Posts Tagged ‘values’

Organizational Values In 2016

Friday, September 16th, 2016


Evan McMullin was proposing himself as an independent presidential candidate when he wrote this “Letter to America.” He writes:

Even in times of economic crisis and war, our nation has been a singular source of hope for people throughout the world yearning for liberty, dignity and opportunity.

Then he adds this tidbit:

(Donald Trump’s) infatuation with strongmen and demagogues like Vladimir Putin is anathema to American values.

As shown above, those values would be liberty, dignity and opportunity. He ends with:

Leaders who will unite us and guide us to a prosperous, secure future, beyond the dysfunction of a broken political system.

Just as the American Revolution required men and women devoted to liberty and freedom to stand up and be counted, this moment calls a new generation to the same sacred task.

He admits that the current political system which is “broken” is the same system he actively participated in. Also, pointing to “leaders” to push for a second American Revolution obfuscates his real intention of attacking Russia.

This deduction may be wrong, so let’s look at (his) values proposed for (his) leadership, which in his mind would be anathema to Putin. The only values identified in a letter he himself wrote as pertaining to himself are “pride,” “quiet” and “renew[al].” The other values mentioned pertained to foreigners (opportunity and liberty) and universal values (dignity). In addition it was strange how he used the term “constitution” as if it were a value, while “law” or “justice” may have been better.

Clearly the above is disjointed as far as the concept of values is concerned. First of all he should have identified his own values (that he himself actually lives by). Then he should have compared his own values with the values of the American organization or bureaucracy that he intends to (directly) manage for the next four years. Two values were mentioned i.e. “limited” and “smart” which are strange words to use when effectiveness would have been better.

The reason people should separately identify their values (and the values of their organization) is to enable the electorate and employees to measure the performances of the candidate as well as of the organization. For example effectiveness can be measured, but “limited” cannot. You can measure “pride” and “quietness” to some extent while “renewal” opens a can of worms. For example, proposing a second revolution sounds awfully like Communist doctrine, which he claims to be anathema to.

The reason values are so important is that the electorate and employees find comfort in knowing on what basis the candidate makes his (own) decisions behind closed doors. Those values essentially reflect his personal survival technique meaning that if he survives, then we will too. If he succeeds, we will too. However, if he fails, we will know where to pick things up. In summary therefore; Value management reduces risk thereby increasing the probability of success (all by itself).

The candidate already drives the values which caused his own success and motivated his application as independent Presidential candidate. His own family knows his values motivating them on their own paths to success as well. In fact, these values were obtained from the grandparents and can in most cases be traced across generations. Then finally, he is so confident in his own values that he is attempting to bring that to the Presidential table.

How did that happen, you ask? The original settler in his family-line must have suffered a lot in a strange new world, causing him to develop a new set of survival skills. For example, hunting bison, eating strange tasty leaves for medicinal purposes, building a house with tree stumps and building a water channel. This skill-set became a family tradition and over generations finally morphed into specific values such as “prudence,” “volunteering,” “pride,” and “quietness.” What Evan McMullin is trying to say is that his family worked hard to attain these values, and being American all Americans should identify with that (automatically).

The problem though, is not his own understated values, but the total ignorance of values the organization he wants to manage require of him. Let’s say the organization needs to be effective. How would that help him to help the tax-payer? The idea is to identify metrics that would measure effectiveness (of the organization) every quarter. How would that help him to engage Putin? Well, he could engender some respect from Putin which could improve their relationship away from being “anathema” to “cooperative.” The interesting part is how a personal conflict of values between these “leaders” will affect a cooperative outcome (assuming it is actually contradictory). American (organizational) survival must improve despite any decisions made.

Therefore, it is possible to say that personal values improve the probability of personal survival, while organizational values do the same, but for the organization. It is possible and advisable to take the next step to Empire or Civilization, meaning that a third level of values would be required. This candidate missed this level as well and it is not like the topic of Empire or Civilizational decline is under wraps. On the contrary, the New World Order is well known but unfortunately over-valued in 2016 as the (somewhat) despicable Cathedral, thus requiring new “values” too.

From a values perspective, the deduction is that values should be aligned between ordinary people, their organizations and their empire so that (those) taxpayers can improve their survivability. This does not relate to drinking party wine, it relates to probabilities that an empire (such as the USSR or the NWO for example), can last longer than 40 years.

Think about that.

The Renewal Of The West Arises From Insurgent Realism

Saturday, September 3rd, 2016


We live in an age of massive inversion. All of the original values held by our civilization were deemed offensive, so they were replaced with inoffensive versions, effectively reversing the original meaning.

An example can be found in the notion of tolerance. Tolerance originally meant accepting different viewpoints, but that required us to tolerate opinions that did not flatter the ego, so it was redefined to mean accepting all people who avoid unflattering opinions.

This has been going on for centuries, millennia even. It is the fatal disease of civilization itself: as soon as a society thrives, those who are unrealistic benefit from the inventions and social order imposed by the realistic. Since the realistic reproduce at a lower rate, soon the unrealistic outnumber them and shift policy to insanity.

At that point, the insanity of groups take over. Votes and mob participation do not involve individual responsibility, allowing the Crowd to participate and then blame itself without attaching guilt to any persons in particular. Groups tend to favor what keeps the group together, and that is almost always illusion.

The insanity has begun to melt however. For the first time in ages, we are having a conversation about civilizational health: how well our society works and what its prospects are, including whether it allows people to enjoy life and therefore try to do well by it.

That in turn leads to an inversion of the inverted. The mind recognizes that all social order is more social than order, and that each definition — like an official Soviet or Newspeak label — hides its actual meaning. With that comes a realization that the traditional ways and the ways of nature were effects, not causes in themselves, with the causes being an understanding of reality itself.

In this way, realism returns. Humans naturally fear nature because with it comes the risk of being personally destroyed by a natural selection like process. As a result, they rebel against realism, and create rules designed to insulate the unrealistic from the consequences of their actions.

And yet, all of those rules turn out to be wrong because they treat cause and effect as the same. Laws for example prohibit behaviors instead of looking at why those occur. Management of people relies on enforcing uniformity, not looking at the differences between people that cause some to do good, and some bad.

With the inversion of our adulterated values, which is the “re-evaluation of all values” that Nietzsche proposed, civilization can return to its function: adaptation to nature, which is not a binary process but a spectrum. That thrusts on us the choice of what type of future we would prefer.

Europeans rose above other groups by creating a civilization in which individuals had both an intense desire to do right, and a strong motivation to bond with life and experience a transcendental appreciation of its beauty, intensity and excellence. All of that has been gradually obscured by the unrealistic, who want safety more than existential joy and purpose.

As all of the plans of the unrealistic come to fruition, as began to happen in the 1990s in earnest, we are seeing the future that unrealism makes for us: endless rules, constant tedium, and a lack of mental silence and time in which to get to know ourselves and existence.

With that, we abandon the control-oriented human schemes, and return to the subtler and more flexible designs of nature. The backlash is still in its early stages, but one might visualize it as the functional people seeking a way to separate from the inverted people. We do not need them. And we cannot make them happy.

Years of inverted living have brainwashed people into accepting what seem like the best options from what is available. But when even those lead to destruction, it is time to think outside of what is accepted, and open our frame of reference up to the eternal instead. This leads to an entirely different viewpoint, one in which the inverted are no longer necessary or desired.

At first, this backlash may appear in political forms. But in parallel, it is occurring through cultural and artistic change as well. We have reached the endpoint of inversion, and seen that it is death, and now people are thinking of life again — and are determined to escape the inverted values that put us on the path to death.

The Black Pill: Communication

Thursday, August 18th, 2016


A researcher discovers Schopenhauer and The Black Pill in an essay about Systems Theory:

Systems Theory is a formalisation of the usual view of science – for example that we know about the world via senses which detect signals. The things ‘out there’ are detected by light, sound (etc.) communications; and in response to these communications our minds make ‘representations’ of the things.

Systems theory clarifies that communications cannot actually communicate – and our ‘knowledge’ of things is actually a representation which arises in the mind – and which indirectly interacts with the environment. By this account, we never actually know things, but only our models of things; and these ‘internal’ models are never more than un-disproven in our interactions with (what we cannot help but regard as) the outside world.

We might instead call Systems Theory by a rightful name, such as Upanishadic or Schopenhauerian information science. Schopenhauer after all wrote extensively about how humans interact with the world only through a “representation,” as he expressed in his monumental The World as Will and Representation. It seems a hard concept for most, but the world we know of as solid and real is in fact in our heads, a mental model based on data from our five senses (as William Blake reminded us: “How do you know but ev’ry Bird that cuts the airy way, Is an immense world of delight, clos’d by your senses five?”).

This was a revolution in thought which ultimately brought about relativity, which Einstein found in Schopenhauer and amplified with some clever mathematics. What upsets people about this line of thought is that it is pure Black Pill; it refutes the idea of a single, innate and knowable world and replaces it with a massive ambiguity which can only be deciphered by those who are diligent, and only then partially. In Schopenhauer’s view, there is an objective world, but humans will never know it. This leads back to the impossibility of communication.

Let us read together an insightful definition of nihilism, which is the root of The Black Pill:

Nihilism is the belief that (1) all values are baseless and that (2) nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.

…In the 20th century, nihilistic themes–epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness–have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers.

Under the Red Pill and Blue Pill, an illusion still holds sway: that the world is how we perceive it. Under the Black Pill, we see that the world is not as it appears, and that choices cannot be made on anything but a semi-arbitrary basis. At the end of the day, we choose our paths, in the hermetic sense. This then leads to the second point: nothing can be known or communicated, because knowledge is specific to the individual, and language is deceptive.

This reveals to us the Black Pill world: humans have no “writing on the wall” which they must obey or be cast out from the sight of God, but endless choices and options which reveal who we are by our goals and what we hope to achieve. This seems counter-intuitive, but that is only the human intellect being placed in its proper role, as the brain of an animal and not a supernatural world that is more real than reality itself.