Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘organizations’

Lessons for Socialization

Tuesday, October 17th, 2017

The recent emergence of the BBC international news service in pidgin English reminds us that our mode of communication determines what we can successfully express. If we render ourselves in simplistic language, we will make incomplete and misleading points.

This spurs the large question of how to talk to one another, which must consider a few vital challenges:

  1. The emergence of “populism” effectively ruptured media communications in the entire Western hemisphere. The old language is dead, and the two sides are polarizing and withdrawing.
  2. Introspection revealed that a different mindset is required because our biggest risk is in fact not Iran, but our social organization.
  3. In the feverish attempt to do good, people on the right refer to “not punching right” or even debating “differently.”

Talking while using the wrong words can cause serious reputational and financial losses, which means that we should establish a new framework for discourse, starting with standard language, instead of emulating the Left and applying “community standards” as a means of making language simplistic in ways that exclude certain “problematic” viewpoints.

S.C. Hickman reminds us that societies have always struggled with this, and to address it, have created not safe spaces from expression, but spaces where expression can safely tackle difficult and normally contentious issues:

Remember invective and satiric wit or jibes came out of the traditions of Athenian aristocrats rather than commoners. Athenian prohibitions on slander were curtailed by the licensed freedom of speech (parrhesia) of a religious festival. So that both Comedy and Satyr plays arose and emerged out of traditional religious festivals where political invective and humor could be assayed whereas in real life it was deemed anathema and would entail slander and ultimately banishment or worse, death against any and all who used it.

…Those like Ann Coulter are effective and best sellers: biting humor and scathing farce triumph, where serious candor of political intelligence are at best filtered through academic spinsters.

Freedom of speech in the purest form entails a shouting contest or competition for the wittiest put-down, so many societies curtail it. To avoid losing what might be said, they instead raise the bar, and force it to be inserted into a political oration, theatrical production or lengthy treatise.

This was in fact the original idea behind American freedom of speech, which was designed to protect political, social and philosophical critiques written in newspapers or declaimed from street corners. Only recently has it come to mean the ability to publish pornography, nearly libelous insinuations of the media, rants filled with obscenities and cretinous modern art.

But what is acceptable depends on the nature of the society. Nick Land made a few observations of this nature:

  • High-trust societies are even more repulsive than low-trust societies
  • Which disgusts you more, Somalia or Sweden? The scorpion or the scorpion-licker?
  • Better to dwell among cannibals than Cathedral-zombies
  • When science collides with sacred values, it’s howled down (and if possible) suppressed.

For a society to work, it must have both wealth/production and some form of cooperation. Different structures can provide this in varying degrees. We can see this process unfolding in Africa today.

Liberal democracies of a diverse nature require that the local population, in order for cooperation to work, forfeit some of its traditions including its standards of safety. As seen in South Africa under Nelson Mandela, or in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe, this model prioritizes cooperation of all groups which sacrifices the standard of whatever group has higher or more complex traditions.

In contrast, the China colonization of Africa promotes “normalization” which instead of focusing on diversity, looks to whatever tribe is dominant in a region and channels wealth and power to them. This tends to strengthen local safety and stability instead of prioritizing defense of the rights of minority tribes.

The former model is failing in part because of its high cost of administration, but mostly because it forces normalization to a minimum instead of emphasizing striving for a maximum as exhibited by the most successful group in the region. An old African proverb holds that when fish and crabs are caught in a net, the crabs pull the fish down, because if the crabs are trapped and doomed, they feel that no one should escape that same fate.

Looking into these two examples, we see an axis between acceptance and intrusion. Acceptance is a sense of belonging to an environment; we know that in order to develop potential among children, each child must feel innately and irrevocably accepted, something only made possible through a friendly, tolerant and somewhat mandatory environment.

In contrast, adulthood shows us intrusion. The child must graduate school and enter the less-than-friendly job market where extroverted people have a better chance of survival because they crave and seek a way of finding personal — not universal — acceptance in the previously unknown territory of the workplace.

Introverted people, because they are self-guided, seek acceptance when they are young because they know that if left alone, they will learn what they need to and grow at their own pace. Extroverts, on the other hand, perceive a sense of harm and injustice if they are not allowed to participate, which when they are young and socially inept is a possibility, so they want a system which cannot demote them for being wrong or selfish.

Extroverts constantly seek social acceptance on an individual level into adulthood. If there is a workplace problem, the extrovert will seek out the parties involved to negotiate a resolution, where the introvert will engage in avoidance or confrontation of a legalistic nature, as we see with whistle-blowers who choose to detonate a situation rather than attempt to impose a solution internal to the organization.

In traditional society, this was addressed by having different roles for introverts and extroverts. Introverts handle analysis and principles well; extroverts handle other people well. Talented introverts drifted toward the top because they were less likely to compromise, work around, patch up or ignore systemic problems.

Globalism requires different social skills than traditional society. When the entire world becomes a combination of workplace and shopping mall, then extroverts benefit from this acceptance-type society because they inherently do not take it at face value, but work around its little glitches and exploit it for their own gain. Since they are granted acceptance, they do not worry about whether their acts will have good or bad results, because they are accepted just the same.

In this way we see how socialization, or the process of having social factors dominate over others, can be destructive and leads to the type of civilization that globalism creates: individuals entirely isolated, lowest common denominator prevailing over more complex ideas, unpopular truths ignored, weak eating the strong, and corruption at every level.

We all want a friendly discussion. However, if we make that the goal, we compromise everything else in order to be friendly. For that reason, we need to assist ourselves in order to understand how intrusion, not feelings and acceptance, forms the basis of a logical interaction between the individual and the organization, a category which includes not just corporations but civilizations as well.

Sex and Civilization

Monday, August 28th, 2017

The recent Goolag Memo invoked an opportunity to discuss its contents in a larger civilizational perspective, which means one where we look at interdependence of humans within an organization, namely a society or civilization.

Organizations require internal and external communications. During the past few decays, entropy ensured that external communications quickly devolved to Public Relations and internal communications were effectively ignored. This were observable in the many “whiste-blower” cases (such as Enron, WorldCom and the FBI) where corporations publicly encouraged employees to speak up, but when they did, they were quickly (privately) fired.

Whistle-blowers revealed issues that were too sensitive to be used in a normal grievance procedure, so management encouraged them to come forward, and the dismissed them while playing off the problems as if they were always personal, when in fact the issues at hand were company-oriented and not personal at all.

The conflict between organizational and personal issues becomes complex when we consider that enabling personalities to mesh is one of the basic duties of a manager. For example, the Biosphere 2 experiment involved more personal circumstances and technical survival skills than organizational proficiency, but what really transpired was a clash of personalities:

More serious management problems during a second human confinement in 1994 heralded the experiment’s early cancellation and this brought the world’s longest closed system human confinement project to an end.

The interdependency between team members were closely selected for, and monitored during the experiment, in line with similar ventures such as Antarctica and space missions. Their loyalty to the “cause” prevented them from an early exit but was “explained” via correlating to low oxygen atmospheres.

An organization, composed of interdependencies, finds that personalities can become incompatible over time or in certain contexts. These contexts occur in the overlap between organizational structure and the individuals expected to rely on each other to carry out those roles.

In the social organization known as civilization, an interdependency that we do not discuss openly is sex. Women play a massive role in society but it seems a bit underappreciated while their equality is widely touted, like praising the Party in the USSR. The Goolag Memo actually pointed this out, but some may have missed it.

With a hat tip to Rolf Degen, I happened on to Angela Saini’s book Inferior wherein she describes how women are being re-discovered. There is more to her thesis than that, but it reveals that if you re-discover women, you will inevitably re-discover men.

The one aspect jumping out at me was how older men preferred having sex with younger women. This applies to any man, anywhere, but because women are “inferior,” the topic is too sensitive for civilization’s “grievance procedure.” In part, this is because women are too vital to the emerging Family World Order.

Investigating women’s productive capacity includes by definition the ability to bear children. This led to the “Grandmother Hypothesis” where menopause focuses women on raising children and grandchildren. However, new thoughts on this blame man and before you complain, read the book The Patriarch Hypothesis with the following abstract:

Menopause is puzzling because life-history theory predicts there should be no selection for outliving one’s reproductive capacity. Adaptive explanations of menopause offered thus far turn on women’s long-term investment in offspring and grandoffspring, all variations on the grandmother hypothesis. Here, I offer a very different explanation. The patriarch hypothesis proposes that once males became capable of maintaining high status and reproductive access beyond their peak physical condition, selection favored the extension of maximum life span in males. Because the relevant genes were not on the Y chromosome, life span increased in females as well. However, the female reproductive span was constrained by the depletion of viable oocytes, which resulted in menopause.

A metaphor for this would be a lion male living longer because he has many lionesses, regardless of whether the original lioness goes into a menopause. She doesn’t mind because the younger lionesses are hunting for her too. This matriarchal thesis places the female in charge of the process, which allows her to select longer-living mates in exchange for tolerating polygyny.

We see how the interdependencies of human society are both personal and organizational. When we rediscover women, and through that learn more about men, we see how sex drives civilization alongside other influences. People depend on one another as individuals, and as roles in relation to one another, and separating the personal from the function becomes difficult.

From that, it becomes clear that humans are not just individuals, or functions, but personalities which need a place where they fit exactly in order to work with the interdependencies inherent to any organization. A person in the wrong place is toxic to the organization; an organization which excludes people from necessary dialogue is like the company with a whistle-blower, engaged in deception.

For this reason, it is possible to accept women as both not-equal and uniquely necessary. We underappreciate them by treating them as tokens of their sex, or using them for sex alone, forgetting that like the lions and lionesses, we are engaged in a strategic process of selecting behaviors that further the species so that our individual efforts endure and prosper.

In a Right future, we will look at reproduction not as a question of the biological act alone, but the context in which the child is raised and how this contributes to stability of the child. Whether we stay on Earth, or jet off to Mars to start again, the union between the personal and the organizational is found in complementary roles where each person has a vital and unique place.

How To Design A Civilization To Endure For Eternity

Thursday, July 6th, 2017

The enormous pain our society is going through while in the process of dying requires some explanation. We can view it as an expression of limitations: human beings are focused on the immediate, and oblivious to how their ideas will play out over time, so they ignore this dimension of their world.

Sometimes we can exceed our limitations by becoming aware of them and planning around them. For example, a man knows that he will be tired in the late afternoon, so schedules everything important earlier than then. Or we know that concrete has a certain tolerance and so write into our laws a legal necessity to replace the infrastructure made of it when its time has expired.

Exceeding limits in engineering is a bad thing because specifications are structured with the understanding that dimensions will be given with maximum and minimum tolerances to account for natural variation. Those go into the legal contract and if you exceed those dimensions and the limits of those tolerances, you can go to jail.

In politics, we normally thinking of exceeding limits according to the Leftist paradigm by which we expect people to overcome the limitations imposed by normal human character and behavior. The Leftist regime relies on people “exceeding” those limitations on a regular basis. The failure of this idea can be seen in practice through the declining intelligence of the French people, the first group to adopt Leftism.

Returning to the engineering view, at first glance human limitations seem to consist of characteristics such as health, security, institutions, constitutions, and defense. Looking more deeply, using the dimension of time, we see that the risk is the increase in tolerances within the social organizations we have designed, leading to an entropy which promotes dark organization.

Over time, history and life experiences reveal that we need to take red pills — denial of what our own natures want to believe is true — in order to survive this entropy wave. We survive by managing risks, but we cannot do so through a snapshot of risks at one particular time, because risks evolve as humans and organizations do.

Allow me to introduce a new schema in order to frame this: the 4-40-400 year schema.

  • The four year cycle relates to the typical time it takes to effect change. Examples are the establishment of a new patent, the restructuring of a company, the American election cycle, the development cycle of a Japanese car model and of course the democratization of South Africa (1990 – 1994). What may be interesting with this time frame is that it resembles the typical establishment or “construction” phase for an organization to iron out is internal differences and optimize towards its own goals effectively. An organization (team, group, company) can be very effective, but may already start to decline after four years, if not succumbing to the “seven year itch” and most do not make it past fourteen years. Corporations today routinely fake their books to align with share-price expectations. Just like airports are driving CNN traffic, in the same way we can say that stock exchanges determine organizational outcomes. Humans and organizations are side-stepped externally and this can already be seen in the four year cycle.
  • The forty year cycle relates to how long a certain dispensation (or cultural mindset) will last such as Communism or Apartheid. Even the Mafia suffered after anti-racketeering laws were enacted in 1970. What should be noted here is that forty years is the typical work-life of most individuals and thus represents the demise of their knowledge in the organization. It used to be a chip on your shoulder if you could say “I worked for that company for forty years and will now go on a well-deserved pension.” The guys in charge have the same thing but it appears to create a problem if the same leader does the same job for too long. A nice example here is CNN which was founded in 1980 and now, after 37 years it is going to be merged with Amazon. Last but not least, the American liberal Empire which started in the 1970s began its decline during the Obama years following in the footsteps of their brothers across Bering Sea. Even if Trump succeeds, it will never be the same again, meaning we are going back to the four year cycles.
  • The 400 year cycle relates to civilizations or cultural group survival. These periods have tolerances too, because Rome lasted about 500 years, the Viking group in Greenland 400 years while the English Empire lasted about 360 years. This cycle may relate to generations, which would be 12-20 during a 400 year cycle, and how institutional and cultural memory is lost, so that future generations emulate the past, not knowing that the snapshot of risks has changed enough that they are now fighting scapegoats and phantoms and ignoring actual problems. In the same way that individuals can possess and use knowledge in forty-year cycles, the 400 year cycle indicates cultural memory, and its loss through imitation by those who understand what must be done, but not why.

Essentially these time-based cycles are enduring risks for human organization, and institutions cannot exceed this time horizon. There is nothing to be done about it, other than to accommodate it.

Humans do have this wonderful ability to make a features from bad traits. By recognizing where our natures tend to be wrong about the invisible mathematical operations of reality, we can design around our natures and instead utilize them.

For example, we could change stock exchanges to project exchanges. The original “stock” in Amsterdam related to time-limited ship “projects” fetching spices, gold and resources from foreign lands. Why not industrialize that? That may just change our world for the better because of innate improved risk management.

Even more, we can recognize that the things which we fear cannot be fought, only incorporated. People fear inequality; the way to handle this is to ensure that inequality is harnessed for the benefit of all by promoting the more competent over the less competent. People fear war, but without waging war to maintain order, future more extreme wars are guaranteed.

All of this points to a central human struggle: the need to retain knowledge over time, while realizing that knowledge is the domain of exceptional individuals and not groups. When passed to the group, the knowledge becomes dogma and then procedure, and in doing so, the ability to understand that knowledge is lost.

Let us return to the idea of dimensions versus tolerances. To our human minds, the dimensions seem like the big story; over time, however, the tolerances rule the show. Over time, tolerances increase, and so the original dimensions change from clear definitions to approximations to an almost mystical or superstitious symbolism lost under layers of confusion.

With this in mind, we can see the paradox of human organizations. We tend to focus on the organization itself, and not the organic substrates that enable it, like individuals — who are a product of genetics — and culture, which is similarly vested in genetics. We cannot beat Mother Nature, and only by accepting her rules can we make organizations which endure the shifting surface of time.

Controlled Aggression Is The Ideal State Of Mind

Friday, May 26th, 2017

Violence increases across the West, to the surprise of commentators, who have relied on pacification as a technique for many decades. The antidote to violence however, is not peace and pacifism such as gun-free zones, but controlled aggression on both organizational and personal levels.

The term “controlled aggression” was coined in the use of canines to subdue criminal suspects. The dog is taught to remain calm when a stranger approaches and even shake hands with his trainer, but the moment the stranger exhibits aggressive intentions, the dog attacks without a word from his trainer.

A similar technique could provide the general population with a method to remove apathy by increasing a person’s awareness with the ability to respond to violence with the appropriate aggression to counter it.

The question arises: why can’t the police use this approach?

The answer is that not all aggressions are criminal acts, despite them being unsafe. This means that police are limited by the very function they perform in that, as the organization of law is designed, police are attempting to interdict violations of law, not aggression itself.

Similarly, health and safety during manufacturing is managed separately from health and safety managed in the mines. In terms of direct police involvement, white collar crimes are managed separately from theft. When Donald Trump talks about making America safe, nobody really knows what it means because the concept has been oversimplified, and is dived into multiple functions, some of which are administrative and others which are delegated to the police.

What makes it even more difficult is when one talks about operational safety as opposed to functional safety. For example, in an aircraft environment, pilots are notified when a wire breaks, but because the aircraft was designed in a functional manner, the pilot will have been trained in alternative measures. Therefore, a breaking wire is an operational safety risk, but at the functional level, redundancy will have been provided for the pilot.

As far as the police are concerned, the implication is;

  1. The function of “safety” is not defined, while “policing” is, leaving open spaces between the actions of different institutions where no one is directly accountable for managing safety.
  2. Because the social organization was not designed in a functional manner with an alternative to policing risk, it is porous thereby providing opportunities to criminals.

A porous social organization allows criminals to react immediately when a specific opportunity is detected because they are in fact very aware of circumstances. An example of where lack of policing caused tremendous problems can be found in the Montreal Police strike of 1969, which is still referenced to indicate how quickly things can go wrong.

During this dubious episode of Western history, a police strike provided opportunity not only for criminals to run wild, but for ordinary citizens to take out their grievances on one another. In addition, looting happened on a large scale. This seemed to experts to confirm that without a functional police force, civilization descends into anarchy.

Another case being worth studying is that of Martin van Creveld noted that powerful nations generally lose low intensity conflicts such as guerrilla insurgencies because they cannot defend themselves in this environment. In this growing grey area between crime, guerrilla combat and terror the same problem arises: the separation of safety and security caused by the division of institutions in powerful nations cannot address the threat adequately.

It is therefore unsurprising that the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa now admits that social organization is the biggest risk regarding murder and violence. After investigating thousands of cases, the deduction was reached that murder was to a large degree initiated after serious arguments. If the victim had kept quiet or even shown respect, his life may have been saved.

Countering that, however, is the knowledge that violence will only be stopped by the promise of even stronger counter-violence. This is why criminals prefer attacking defenseless people. On the whole therefore, the antidote for violent crime is violent retribution, not necessarily from police, but the whole organization or society in the manner of “controlled aggression.”

Controlled aggression bridges the gap between security and safety. It uses the principles of safety, namely rules about what is or is not safe behavior, to trigger a law enforcement or military-style response in the methods of security. Instead of being based on rules, like the trained police dog, controlled aggression looks for harmful anomalies and counteracts them as a matter of safety.

One way to realize this promising approach is to start a city-sanctioned neighborhood watch initiative that does not limit itself to crime but aims to ensure the functional safety of citizens by intervening in dangerous events. These will dove-tail neatly with the latest “evidence-based” policing efforts that analysts currently investigate and Mayors desire.

Origins Of Decay

Tuesday, March 14th, 2017

The decay of Western Civilization is all around us. If you have doubts, take your history textbook to a busy public area and focus on observing what you see around you. Other than an increase in technology and wealth, how does this time compare to the past?

Recently someone asked me when the decay started. This proves challenging to answer because most commonly we know decay only through its symptoms, with its causes being invisible and buried under layers of analysis. To simplify the process, it makes sense to look at what public figures have said about decay.

Bill Clinton is known for exporting the concept of climate change to the world. His opinion was that the Earth is in decay and that it is caused by humanity. What he should have said was that climate change is caused by organizations comprised of humans, instead of pointing towards his people as being in decay.

In other words, the organizations are in decay, and this cause results in the symptoms or effects of Earth experiencing decay. We can extend this to any other type of social problem: if dystopia arises around you, stupidity becomes the norm, culture is garbage and your fellow citizens seem more like criminals, this is a result of bad leadership and hierarchy.

Decay can have multiple causes. For example, a population bloom like red tide can eliminate the ecosystem of a lake; introduction of invasive species can destroy indigenous flora and fauna and then, since the invaders are not well-adapted, cause them to die off as well. Invasive species in fact present a powerful metaphor:

All native species — not only those on islands and mountaintops — lack a co-evolutionary history with species from elsewhere. This is why non-native species are far more likely to cause ecological damage than native ones (up to 40 times more likely in comprehensive reviews of data)…

We know that about 80% of all extinctions recorded since 1500 occurred on islands. Two papers recently analyzed extinctions events and concluded that invasive species were cited most frequently as the cause of island species extinctions and invasive species are the most common threat associated with vertebrate extinctions globally.

This provides a vision of decay: the island is still there even though all the animals are dead. Eventually, life will renew itself in different forms. Driftwood will bring animals; birds blown off-course will land there and start colonies. Over time, these will adapt and a new set of distinctive species will arise.

This continuous renewal means that decay is a permanent condition, which means that it varies in degree over time but is never completely absent. All islands, societies and organizations are somewhere on the spectrum of breakdown. Organizations for example are in permanent decay, therefore requiring continuous renewal.

Similarly, human history shows us many instances of humans dying off in large numbers, but somehow renewing themselves and growing to even larger numbers of individuals. How can humanity be in decay when its populations are expanding? How can organizations be in decay when their wealth is increasing?

Comparing to animal populations exploding unabatedly, we see that the differences it that humans have the wherewithal to subconsciously know that an exploding population is a very bad thing. It is inexplicable in the natural order of things. It is out of balance. We know that this means short-term success and long term catastrophic failure.

However, this works against our need for power. Controlling population growth of anything is not a business opportunity. You do not make money from reducing the number of consumers or resources, and so if you succeed in controlling population, the business will fail and the population will fail in consequence.

Humans have always been in decay because they refuse to accept the natural order of things. This means humanity is a mistake; the human species is nature’s mistake. In fact, most planets do not have humans and we commend them on that choice. The reason for refusal to accept the natural order is that humans choose to filter out scary ideas and instead to seize business opportunities.

We peripatetic intelligent Simians have been genetically endowed with the ability to trick ourselves into ignoring bad news. Humans will never tell their children bad things, only the positive, thereby literally selection for the gene that allows for self-deception. Without awareness of the negative, people see only business opportunities, and thus every society grows out of control and suicides.

This makes humans like the animal swarm on the island: a force of its own self-destruction unless restrained by some wiser force. In human history, this force has only come through institutions like the aristocracy which concentrate ability and wisdom and apply it to the rest who will otherwise create a tragedy of the commons and destroy all that is dear to them.

Organizations of this nature need renewal, or constant struggle against the entropy within that occurs through the accumulation of bad genetics, weak people, and corruption in the principles and ways of the institution. The first goal of an institution should be to ensure its own quality, but this is the last thing that most organizations consider, which is why few survive.

Another solution can be found on the individual end. The opposite of renewal in organizations or the individual is the subsidy, because it allows bad traits to persist as well as good ones, and in fact more equally since bad traits are a lower energy investment. We need renewal in human beings as well as in organizations.

This requires humans to better adjust to nature — not being insulated from it with subsidies — in order to limit their decay. That in turn adds value to nature and knowledge of nature instead of self-trickery, and in doing so, forces the human curve upward by demanding adaptation to nature and thus creates a co-evolutionary history for the organization.

Linking Genetics To Spirituality

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017

It would seem that genetics and spirituality are opposite ends of a spectrum, but they are linked because both converge on organizations in a cyclic pattern: genetics determines ability and organizations route that ability either into rewarding or harmful mental outlooks. A useful rough model to link genetics to spirituality can be seen through the following sequence:

  1. Genes affect language
  2. Language affects culture and ( Western dualistic thinking )
  3. Culture affects safety
  4. Safety affects productivity
  5. Productivity affects competitiveness
  6. Competitiveness affects spirituality

Humans are genetically inclined to express themselves using language in the context of survival. This context changes for example, when the field becomes education, or business. Languages enable humans to perform in these various contexts.

Various languages developed around the world and resulted in various cultures. Initially some commenters thought that culture itself aimed at a universal objective, but because languages adapt and contexts change, we can visualize cultures as horizons that become fused as time progresses.

One interesting opinion was that the Western context exhibited a particular dualistic thinking (and thus dualistic culture) that enhanced binary thinking whereby a signifier such as “woman” is not identified by the meaning of the word, but by all the things that are absent from it. Language effects culture for example by isolating the concept of woman from family, child or social class; it produces a generic category which then forces distinction of layers of meaning by language.

Geert Hofstede demonstrates that culture affects safety. Human participation in war also demonstrated that home-advantage played a significant role, even visible in professional sports today.

Safety affects productivity since it is relatively easy to prove that a sick person cannot work. Safety also has a much wider application in that it is one of the fundamental goals of leadership, as was demonstrated by President Trump when he stated that his first priority is to keep Americans safe from both terrorism and immigrant crime.

Global competitiveness reports describe how productivity affects competitiveness in each country. The safer a country is, the more likely it is to be productive; this makes sense, since the smarter the population — a function of genetics — the more likely the country will be to have advanced leadership, and through that higher degrees of safety, and thus of confidence in the population.

Most people will think that spirituality would rather affect competitiveness, while the opposite is really true. The thinking is that competitiveness is a goal, or has a goal, whereas spirituality cannot propose a goal that relates to competitiveness.  Rather, the idea is to cycle back to language and culture where goalposts shift continuously, requiring regular changes in productive techniques (which has proven to be immensely difficult).

However, not only is “change” difficult, but merely having that “technique” is also prohibitive in the long run. First of all, overcoming the inherent problem of techniques — a calcifying tendency to imitate what has succeeded, without recognizing that the goalposts have shifted — requires spirituality, which will also help with changing of those same techniques later on.

The limitations of “techniques” can only be overcome with spiritual means because those are more abstract and related to principle, so can be used to assess goal, and from that, techniques can be chosen dynamically. Without this cycle, cultural organizations will eventually falter.

Organizations, like organisms, perish when they fail to adapt to changing conditions in the world around them. Spirituality, principles and transcendentals help societies avoid becoming fixated on concrete goals and techniques which then slowly become obsolete, giving entry to an entropy spiral leading to civilizational heat death, which is how all societies perish.

The world does not stand still. To adapt to this, humans bring genes and spirit together through the cycle described above by which genes create culture, culture creates language, language creates organization, and organizations through their handling of safety, create a spiritual presence that keeps the population flexible.

As with so many things in life, the first look — a mile wide, an inch deep — is the enemy of accurate perception. The institutions we think are least necessary and most outdated, like nationalism, religion, literature and hierarchy, may in fact be what saves us from the collapse that the first look would engender.

Why Organizations Are Important

Saturday, January 21st, 2017

Across the West, people are suspecting that institutions are corrupt, which has led to a lack of faith in not just our civilization but our own personal futures, as polls indicate:

After 17 years of polling, the Edelman marketing firm found that trust in four institutions – government, business, media, and nongovernmental organizations – took the steepest drop ever last year.

Almost two-thirds of people surveyed in 28 countries do not trust the four institutions to “do what is right.” More than 50 percent say “the system” is not working for them.

The rising distrust may help explain the attraction of anti-elitist and ultranationalist political leaders from the Philippines to Europe. More than 70 percent in the survey say government officials are not at all or somewhat credible. And the credibility of business chief executive officers fell 12 points to 37 percent.

Organizations rule the day when it comes to having a first-world society. Without a postal service, hygiene, police, fire, legal and medical institutions, the type of efficiency for which the first world is famed cannot occur and we are left at third-world levels of disorganization. When distrust expands across the globe and across institution-type, we know that organization has failed.

We forget how important organization is because we tend to see our society in terms of ideology and economics. If we have the right ideology, and a working economy, then everything else comes secondary. But other inputs have every bit as much influence as those two. Culture reflects what people want because it has worked for them in the past, religion contains their hopes, and the science of management determines how likely it is that the society will have competent organizations.

The savaging of Western institutions happened through two fronts: first, unions and regulation became involved, and second, these organizations became politicized, which meant that a mediocre solution which was politically correct was seen as superior to a good solution which was not as politically correct. This in turn meant that reality was suspended and replaced by ideology.

The high cost of replacing reality is that soon incompetence rules the day, and with that comforting miasma of confusion to camouflage it, corruption and ineptitude have a field day. The unions defend the inept, the regulations give them plausible deniability, and affirmative action essentially prevents many of them from being fired. As a result, institutional value has plummeted.

Any study of organizations reveals that giving the people at the lower level the ability to hit a stop button for the whole organization will quickly sabotage that organization and drive away the competent. And yet, with Leftist programs like affirmative action, unions and most regulation, this is exactly what we give low-level workers.

Now that the years have run past, and it is too far gone to fix or find the culpable, we are starting to recognize that distrust in American institutions has plummeted. The same is happening worldwide, because those institutions follow the same model. The high cost of Leftism takes years to reveal itself, but then, it always makes us regret ever going down that path.

The Benefit Of Organizations

Wednesday, December 7th, 2016

the_benefit_of_organizations

The enormous benefit of organizations is ignored (full stop). However, globalists get it, so why don’t the rest of us simpletons?

Here is an example of organizational benefit as demonstrated by Siemens AG, in Germany. A casual evaluation of the Company’s website reveals that the organization produces engineering equipment and is the biggest of its kind in Europe.

What the man in the street may notice (from time to time) is the name “Siemens” labeled on road construction equipment or even medical equipment. But what this poor creature will not see, is all the other things Siemens managers keep themselves busy with.

According to the website, Siemens are actively busy producing a wide variety of machinery for a wide variety of markets. But what is less visible is the following list of activities:

  • Press. The company is about to celebrate its founding 200 years ago, with a Gala event that includes Angela Merkel and 100 (prominent) guests, to be opened by the President and CEO of Siemens Joe Kaeser.
  • Employment. The company recruits on a full-time basis with promises of a meaningful life by making a difference, improving lives and protecting the environment.
  • Innovation. The company constantly looks ahead by acknowledging its designers, identifying research topics, determining strategy for the future and presenting pictures of the future.
  • Magazine. The company produces its own hardcopy for distribution to employees and clients alike, containing fascinating articles on possible applications in almost any market.
  • Events. The company currently participates in three trade fairs, one career event and one webinar.
  • Future. The company proposes a sustainable future by supporting “ingenuity for life,” “Intelligent Infrastructure,” “Sustainable Energy,” “Future of Manufacturing,” “Digitalization” and “Financial Services.”
  • Growth. The company is as follows: “As of September 30, 2016, we had around 351,000 employees in more than 200 countries. In fiscal 2016, they generated revenues of €79.6 billion.”

The above activities consume insurmountable resources for small to medium size companies, but are only a small indication of the force-multiplier effect of a multi-national organization. An in-depth investigation will reveal much more power to maneuver where financial experts will detect gob-smacking financial channeling only called wasteful expenditure if it was detected, which would only happen when politically expedient for another board member or senior manager.

But it is more than money because this particular CEO is planning on sitting next to Angela Merkel at the gala event, where they will not talk about engineering products, but the cozy reduction of cross-border impediments such as exchange rates and border control, i.e. the perpetuation of the “sustainable”(sic) Globalist World Order.

Imagine, knowing the extent of added capacity organizations possess, that instead of applying it in a negative, manipulative way, that same organization could apply it in a constructive way towards cooperative nationalism i.e. Germany First (not EU First).

Imagine, knowing the extent of added capacity Siemens possesses, that it was applied towards improving Real Politik in support of the resurgence of conservatism. For example, with a standard overhead of 10%, Siemens would be able to spend about $10 billion on conserving the future of civilization. Trump only spent about $100 million to get elected.

That would put Hillary’s donors to shame, not because they donated less, but because they donated to a single person. The person on its own is useless as was shown in the 2016 election.

On the other hand, Trump did not win the election because of himself; he cooperated with a “movement” as he affirmed in his speeches. But now there is a good probability that he is going to destroy this movement by forcefully “uniting” with mentally ill individuals in the name of compromise with the existing system, which is an organization of vast power.

This insistence on “individual” unity will destroy the force-multiplier effect generated within the organizational movement. Even Trump does not realize that the strength of the organization has surpassed his own.

While Trump focuses on trade deals with other countries, he should also look at on internal coordination between his “movement” and other “organizations” in America. That would have made America great because its own civilization would improve, creating an organization to multiply the force of his insight far beyond one man.

Recommended Reading