When "get woke, go broke" is The Plan: Self-correcting, 'negative feedback' systems don't apply when demons are running the world

We are all finding it difficult to get to grips with this new post-global totalitarian world administered (ultimately) by demonic powers (and their mindless human hosts, servants and slaves); because it operates on the basis of an inverted value system which is not a natural way for us humans to think. 

The difference is that (unlike Men) demonic powers are motivated by the desire to destroy whatever is Good, whatever is God's creation. 

For example, the birdemic-response, including the mandatory peck program, has led to major sectors of the economy, of national functioning, of essential provisions, being in increased danger of being rendered useless or even destroyed. 

This makes the nations weak, impoverished, increasingly chaotic. This is negative feedback, indicating that what is being done is doing harm - and that we need to stop doing it. 

Normally, negative feedback would lead national rulers to stop doing it. But these times are not normal. 

When the global rulership is under demonic control, such negative consequences are regarded as A Good Thing. Since the demonic powers desire to destroy God's creation and every-thing Good - they are delighted by evidence of increasing national weakness, and by the increased sufferings and death of human beings. 

For demons; what we humans regard as Negatives are, in fact, The Plan.  

The 'climate change' agenda likewise. The in-place, anti-Good global strategy against carbon - the chemical of life, and CO2 - the gas of life - makes perfect sense from the (to us humans, inverted) anti-life perspective of demons whose existence is as unembodied spirits. 

The phrase "go woke, go broke" will be true in the long-term. Wokeness (aka. political correctness, convergence) is anti-functional, destructive of its nature. So, even though explicit corporate wokeness is expedient for those managers who implement it - expedient by a short timescale of weeks or months (which is why convergence happens, everywhere); nonetheless accelerating wokeness always and necessarily leads to destruction of institutions.

So, all institutions are going woke, getting dysfunctional, going broke... And any human being who values that 'broken' function (whether the function be science or sports, profit or pleasure, education or entertainment) will regard this collapse of functionality as a disadvantage. However, such outcomes are 'good' from the destructive perspective of the demonic mind.  

The utterly ineffectual pseudo-attempts to control supposedly-rising global temperature (when global temperature cannot be predicted, cannot be controlled - and should not be controlled) have (like the birdemic) created and sustained global totalitarianism, and are destroying the world economy.

This predictably and inevitably leading to starvation, disease, violence and giga-death (i.e the death of billions of humans - a situation not possible until the colossal population growth of the twentieth century and continuing). 

But what seems like, pretty obviously, negative feedback from our human perspective, i.e. the death of billions; is regarded as positive and desirable from the demonic standpoint. The demonic agenda explicitly includes the ideal aim for billions of Men to die - what they don't say is that they intend that these billions should die in a condition of resentment, fear and despair - die denying the spiritual realm including the reality of their souls, cursing God, and rejecting the eternal life offered by Jesus Christ.

(It is because the billions 'need' to die in a state of spiritual sin that the agenda for evil proceeds incrementally, along with massive and sustained attempts to manipulate and invert public values via the mass media and all other communications systems such as education, Human Resources, and the arts.)  

'Positive feedback' is the situation when deviation from the desired situation causes yet further deviation; e.g. when harm leads to more harm, when destruction leads to more destruction, when evil leads to more evil. 

It seems that the demons - having created a single, inter-dependent world System (administered by an hierarchical and cross-linked bureaucracy and mass-social media) - are now stressing that System with more-and-more inefficiency, more inter-system conflict, more sub-system and functional destruction.

They are ignoring (where possible) the negative feedback (often spinning it as benefit!) - and They intend continuing stressing The System until the point where even the possibility of self-correction becomes unachievable. 

The aim seems to be inducing positive feedback in a single System, when increased dysfunction in one domain of that System leads to dysfunction in several other domains - and then the same again; until these accelerating and spreading dysfunction all add-together to make a 'System' that ever more rapidly and irreversibly destroys itself. 

In other words, when "get woke, go broke' is accelerated by a positive feedback system in the short-term; and when consequently organizations are going "broke" all through The System; then going-broke also becomes a positive feedback process - until The System as a whole is irreparably broke-en. 

None of this makes sense from a long-term human perspective - although it can be (is being) dressed-up as expedient in the immediate short term. 

For example, any deviation from total compliance with The System (e.g. refusal of the peck, refusal to comply with antiracist rituals, refusal to celebrate ever more extreme sexual delusion, sterility and perversity) may be punished; and punished by ever more rapidly increasing sanctions. 

Any refusal to engage in destruction is disallowed and may be inexpedient - but compliance with the work of destruction is allowed and may be rewarded.  

Yet it is certain that any and all of these demanded compliances are only a prelude to further (in the pipeline) demands for greater and more extreme compliances - with greater and more extreme sanctions. Thus destruction accelerates. 

Human rulers might eventually be appalled at the emerging dystopia; might eventually 'have mercy' or at least 'see sense'. But when The System is administered by demons they will laugh at the idea of mercy, delight in human torment; and their idea of what makes 'sense' is the opposite of Mankind's.  

The conclusion is that we need to adjust our expectations to the new realities. We need to stop judging demons by human criteria. We need to stop expecting our current rulers to behave as did rulers of the past. 

Because this time, and for the first time, we are all up-against a world ruled by immortal spirits of evil. 

More on the false concept of 'Holiness Spirals'

Not only do Leftists Not engage in Holiness Spirals - HSs don't exist as a phenomenon; assuming (as Christians do) there is a such a real-thing as spiritual Holiness.

There is no tendency (or, at least, it is extremely rare) for Holiness to spiral out of control. Holiness is too difficult to spiral!

The tendency goes in the opposite direction - to spiral into worldliness, not Holiness.


Of course, if Holiness is equated with hypocrisy; i.e. if all possible examples of Holiness are interpreted as being necessarily hypocritical 'virtue signalling' - then that does indeed spiral out of control, in order to cover for itself.

But if Holiness is a real and spiritual thing; then this is not so.


'Spiral' implies an innate tendency towards positive feedback; the idea that when once something has started, it will not tend to revert to the starting point (negative feedback) nor will it go to the opposite extreme (like a pendulum swing) - but will instead become more extreme with accelerating rapidity.

And indeed there is this quality about Leftism: it feeds-off-itself until...

Well what exactly?


Positive feedback mechanisms can only end by destroying themselves. Does Leftism destroy itself? In a material sense - yes; but for a Christian, the essence is spiritual. And in this spiritual sense, Leftism is a type of evil; indeed the dominant mode of evil in the modern world.

In this spiritual sense, Leftism leads to more Leftism without any necessary end-point - just as evil can always become more evil.

Neither Leftism nor evil more generally can continue to completion - because evil is purposive, and purpose has an ineradicable element of divine creation. A parasite kills itself when it consumes its host - but in the case of evil, the parasite is part of the same creation as the host. But evil can always become more evil, like an asymptotic curve.


So, Leftism may well (almost certainly will) destroy our civilisation, with the death of many billions worldwide who depend on this civilisation to sustain the seven-fold global population growth since the industrial revolution.
  
However, the spiritual harm of Leftism - the value inversion, the self-chosen damnation - could in principle just keep increasing and increasing: as evil feeds upon evil.


In sum, from a Christian (hence spiritual) perspective; Holiness is the wrong term, Spiral is actually a negative attribute; and the common assumption that Holiness Spirals are self-limiting is not necessarily true.

If there is a spiritual limit to the harm of Leftism, it comes not from intrinsic properties of Leftism; but from that which is Not Leftism: that which is Good.

God is the only antidote to Leftism.
  

Globally interconnected world versus Segmentary world: Why impending collapse is so obvious to me - but not to others

One reason must be the seven or so years I spent in the middle 2000s studying complex systems; mostly in a close collaboration with Professor Peter Andras.

Some of the main publications can be found on www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton: in the book The Modernization Imperative, and concentrated in the sections called Systems Theory and Modernization, also Management and Policy.

I realised that we are now living in a globally interconnected world - that is, we are each a tiny part of one extremely-large and extremely complex and inter-dependent system.


In the past, everybody lived in a world consisting of many much smaller and simpler and often unconnected systems. That is, the world was divided into segments - each substanially independent.

An obvious example is the 'feudal system' in medieval Europe: where each village was mostly self-sufficient for food and other everyday items, and a nation like England was almost-completely self-sufficient - with nested levels in-between nation and village (as represented by the national military hierarchy from King down through regional Earls, local Lords, Knights etc.).

(The original hunter gatherers were, of course, the ultimate segmentary societies.)

The advantage of the segmentary system is that it is extremely robust to even severe damage - units can survive for long periods when cut off, larger grouping hardly notice the destruction of composite units; and society can be rebuilt from almost any small unit.

Segmentary societies can degrade 'gracefully' or quantitatively - by increments, while retaining functionality, albeit reduced. 

But segmentary systems are inefficient, with a great deal of duplication; and all units are compelled to be generalists. 


There have since been several hundred years of increasing interdependency; especially since the agrarian and industrial revolutions which kicked-off in England in the middle 1700s. Indeed, the interconnectedness of the world has been accelerating for most of this time; and has now reached a very high level - far, far beyond anything attained in the past.  


The theoretical advantage of large, complex, interconnected systems is that they can be much more efficient due to differentiation and coordination; that is specialisation, coordination of the specialists (by markets and regulations); and by trade.

This is what Adam Smith (in his Wealth of Nations) termed 'division of labour'; the efficiency of which was shown by his example of the pin factory.

In systems theory terms; large, complex systems are potentially more efficient, have greater capability (due to specialisation), and are more resilient to small stresses (due to specialised compensatory mechanisms).

Increasing system complexity was the mechanism whereby the population of the world was able to increase from one billion in 1800 to more than seven billion now.


However, when subjected to stresses too great for the built-in compensatory mechanisms; complex systems fail rapidly and catastophically - because the interdependency means that failure propagates within the system in a positive-feedback fashion.

Failure of one sub-system leads to failure in all the sub-systems that depend upon it; localised damage causes further- and more-widespread damage; damage is therefore amplified at each stage, in an accelerating fashion.

In sum, complex systems hardly notice stresses; until the stresses go beyond the capacity to adjust, at which point they collapse completely.

Thus inefficient segmentary societies fail quantitatively and reversibly - they will degrade but not collapse; efficient complexly-interdependent global systems will fail qualitatively and irreversible: they will collapse. 


The modern world is qualitatively unprecedented in the unity, interconnectedness, inter-dependency of its organisation - there has never been a large, complex, single world system before now; so past historical examples of collapses are so very misleading as to be worthless.

If our globally- interconnected world system fails - then it will fail very fully indeed; and the failure will be all-encompassing and un-avoidable.

Once the stress on the system has reached the point of triggering failure, it will be impossible to stop or undo the positive feedback process.

Not least, because there can be no significant external intervention to save the system - because there is nothing external to the system.

The cancer of bureaucracy

*

From 2010, on the Medical Hypotheses blog - for those who missed it... I regard this as probably one of my most important 'scholarly' articles. The post is about 2,500 words - so is better copied, pasted and printed-out before reading (assuming the 400 word summary seems sufficiently alluring)

*

The cancer of bureaucracy: how it will destroy science, medicine, education; and eventually everything else

Bruce G Charlton. Medical Hypotheses - 2010; 74: 961-5

Summary

Everyone living in modernizing ‘Western’ societies will have noticed the long-term, progressive growth and spread of bureaucracy infiltrating all forms of social organization: nobody loves it, many loathe it, yet it keeps expanding.

Such unrelenting growth implies that bureaucracy is parasitic and its growth uncontrollable – in other words it is a cancer that eludes the host immune system.

Old-fashioned functional, ‘rational’ bureaucracy that incorporated individual decision-making is now all-but extinct, rendered obsolete by computerization. But modern bureaucracy evolved from it, the key ‘parasitic’ mutation being the introduction of committees for major decision-making or decision-ratification.

Committees are a fundamentally irrational, incoherent, unpredictable decision-making procedure; which has the twin advantages that it cannot be formalized and replaced by computerization, and that it generates random variation or ‘noise’ which provides the basis for natural selection processes.

Modern bureaucracies have simultaneously grown and spread in a positive-feedback cycle; such that interlinking bureaucracies now constitute the major environmental feature of human society which affects organizational survival and reproduction. Individual bureaucracies must become useless parasites which ignore the ‘real world’ in order to adapt to rapidly-changing ‘bureaucratic reality’.

Within science, the major manifestation of bureaucracy is peer review, which – cancer-like – has expanded to obliterate individual authority and autonomy. There has been local elaboration of peer review and metastatic spread of peer review to include all major functions such as admissions, appointments, promotions, grant review, project management, research evaluation, journal and book refereeing and the award of prizes.

Peer review eludes the immune system of science since it has now been accepted by other bureaucracies as intrinsically valid, such that any residual individual decision-making (no matter how effective in real-world terms) is regarded as intrinsically unreliable (self-interested and corrupt). Thus the endemic failures of peer review merely trigger demands for ever-more elaborate and widespread peer review.

Just as peer review is killing science with its inefficiency and ineffectiveness, so parasitic bureaucracy is an un-containable phenomenon; dangerous to the extent that it cannot be allowed to exist unmolested, but must be utterly extirpated. Or else modernizing societies will themselves be destroyed by sclerosis, resource misallocation, incorrigibly-wrong decisions and the distortions of ‘bureaucratic reality’.

However, unfortunately, social collapse is the more probable outcome, since parasites can evolve more rapidly than host immune systems.

***

Everyone in modernizing ‘Western’ societies (roughly the USA, UK, Western and Central Europe) will, no doubt, have noticed that there has been a long-term, progressive growth and spread of bureaucracy. Except during major war; this has not been a matter of pendulum swings, with sometimes less and sometimes more bureaucracy, but instead of relentless overall expansion – albeit sometimes faster and at other times slower.

The bureaucratic takeover applies to science, medicine, education, law, police, the media – indeed to almost all social functions. Such unrelenting growth implies either that 1. Bureaucracy is vital to societal functioning and the more bureaucracy we have the better for us; or that 2. Bureaucracy is parasitic and its growth is uncontrollable. Since the first alternative has become obviously absurd, I am assuming the second alternative is correct: that bureaucracy is like a cancer of modernizing societies – i.e. its expansion is malignant and its effect is first parasitic, then eventually fatal.

While it is generally recognized that modern societies are being bled-dry by the expense, delays, demoralization and reality-blindness imposed by multiple expanding and interacting bureaucracies, it is not properly recognized that bureaucratic decision-making is not merely flawed by its expense and sluggishness but also by its tendency to generate wrong answers. Modern bureaucracy, indeed, leads to irrational and unpredictable decisions; to indefensible decisions which are barely comprehensible, and cannot be justified, even by the people directly involved in them.

In what follows, I will make a distinction between, on the one hand, Weberian, functional, ‘rational’ bureaucracy which (in its ideal type, as derived from the work of Max Weber; 1864-1920) incorporated individual decision-making and was evaluated externally in terms of results and efficiency; and, on the other hand, modern ‘parasitic’ bureaucracy which (in its ideal type) deploys majority-vote committees for its major decision-making, is orientated purely towards its own growth, and which by means of its capacity to frame ‘reality’ - has become self-validating.

I will argue that parasitic bureaucracy evolved from rational bureaucracy in response to the rapidly changeable selection pressures imposed by modern society, especially the selection pressure from other bureaucracies having constructed a encompassing, virtual but dominant system of ‘bureaucratic reality’; and that the system of rational bureaucracy is by now all-but extinct – having been rendered obsolete by computerization.


*

The problem of parasitic bureaucracy

It is a striking feature of modern bureaucracy that nobody loves it, many loathe it (even, or especially, the bureaucrats themselves), yet it keeps growing and spreading. One reason is that bureaucracy is able to frame reality, such that the more that bureaucracy dominates society, the more bureaucracy seems to be needed; hence the response to any bureaucracy-generated problem is always to make more and bigger bureaucracies. It is this positive feedback system which is so overwhelming. Mere human willpower is now clearly inadequate to combat bureaucratic expansionism. Bureaucracy has become like The Borg on Star Trek: the next generation: it feeds-upon and assimilates opposition.

Bureaucracies are indeed no longer separable but form a linked web; such that to cut one bureaucracy seems always to imply another, and larger, bureaucracy to do the cutting. When the dust has settled, it is invariably found that the total sum and scope of societal bureaucratic activity has increased. And it is well recognized that modern bureaucracies tend to discourse-about, but never to eradicate, problems – it is as-if the abstract bureaucratic system somehow knew that its survival depended upon continually working-on, but never actually solving problems... Indeed, ‘problems’ seldom even get called problems nowadays, since problems imply the need and expectation for solutions; instead problems get called ‘issues’, a term which implies merely the need to ‘work-on’ them indefinitely. To talk in terms of solving problems is actually regarded as naïve and ‘simplistic’; even when, as a matter of empirical observation, these exact same problems were easily solved in the past, as a matter of record.

Over much of the world, public life is now mostly a matter of ‘bureaucracy speaking unto bureaucracy’. Observations and opinions from individual humans simply don’t register – unless, of course, individual communications happen to provide inputs which bureaucracies can use to create more regulations, more oversight, hence create more work for themselves. So individual complaints which can be used to trigger bureaucratic activity may be noted and acted-upon, or personal calls for more bureaucratic oversight may be amplified, elaborated and implemented. But anything which threatens the growth and spread of bureaucracy (i.e. anything simple that is also worryingly swift, efficient or effective) is ignored; or in extremis attacked with lethal intent.

The main self-defence of modern bureaucracy, however, is to frame reality. Since bureaucracies now dominate society, that which bureaucracies recognize and act-upon is ‘reality’; while that which bureaucracies do not recognize does not, for practical purposes, exist. Bureaucracy-as-a-system, therefore constructs a 'reality' which is conducive to the thriving of bureaucracy-as-a-system.

When a powerful bureaucracy does not recognize a communication as an input, then that communication is rendered anecdotal and irrelevant. Information which the bureaucracy rejects takes-on an unreal, subjective quality. Even if everybody, qua individual, knows that some thing is real and true – it becomes possible for modern bureaucracy implicitly to deny that thing's existence simply by disregarding it as an input, and instead responding to different inputs that are more conducive to expansion, and these are then rendered more significant and 'realer' than actual reality.

For many people, the key defining feature of a bureaucracy (as described by Weber) is that ideally it is an information-processing organization that has established objective procedures which it implements impartially. It is these quasi-mechanical procedures which are supposed to link aims to outcomes; and to ensure that, given appropriate inputs a bureaucracy almost-automatically generate predictable and specific outputs and outcomes.

However modern bureaucracies do not work like that. Indeed, such has been the breakdown in relationship between input and output that modern bureaucracies devote immense resources to change pure-and-simple; for example continually changing the recognition of input measures (i.e. continually redefining 'reality') and re-defining an organization’s mission and aims (i.e. rendering the nature of the organization different-from and incommensurable-with the past organization) and repeatedly altering the organizational outcomes regarded as relevant (re-defining making any decline in the efficiency of the organization formally un-measurable).

Such change may be externally- or internally-triggered: either triggered by the external demands of other bureaucracies which constitute the organizational environment, or triggered by the innate noise-generating tendencies of committees.

With endlessly-altering inputs, processes and outputs, bureaucratically-dominated organizations are impossible to critique in terms of functionality: their effectiveness is impossible to measure, and if or when they may be counter-productive (in terms of their original real world purpose) this will also be unknowable. Individual functional organizations disappear and all bureaucracies blend into a Borg-like web of interdependent growth.


*

The nature of bureaucracy: rational versus parasitic

What is bureaucracy? The traditional definition emphasises that bureaucracy entails a rational human organization which is characterized by hierarchy and specialization of function, and that the organization deploys explicit procedures or regulations that are impartially administered by the personnel. A rational ‘Weberian’ bureaucracy was probably, on the whole, performing a useful function reasonably efficiently – in other words its effectiveness was perceived in terms of externally-pre-decided criteria, and its growth and spread were circumscribed.
In medical terms, Weberian bureaucracy was therefore – at worst - a benign tumour; potentially able to overgrow locally and exert pressure on its surroundings; but still under control from, and held in check by, the larger host organism of society.

But, just as cancers usually evolve from benign precursors, so it was that modern parasitic and useless bureaucracies evolved from the rational and functional bureaucracies of an earlier era. Probably the key trigger factor in accelerating the rate of this evolution has been the development of computers, which have the potential to do – almost instantly, and at near zero cost – exactly the kind of rational information processing which in the past could only be done (much more slowly, expensively, and erratically) by Weberian bureaucracy. My contention is that large scale rational, functional bureaucracies are now all-but extinct, destroyed by computerization.

I assume that, when rational bureaucracy was facing extinction from computerization, there was a powerful selection pressure for the evolution of new forms of irrational bureaucracy – since rational procedures could be converted into algorithms, formalized and done mechanically; while irrational procedures were immune from this competition.

The outcome is that, despite retaining a vast structure of procedure and regulation, and the organizational principles of hierarchy and specialization, those powerful modern bureaucracies that survived the challenge of computerization and are still alive and growing nowadays are non-rational in their core attributes. Irrationality is indeed an essential aspect of a modern bureaucracy’s ability to survive and thrive. Those bureaucracies which remain and are expanding in this post-computerization era are neither rational nor functional.

This evolution towards pure parasitism – with no performance of a substantive real-world function - is only possible because, for any specific bureaucracy, its relevant environment now substantially consists of other bureaucracies. It is 'other bureaucracies' that are the main selection pressure: other bureaucracies pose the main threat to survival and reproduction. A modern bureaucracy therefore must respond primarily to ‘bureaucratic reality’ – and any engagement with ‘real life’ (e.g. life as it is perceived by alert and informed individual human beings) simply stands in the way of this primary survival task.

So, the best adapted modern bureaucracies are those which most efficiently play the game of satisfying the constantly-and rapidly-changing requirements of other major bureaucracies. Success brings expansion by local growth and metastatic spread. But, in contrast, satisfying the stable requirements of ‘real life’ and human nature, by contrast, brings a bureaucracy little or no rewards, and a greater possibility of extinction from the actions of other bureaucracies.


*

The role of committees in the evolution of bureaucracy

I will argue that the major mechanism by which irrationality has been introduced into bureaucracies is the committee which makes decisions by majority voting.

Committees now dominate almost all the major decision-making in modernizing societies – whether in the mass committee of eligible voters in elections, or such smaller committees as exist in corporations, government or in the US Supreme Court: it seems that modern societies always deploy a majority vote to decide or ratify all questions of importance. Indeed, it is all-but-inconceivable that any important decision be made by an individual person – it seems both natural and inevitable that such judgments be made by group vote.

Yet although nearly universal among Western ruling elites, this fetishizing of committees is a truly bizarre attitude; since there is essentially zero evidence that group voting leads to good, or even adequate, decisions – and much evidence that group voting leads to unpredictable, irrational and bad decisions.

The nonsense of majority voting was formally described by Nobel economics laureate Kenneth Arrow (1921-) in the 1960s, but it is surely obvious to anyone who has had dealings with committees and maintains independent judgement. It can be demonstrated using simple mathematical formulations that a majority vote may lead to unstable cycles of decisions, or a decision which not one single member of the committee would regard as optimal. For example, in a job appointments panel, it sometimes happens that there are two strong candidates who split the panel, so the winner is a third choice candidate whom no panel member would regard as the best candidate. In other words any individual panel member would make a better choice than derives from majority voting.

Furthermore, because of this type of phenomenon, and the way that majority decisions do not necessarily reflect any individual's opinion, committee decisions carry no responsibility. After all, how could anyone be held responsible for outcomes which nobody intended and to which nobody agrees? So that committees exert de facto power without responsibility. Indeed most modern committees are typically composed of a variable selection from a number of eligible personnel, so that it is possible that the same committee may never contain the same personnel twice. The charade is kept going by the necessary but meaningless fiction of ‘committee responsibility’, maintained by the enforcement of a weird rule that committee members must undertake, in advance of decisions, to abide by whatever outcome (however irrational, unpredictable, unjustified and indefensible) the actual contingent committee deliberations happen to lead-to. This near-universal rule and practice simply takes ‘irresponsibility’ and re-names it ‘responsibility’…

Given that committee decisions are neither rational nor coherent, and are therefore radically unpredictable, what is their effect? In a nutshell the short answer is that committees – overall and in the long term – generate random ‘noise’. Committees almost certainly increase the chances that a decision is wrong – but overall they probably do not have lead to any specifically biased direction of wrongness. While some committees using some procedures are biased in one direction, others are biased in other directions, and in the end I think the only thing that we can be sure about is that committees widen the range of unpredictability of decisions.

Now, if we ask what is the role of randomness in complex systems? - the answer is that random noise provides the variations which are the subject of selection processes. For example, in biology the random errors of genetic replication provide genetic variation which affects traits that are then subjected to natural selection. So, it seems reasonable to infer that committees generate random changes that generate variations in organizational characteristics which are then acted-upon by selection mechanisms. Some organizational variations are amplified and thrive, while other variations are suppressed and dwindle. Overall, this enables bureaucracies rapidly to evolve – to survive, to grow and to spread.

How much random noise is needed in a bureaucracy (or any evolving system)? The short answer is that the stronger is the selection pressure, the greater is the necessity for rapid evolution, then the more noise is needed; bearing in mind the trade-off by which an increased error rate in reproduction also reduces the ability of an evolving system accurately to reproduce itself. A system under strong selection pressure (e.g. a bureaucracy in a rapidly-changing modernizing society) tends to allow or generate more noise to create a wider range of variation for selection to act upon and thereby enable faster evolution – at the expense of less exact replication. By contrast, a system under weaker selection pressure (such as the Weberian bureaucracies of the early 20th century – for instance the British Civil Service) have greater fidelity of replication (less noise), but at the expense of a reduced ability to change rapidly in response to changing selection pressures.

I am saying here that committees using majority voting are responsible for the evolution of malignant bureaucratic growth in modern bureaucracies, and that this is why majority-vote decision-making permeates modern societies from the top to the bottom.

Although almost all major decision-making in the ‘Western’ world is now by majority voting there may be two significant exceptions: firstly military decision-making in time of war; secondly the personal authority of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. In both these types of organization there seems to be a greater emphasis on individual decision-making than on committee voting. Military command structures and the Roman Catholic hierarchy are therefore probably both closer to the ideal type of a Weberian rational bureaucracy than to the ideal type of a modern parasitic bureaucracy.

If so, the only major exceptions to majority rule decision-making at a world level, and probably not by coincidence, are the oldest and longest-enduring bureaucratic structures: that is, organizations which have retained functionality and have not themselves been destroyed by bureaucratic cancer.


*

Why are there committees at all?

Although they may nowadays be almost wholly damaging, committees cannot in their origins have been entirely useless or harmful; or else the form would never have survived its first appearance. If we acknowledge that individuals have the potential for better (i.e. more rational and coherent) decision-making than committees, then the decline of individual decision-making must not be due to the lack of advantages so much as the perceived problems of individual decision-making.

The problems of individual decision-making are the same as the problems of individual power: in essence these problems are self-interest (i.e. the observation that power will be deployed differentially to benefit the power-holder) and corruption (i.e. the observation that over time power will corrupt, making the individual progressively a worse-and-worse decision-maker until he us note merely self-interested but progressively driven mad: power mad).

Since humans are self-centred beings living in an imperfect world, all individuals tend to be both self-interested and corruptible (albeit to widely-varying degrees!). Of course, self-interest and corruptibility applies equally to people 'serving' on committees - each of whom is wielding lesser but anonymous and irresponsible power. Nonetheless, it seems to me that committees are mostly favoured because they are seen as a solution to these intrinsic problems of individual power. The implicit assumption is that when a committee is run by majority voting then individual self-interests will cancel-out. Furthermore, that since power is spread-around more people on a committee, then the inevitably corrupting effect of power will be similarly diluted.

In reality, committees mostly solve the problems of power to the extent that they reduce the effective deployment of power. So that, if committees are indeed less self-interested and less prone to corruption than individuals, this is achieved mainly because the committee structure and procedures make decision-making so unpredictable and incoherent that committees are rendered ineffective: ineffective to such an extent that committees cannot even manage consistently to be self-interested or corrupt! Therefore, the problems of power are ‘solved’, not by reducing the biases or corruptions of power, but simply by reducing the effectiveness of power; by introducing inefficiencies and obscuring the clarity of self-interest with the labile confusions of group dynamics. Power is not controlled but destroyed…

Therefore, if committees were introduced to reduce the abuse of power, then instead of achieving this, their actual outcome is that committees reduce power itself, and society is made docile when confronted by significant problems which could be solved, but are not. And surely this is precisely what we observe in the West, on an hourly basis?

Because committee-based bureaucracy is predicated on an ethic of power as evil: it functions as a sort of unilateral disarmament that would be immediately obvious as self-defeating or maladaptive unless arising in a context of already-existing domination. And a system of committee-based bureaucracy can only survive for as long as it its opponents can be rendered even-weaker by even-more virulent affliction with the same disease: which perhaps explains the extra-ordinarily venomous and dishonest pseudo-moralizing aggression which committee bureaucracy adopts towards other simpler, more-efficient or more-effective organizational systems that still use individual decision-making.

If we assume that committees were indeed introduced as a purported solution to (real or imagined, actual or potential) abuses of individual power; then committees will therefore usually achieve this goal. So long as the quality of decision-making is ignored, then the committees seem to be successful. Committees can therefore be seen as a typical product of one-sided and unbalanced moralism that has discarded the Aristotelian maxim of moderation in all things. Bureaucracy adopts instead unilateral moralism which aims at the complete avoidance of one kind of sin, even at the cost of falling into another contrasting kind of sin (so pride is avoided by encouraging submission, and aggression is avoided by imposing sloth).

However the subject matter of ‘trade-offs’ is avoided; and the inevitable self-created problems of single issue moral action are instead fed-upon by bureaucracy, leading (of course!) to further expansion.

Hence, modern decision-making means that societal capability has declined in many areas. It has become at best slow and expensive, and at worst impossible, to achieve things which were done quickly, efficiently and effectively under systems based on individual decision-making. To avoid the corruption of individual authority, society has been rendered helpless in the face of threats which could have been combated.


*

Bureaucracy in science – the cancer of peer review

This situation can readily be seen in science. Although modern science is massively distorted and infiltrated by the action of external bureaucracies in politics, public administration, law, business and the media (for example), the major manifestation of bureaucracy actually within science is of course peer review.

Over the last half-century or so, the growth and metastatic spread of peer review as a method of decision-making in science has been truly amazing. Individual decision-making has been all-but obliterated at every level and for almost every task. The elaborateness of peer review has increased (e.g. the number of referees, the number of personnel on evaluating panels, the amount of information input demanded by these groups). And peer review or other types of committee are now used for admissions, appointments, promotions, grant review, project management, research evaluation, journal and book refereeing, the award of prizes… the list just goes on and on. Clearly, peer review fits the pattern of malignant expansion of bureaucracy that is seen in the rest of modern society.

And, as with the rest of society, the cancer of bureaucratic peer review eludes the immune system of science. It has now been widely accepted, by the other bureaucracies of modern society in particular, that peer review is intrinsically valid; and that any other form of decision-making is intrinsically corrupt or unreliable. This belief is not merely implicit, but frequently explicit: with ignorant and nonsensical statements about the vital and defining role of peer review in science being the norm in mainstream communication.

The irresistible rise of peer review can be seen most starkly in that any deficiencies in peer review triggers demands (especially from other bureaucracies) for more elaborate and widespread peer review. So that the endemic failure of increased journal peer review to maintain quality, or to eliminate what it is purported to detect; such as deliberate fraud, or multiple publication, or serious error - leads inevitably leads to plans for further increases in peer review. So there is peer review of greater elaborateness, with further steps added to the process, and extra layers of monitoring by new types of larger committees. The ultimate validity of peer review is simply an assumption; and no amount of contrary evidence of its stultifying inefficiency, its harmful biases, and distorting exclusions can ever prove anything except the need for more of the same.

Yet the role of peer review in the progress of science remains, as it always has been, conjectural and unverified. The processes of gathering and collating peer opinion as a method of decision-making are neither rational nor transparent – and indeed (as argued above) this irrationality and unpredictability is in fact a necessary factor in the ability of committee systems such as peer review to expand without limit.

In the past; the ultimate, bottom-line, within-science validation of science came not from the committee opinions of peer reviewers but from the emergent phenomenon of peer usage – which refers to the actual deployment of previous science (theories, facts, techniques) in the ongoing work of later scientists. This was an implicit, aggregate but not quantified outcome of a multitude of individual-decisions among peers (co-workers in the same domain) about what aspects of previous science they would use in their own research: each user of earlier work was betting their time, effort and reputation on the validity of the previous research which they chose to use. When their work bore fruit, this a validation of previous research (in the sense that having survived this attempt at refutation the old science now commanded greater confidence); but when previous research was faulty it 'sabotaged' any later research building upon it in terms of correctly predicting or effectively-intervening-in the natural world. Beyond this lies the commonsensical evaluation of science in terms of ‘what works’ – especially what works outside of science, by people such as engineers and doctors whose job is to apply science in the natural world.

But now that committee-based peer review has been explicitly accepted as the ‘gold standard’ of scientific validity, we see the bizarre situation that actual scientific usage and even what works is regarded as less important than the ‘bureaucratic reality’ of peer review evaluations. Mere opinions trump observations of objective reality. Since ‘bureaucratic reality’ is merely a construct of interacting bureaucracies, this carries the implication that scientific reality is now, to an ever-increasing extent, simply just another aspect of, and seamlessly-continuous-with, mainstream 'bureaucratic reality'. Science is merely a subdivision of that same bureaucratic reality seen in politics, public administration, law, the media and business. The whole thing is just one gigantic virtual world. It seems probable that much of peer reviewed ‘science’ nowadays therefore carries no implications of being useful in understanding, predicting or intervening-on the natural world.

In other words, when science operates on the basis of peer review and committee decision, it is not really science at all. The cancer of bureaucracy has killed real science wherever it dominates. Much of mainstream science is now ‘Zombie Science’: that is, something which superficially looks-like science, but which is actually dead inside, and kept-moving only by continuous infusion of research funds. So far as bureaucratic reality is concerned, i.e. the reality as acknowledged among the major bureaucracies; real science likely now exists at an unofficial, unacknowledged level, below the radar; only among that minority of scholars and researchers who still deploy the original scientific evaluation mechanisms such as individual judgement, peer usage and real-world effectiveness.

*

What will happen?

The above analysis suggests that parasitic bureaucracy is so dangerous in the context of a modernizing society that it cannot be allowed to exist; it simply must be destroyed in its entirety or else any residuum will re-grow, metastasize and colonize society all over again. The implication is that a future society which intends to survive in the long-term would need to be one that prevents parasitic bureaucracy from even getting a toe-hold.

The power of parasitic bureaucracy to expand and to trigger further parasitic bureaucracies is now rendered de facto un-stoppable by the power of interacting bureaucracies to frame and construct perceived reality in bureaucratic terms. Since bureaucratic failure is eliminated by continual re-definition of success, and the since any threats of to bureaucratic expansion are eliminated by exclusion or lethal attack; the scope of bureaucratic takeover from now can be limited only by collapse of the social system as a whole.

So, if the above analysis is correct, there can be only two outcomes. Either that the cancer of modern bureaucracy will be extirpated: destroyed utterly. In other words, the host immune system will evolve the ability to destroy the parasite. Maybe, all majority voting committees will coercively be replaced by individuals who have the authority to make decisions and responsibility for those decisions.
Or that the cancer of bureaucracy will kill the host. In other words, the parasite will continue to elude the immune system. Modernizing societies will sooner-or-later be destroyed by a combination of resource starvation plus accumulative damage from delayed and wrong decisions based on the exclusions and distortions of ‘bureaucratic reality’.

Then the most complex rapidly-growing modernizing Western societies will be replaced by, or will regress into, zero-growth societies with a lower level of complexity - probably about the level of the agrarian societies of the European or Asian Middle Ages.

My prediction is that outcome two – societal collapse - is at present the more probable, on the basis that parasites can evolve more rapidly than host immune systems. Although as individuals we can observe the reality of approaching disaster, to modern parasitic bureaucracies the relevant data is either trivial or simply invisible.

***

Further reading:

Although I do not mention it specifically above, the stimulus to writing this essay came from Mark A Notturno’s Science and the open society: the future of Karl Popper’s philosophy (Central European University Press: Budapest, 2000) – in particular the account of Popper’s views on induction. It struck me that committee decision-making by majority vote is a form of inductive reasoning, hence non-valid; and that inductive reasoning is in practice no more than a form of ‘authoritarianism’ (as Notturno terms it). In the event, I decided to exclude this line of argument from the essay because I found it too hard to make the point interesting and accessible. Nonetheless, I am very grateful to have had it explained to me.

I should also mention that various analyses of the pseudonymous blogger Mencius Moldbug, who writes at Unqualified Reservations, likely had a significant role in developing the above ideas.

This argument builds upon several previous pieces of mine including: Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and ‘CoI consultancy' (Medical Hypotheses 2004; 63: 181-186); Charlton BG, Andras P. What is management and what do managers do? A systems theory account. (Philosophy of Management. 2004; 3: 3-15); Peer usage versus peer review (BMJ 2007; 335: 451); Charlton BG, Andras P. Medical research funding may have over-expanded and be due for collapse (QJM 2005; 98: 53–55); Figureheads, ghost-writers and pseudonymous quant bloggers: the recent evolution of authorship in science publishing (Medical Hypotheses. 2008; 71: 475–480); Zombie science’ (Medical Hypotheses 2008; 71:327–329); The vital role of transcendental truth in science’ (Medical Hypotheses. 2009; 72: 373–376); Are you an honest scientist? Truthfulness in science should be an iron law, not a vague aspiration (Medical Hypotheses. 2009; Volume 73: 633-635); and, After science: has the tradition been broken? Medical Hypotheses, in the press.

*

We've already got Ahrimanic transhumanism - how about Sorathic superpower war?

In October 2019 I posted a video of Terry Boardman in which he prognosticates about three major civilizational threats - war, transhumanism and envirnmental damage. 

Since then we have had the world government totalitarian coup of early 2020; which has used the birdemic to impose much of the transhumanist agenda - building on the work of the trans-agenda which had imposed reality-denial, insanity and destructive abuse of children at the highest levels. 

But what about superpower (US/ NATO, Russia, China) war - which TB regarded as the most imminent threat? 

Certainly this looks increasingly plausible. US military capability and dominance is being been deliberately demolished with extraordinary rapidity (removing decades of superiority); meanwhile it is clear that there are powerful influences operating in the US that both make and take every possible opportunity to provoke war with either or both of the superpowers. 

If a superpower war is being sought; then we would be foolish to regard it as being driven by 'national interests' - because there is no such thing, anymore. We have a single world government. National interests are just something to be manipulated - just 'office politics' - in this era of the single, linked-bureaucracy. 

What we are seeing is the demonic agenda continuing to morph from Ahrimanic to Sorathic; from the strategic objective of a global System of omni-surveillance and micro-control, to the short-termist, spite-driven evil of sheer destruction. 

When destruction of God's creation and all that is Good becomes the goal, it is hard to better a global superpower war; especially when the contenders are fairly evenly matched. 

Of course; many of the Ahrimanic controllers will initially try to resist such a war, because it would destroy The System. Last summer the controllers managed to channel the Sorathic outburst of violent antiracism into 'yet more bureaucracy' - but the fact is that it is easier to destroy than to build. 

Evil bureaucrats (who are currently the most powerful among the wicked or the world) may quite easily corruptible (by their own dominant fear and resentment) into a spiteful, vengeful, despairing destructiveness. 

The extreme vulnerability arises because the global Ahrimanic System is built-upon Leftist resentments that have been created and encouraged between classes (originally), sexes, 'sexualities', races, ethnicities, religions etc - and such resentments need only be one-sided to be effective. 

So we already have a System built in deliberately provoked resentments; all that is needed is for self-seeking resentment to be transformed to other-destroying spite - and then we have war: war at multiple locations and levels; from the superpowers down to the inter-personal.  

This transformation from resentment to spite is already happening; and is likely to increase (because this is being encouraged from the highest levels). It may suddenly increase very quickly, in a positive-feedback spiral. 

...Including the powerful/ wealthy/ famous/ influential evil bureaucrats turning-on each other, and on everybody else. 

Such a war may be perceived (by those with most influence, or who believe it is in their grasp) as offering massive immediate possibilities for grabbing power, wealth, sex or whatever They personally most want most. 

When time horizons shorten even further than already - then functional and sustaining structures will look like opportunities for parasitic looting and 'rape' of The System (in both general and specific meanings). An attitude of carpe diem among the evil Establishment would soon cause collapse of the already eroded social functionality; and when functional social structures collapse (in such an inter-dependent world as this) one failure will bring-down several others systems - spreading and accelerating.   

My point is therefore that some of the Establishment are clearly trying to trigger a superpower war; and that pressure is increasing; and if it does break-through it could soon become unstoppable and irreversible. 

But (again) we should not suppose that this is about old-fashioned national/ ethnic/ political self-interest - such an interpretation would grossly underestimate the evil of its real motivations.

When the world government is dominated by supernatural demonic powers; then merely human motivations are a false guide to action; and create wrong predictions. 

And when the dominant demonic influences become Sorathic, we can observe the unedifying scenario of the very-evil being overcome by the even-more-evil. 

When/ if this happens; the transhumanist 'controllers' who are trying to preserve their System of Damnation, will then superficially appear like the 'good side'! In comparison with the 'pure', destruction-seeking evil of the baddies who shape resentment into spite; to provoke, sustain and amplify a terminal superpower war. 

What can we do? The first and most important things are to understand correctly the primarily spiritual nature of what is happening in the world. Such an understanding (in individual persons) itself has a positive and creative influence. 

And this positive influence does not depend upon material systems of communications, but potentially works by spiritual means, by the direct and intuitive knowing between persons (and other beings) on the side of God, The Good and Divine Creation. 

The more we recognize the spiritual nature of phenomena, and discern clear the side of Good; the more powerfully beneficial will be the influence. 

God works to improve the spiritual state of the world through those who love him; but God can work only through those themselves meet him part-way. When we consciously discern and choose Good, all kinds of invisible but pervasive positive influences are made possible. 

The asymmetry of Heavenly Good and hellish evil

Asymmetry is usual - especially when it comes to Good and evil; because Good is (roughly speaking) taking the side of God and creation - which is a positive commitment towards the divine destiny; while evil is to be opposed to these - which is negative, oppositional. 

So to become permanently Good is different from becoming permanently evil - in each case 'permanent' has a qualitatively different meaning. 

 

As I understand it; the choice to follow Jesus Christ leads through resurrection to Heaven. It is, therefore, a transformation - a transformation from this transitional, temporary, mortal embodied life, to a final, permanent, eternal embodied life.  

The resurrected life entails that we are prepared to make a permanent commitment to God's creation. 

 

The idea of eternity and permanence should not be thought to mean that Heavenly existence is some kind of unchanging stasis. I think it is better understood in the above terms as a final transformation. 

After resurrection there is no further transformation: the resurrected Man is qualitatively final in form - although he can develop further, towards creative divinity. 

 

In the resurrected condition this eternal commitment is possible in a way that is not possible on earth. 

Earthly life is 'entropic', change cannot be prevented, and change tends to be degenerative (towards chaos)...

But Heavenly life is eternally self-generating - there is no entropic tendency, but instead creation is the dominant reality. 

 

Anyway; the path to salvation is by following Jesus to Heaven; and once that has been accomplished, that situation is irrevocable. 

The resurrected man has made a free and conscious choice to make a permanent, positive commitment, and that commitment is - from then onwards - permanent! 

We could say (just as a model summary) that there is something like a special provision made that such a permanent commitment to Good is possible; or we could simply say that if permanent commitment to Good was not possible, then Heaven would be impossible - since (across eternity) members would all be prone to lapse and reverse; and Heaven might become hell...  

The situation for evil is different. There is no 'special provision' that enables any individual to make a permanent commitment to evil. Therefore, all commitment to evil is ultimately contingent; there is no 'philosophically principled' reason that actively prevents any individual (up to and including Satan) from repenting.

But it would be an error to infer from this that repentance is in practice possible for everyone. What prevents repentance is essentially Not Wanting to Repent. 

With evil, there is a kind of spiral of probabilities against wanting to repent. Unprepented sin leads to more unrepented sin (as we see from everyday observation); so that individuals get deeper then deeper into evil; and the desire to repent and live in Heavenly harmony with God's creation gets less and less - while opposition to God and creation gets more habitual and stronger. 

 

As a person becomes more evil; he develops stronger habits of untruthfulness (lying is intrinsic to evil); he practices moral inversion - such that all possible 'evidence' is understood as confirming his existing evil assumptions.

For example, other peoples' moral concern and forgiveness is interpreted as stupidity and weakness; the misery and pain of others leads to positively-reinforcing feelings of excitement, power, sexual arousal; successful dominance leads to despising those dominated; but defeat and failure leads to resentment and plans for revenge - etc. 

Whatever happens, it only serves to fuel the commitment to evil, the oppositional goals. 

 

We talk of an evil person 'selling his soul' to Satan - but this is a process, rather than a one-off transformation like salvation. 

A Man chooses to enter a path of evil; and every further choice to continue the path gets easier - while repentance (while still always theoretically possible) inflicts higher and higher costs in terms of unpleasant/ crippling feelings of remorse. 

It is always easier to become more evil, and it gets more and more difficult to repent.    

Thus, permanent Good is asymmetrical with permanent evil: the decision permanently to choose the side of Good being qualitatively irrevocable; while the decision to choose evil is a matter of becoming more-and-more quantitatively irrevocable - more-and-more permanent; in a positive feedback fashion: with each deviation leading to further deviation in the same direction. 

Why people stay in Leftism after the fun stops

Leftism gets individuals, and got our civilization, by being more fun than Christianity. 1966 and 1967 were fun years... Swinging London, the summer of love.

It retrospect it was superficial, pretentious... Sex, drugs rock and roll... It was at root a promise of hedonism, a world of guilt-free pleasure. But it was fun...

But very quickly, by 1968; Leftism took a different turn, towards angry, violent demands for pacifism, feminism, antiracism and the rest of it. Instead of "freedom" there was a growing bureaucracy of Human Rights.

The process, the bait and switch, has continued person by person ever since; liberation, followed by assimilation into The System. The System growing ever stronger, the hedonism dwindling to its recent rock bottom of lockdownsocialdistancing...

Yet, once grabbed by the hedonic promises of Leftism, it is a rare individual who steps away. And no society, no Nation has stepped away... We live in a Leftist world.

Hardly anybody seems to notice that what began as fun has ended in dullness, fear and mutual resentment.

Why? Because the process, at root, is a positive feedback cycle of leaving God, of rejecting God, of living without God - each decision a step further away; each step reinforcing the previous.

Why no learning, no noticing, no negative feedback, no rebellion against the lies and fakery? Because each step is a removal of the heart, the core, the very capacity for judgement and learning.

By now we are less than a civilization, less than Men..and each individual has walked this path, step by step, by many choices.

Living in the End Times - recognizing the reality, understanding the implications

I have been solidly convinced that these are the End Times for about a decade; but since the global coup of early last year - and with its continued invisibility - this is an everyday reality.

My understanding of the End Times is that it references the time when evil dominates the world, and when further decline becomes inevitable. The self-correcting possibilities of negative feedback (e.g. the 'pendulum swings' of history) has failed; and positive feedback (whereby each adverse change creates further adverse changes) has set-in. 

The evils of the world have become irreversible mainly because they are invisible to the mass of people and the totality of the Establishment. The incrementally-increasing value inversion of recent decades in The West has reached such a degree and compass that a world of evil rampant is regarded as a beneficial development. 

The System built on Big Lies and elaborated from a web of dishonesty and propaganda-manipulation, has a totalizing quality such that all worldly considerations are encompassed. Every apparent this-worldly (i.e. social-political-psychological) 'dissent' or 'escape' turns-out to be a loop-back into The System. 

All apparent 'conflict' (between capital and province, political parties, media, nations...) turns-out to be stage-managed; with both sides operating as part of The System. 

For a Christian who recognizes the reality that The System is a machine for evil; there is no way of engaging with those inside The System. 

The modern world is materialist (denying the reality of God and the spirit); and The System identifies, interprets and explains all material things. Those who accept the material assumptions, cannot get outside of The System - not even in imagination; they cannot escape - even in principle. 

In these End Times there is only the material, and The System is the material; and therefore The System includes all minds, all thinking - as well as all action. 

So, any thinking outside The System is simply incomprehensible: stupid, insane and/ or evil.  

And this is how a material system ends-up by controlling the spirit: how a material-system can become (in effect) a spiritual-process leading to damnation.   

Nearly all self-identified Christians are inside The System - and their 'Christianity' operates in The System - because all institutions, organizations, corporations are (they Just Are) parts of The System because they must be in order to function. 

All actually-existing churches are System Churches; because they are a part of the economy, receive subsidies and pay taxes, have legal identities, are employers, deploy Public Relations and interact with the media, are part of the education system... Nearly-all churches sustain one, several or all of the current strategic socio-political agendas (e.g. birdemic, climate, antiracism, sexual revolution).

Thus All actual churches are components of The System. 

Therefore all 'Christians' who are 'spiritually' led-by churches are in The System; are part of System-evil; hence on the opposite side than God the creator and Jesus Christ.  

And this situation is (by now) irreversible - because invisible, because denied (even as a possibility). 

Millions upon million of ex-Christians have-been, are-being, led into The System by their churches; each endorsed by the dogma that resistance is futile, because there is no alternative because we must be part-of a System (church) and Now there is Only One System. 

This is what happens in the End Times. The principle of value inversion means that what was Good becomes evil; the churches - which were once sole-agents of Christianity, have become agents of Antichrist. 

Unless, that is... we live from a spiritual source outside of The System (including The Churches). 

The System is, in fact, a tiny and self-circumscribed part of the real world. Outside The System there is God and creation, spiritual beings, living and conscious nature; and there is each Man in his divine self.

...Man's divine self in the direct, intuitive knowing of heart-thinking.

Yet all of these are individually-known; all requires conscious knowledge of reality; all require free agency and acting by-choice; deliberately, explicitly, from the-self. 

To live this way, rooted outside The System and in the divine, is very simple. It is within the capacity of anybody who wants to do it...

But of course, hardly anybody wants to do it - and indeed most Christians regard it as evil, and Anti-Christian, to do it...

This is the nature of the End Times; and what makes them the End. 

Lies are asserted as mandatory Truth; that which is obvious is invisible; that which is Good becomes regarded as evil - and evil is the only existent 'good'. 

That which must be done to affirm God and Jesus Christ becomes regarded as self-evidently (without need for proof or refutation) crazy, dumb, nonsensical. Thus what must be done becomes regarded as precisely that which cannot and should-not be done. 

The answer to the End Time lies in our own hands, requires nobody else's permission, cannot be stopped by any power, and may be commenced immediately...

But because these are indeed the End Times: what is necessary and do-able is exactly that which will not be done. 

Mapping the causal pathway leading to political correctness

*

1. Abstraction. People of high intelligence have a tendency to think abstractly rather than 'instinctively' - and perhaps this may be especially so in some human groups which have evolved extra-high intelligence over the past couple of thousand years - such as the populations in Europe and East Asia.

2. Secularization. Loss of belief in the ultimate nature of reality as transcendent and other-worldly - therefore a focus on this world.

- This probably relates to a strong abstracting tendency. For example, highly abstract people - when they are religious - tend to believe in a non-personal God, and in the ultimate reality of abstract forces or processes such as evolution.

- Abstraction is also productive of nihilism: i.e. to the belief that there is no ultimate reality. Since the power of abstraction depends on the vicissitudes of mental functioning, to the abstracting mind all is intangible, changeable, disconnected from spontaneity, from common sense, from emotional-underpinning. Life tends to be perceived as a solipsistic play of shadows, momentary distractions, meaningless sufferings and equally meaningless pleasures.   

- Abstraction is very useful in some situations in some societies - but it is like a mental pathology in other circumstances.

3. The combination of abstraction and secularization leads to an elite world view (including a morality) which is materialistic (this-worldly) and which explains things in terms of abstract forces and dispositions.

4. The purest, most idealistic morality from this perspective is therefore an abstract but non-transcendent spirituality of the material.

- A clear early example is Marxism, which is all about economics - about the production and distribution of material goods. Yet at the same time, material production and distribution is explained abstractly, and linked with a spirituality. The end result is that in Marxism the matter of the production and distribution of material goods becomes the highest level of human moral concern.

- Marxism was the first large scale morality of altruism - in which altruism was made abstract and involuntary (in replacement for the earlier personal and voluntary 'noblesse oblige', alms-giving and philanthropy).

- So, Marxism therefore removed virtue from the individual and from the realm of choice, and made morality a socially-imposed abstract process. Under pure Marxism there were no good individuals, only the good society.

5. Political correctness takes this process further than Marxism, by extending the concern with the production and distribution of material goods to include the production and allocation of psychological goods. So that PC is concerned by such matters as happiness, suffering, status, respect and self-respect.

- However, since PC is materialist, these intangible psychological factors require operational definition in terms of material proxy measures: so that happiness/ suffering may be equated with income and wealth, or with the results of surveys such as happiness ratings or crime levels, or with measures of health;  status is equated with occupancy of certain jobs, or attendance at specific educational establishments, or possession of educational certificates, and so on.

6. Therefore the abstract spirituality of materialism is underpinned by concrete measures of a material nature; such that the monitoring, prediction and manipulation of these material measures is equated with the (intangible) psychological states with which they are taken to be causally-correlated.

- Following the pattern of Marxism, in political correctness there are no good individuals, and no good individual choices or decision; only impersonal and mandatory procedures or mechanisms can be morally good.

- Immoral individuals are such for their necessarily-selfish defiance of impartial procedure, which is seen to open-up infinite possibilities of disaster, chaos, corruption.

- Such individuals are guilty not for what they actually do, nor for the actual consequences of their actions, but for their failure to submit to objective and involuntary process.

7. Meritocracy. All societies are meritocratic to a degree - although the nature of the merit varies. Throughout the twentieth century 'merit' became equated with intellectual ability and attainment - and a society developed in which the intellectual elite were the ruling class.

- Almost all the main social functions therefore became dominated by intellectually selected personnel; but especially public administration (and to a lesser extent democratic politics), education and the mass media.

- Intellectual meritocracy allowed the pathology of abstraction to operate un-checked at the highest levels of social organization, expanding and changeing without effective feedback from common sense and spontaneity.

- And also without reference to religious morality.

8. Also throughout the twentieth century, there was a massive expansion in the bureaucracy - and the linkage of all bureaucracies with public administration. So the modern society became interconnected by a bureaucratic web of laws, regulations, subsidies and coercive sanctions. And these bureaucracies became less personal - with all major decisions being taken by committee, and by vote.

9. The mass media also grew to occupy ever more of the time and attention of the population.

10. So by the late twentieth century the interconnected bureaucracy and the mass media meant that the intellectual meritocratic elite could impose their morality upon the rest of the population - and political correctness was established.

- A positive feedback loop was established, by which 'PC reality' - as defined by the interconnected administrative bureaucracies and the mass media - feeds back into the abstract secular psychology of the ruling intellectual elite to enhance the detachment of PC from instinct and spontaneity; and the intelligentsia amplified the abstracting and impersonal systematizing signal to the bureaucracy and media.

- Cut off from normal psychology and from inconvenient truths, the hermetically-sealed system of PC expanded exponentially. 

- And all unchecked exponential processes destroy themselves.

*

Further confirmation of the ascendancy of the Agents of Chaos

It has been my contention since the second half of 2020 that the nature of dominant "establishment" evil has evolved and transformed from the goal of global totalitarianism (international omni-surveillance and micro-control of populations) to a resentment-rooted and spitefully-motivated destructiveness. 

The totalitarians have lost power since their peak in early 2020; and the Agents of Chaos have become increasingly dominant. 

This is how I understand the ongoing Western war against "modern Zoroastria". 

While there are a dozen or so theories about how this is a strategic war, aiming at power domination, resource extraction, geopolitical balance, security, territory, or whatever -- I regard these as disinformation; merely a smorgasbord of deliberately-confusing false excuses (pick your favourite!) for starting and escalating what is meant to be (at the highest level of control*) a process of mass mutual destruction.  

In other words; while the mid-level explanations of this war as driven by the interests of particular groups or individuals is partly and proximately correct - in that selfish-interest is indeed what motivates many of the active participants; I contend that these self-interested groups are being duped and used by those who actually seek their destruction. 

The overall aim and methods are designed, at the top-level, to induce destruction hence chaos; the chaos then generating further destruction in a positive feedback cycle. 

My explanation at least has the virtue of being almost certainly right immediately and for the medium-term of months and a few years! 

What is disputable is how this for-sure chaos, is related to some hoped-for-and-planned positive strategic outcome of whatever interest-group is genuinely dominant. 

There will be for-sure a vast and lasting increase in bilateral destruction of infrastructure, people and the land; and there will be regional chaos. 

The main question is whether this for-sure chaotic destruction is a side-effect, or whether it is the actual plan itself. 

Whether this definite chaos and destruction truly motivated by some-or-another optimistically-intended long-term (i.e several to many years ahead) strategic Master Plan; will become clear and evident to most people only after several to many years - but then only if they can conceptualize and recognize the reality and possibility of chaotic evil. 

It is spiritually important that we, here, now; become able to conceptualize and recognize that chaotic-destructive evil is a real thing, a real possibility, thus a real and possible motivator of world (as well as local) events.  

*The highest level of control of the pursuit of Chaotic Evil is the demonic, which explains the intent of maximum and mutual destruction of human life and society. Humans are involved at lower levels - highest are the demonically possessed/ enslaved and the willing/ whole-hearted servants of evil. Tese are covert. Below them, and in public view, are the great mass of selfish dupes and pursuers of money, sex, and power over others - the middle managers and henchmen of totalitarianism.  

Totalitarianism is the worst option - the absolute need to reject spiritual enslavement

World War III is not only here, it is the better option for humanity. Submission is not an option and will avail those who do literally nothing. Even the proverbial Rider on the Red Horse is preferable to global enslavement to the very worst and most wicked members of the human race and their spiritual masters.

Vox Day

My understanding is that the collapse of world civilization is inevitable. If true, and the die is cast; this means that the outcome is unavoidable, and our choices are (merely!) between short-term versus long-term considerations. 

We now know that a dominant part of the global establishment wish to make a totalitarian world of spiritual (via physical) enslavement - of omni-surveillance and micro-control; motivated by the objective of mass spiritual damnation. 

Physical enslavement leads to spiritual enslavement only in an ideological (not religious) world where materialism is regarded as true - which is why materialism has been built-into our civilization.

Totalitarianism is thus the worst option for the world now (and, conversely, the preferred option - Plan A - for the purposively-evil Beings that (mostly-)control this world.

We should therefore be prepared to suffer and die - if necessary, and it will be for some - to avoid that outcome. 

Ideally, the best and most positive prospect would be a mass Christian awakening; leading first to stopping, then rolling-back and replacing, the worldwide progression of this totalitarian vision...  

But there is no sign that this is happening - quite the reverse; and anyway, it is probably too late. 

The System is vast, and what seems like lethal damage is in-place. 

The likeliest prospect is that The System will collapse - at first gradually (already happened), then accelerating (that is where we are now), and then with breakneck rapidity as positive feedback sets-in. 

The Global Establishment have done their best deniably to inflict fatal damage on the world economy at a macro-level, but especially the Western economy; especially food and fuel supplies, trade and transport...

And at a micro-level all social institutions (manufacture, law, administration, education, health, military, police, the churches etc) have been top-down degraded, made grossly inefficient (by bureaucracy), and repurposed to leftist-political rather than functional - ends. 

If a divided (multi-polar) world does ensue, and if the non-West survives the collapse of The West; then the collapse in the non-West will be ameliorated and delayed - but not by much; unless there is a Christian awakening. 

Let's assume that these Establishment plans come to fruition and that soon there will be a social breakdown without sufficient food, heat, transport, medical supplies, manufactured goods etc; and probably with increased violence and high levels of disease, poisoning etc. 

At this point The System will offer itself as Saviour - to provide the frightened, suffering and dying population with... well, at least partial solutions to the problems that they themselves have created. 

Partial solutions, but at a price....

At this point; The System will offer what may be the only immediately-available possibility of food, electricity, protection etc... But it will offer these at a minimal level, and at a high cost. 

And that high cost will not just be in money, nor just in personal freedom - there will be a spiritual price to pay.  

There will be encouragement for people to be grateful to a System that provides shelter and warmth, a little food, some more-or-less potable water, a few medicines for a few days... 

Indeed, people may be encouraged to love The System! 

I saw this during the birdemic, when the imprisoned population of the UK were allowed outside for a few minutes in order voluntarily to applaud en masse (with gratitude, and a kind-of love) The National Health Service! 

This really happened, I saw it myself several times. 

Indeed, the weird loyalty and quasi-love that so many British people feel for The NHS - such that people refer to the NHS as if synonymous with medicine and "health-care" - is a pioneer instance of the kind of System-love   

Meanwhile; this same System is propagating and enforcing a negative ideology of pure materialism; of of the ultimate evil of value-inversion; and leading to a life of officially-inculcated fear, resentment and despair; and (They hope) terminated by death embraced as welcome annihilation. 

Meanwhile; anyone who resists the ideology, who protests against the evils of The System, who embraces the way of Jesus Christ - will be demonized, excluded, punished;  for subverting that which provides - taking the roofs off our heads, the gas from our heating, the foods from our mouths, essential medicines from those who are sick.

Some such choice will comes to all of us - if it has not already done so. 

This is why we simply Must understand the purposive evil of our rulers. 

We must understand in order to reject. 

When we are freezing, starving, in pain - it is unlikely (and unnecessary) that we should refuse the short-term 'help' of The System for ourselves and for our loved-ones. After all, there are always grounds for hope - we do not know the future. 

Yet it is spiritually-vital that we do not take the further step of defending, supporting, sustaining The System; as if it really was our Saviour... We must not fall-into neglecting, denying or forgetting that the demons and their human servants and slaves actually desire and have planned-for our suffering; want us dead and damned; and that the totalitarian New World Order is their Plan A for achieving this goal.   

This is what Vox Day's quote above refers to; that grasping at short-term security is spiritually the worst possible option; worse even than a world war - given that war often brings out the best in some people, as well as facilitating the worst. 

War, indeed, may be the best available spiritual possibility for some individuals who have consistently refused to learn from pleasant experiences and have fallen-into evil - and who may respond to harsher lessons from their mortal lives in order to clarify their choices for eternity. 

And a war may be the necessary price to pay for some of the world to have a better outcome; and (on some, rather unlikely, scenarios) it is also possible that the incomplete domination of the New World Order may be a source of hope for an enslaved West. 

We probably cannot prevent or escape global civilizational collapse; and sooner or later will have the physical consequences inflicted upon us. 

But we each of us can (and nobody else can) discern and reject evil. 

We may also ensure that we trust in God, learn from whatever experiences come to us, and die with the determination to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected life in Heaven. 

The possibility of salvation is open to anyone who is prepared to do what is necessary; and open only to such persons. 

And then, mortal life ceases to be the ultimate value; and (whatever it may do to our mortal bodies and to this physical earthly world) The System loses its ultimate power over our spirits. 

The major test of these times is Fear - the temptation is Safety

We are tested every day by the sin of fear. And the temptation - offering a delusory escape from fear - is safety. 

If we compare our post 2020 world with life a few decades ago; it is clear that we are now controlled primarily by the negative sin of fear (with a side-order of spiteful resentment: the stock-in-trade of socialism, feminism, antiracism and the other leftisms). These are negative sins because they are directed-against. 

By contrast to the fear-dominated present, in the past other, and more 'positive' sins - desires-for-something rather than resistance-to-something - were often more dominant: sins such as power/ conquest, (capitalist) greed and (sexual) lust.

 

It is pretty obvious that nowadays the world is 'managed' primarily by the inculcation of fears; and by attempting to trigger those in fear, to 'escape' by means of fake-solutions that promote the totalitarian-demonic agenda.  

Major examples are the birdemic fear - with totalitarian lockdown/ masking/ social-distancing and the (unnecessary, ineffective, harmful) peck offering pseudo-safety. And global warming as the fear - with world economic destruction with totalitarian control (aka. the 'sustainable' Green Economy) as fake-escape. 

(Non-coincidentally; 'economic suicide' is also the major policy-answer to fear of the recent Fire Nation/ Earth Nation.)  

Fear is also the stock-in-trade of the 'secular Right': fear of mass immigration, violent social breakdown, starvation, civil war, mass poisoning and other health threats... 

The temptations, the fake solutions, on the secular Right include personal survivalism (prepping), a type of rigorous healthism/ body-building, organized aggressive political resistance, a Strong Man leader restoring militaristic patriarchy...

The difference between the left and the non-religious Right; is that secular Right fears are based on broadly realistic threats and potentially effective answers; while the mainstream Left fears are manufactured from very little - or nothing at all; and the proffered 'escapes' from fear make matters worse. 

Also, in general, among those who are living in fear and strategizing to escape; the typical leftist advocates passive and Establishment-obedient responses; while the secular Rightist is more likely to respond to his own fear with (at least verbal) aggression and (at least threats of) defiance. 

Yet, discourse concerning the reality or fakery of the fear, and the effectiveness or counter-productiveness of proposed escapes, are themselves part of the problem. 

Because fear is a sin in and of itself, it compounds the sin to try and escape fear by attempting to eliminate that which is feared. 

In a practical sense; it will not work - because yielding to any fear creates vulnerability to other fears; so that all escapes lead into a positive-feedback loop of fear generating fear. 

Since, on the one hand, the supply of fears is unlimited; whereas, on the other hand, mounting any potentially-effective response to even a single fear is time-, effort- and resource-consuming; constrained by multiple personal, societal and technical factors. 

But in a spiritual sense, matters are simple - fear is a sin and must be identified as such; then repented, then itself defeated. 

The one-and-only appropriate and effective response to any and all fears - and a response that has unbounded scope - is to trust in the power and love of God; and to frame the fears of this mortal life in the context of eternal Heaven. 

The proper spiritual response to fear is to eliminate fear - the sinful delusion is to address the supposed cause of the fear. 

(Whether or not we, personally, should engage in an active or passive attempt to remove the specific source of any specific fear; is a secondary, contingent, pragmatic matter - and thus always contentious.) 

This, therefore, is the nature of the test of these times. On a daily basis we will be assaulted by fears, and probably these assaults will have some effect - and we will experience fear. 

We therefore need to identify 'the latest fear' as always an evil - whether it is real or fake. 

And instead of immediately seeking for 'safety' and escape-from-the-fear in some physical activity (regardless of whether that activity is potentially-effective, or not)...

The proper response is that we need to repent fear (any fear) and bring to mind that God is our loving parent and the ongoing-creator of this world - and that those who desire it, may follow Jesus Christ to everlasting resurrection after this mortal life. 

Fear is the recurring test, and love of God is the proper response. 

Only after fear has been thus conquered, may we attempt to address its supposed cause.  

As such; then testing-times may become learning-times; and every repeated and novel demonic assault and delusion, may be converted to an increase in the strength of our Christian orientation. 

The globalist totalitarian System is collapsing into chaos: pros and cons?

I am continually surprised at how few people seem to have noticed that the globalist totalitarian System - which, just about four years ago looked to be just a few steps away from its goal of population omni-surveillance and total-control - is much weaker and less complete now than it was at the height of the birdemic - those months when They were so hyper-confident as to reveal the fine-print of Their Great-Reset plans. 

It's not that They have given up on the plans - obviously not! The plans continue as before. 

It's just that the System is perceptibly and incrementally self-destructing on so many fronts, that it seems just a matter of time before positive-feedback sets-in and rapid System collapse eventuates. And I mean - collapses without any outside intervention. 

Just as people in general seem to have learned little or nothing from the birdemic-peck, or from the suicidal insanity of antiracism; so those who dissent-from or oppose the System seem not to have noticed the qualitative difference between the world here-and-now, and that of 2020. 

Although it is still far-from dead, and many indeed have a considerable while to run (since nobody understands or can predict the robustness of this unprecedented world); I venture to say that The System is irrevocably ending; and totalitarian globalism should not be regarded as the major problem over the medium to long-term. 

What is increasing is chaos; and chaos is (obviously) dysfunctional - so that the negative aspects of System failure and collapse, will be exacerbated and accelerated by the deliberate, actively-destructive evil of chaos. 

More explicitly: the Big Problem already and from-now is not that the world shall be locked-down into a permanent Black Iron Prison; created from the Empire That Never Ended - but that the Horsemen of the Apocalypse will return in force.  

Looking at the Western leadership class, I see no sign that they are overall working towards implementing a Big Brother/ Brave New World dystopia; but instead I see the evidence of spiteful, destructive (i.e. Sorathic) evil that delights in human terror, despair, disease, starvation, violence, misery and death. 

Delights, indeed, in destroying animals, plants, the soil and the waters... Not in exploiting these for greed or to enhance power; but in destroying them for the sake of the pleasure that destruction brings. 

The top-level leadership consists of the adult equivalent of kids that like best to torment and torture other beings. They are unrelenting in their effort to start, escalate and spread wars. Prevent or break marriages and families and friendships. Destroy economies and trade. Smash farming and permanently wreck farmland.

Those who still continue to regard The System as the major evil to be fought, are - almost all of them - (know it or not) attacking The System by encouraging chaos. 

The are attacking one great evil, by encouraging another - and (even-) greater!

However these System-wreckers rationalize it to themselves (as working for "freedom" or in hope of personally gaining from a collapse over the short-term) - negatively-motivated attacks on The System cannot achieve any net-positive results. 

Protest voting, demonstrating, boycotting, sabotaging, rioting etc. will lead nowhere better (indeed, maybe, such will serve to scare and energize the ruling-totalitarians into more urgent yet futile attempts at oppression).  

 

Looking at the situation and trends with a degree of detachment that, in my case, can only be temporary-insensibility masquerading as objectivity (since I would presumably perish miserably, albeit maybe not rapidly, in any System-collapse) - what are the pros and cons? 

It could be (and often is) argued that the collapse of the global totalitarian System - if not necessarily good in-itself - "clears the decks", or creates a power vacuum, that offers opportunities to "build something better" afterwards. 

Indeed this fantasy of a fresh start (whether explicit or implicit) seems to be pretty common; but I regard it as a kind of "Pollyanna" unreality - optimism without reason. 

It seems clear to me that genuine, overall Good only comes from good motivations; and not from a combination or compromise between evils. And it is the absence of real and strong good motivations that prevails in The West, and that will ensure that we-here will not see good outcomes from the collapse of totalitarianism.  

"In theory" System collapse would "allow" residual Good to establish, grow and thrive; but that assumes such Good motivation both exists and is strong enough to overcome this-worldly temptations... A situation that I see no evidence for (although I remain on the look-out!).

In sum: the pros of System-collapse are weakly-theoretical, while the cons seem inevitable; which means that - as things stand, culturally in The West, we are in a lose-lose situation...

And therefore reliant for valid hope upon the personal not the social, and the spiritual not the material - like it, or like it not.