Furthest Right

Future Survival – Part 3: Imperfection


Humanity must consider the possibility of a world order comprised of multiple independent civilizations which can scale independently. Globalism posits the idea of a single global civilization which is by definition not scalable because it controls all territory with this one type of civilization, repeated like wallpaper across the globe.

Our democratic leadership decided to oppose this notion back in 1991 when it posited the neoliberal “new world order” or globalism. This create a single order, but because of its lack of ability to scale, it quickly became unstable. In addition, globalization deprived people of what they may desire most, which is pride and belief in their nations.

In the chaotic moment while “signals” of an impending third world war cross television screens, which for all intents and purposes would induce an absolute climate disaster through nuclear fall-out, Donald Trump appeared on the international scene in stark anti-global contrast.

His appearance is not some opportunistic knee-jerk reaction. He carefully planned his entry, knowing globalism was debunked decades ago and the political elite is holding on to the illusion for its own convenience only. But people are intuitively uncertain of the prospect of the opposite of that wonderful “perfect” future. Does that actually mean that Trump proposes an “imperfect future”?

The argument made today is that an imperfect future is what humans actually want, that it is the future of developing organizational potential, that it is the future of realism. However, what are the imperfections that organizations will have to face?

The first endeavor will be to design organizations with known imperfections.  Engineers already do that with electronic products, so it is possible at the organizational level.  To do that, organizations must understand the time-based problem which means looking at history and organizational development phases over time.

Generally, organizations appear to start very militaristically (perhaps to establish authority such as with entrepreneurs) then organizations become very legally oriented towards “organization” (such as M.B.A. qualified managers). Once organized, they become very economic via trade (such as accountants, Forex and optimization) after which they become philosophically oriented toward homestasis, and thus opposed to any change in the situation around them.

It is obvious that not all organizations are in the same time-frame or even compatible. Internally, it is possible for “leaders” to deviate from their employees or electorate too, causing conflict within such organizations such as is currently happening in the West.

The same can be seen in other “civilizations,” for example the Congo. A militarist leader clashed with a philosopher leader but because the electorate was militarist oriented, they chose the militarist leader.  In South Africa the electorate, despite being tribal “justice” oriented, were manipulated by their leaders in favor of the “universal” economic idea. In both cases the outcome was unacceptable.

The American internal conflict appears to be at the economic level where Trump wants to go up and Hillary wants to go “down” as it were.  In other words, the American civilization has not reached the philosopher stage yet. But the confrontation can be considered a good thing because it is driving both leadership and electorate to a realistic positive and therefore imperfect future where different organizations must co-exist (which would require philosophical insight).

This re-alignment of “real” differences will be difficult as is already exemplified by the dual-cultural and dual-communication effects visible in Africa.  Imagine the Tower of Babel happening again, but instead of being nihilistic about it, try to actually take the opportunity to catapult “forward” to the philosopher phase.

This does not mean that a new universal language or culture must be developed to enable co-existence, but rather that an imperfect solution might actually work far “better.” The current idea that all organizations can be measured on one continuum must pass into history. We can see this idea in the notion of polling for left-right orientation of rich-poor classification.

Another example is language imperfections. Take for example the words corrupted, interrupted and disrupted. In future it could include co-rupted, dys-rupted and evo-rupted as is illustrated by our present state.

Current academia and media demonstrated that even though they may not have acted fraudulently in maximizing their “industries”, that both these industries certainly have been “co-rupted” to serve the interests of utopia promoted by universalists based on universal “co-rency” and “co-herency.”

It appears that the above co-ruption caused dys-ruption while evo-ruption would have been more realistic for a positive “creation”, instead of a dystopian utopia.

One forgets that thousands of years ago, writers literally spent their entire lives to write a single article, where we could easily write multiple books.  In those days, only the very intelligent and very fortunate were given the protection to write, the result of which was taken seriously by their leaders.

This is not the case today. Therefore, clever, top drawer people must be revealed (again) today. One example is Mensa revealing the name of Garth Zietsman, who just like most people, works for a salary.

In the imperfect future, organizations must realize that they are not on the easily abused single continuum that investors, marketers and “pollsters” want them to be. In other words, they need to stiffen their backs as it were (become forceful).

But also that language(s) should expand and clever people be revealed once again to develop the organizational potential inherent in all of us imperfect middle-class normies, so that we built ten Towers, not just one, and then ten different, better Towers after that.

Tags: , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn