter 36 Managing the mess
Part 3: Chapter 42 The Cost of confusion

Stage 5.1

Hope (and leadership)

(Blair’s hope was always foreign)

Stage 5.2

Denial (or capitulation)

Part 2: Chapter 37 The Devil’s kiss
Part 4: Chapter 48 Gun for hire
Part 4: Chapter 49 Tragedy of power


If readers were to absorb the failure marker language before attempting to read the biography, they would be amazed how many more similarities exist within those chapters as well. However, in depth investigation to assess the state of British civilization would require a wider approach, to include the decline from Thatcher, Blair, Brown to Cameron and Brexit. For the purpose of this writing, it will suffice to show that we are still sitting in the same boiling pot Blair loved so much. (He loved it because we sat in it)

The question (for us) on how to get out of the boiling pot (not Blair or Hillary), is addressed by Jim Collins where he wrote as follows:

“Not all organizations deserve to last.”

“Institutional (global) self-perpetuation holds no legitimate place in the world.”

“You can be profitable and bankrupt”

“The point of the struggle is not just to survive, but to build an impact that makes a distinctive   impact on the world”

“To accomplish this requires leaders …that can find a way …in pursuit of a larger cause than mere survival (and larger than themselves), while also maintaining the stoic will needed to take whatever actions…”

Based on above it is possible (for us, not Blair) to get out of this dark civilization as described by the biography. But the following realistic psychological “adjustments” need to be attended to as well:

  • The infrastructure of human society consists of biological nature and personal relations.
  • Balance between freedom and safety is social cohesion
  • Social cohesion requires autonomy and mutuality
  • Social cooperation assumes voluntary basis and self-belief
  • Impaired people are not able to function towards social cohesion (e.g. should not vote), but despite this they will still vociferously claim social cohesion as a “right”. This is because their mere “biological” presence allows a claim to mutuality. The problem with this is that the typical rights conferred to a fully “democratic” citizen will now be conferred to someone void of autonomy.

In summary, the “negative” geopolitical and political status quo in Western civilization is ongoing since the Second World War. This has been recorded and is publicly available. In addition to this, psychological and management books published over the same timeframe advanced the requirements for “positive” conduct, confusing us into thinking “somebody” (like Blair) would act on it.

We thought our representatives would take care of all that because of “books”, but we missed the “negative” Elite dogma exemplified by Blair, because time and associated language was turned into disconnected snapshots.

Now that our platform is burning, especially reflecting our very own complicit life experiences, it will galvanize creative realism towards an implementation plan consisting of timeous psychological and organizational steps. This will include re-constructing time and burning the liberal language of Harvard, because losing it would leave no hole and won’t make any difference (to us).

Intolerance In Benghazi

Monday, July 25th, 2016


Fatalities due to industrial accidents have reached a plateau simultaneously in at least three Western countries. This means that safety professionals have reached a limit, sort of like how Moore’s law broke, below which they cannot reduce fatalities through safety measures.

On closer inspection it appears that this limit is not the result of limitations of the methods used, but a product of the increased complexity of safety in organizations. This inability to accommodate complexity could be detected by the loss of what “safety” meant. In other words, safety was oversimplified to accommodate various publics and in doing so, lost its intended meaning.

For example, trying to increase the speed of a racing car may result in one mechanic improving its aerodynamics while another would increase the size of the engine. The increased engine weight will negate the increase in airflow despite both mechanics improving on their own metrics, while resulting in the racing car having reduced performance. By succeeding at their individual jobs, they failed at the overall task, which is the result of leadership not understanding the complexity involved.

The current conceptualization of safety is insufficient, inaccurate, and even faulty. The reason for this boils down to our use of language. “Safety” has come to mean a list of tasks, not an overall goal, and as a result even our best attempts fail because we are achieving our smaller goals, but they are not contributing to the overall safety.

In the same way other concepts may become meaningless, such as “racism,” a better example can be found in the subtler distinctions involving the word “tolerance.” Our levels of tolerance have undoubtedly been pushed relentlessly to such an extent that we do not even know what it means anymore. Take for example the habit of people in this society to call someone else “racist” or “intolerant,” shifting a societal burden that is universal to a specific person, like poking pins in a devil doll or burning an effigy.

A more practical example is the concept of “leaving no man behind.” This is a US military concept that was so important that George W. Bush named his education policy “leave no child behind.” But the US military have in fact left soldiers behind, as Kris Paronto depicted in the now infamous film called 13 Hours about the Benghazi embassy siege.

Apparently the military would have rescued the embattled Embassy, but “civilian oversight” had a different “tolerance” level of safety for its personnel. The military did not come to the rescue because civilian oversight did not have the money for a couple of fighters to fly six hours, an estimated $1.2m. Four lives were lost to save $1.2m, or to preserve “safety” of an ideological type.

Clearly this should be intolerable and if it isn’t, efforts need to be made to prevent it from happening again. The entire discussion is nonsensical until you break it down as we have above. In that view, we can see that “safety” was defined in multiple different ways with no coordination between them. The politicians exercised ideological safety. The military exercised fiscal safety. And the guys in the embassy fell between the cracks.

My business dictionary lists twenty-seven terms involving the term “tolerance.” It is clear to me that the type of tolerance required for Benghazi must be related to safety. But then safety itself suffers of simplification to suit the various interested parties and special interest groups.

This represents a legal view, or one might say a demotist view, where the self-interest of every part somehow comes together into a “wisdom of crowds” moment. However, clearly this does not work with safety — nor with leadership. The legalities, formalization and regulation of safety and tolerance alike product an anti-result, or the inversion of what was desired. This is a form of dark organization at a conceptual not human level.

To beat this problem, we must see “legalities” as creating divided interests. This explains the discoordination that replaces goals with “dark organization” style self-interest, in which each party protects its own interests at the expense of others. Seeing that allows us to move to robust action, bringing the concept of tolerance from an abstract level down to the effects on the man in the trenches.

White accountability

Sunday, February 28th, 2016


As more people cast around various scapegoats in an attempt to explain how the West has fallen from the world’s premiere society to a laughable backwater, it is time to take responsibility and point the finger at the actual cause of our misery.

It is not The Jews, The Rich, or The Government (although that did not help). It is not corporate personhood or the fact that our democracy is not direct. Nor is it even the GOP, although they did not help either. We need to peel back all the layers and look to the core.

Our candidates are liars because democracy rewards lies. They offer a product which might be described as the illusion of peace of mind. This consists of a promise of a solution to some basic problem, a scapegoat to blame for the wider systemic failures, and a reason to consider yourself smarter or nicer than people who oppose this idea.

Leftists are the masters at this. They look at a ruined society and say that clearly the problem is that some have more than others. To support this they show you people suffering, counting on you to worry about what would happen to you in that situation. Then they trot out the studies that consider one factor out of ten thousand and use that to rationalize blame on a scapegoat. Then they say that only mean people could oppose this.

The GOP Establishment (GOPE) has another policy. It lets you know that liberals are insane and PC is bad, and then brings out the old familiars from the Reagan era: defense, Israel, the Bible and maybe even some outrage at abortion. They then say that only morally bad people would not want these things.

In either case, the audience is being manipulated like bulls at a bullfight, with one crucial exception: the audience wants it. They want to purchase peace of mind, and that requires simplistic solutions and blame, and then a reason to feel good even if they lose by calling the other team a bunch of weenies, moochers, meanies or incompetents. That raises the hands and gets the candidate into office.

Once in office, the candidate guffaws. In this system of checks and balances, made exponentially more powerful by two centuries of attempts to fix it, nothing can be done. The direction will not change; the question is only what flavor of compromise. So he goes back to the voters and blames the scapegoat again, but promises to try even harder next time, and the cycle restarts.

White accountability begins when we recognize that our problem has always been an internal war. Most people are bad; like our Simian forebears, they cannot control their urges, and one of those urges is the desire to tear down those above them. They form mass mobs and demand power, at which point the limitations of their abilities are revealed. But the first error was the crucial one, which is demanding that people who cannot make leadership decisions be called on to vote on those decisions.

Out of a hundred people, one is a natural leader with the mental capacity and moral character to see a complex thought through to its conclusion. The rest can fix cars, program computers, draw anime, etc. but that is because these tasks are narrowly framed. They do not have what leadership decisions require, which is a high tolerance for ambiguity when fitting thousands of details into a big, top-down picture.

White internal warfare has marked this country since its inception. The 1% who knew anything wanted to keep the franchise small, but the herd wanted power to make itself feel important. Its first gambit was to import lots of non Western Europeans, all of whom tend to vote Left-leaning. At that point, it began systematically dismantling any sense of sanity in education, media, literature, art, music, government and society.

That process leads us to the present day. You will find lots of people offering you the pair of easy answer and blame, but all of these are lies. What went wrong was that we gave in to our inner evil and the Simian self-important beast that lurks beneath the surface in each of us. We dressed it up, in the way only clever white people can do, as enlightenment and empathy, but really, it was venality and license bubbling to the surface.

The situation has not changed. One in a hundred is capable of making these choices, but we have all one hundred choose, drowning out the leadership capable. We either put these natural leaders back on top and have them suppress the rest of the population, or we will be oppressed by the rest as they continue to choose sociopathic and simplistic illusion over reality.

Egalitarianism is the god of our time

Tuesday, October 6th, 2015


Those of us who talk about cause->effect logic recognize its power in understanding human behavior. For example, you are not free of a hated enemy (effect) until you replace the role it serves that perpetuates it (cause). Such is the case with our modern atheist, liberal and consumer-oriented society.

We have replaced all ancient gods with a single one: equality. To act in such a way as to offend equality causes people to retreat from you as if in fear of diseases or demonic possession; conversely, any activity can be justified in the name of upholding or expanding equality, regardless of its outcome. That is the key to the religious nature of egalitarianism: it is not measured in real-world results, but in the symbol itself, much like God who provides the only case where the symbol is enclosed by its referent.

For example, consider the case of education. Politicians get tears in their eyes and pound tables when the test scores come in. But what did they expect? Mathematics themselves opposes them: for any given curriculum, there must be some winners and some losers, with the number determined by how difficult it is. If you dumb it down so that everyone gets an A, it becomes worthless. People do not have the same abilities, especially not in the narrow competition for memorizing and repeating material.

Or contemplate politics. We insist that a popularity contest — “democracy” — can determine the best course of action. This denies the fact that people vote for what they understand, and most understand very little, which reduces actionable items to the over-simplified and generally reality-denying. But to mention this is to offend the god Equality and to bring on the wrath of his followers who are only too happy to have a witch-hunt.

Even in employment we engage in the fiction of equality. We like to think that we can sit down with a piece of paper that tells us everything about a candidate with specially marked fields, and that we can then hire anyone who matches those traits. These however are mere abilities, and tell us nothing about the person and how they will work with others in the team, or even how they would do in a situation as particular and unique as the average workplace.

We cannot as post-Enlightenment™ humans face the possibility of natural differences between people. It violates the fundamental idea that unites us which is that each human is the best person to make all decisions for herself. This idea arose when we replaced the order of nature and the divine with a human order. Social order of this type implies that the human is the highest goal, over reality, and therefore, that human choice is more important than real-world results. That was the path we took that branched off from all of past history and arrived at our present state.

In our view, natural differences between us — which are more mathematical, by the nature of most patterns following a Standard Distribution or “Bell Curve” — serve no utility and only serve to divide us. And yet these things evolved with us much like our other abilities. We know natural selection serves to rigorously cleanse, except in extremely isolated populations, unnecessary traits. These have persisted with humans and other groups throughout time, serving like natural selection itself to keep groups in a constant state of imbalance so they do not fall into sameness which can lead to entropy. If we were identical, all striving would cease and so would all ability for our acts to be meaningful.

Other benefits exist to inequality both within and between populations. Inside a population, inequality allows people to specialize, which means that they can devote all of their energy to developing an ability they wish to be unique to them. Inequality occurs both vertically, in terms of general competence (or even general intelligence, or g), but also on a horizontal plane. Out of all the artisans, some will become fine-motor workers like watch-makers and others will be carpenters. But some of the most radical benefits are seen to inequality between populations.

Equality outside the boundaries of a specific population would imply a Universal Human or a person who fits into any society. This idea however conveys the notion of a person without culture, unique abilities or pre-determined inclinations that might cause clash with whatever is the norm elsewhere. It also suggests a generic person, an interchangeable part, as the basis of all societies, rejecting the need for shared culture, heritage, or values. And yet as events in Japan suggest, that trust — formed of a commonality in orientation and philosophy that cannot and does not need to be put into symbols — creates a much better life:

What accounts for this unusual degree of independence? Not self-sufficiency, in fact, but “group reliance,” according to Dwayne Dixon, a cultural anthropologist who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Japanese youth. “[Japanese] kids learn early on that, ideally, any member of the community can be called on to serve or help others,” he says.

This assumption is reinforced at school, where children take turns cleaning and serving lunch instead of relying on staff to perform such duties. This “distributes labor across various shoulders and rotates expectations, while also teaching everyone what it takes to clean a toilet, for instance,” Dixon says.

She wouldn’t let a 9-year-old ride the subway alone in London or New York—just in Tokyo.

If you want to know the solution to the problems socialism claims to address, like class warfare, or even the problems the right bemoans like a lack of public morality, this is it: have people be similar in genetics and culture. That refutes the idea of equality, where the choice of the individual determines fitness to be in a certain society, and replaces it with the notion of cooperation, or the idea that people work together on ideas that they find mutually compelling and over time, those ideas become part of them on a biological level. Without the trust engendered by similarity, people drift apart and become less likely to work together or preserve shared resources.

The now-infamous Robert Putnam study on diversity showed that in diverse populations, trust declined — even among people of the same group. That is because, like surface tension on water, similarity once broken for one becomes broken for all. Society is no longer held together by a mission and values in common, but by compulsion, whether through money or authoritarianism. This path leads to an increasing cycle of tyrannical power, petty rebellion including apathetic performance, and eventual collapse of the higher functions of the society, leaving behind a third-world style ruin.

Diversity also paves the way for a tragedy of the commons:

Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons…As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain…Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

The only force that can unmake the tragedy of the commons is a sense of shared destiny. We cannot all add as many cows as we would like, because then we kill the resource, and with it our society. Without trust, and a shared sense of purpose and destiny, that sentiment rings hollow. The individual sees no choice but to exploit resources before the other guys get to it, because they are not on his team — they are in fact the enemy. By creating freedom, society removes obligation to the commons. With equality, it destroys the notion of sharing the commons toward a mutual goal, and guarantees accelerating exploitation and ruin.

Castles made of sand

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015


The good thing about illusions is that if you convince others of them, and they act upon that, you win — in the short term. The problem is that eventually the piper must be paid when illusion collides with reality, like a drunken man stepping on a rake to have the handle swat him in the face. This can cause all of those short term gains to collapse. The lesson for those who want to con society is to fool everyone, then take the money and run.

This is exactly what your elites are planning. They get elected, appointed or promoted, come up with some new idea to hoodwink the fools who make up most of any audience, and then enrich themselves before fleeing to gated communities where they cannot be prosecuted. Maybe they stay in their home countries, protected by political cronies. Maybe they run off to some island paradise or corporate retreat. If they are really good, they may live anonymously in a remote coastal village in Africa, Asia or South America.

Naturally, Dear Reader, the question arises in your mind: what kind of a fool thinks that this is in any way a viable plan? Only someone who is willing to ignore all impulses toward being a good person in exchange for material reward, and who is oblivious to the risk they run. They are oblivious to something else as well: when failure of empires happens, the money accrued by the thieves becomes very worthless. Some will do the sensible thing and buy vineyards or farms, but in social disorder, things one owns but cannot defend quickly become owned by others. With this mind, it becomes clear that our elites are fools who are sewing the seeds of not only our doom, but their own.

How does one get an elite of fools? It starts with egalitarianism. This idea always starts out as the notion that people deserve equality dignity, political rights or equality of personal worth in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, this idea is incomplete because it is based entirely in politics and not in reality, so a poor man will always be at a disadvantage to a rich man. Over time, such societies always end up feeling hypocritical because of this unbalance. And then, there are other natural unbalances. Some are stronger, others weaker. Some smarter than others. Equality as a concept collapses, but because it presents itself as morality, the only “rational” solution is more equality, which throughout history has quickly come to mean subsidized equality of the type socialists favor.

This is why the path to Communism begins with the notion of dismantling social hierarchy. When you begin insisting that a group of peasants can make the “same” leadership decisions as a king, you have already elected to go Socialist, which will collapse over time much as Liberalism did and necessitate authoritarian Socialism, a.k.a. Communism. Libertarians and other well-intentioned democratic types will tell us that all they want is “equal personal worth” in a social or political setting, oblivious to the fact that throughout history this has always failed and been upgraded to subsidized equal personal worth, or Socialism. There is no escape from this path once you go down it because the inertia is too great. The only way to win is to pick another path and keep rigorously staying off the path of subsidy. But this leads us to why Socialist states always produce such idiotic elites much as democracies do.

If your state is based on egalitarian principles, it quickly becomes obsessed with the idea of “meritocracy” or fairness of opportunity, inevitably translated into any person with enough ability can get to any position. The problem with this is how it assesses ability, which is usually through tests limited to a specific discipline and application of known techniques. Equality-based societies find it troubling to assess people based on general abilities, such as general intelligence or moral character, and prefer to narrow the field as much as possible. This creates a robotic culture based on reproduction of past successes. In education, this translates to a memorization-based regime which emphasizes having the right number of details rather than a big picture view that is flexible, realistic and correct; in the workplace, this translates into statistics which cover “satisfaction” instead of measuring how all of an employee’s acts worked toward overall quality. In this system, the intelligent are systematically excluded in favor of the not-stupid but not-smart, and the smart people do not wind up getting all the cherries:

In any society, the normal and natural outcome is that the best people wind up ruling – though not necessarily in the interests of that society. They may wind up doing a very good job of stealing anything not nailed down and setting fire to anything that they cannot pry up, the typical dark age government that has been the norm throughout most of human history, but chances are they will be very good at stealing and lighting fires. There is a strong correlation between intelligence and reacting fast to the movement of your opponent’s sword, and even better correlation between intelligence and reacting fast with the best sword move.

We, however, are seeing government by people of very ordinary intelligence, which requires vigorous, active, and effective filtering to keep the smartest people out, which filtration starts in our most prestigious universities.

Our elites are not geniuses. They are not even smart. What they are is clever in the way that people who specialize in details and memorizing checklists are. They are masters of the past, able to apply what they have seen, but unaware of why they should be doing so or the actual cause-effect relationships in those actions. Their analytical skills, as well as wider intelligence of consequence and secondary effects, are weak. This afflicts not only our politicians but our doctors, lawyers and other professionals. It is the failing of both an education system which prizes obedience over thinking ability, and an egalitarian ideology which insists on “meritocracy” in denial of the overall abilities of the individual. As a result of these, we have false elites who hate us because they fear us because these false elites secretly know they are pretenders to the throne.

Affirmative action has had other devastating consequences. Originally designed as a conservative concession to demands for racial equality, it created an in-built subsidy for anyone from a protected group such as women, homosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities, and in fact anyone else who can demonstrate victim status through “disparate impact,” or lack of wide representation in a field. This routes around competence entirely and chooses people based on their political symbolic value, with ability being only secondary. Since choosing them by competence does not result in the correct distribution of protected groups, the methods of defining competence are dumbed down. This most vividly affects the intelligent who are unlikely to tolerate the hoop-jumping, rote memorization and detailed regurgitation which such methods select for. Like natural selection gone wrong, our system chooses the blockheads over the thinkers and produces corresponding results.

Selecting candidates for political category creates uneven results as suggested by a recent study:

Trying to resolve the same issue, psychology professor Clive Seligman went over the data on academic hiring at the University of Western Ontario from 1991–1992 to 1998–1999, and reached this conclusion:

Over the 8 years, on average: 5.4% of female applicants were appointed compared to 2.9% of male applicants; 21.7% of female applicants were interviewed compared to 15% of male applicants; and 24.9% of female applicants who were interviewed were hired whereas 19.2% of men who were interviewed were appointed. Again, the results in each of the years are remarkably consistent. Women had almost twice the chance of being hired as did men.

The problem with this approach is that life is indeed a zero-sum game. To promote someone unjustly is to displace someone else; even more, there is a corresponding reaction by which smart people leave situations in which they cannot win, and instead venture to other areas which are less organized/”meritocratic.” This gradually displaces the intelligent with the politically-correct.

Much like democracy selecting for appearance in its leaders, the meritocratic™ agenda of the politically-correct creates a false world. This false reality values those who are obedient over those who can think, and produces leaders who are good enough… sort of… until faced with a challenge they have not seen before. Then they seize up, fail to act, and default to whatever they think will please voters. The flattery goes both ways and soon the “leaders” think they are doing well, when in fact they are goose-stepping us all to disaster.

Our current elites are like castles made of sand. From a distance, they resemble the real thing; up close, they reveal their weakness, and then the waves come in and tear them down. The entire West suffers in solitude, just awaiting a wave to wash away the false leaders and reveal to us our need for leaders who are less marketers and obedient than they are thinkers and doers.

The self-driving car

Monday, March 17th, 2014


The rise of the machines continues. Right now we have a self-driving car in the works that is apparently safe enough to be street legal. It scans the world around it using 64 lasers to produce a constant topographical map through which it navigates using GPS and road data.

People get nervous when this happens. Who really trusts the machines? Not just the type of scary scenario as found in 1984’s Runaway, perhaps Gene Simmons’ best appearance on film, but the everyday ability of machines to screw up, get hacked, misjudge or just go haywire.

Even more, the self-driving car presents a view into the division of human thought. There is knowledge of what is, and knowing what to do about it. The self-driving car for example is very good at driving, and can even find the route there, but how does it know where to go? We can set up the computers to do anything, but in all aspects, that is a question of knowledge of what is. We still don’t know what to do about it, or in human terms, what goals and values we should have. That belongs to a discipline still far removed from the digital machines of the self-driving car.

The question of goals and values is one feared by most people. It is tied intimately with death and with the question of whether our lives were worthwhile. When we can’t tackle that, we focus on self-driving cars and try to make them stand in for us as a type of direction. For the past two centuries, we have chased industry (technology) and administration in the hope that our method can stand-in for our goals (which we no longer have). With equality as our focus thanks to the French Revolution in 1789, we can no longer have goals unless the majority of our citizens share them. Since majorities do not form around anything but threats or benefits, this translates to no actual goal, only a reshuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic so that everyone gets a piece of the pie.

Ultimately the question of politics distills to this question of a goal, which is tied to values, and then the question of method which comes with it. When we choose to have a goal, leadership becomes important. The crux of politics is to be found in this question: how do we achieve good leadership? Our hope with democracy and capitalism has been to produce a self-driving car, e.g. a system that “automagically” selects the best leader based on who is popular. However, popularity is a lowest common denominator based on what flatters the self-opinion of others, and thus popularity becomes a quest to evade reality not confront it.

In this light, the debate over totalitarianism, democracy, monarchism, et al. takes second place to the primal question of leadership, which is How do we get good people in positions of power? Agnosticism toward political systems makes sense here in that those are secondary as they are designed to be means to the end of good leadership, not leadership in itself. The healthiest political sentiment might voice itself as a will to brush those concerns aside and focus only on who are the natural leaders among us, and how to promote them to power. In first world nations, good leaders are far-sighted; in third world nations, they are warlords and capos.

The debate over political systems is an artifact of progressive ideology which emerged from the Enlightenment. In this view, humanity changes as the year numbers do, and we emerge from the requirements of the past — life as nasty, brutish and short — into a time when we are all enlightened beings. But that mode of thought has died, as Richard Fernandez points out:

It was consistent with the view that mankind had entered a kind of post-historical phase, where no one, not even Vladimir Putin, could possibly revert to the 19th century mode any more. In this brave new world, the only problems left to fix were Global Warming and establishing Universal Health Care. In line with that enlightened view Europe not only neglected its defense, it acted as if none was necessary…

A Western elite that was no longer interested in war found that war was still interested in it. It discovered that mankind believed to have been transformed by the turning of the calendar was the same old grasping, greedy and violent collection of individuals described in the Bhagavad-gita or the Bible. It has not yet come to terms with this turn of events.

A conservative viewing our time might see the late 20th century shuffle over political systems to be a distraction. The question is leadership, not mechanisms. Our efforts to find a self-driving car for politics have failed as the past century of world wars and corruption — and our own consistently declining fortunes as our nations are less unified and more kleptocratic — should show us. We cannot substitute method for goal. We cannot substitute political system for good leadership. We need to cut out the middle man, and simply select our best and follow them to whatever end.

Recommended Reading