Creative destruction was probably (in broad terms) the main mechanism of the industrial revolution; whereby a new and overall 'better' (more functional) industry displaced the previously existing form.
Thus railways displaced canals, and roads displaced railways. Or TV displaced radio, then the internet and recording technologies displaced live TV. The later expands (grows) and (more-or-less) destroys the former.
Creative Destruction might in principle, be a spontaneous phenomenon, but it can easily be shaped by lawmakers and the wealthy.
For example, the canals and railways were built by private money -while the road network (for motor vehicles) was built by the state using tax money. Cars and lorries were thus subsidized in a way that railways were not. The internet likewise - although the manner of its creation and nature of its subsidy has been covert, and dishonestly presented.
The cancerous global bureaucratic takeover has been an example of Creative Destruction - by-far the largest ever. Bureaucracy grew and grew, and destroyed other forms of organization - such that only large institutions employing professional managers and administrators can thrive in the modern economy. Even small clubs, even families, are now subject to a growing-web of bureaucratic regulations.
The thing is that Creative Destruction is not really 'creative' - the word creative is here merely a synonym for 'growth'. That which replaces is not necessarily better than that which is replaced, nor is it necessarily a product of creativity.
The essence of the phenomenon is simply that the growth of one form displaces and thereby destroys another.
The sequence is that growth causes destruction.
Growth comes first and destruction may follow.
Because sometimes what went before does remain, but shrunken - most inland canals were commercially destroyed by railways in the UK; but railways were only shrunk by roads. Radio still remains in 2021, but with an importance greatly reduced now compared with 80 years ago.
So the essence of Creative Destruction is in the sequence of growth 'causing' a tendency towards destruction. Growth +/- destruction.
But what we are seeing very clearly from early 2020 is a reversal of this causal sequence.
Instead of growth ('creation') causing destruction, destruction comes first - and growth (creation') is asserted to come afterwards.
This I term Destructive Creation because the idea is that destruction comes first, and creation of new forms may follow.
However, what actually follows destruction is conjectural. There may be growth of some new form that replaces the old, or there may not be.
An example of Destructive Creation is the self-styled sustainable energy economy. The generation of electricity by coal and gas is being destroyed by laws and taxes. Its replacement by windmills and other devices is conjectural, has not happened, and is indeed impossible.
Personal cars powered by the internal combustion engine are being squeezed towards extinction by regulations and taxes; and urban road transport is being expensively crippled by 'bike lanes'.
Vast resources in the current world are being devoted to destruction. But the replacements are conjectural, and may or may not happen.
There will be (already has-been) a vast shrinkage of power generation - and therefore electric cars will not be possible for mass transport. Cars are being cleared to make way for bicycles etc; but the bicycles cannot functionally substitute for cars, so the net result will be reduced efficiency and effectiveness (then prohibition) of all activities that depend on mass usage of private cars.
So, just as Creative Destruction actually amounts-to Growth first and for-sure... plus or minus destruction; so Destructive Creation really means Destruction first and for sure, then maybe (or maybe not) Growth to replace that which has already been destroyed...
From 2020 we are seeing a decisive shift from Creative destruction to Destructive Creation, as announced by The Great Reset, Build-Back-better and Agenda 2030 of the UN. The new strategy is to to clear-the-ground of what is, allegedly to make-way for growth of what-is-to-become.
But all that is certain is the destruction of what has-been and is.
Thus the economy of the world has already been substantially destroyed on the excuse of the birdemic. Destruction is certain.
But the assumption is that that which has been destroyed can and will be replaced by something, let alone something better, is wholly conjectural.
Destruction is a fact; but the following Creation/ Growth is just a hope or a vague intention - or not even that...
Another example is the cancel culture of antiracism. There has been (and continuing) a mass destruction of public arts, literature and media - a clearing of the ground of any-thing deemed to be 'racist' - which actually means anything of the past, of The West, by white men (or for any reason disapproved by Them - especially Christianity).
The assertion/ assumption is that these creative works will be replaced by something as-good, or better. But this is conjectural - maybe it is not possible, maybe it never was genuinely intended; and meanwhile the only fact is destruction.
The mentality of Destructive Creation is, indeed, a perfect mask for Sorathic evil: the 'purest' form of evil which is simply the spite-motivated destruction of all that is of God - divine creation, any-thing partaking of The Good.
When, in 2020, the Global Establishment decisively shifted from the Creative Destruction of cancerous global bureaucracy; to using its new totalitarian powers to destroy; this was a symptom of Sorathic takeover.
All talk of the Agenda 2030, Great Reset or Build-Back-Better - i.e. strategies that put destruction first, and assume future compensatory growth only conjecturally - is further evidence.
Here-and-now destruction is primary.
That is the current nature of world leadership. Destruction of marriage, family, community, small business, village, and functional social institutions...
We also see destruction of the apparatus of world government; of the military, the police, and nations. Mass immigration and the mixing of heterogeneous populations is destructive by its nature - any advantages are purely theoretical, and almost certainly will not happen.
Likewise the birdemic response, the peck, the antiracism agenda, the sexual revolution, the Climate Change agenda - all are massively destructive up-front and for certain. What comes after this wholesale and planetary destruction? Meh...
The Global Establishment have-been and are investing colossal resources (many trillions of dollars) into destruction. That is their primary activity.
Destruction is primary - and what happens afterwards... well 'They' do not know, neither do they care because whatever remains will merely, in its turn, become the subject of further destruction.
Because to the Sorathic mind, destruction is self-justifying.
6 comments:
You have addressed an extremely important point concerning the motivations driving agendas like the GR, BBB, UN 2030. Unlike earlier processes in which growth preceded destruction, contemporary agendas put destruction first (though I am sure the elites themselves frame it as restructuring rather than destroying). I'm not sure growth, in a conventional sense, is even a part of the picture anymore.
An overriding element of sabotage permeates everything today. One need look no further than the current ESG investment mantra to understand that our totalitarian elites are focused exclusively on destroying first. They have made it expressly clear that their vision of a better future cannot come to be unless the present is degraded and destroyed.
At the same time, the elites appear sorely incapable of making their complex and quixotic visions a reality. Not even their thinly-veiled dream of sustained totalitarian control appears viable over the long-term. They simply lack the hard, creative skills to pull it off, which implies they will eventually become victims of their own sabotage.
If this isn't a recipe for the end times, then I'm not sure what is.
@Frank "At the same time, the elites appear sorely incapable of making their complex and quixotic visions a reality. Not even their thinly-veiled dream of sustained totalitarian control appears viable over the long-term."
Absolutely. If you think back on those imaginary future scenarios from the World Economic Forum mouthpieces (like the "you will own nothing and be happy" piece by the Dutch politician, or anything by Dr Evil); it comes across is that They have almost no real idea of what they are trying to achieve, after the destruction.
And, as usual, what little they do say is 'double-negative' in nature - they dream vaguely about "a world without [fill in the blank]!"
The fact that most of the masses embrace the destruction of the systems that make their own continued existence possible is a tell, for me, that demonic forces are at play.
In general, and in the past, one could suppose that the masses had at least the survival instincts of animals, and would instinctively want survival.
Now, however, many or even most people I know actively embrace the destruction of their own lives.
I even heard, recently, an old friend and family member use speech that shows he despises his own culture, his own people. Those dumb, stupid white men who created these systems that are quickly being destroyed, that make our lives possible.
For the last two centuries Satan and his minions have been parasitizing on various aspects of a more or less healthy social reality - communists parasitized on a semi-capitalist economy, "postmodernists" parasitized on a semi-civilized academic infrastructure, etc. But today there is hardly anything to parasitize on left - today Satan and his minions truly dominate this earthly realm, and the most obvious characteristic of their nature is becoming increasingly apparent - they do not have a shred of creative energy in them, they are purely vampiric and exploitative, and all of their supposedly "constructive" visions are ridiculous imitations at best and grotesque abominations at worst. Thus, we are truly in the run-up to God's Big Show - and that should make us supremely optimistic.
Yes! And in my way of thinking, this is what tips the scale to inversion, the point of no return when bitter becomes sweet, light becomes darkness, and so on.
I feel very strongly, intuition or prior conviction, that the peck is associated with the climate agenda which has, in honesty, always been primarily about "pest" removal (i.e. us). I'm not sure what the exact mechanism is, perhaps it comes later as follow-on pecks, but this is best described in the framework you lay out here. It's not clear what is supposed to come after, but it's important we destroy everything, especially people, to get there. The apparent assumption is we'll finally have Utopia for the few saved after all the dirty work is finished.
This has been openly discussed and pushed for many decades: the "problem" is not solved and can't be solved by merely making our lives miserable & reducing the use of modern technology, but the people themselves must go.
You've also outlined this isn't going to work out - not as described or apparently planned. In the framework you've discussed, we might suspect the Sorathic side is taking it "too far" for the plan to work: everything will be destroyed, no special "saved" for the Utopia remaining - while the Ahramaic evil is trying to be slightly more careful about the actual damnation and choice.
Post a Comment