Bruce Charlton's Notions

It has been interesting to sample the journalistic and professional commentary about Ben Stokes's captaincy leadership of the England Test Match cricket team, about which I recently wrote as being a current example of a great leader. 

In all examples I have seen; the analysis has explained Stokes's success in terms of the application a new set of rules or principles - probably devised from the previous experience of the coach McCullum, when he was captain of New Zealand. 

In other words; Stokes is envisaged as implementing something akin to bullet points from a managerial strategy document! 

At the end of the day, the leader is envisaged as a kind of front-man or actor; whose talent is to be a plausible and inspiring advocate of a prior blueprint for successful (or, at least entertaining) cricket. 

But this is not to explain leadership - but to explain-it-away. 

The origin of leadership is - in these analyses - understood as being located outside of the leader, elsewhere from the leader himself.

This is arguing from implicit (mostly unconscious) assumptions that (in effect) bureaucracy is the true reality, and the source of social functionality; and 'leaders' are just a specialized group of functionaries - whose essence is to perform a designated role.   

I am aware that this argument is analogous to Max Weber's division of authority between charismatic, legal (i.e bureaucratic) and traditional. But the concept of 'authority' is not identical with leadership. 

What I am saying is very simple. When there is real leadership; it primarily comes-from the leader, is located in the leader.

And when, secondarily the effects of leadership are analyzed into components, rules, principles, objectives etc - then we are not talking about leadership - but instead something more like 'authority'.    

Leadership is 'given', but authority can be manufactured (eg. by the power to reward or sanction). 

Leadership is originative, generative, creative... But authority need not be; and often is the opposite!

Leadership is therefore akin to creative genius - but not identical with it; since the basis is different. 

Creative genius requires high intelligence and a long-term, inwardly-motivated 'endogenous' personality the ability to work at some particular thing for long periods of intense and with sustained focus... 

But great leaders (such as Stokes) need not be especially intelligent (he isn't), and are often exceptionally simple in terms of explicit long-term strategy; and instinctive, here-and-now responsive, in terms of tactics. 

Leadership is relational - it happens in a social context; while genius is focused on the transcendentals: truth, beauty, virtue. 

I therefore regard Leadership as a category of its own, and not a subdivision of other systems or attributes. 

Leadership is found in individual persons, or perhaps (with less stability) a duo - but never in committees or other groups, never as part of a system. 

And leadership (again like creative genius) can accomplish things that cannot otherwise be achieved.  

I repeat, cannot otherwise be achieved. 

Cannot Means Can-not!

Therefore without leadership, options are limited and circumscribed; when compared with what may be possible when leadership is a factor.

*

"The philosophy of [the Fuhrerprinzip - leader-principle] is that each organisation is seen as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader... has absolute responsibility in his/her own area, and complete subordination.

"This idea was based on the function of military organisations where it is still used today.

"The notion behind the civil use of the Führerprinzip was that unquestioning obedience to superiors produces order and prosperity which would be shared by those deemed 'worthy'. Given the chaotic state of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1933, this philosophy of 'cutting through red tape' was regarded by many Germans as a welcome change to what they had endured earlier.

"This principle was the law of the Nazi party and later transferred onto the whole German society.

"Most notable changes include the replacement of elected local governments by appointed mayors and the cancellation of associations and unions, whose leaders were elected, and their replacement by mandatory associations whose leaders were appointed."

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Fuhrerprinzip.html

*

Leaving aside the absurd and pejorative claim that 'unquestionaing obedience' has been or could ever be a principle of organization, the Fuhrerprincip [FP] has an different name: which is simply human leadership or leadership by humans: that is by individual persons.

And leadership by individual persons is the only form of leadership - anything else being control by non-humans processes.

The opposite of the FP, which we see around us everywhere in the modern world, is 'leadership' by committee vote - that is, 'leadership' not by humans but by whatever-happens-to-emerge-from an abstract process.

Which is not leadership at all.

And which involves the absolute subordination of humanity to bureaucracy.

*

Let's rewrite the former definition:

The philosophy of committee voting is that each organisation is seen as an hierarchy of committees, where every committee has absolute responsibility in its own area, and with complete subordination of lower committee decisions to the authority of higher committees.

This idea was based on the function of totalitarian state bureaucracies where it is still used today.

The notion behind the civil use of the committee vote principle was that unquestioning obedience to committee decisions produces order and prosperity which would be shared by those deemed 'worthy'.

Given its intrinsic tendency to generate and sustain work for themselves, this philosophy of 'creating ever more red tape' is regarded by many Leftists as a welcome change to what they had endured earlier.

This principle was the law of all mainstream democratic Leftist parties and later transferred onto the whole of Western society.

Most notable changes include the replacement of effective leaders (at every level and for every function) by committees.

*

What is interesting about the FP is that it was necessary to make it a principle, and to 'market' it (the Nazis being, initially, a mass populist party depending on mass popular support).

But of course what makes it necessary is the decades, now amounting to centuries, of propaganda for 'democracy' - that is, for choosing government by vote of a very large committee (of voters).

So in the modern world a committee of voters chooses a committee to govern it, and their policies are implemented by committees in public administration and - now - every aspect of life is regulated by committee vote which is (always and in every situation) regarded as morally superior to the individual.

*

How ironic that the only rational and efficient method of leadership is regarded as a creation of the Nazis! When it is actually, merely, the only rational and efficient method of leadership!

Of course, the trick is done by rhetoric, by the creation of straw men which automatically negate the rationality of common sense; such as 'absolute' responsibility and 'unquestioning' obedience.

This really means just responsibility and obedience; and naturally all complex human organizations are supposed to be organized on principle of responsibility and obedience - it is just that when decisions are made by committee vote the actuality is zero responsibility and obedience.

In a committee system, at most, there is only a patently unfair and arbitrary process of rewarding or scape-goating individuals for decisions which they did not make and which they could not control.

*

Might the Fuhrerprinzip make a comeback? To save the West from death by bureaucracy?

Indeed it might, because it is obviously superior as a principle of organization to committee voting; and obscuring this obviousness requires a vast and pervasive apparatus of propaganda which could, at any time, lose its effect and be usurped by spontaneous common sense.

And any Western society that did re-introduce 'the FP' (and replaced committees with individuals) would very rapidly be rewarded by a huge increase in power, efficiency and capability - as was Germany.

*

Why this almost certainly will not happen, does not happen, indeed why it has not already happened; provides an insight into what deeply wrong with the West at the level of functionality, and ultimately of spirituality.

*

*
Leadership is a rare trait - but it can confidently be identified; not least because we are 'programmed' to recognise and respond to leadership.

But, most appointed modern leaders are not leaders; indeed very few indeed are leaders - most are mediocre middle managers over-promoted by committees comprising the same type - and most of the rest are hysterics or psychopaths.

*

The 'safe choice' nowadays - in a bureaucracy-dominated world - is for mediocre middle managers in committees to over-promote a mediocre middle manager into a leadership position.

This accounts for the majority of the national leaders in the West, including leaders of most major religious denominations, and social systems such as law, education, the police.

These are people who cannot be strategic (but adopt their strategies from others - even paying to have a strategy artificially manufactured by the phony posturings of management consultants, if no other source suggests itself); who cannot decide without a procedure to follow; who cannot take responsibility on themselves.

These are fake leaders who fundamentally can only be led; and who therefore engineer their jobs on the principle of 'teams' and 'teamwork', and 'team-building'; so that they are always following advice and seeking endorsement.

*

We now live in a  world of mutually-interacting middle managers; of followers leading followers, the directionless leading the directionless; of arbitrary meta-procedures generating arbitrary micro-procedures validated by arbitrary committees of arbitrary 'experts'.

It is a world of management-speak, slogans, mission statements, targets, audits - all of which fail to disguise a total lack of leadership based upon an unchangeable psychological inadequacy.

Because, if you are not a leader, then you cannot lead.

For instance, nothing can be done to make the current Prime Minister or the Archbishop of Canterbury into real leaders - they are not leaders but middle managers; they never can be leaders and never will be leaders. Hype and spin do not affect the facts.

*

We can see this in sport - including my favourite sport of cricket - because sport is one of the few areas of modern life where real leadership still exists; and where real leaders sometimes get appointed to leadership positions.

England have had two real leaders as national cricket coach recently: Duncan Fletcher and Andy Flower (both from Rhodesia, interestingly). In between they had Peter Moores who was an over-promoted middle manager, who was sacked after about a year. Then Moores was re-appointed after Flowers, and Moores has just been sacked after a year, on the excuse of poor results.

In reality, Moores was sacked for the second time because the incoming Andrew Strauss was a successful test cricket captain, and a real leader; and Strauss knows for certain and from personal experience (being 'led' by him) that Moores is just an over-promoted middle manager and cannot ever lead.

Since nothing can be done about what Moores is, he must be got-rid-of regardless of short-term results or insufficient time in the job; simply because he should never have been appointed in the first, or second, place.

*

Moores cannot help not being a leader, and I always felt sorry for him as someone so obviously out of his depth. Nonetheless Moores was wrong to take-on the job, and double-plus-alpha wrong to do it a second time, when he knew for sure that he as incapable of doing leading.

The sin of the over-promoted middle manager is not in failing to be a leader - that cannot be helped; but in failing to be honest about the fact that his is not a leader, and seeking and accepting a leadership position nonetheless.

It is for this, and for the consequent damage they inevitably do to their organisations, that I blame the current crop of mediocre middle management non-leaders such as Archbishop Justin Welby or his predecessor Rowan Williams; David Cameron or his predecessor Gordon Brown.

*

But not all modern leaders are middle managers.

When the leaders are 'diversity hires' they are often hysterics (female or male) of the 'it's all about me' variety. For hysterics the job, any job, becomes a schoolgirl psychodrama, a popularity contest about how the leader thinks other people are treating the leader: are they respecting, are they being mean?

This is sometimes called narcissism but that is the wrong name - it is a form of hysteria or histrionics. As the name implies; the leader is an actor, and he perceives the organisation as a performance in which he plays the leading role.

The hysterical leader is not in the job for money, or power, or perks - but for the status. He wants to be admired, loved, he wants adulation - therefore the hysteric tends to surround himself with mediocrities. The hysteric may therefore be loyal to subordinates. So long as they flatter and worship him uncritically; then he will be happy with their performance.

Of course, hysterics inflict terrible damage when made leaders, because they do not care anything about the organisation they lead - the organisation is merely a means to the end of their own glorification.

*

And some modern leaders are psychopaths - these are the leaders who exploit the organisation for personal gain: for money, power, sexual favours, for the pleasure of tormenting others, to settle old scores... for whatever they most want. Many gang leaders are psychopaths; and psychopaths quite often get into leadership positions in modern society because mediocre middle managers are often impressed by the psychopath's total self-belief and 'dynamism'.

Once in a leadership position, psychopaths engage in fraud and corruption, terrorism and blackmail, flattery and bribery, rule-breaking and making, jury-rigging and gerrymandering... they will do pretty-,much anything which seems expedient in achieving short term goals, and if they believe they can get away with it.

Anger is seldom far from the surface. The psychopath wants to be surrounded by strong allies, not mediocrities - but he will always turn against them (sooner or later). The psychopath is always 'paranoid' and believes he is being persecuted, plotted- and schemed-against (because nothing is ever his fault, and conspiracies explain his failures).

A psychopath may be gifted at telling people what they want to hear - but the psychopath is ruthless, heartless, impulsive, aggressive - his morality is merely a convenient (and therefore labile) rationalisation for his own gratification.

A psychopath in a leadership position is probably even more destructive than an hysteric; because the psychopath will deliberately destroy the organisation he leads, partially or completely, if or when he beliefs this will benefit him in some way that he values.

*

Therefore, when choosing leaders for an organisation or institution or nation which actually requires leadership; it is important to choose a leader.

A leader might in practise do a good or bad job of leading, but a non-leader will always do a bad job because he can only do a bad job.
*

During the fortysomething years I was in the UK university system, I saw a massive change in the nature of people in senior leadership roles. 

Back in the 1970s, there was a sense that the universities were (still) run by academics: by scholars and researchers. 

And, broadly speaking, the higher up the hierarchy of power - the higher status were the people in terms of their professional record of achievement. 

Fifty-odd years ago; the individuals at the top (Vice Chancellors and Principals, Pro-Vice Chancellors and Deans) were nearly all people with a strong national reputation in their original disciples. 

It was common to select them from scientists who were Fellows of the Royal Society, Humanities scholars who were Fellows of the British Academy - or those of equivalent status in the medical, engineering or other such subjects. 

But by the time I retired; it was common to select people with a background of high position in generic bureaucracies: the civil service, business and corporate life - or simply those who had risen through the university bureaucracies - without having ever achieved anything remarkable in heir personal distinction in any academic subject. 

Instead of celebrating the academic distinction of top appointments; it had become usual to celebrate their supposed administrative competence, their connections within the System - or simply that they represented some favoured groups such as women, non-whites, foreigners, or a non-biological sexual orientation. 

This trend happened through the whole university system, so far as I could tell. For example women with bureaucratic seniority - rather than especially distinguished scholars or researchers - were appointed to both Harvard's and Cambridge's top-leadership positions (which were perhaps the two most prestigious such roles in the US and the UK).   

Harking back to my recent posts on the topic of leadership - I should clarify that expert professionals are not necessarily, or even usually, real leaders; and in practice universities very seldom had real leadership. 

On the other hand, expert professionals at least began as 'insiders' who had attained distinction in themselves performing the core function of universities. Whereas the bureaucrats who replaced them were no better (usually worse) as leaders - but were also 'outsiders', or else mediocre practitioners of the university's proper function. 

This is a microcosm of the decline of leadership in The West; because I saw the same trend in science and medicine, and wherever I looked. 

Real Leadership has always been a rare 'commodity' - and most groups have always had to make-do with something less; but in the (fairly recent) past; the personnel recruited to provide "not real"-leadership was at least consistent with the proper role of the organization and the distinctive 'traditions'. 

Nowadays - Not. 

The Fake leaders of today are aliens, successful officials, multi-valent 'networkers' - that is, merely over-promoted middle managers; or plausible psychopaths; and/or figureheads chosen as 'representative' of some non-male, non-white, non-native, or dysfunctionally socio-sexual 'identity group'. 

And it shows. 

*

Speculation time...

Suppose that the threshold IQ for effective leadership is about 105 (roughly the top one third of the population of England, when IQ is normed at 100 average and with a standard deviation of 15).

In other words, by IQ 105 I mean a level of general intelligence (as measurable by capacity for abstract and systematic thinking, ease of memorising, swiftness of calculation etc.) which is somewhat but not much above average for European natives.

(This is roughly the IQ of an effective foreman, police or Army Sergeant, or a master craftsman - somebody with potentially high technical skills, good practical reason and tactical nous.)

I am suggesting that IQ 105 is the threshold for 'intellectuals' in a global and historical context - for those who take leadership roles in social domains requiring cognitive expertise (most obviously priests, sorcerers, sacred kings, law makers and judges, in military societies those roles where 'generalship' is required and so on).

*

Therefore:

In a population with an average IQ of 70 or less, there would be (functionally) zero individuals capable of intellectual leadership. Therefore it would be intellectually egalitarian.

In a population with an average IQ of about 80, there would either be just a few percent or less of the population as an intellectual leadership - therefore at most specific individual leaders (and not an intellectual leadership class).

In a population with an IQ of about 90, there would be an intellectual elite of leaders (more than just a few percent, something around 10 percent of the population). It would probably be ruled by an upper class or caste.

In a population with an IQ of about 100 plus, there would be around a third of the population above 105 IQ, and therefore potential leaders - this would be a middle class society, tending toward some version of 'democracy' or majority (skilled class) rule (eg rule by organised skilled workers, crafts, guilds, unions etc).

*

Summary:

Average IQ 70 or less (two and one third SD below IQ 105) - zero/ very small proportion of individuals are intellectuals, therefore no significant social role for cognitive specialists.

Average IQ around 80 (one and two thirds SD below 105) - a few percent of intellectuals, therefore individual intellectual leadership.

Average IQ around 90 (one SD below 105) - an elite of intellectuals.

Average IQ around 100 (one third of an SD below 105) - a mass-minority middle class of intellectuals.

*

The general point is that the proportion of 'intellectuals' in a society (when 'intellectual is defined as above) is likely to be a strong influence on the general type of society, and the diffusion and nature of power in that society.

There are things which a society with a given IQ distribution can and cannot do - higher average IQ brings new capabilities and powers, but also new pitfalls and problems - since being an abstracting and systemising intellectual is a disposition which entails that life will be framed in abstract and systematic fashion.

Hence the societies with an average IQ around 100 must expend tremendous resources on internal propaganda, to maintain cohesion of the abstract world of the large minority of intellectuals - such that much intellectual activity is merely keeping intellectuals in order, and not contributing to social well being...

*

This is NOT a prediction relating to monarchy, oligarchy and democracy - rather relating to whether power is individual (e.g. Big Man), minority elite (Priesthood), or minority class (a large minority of multi-specialized intellectual/ skill specialists).

*

This set of assumptions is consistent with my impression that the societies which have the most cohesive and obvious intellectual elites are mid-range IQ societies - despite that these intellectual elites are less intellectual than the intelligentsia of high IQ societies.

Indeed the intelligentsia of high IQ societies (those c. ten percent of the population with an IQ greater than 120) are a different thing altogether from the intellectual elites of the mid-range societies which constitute much of the current and recent world populations; and quite possibly are not a sustainable leadership class.

It is possible that things work better over the long term when there are only a handful percent of >120 IQ intelligentsia - not enough to form an elite, but enough to provide specialist expertise and advice, operating as one-off gifted individuals not as an interest group. 


***

The 'smart fraction' theory suggests that there is a threshold IQ around 108

http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

The argument here and in the above paper is different' but 108 is anyway so close to 105 that the two values cannot reliably be distinguished in individuals and small groups.)

*

It is very striking that the leaders of Western nations and major institutions and corporations are - in the first place - just not actual leaders: they are not capable of leadership, but are instead just over-promoted middle managers, or else selfish psychopaths. 

That has been the situation for several decades: real leaders are not sought, and indeed actively excluded from leadership. 

Perhaps more recently (and most obviously in the USA) the current "leaders" of nations and institutions are becoming cognitively incapable: they cannot reason, and therefore cannot make even simple inferences, or learn simple lessons from experience. 

One top of a generation of appointing followers (or front-men, empty suits) as pseudo-leaders; this more recent deliberate and strategic selection of mentally deficient leaders is conclusive evidence (for those who still need it) that the official leaders are Not Leading At All; but are following orders. 

Yet following orders is not enough anymore; the newer generation of pseudo-leaders must in addition Not be able to understand the relationship between decisions and consequences; they must Fail to learn from observing repeated cause and effect associations. 

Why has this suddenly become necessary? Why is mere managerial obedience to the evil agenda no longer sufficient? 

The reason is that - at the highest most-strategic level of the real world-leadership - i.e. the senior demonic - the plan has changed from the imposition of a bureaucratic-totalitarian global System (which reached its peak in the worldwide coup of early 2020); to the current increasingly "Sorathic" agenda of destruction: destruction of people, animals, plants and the planet (justified via the inversion of all true-values). 

This spiteful agenda has been smashing the world economy, finance and trade; it has started and is escalating WWIII; turned environmentalism against itself; exploded the sexual revolution; imposed the birdemic-peck; and is incrementally ratcheting-through the societally fissile effects of the current diversity-woke stuff. 

In other words; the senior real-leaders are making their servants do the opposite of what they were supposed (even just a few years ago) to be aiming-at. 

Given such dissonance; even the most servile managerial drone would, eventually, be able to work-out that he was being used to destroy himself and everything he valued...

This is a danger to the fulfilment of the top-level evil strategy for earth. 

A servile managerial drone might work-things-out... Unless, that is, he was so deeply defective in reasoning capacity that he was incapable of noticing that almost everything he did, actually had the inverse outcome from its supposed intention. 

And that is exactly what we now have: a Western leadership class who don't even notice that what happens as a result of their policies is the opposite of what these policies are supposed to achieve. 

Get this: They don't even notice! 

In a nutshell: it is necessary that current leaders operate in a perpetual present-moment which they are constitutionally incapable of comprehending, because they cannot relate it either to the past or to the future. 

To be safe; it is now necessary that the Establishment-allocated official-leaders are unable to notice even the grossest and most immediate destructive consequences. 

Thus has functional-dementia and/or deranging intoxication (of various degrees, types and flavours) become a positive requirement and qualification for occupying senior "leadership" positions in the modern West. 

 

*

It is one of the strangest spectacles of living under political correctness to observe relentless propaganda and pandering favour of designated 'deserving groups' of which the PC leaders are not themselves members.

This raises the obvious question of why - for example - every white, heterosexual, native-born and descended ultra-PC male leader does not promote the cause of political correctness by simply resigning in favour of someone who he (supposedly) regards as more deserving by virtue of them not being a WHet-NB&D male.

Or, beyond this, every devout and ultra-PC leader should perhaps resign in favour of anyone who was more deserving - so that a female non-heterosexual should resign in favour of a female non-heterosexual who was also an immigrant.

And so on.

*

Yet, despite being an obvious implication of genuinely PC belief, this never seems to happen.

Indeed, nobody ever seems to consider this very obvious possibility. 

Of course much of this apparently inconsistent behaviour is due to dishonest, careerist hypocrisy, but it is not purely careerist dishonest hypocrisy.

If it were only due to bad reasons then the more-devoutly-PC would continually and forcefully be denouncing the hypocritically-PC for their backsliding.

I infer that there must be reasons which persuade the most devoutly PC that it is OK to leave un-mentioned the apparently inconsistent behaviour of the predominantly WHet-NB&D male leadership.

*

I think there are at least two ways of conceptualizing the behaviour of why a sincere and devoutly PC WHet-NB&D male leader might not relinquish their power and positions.

The first reason is that WHet-NB&D male PC leaders genuinely want to relinquish their power but simply cannot make themselves do it, due to their own sinfulness, which they fully understand and wish to overcome but cannot.

The WHet-NB&D male leadership are 'addicted' to power and cannot make themselves relinquish it , like another person might be addicted to cigarettes but cannot make themselves give up.

In private, they will confess their sin, and as repentant sinners they atone for their sin - in this case by creating abstract systems of allocations such that people such as themselves will in future be prevented from taking power.

So that the sincerely PC foes of the WHet-NB&D male leadership refrain from denouncing them, refrain from pointing out their obvious inconsistency, on the grounds that the WHet-NB&D male leaders are actively atoning for their sin of holding power by making sure that never again will WHet-NB&D males be allowed or able to get into similar positions of power and leadership.

So, hypocrisy goes un-denounced by the devout, so long as the leadership confess, repent and atone for their sins by serving the cause of 'virtue'.

*

But in addition to this is the system orientation and indifference to individual behavior among the leadership which was characteristic of the communists, and presumably has been inherited from them.

From this perspective, acts of individual sinfulness and virtue from the leadership is irrelevant to the cause - which is a matter of objective policy.

From this perspective, an individual resigning power to another individual is irrelevant, since this would not change the system.

It is better for leaders do whatever changes the system in the desired direction, rather than indulging in personal acts of virtue which leave the system intact.

*

So communists always hated the 'philanthropy' of individual charity - partly because it might delay the revolution by ameliorating the condition of the proletariat, and partly because it depended on the 'whim' of individuals which ought not be depended-on.

Likewise, the politically correct heirs of  communism would rather use the drive and skill of WHet-NB&D males to implement a system which will - in future - be such that its leaders will be anything-but WHet-NB&D males.

*

*
Good leadership is:

1. Recognizing what most crucially needs to be done.

2. Discovering how to do it.

3. Doing it.

*

It is not about being without faults - not about avoiding mistakes/ blame; it is not about doing 'something' useful (but not doing THE thing that needs to be done).

It is not about doing something, then persuading people that that was what needed to be done.

It is not about saying  things, giving speeches, making plans, embarking upon consultation exercises,starting 'conversations', taking polls, making votes.

Fake-leadership is complex and easy; Real Leadership is simple and difficult.

Real leadership is difficult, because what needs to be done is often obvious; and the reason that has not been done is because of the obstacles which stand in the path of doing the right thing.

A real Leader overcomes those obstacles ad does the necessary; but a fake leader explains why the obstacles mean that the right thing cannot be done, and something else easier (which is not the right thing) should instead be done -  and then takes credit for doing what was easily do-able, instead of what was needed.

*

Real leadership is very rare.

But rarity is no reason to pretend that fake is real.

When there is no real leadership - when the leader is merely a corrupted careerist figurehead (which is nearly all of the time in high status and powerful institutions, nowadays) - then the best thing is to acknowledge the fact.

*

(Note added: There is another situation where there is a real leader who recognizes what needs to be done, discovers how to do it - and tries hard to do it, but is thwarted by other people so it doesn't get done. This has been the fate of some potential real leaders in recent years - such as Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps. In the event, the odds (and the system) were too heavily stacked against them. But, this is a bit conjectural, because without success it can never be known for sure that what they wanted to do really would have worked, or whether a better leader might have been able to overcome the thwarters.) 

It is an inference that clearly does not occur to most people, or is ruled-out by assumption; but I perceive the fingerprints of overall and ultimate demonic leadership all through the world (and Western) history of the past couple of hundred years. 

Whenever we try to understand the roots of currently evil phenomena, we seem always to find them extending back and back across at least several human generations. 

That is, we find that there have been many decades over which there was a steady pressure - and incremental 'progress' towards the current evil; which implies a continuing motivation towards evil at the highest levels.  

To take a topical example; the current frenzied push to peck the entire world population (old and young; man, woman and child) with lifelong, multiple injections of... something. 

A system of compulsory and frequently-repeated bodily introduction of a conjectural, neither known nor understood, class of substances; the actual contents of which are and will be changed in an open-ended fashion. 

The Plan for this to happen every-where and to every-body regardless of effect - despite whatever effect - in a managed interpretative context where all possible harm is deniable and denied. 

And the process of development, pecking and (non-)follow-up has been exempted from all personal, political and legal responsibility. 

On the one hand, there is an enforced global unanimity of official 'fact's that this literally-incredible business is necessary and beneficial; on the other hand, there has been massive compliance and aggressive enthusiasm from much of the populace. 

(But especially the professional and managerial classes - who seem to perceive their societal role only in terms of how most rapidly and completely to get the Establishment Plan implemented.)  

Knowing such obvious evil as evil ought to require no argument - yet such is the value-system in-place in the world today, that this unprecedented evil is seen as a great and necessary Good (or, just as malignantly, as 'morally-neutral' - as if there was such a thing!). 

Therefore, before the Peck Plan could become even a vague possibility; there has needed to be a comprehensive, thorough and multi-pronged inversion of human values - so that what is true, beautiful and virtuous become substantially the opposite of what they are; in terms both of natural and spontaneous, universal human morality; and also by inversion of the (additional) value elements of traditional Christian morality. 

But such an astonishing situation needed to have been carefully prepared over a long period of time. 

It had to be - because ordinary humans do- (or did-) not change their fundamental convictions overnight - or just because they were told to. 

In the past, many people would work, suffer, fight and die in defense of their values - and would retain core values across many generations. 

But not any more. 

Indeed, when it is considered how the ground was prepared for this 'moment' we confront a degree of relentless purpose that is utterly alien to what we know of human beings - especially to evil humans. 

It surely ought to be obvious (from experience of others, and in ourselves) that evil humans are mostly selfish and short-termist - from a secular perspective, that is what makes them evil. 

However, to execute any long-term plan means eschewing maximizing short-term benefit; and it also means considerable subordination of selfish pleasures and satisfactions to the needs of the plan. Why should someone who primarily wants his own pleasures and Now, be prepared to sacrifice these desires to some 'plan'? 

To get selfish and short-termist humans to cooperate through many decades requires extraordinary levels of self-sacrifice from those who lead the process - most of whom would themselves be required to live and die without much personal gratification on a mortal timescale.

In other words; when we contemplate strategic evil, plans pursued over several or many generations; we must account for the fact of a leadership that is capable of such a thing. And, furthermore, a leadership that is also sufficiently powerful to impose their plan on a mass of humans who are dominantly-motivated by their own short-term gratifications. 

When the plan is global and crosses many generations - there must have been a leadership of immense power, who are themselves immune to the normal constraints of human time - and a leadership for whom, personally, a decade is 'the short-term'. 

We are talking, in other words, of evil spirits, fallen angels, demons - those who are immortal spirits (i.e. without bodies, whose spirits persist forever); and therefore live on a timescale far greater than evil mere-mortal humans.  

The many incredible and astonishing global policies and trends we perceive as of 2021 - the need for steady strategies toward evil ends that span multiple human lifespans - become instantly comprehensible if we assume that the leadership was demonic. 

Once this perspective has been assimilated; clear demonic fingerprints can be seen all-over the plans of the Global Totalitarian Establishment. 

...Which observation tells us all that we need to know in order to respond in a Good, Godly and Christian way. 

It was nearly a decade ago, during the summer vacation, that I read a book which permanently changed one of my cherished beliefs.

The book was The decline of the German mandarins: the German academic community, 1890-1933, by Fritz K Ringer.

The cherished belief was that it would be best if countries were led by their intellectual elite, i.e. by 'Mandarins' - by the likes of Professors, senior administrators and professionals - by those whose jobs require high level formal educational certification.

In other words, I had assumed, up to that point, that if only things were run by people 'like me', then things would inevitably be run better.

***

Before reading the book I had not been aware that I believed this, but although unarticulated, a belief in leadership by intellectals had been a basic assumption.

It is, indeed, an assumption of the modern political elite, and has been the assumption of Dichter und Denker (poets and thinkers) for a couple of hundred years (since the Romantic era) - but it was *not* an assumption of traditional societies before this.

Indeed, as I read in Ernest Gellner at about the same time, in traditional societies the intellectual class (priests and clerks) was subordinated to the leadership - which was essentially military.

Intellectuals were - Gellner said - essentially 'eunuchs' - in the sense that they were not allowed to build dynastic, hereditary power - this was reserved for the military leadership.

So priests and other intellectuals with power were sometimes actual eunuchs, or servants and slaves, or celibate (legally, not sexually, celibate - i.e. they could not have legitimate heirs), or members of a legally circumscribed minority (such as Jewish merchants and money lenders), or - like the Chinese mandarins - they were prohibited from handing on their status to their children (entry to the mandarinate being controlled by competitive examinations).

The 'natural' leaders of human society throughout most of history are the military leaders - the 'generals'. The aristocracy were essentially the military leaders.

***

But in modern societies, the Mandarins have progressively taken over the leadership.

People 'like me' run things; the military leadership (unless they are themselves mandarins - as increasingly is the case - and servile to political correctness) are officially feared, hated and despised; indeed any aspirant for power who is not 'an intellectual' is officially feared, hated and despised.

Fritz Ringer's books was a revelation because he described a familiar and recent society that had indeed been a mandarinate - and this was Germany in the nineteenth century and leading up to the first and second world wars. Germany was at that time the academic intellectual centre of the West.

And 'yet' the mandarinate had been a disaster - leading to two world wars and National Socialism and also (ironically) to the eclipse of the German mandarins - who were purged virtually overnight in 1933 (only a few obedient Nazi mandarins were allowed to stay - like Martin Heidegger).

The German mandarins were nationalist, that was the focus of their ideology (the distinctive superiority of German culture) and that is one variety - very rare nowadays except in small nations and would-be nations like Scotland or Catalonia.

Of course the most widespread mandarinate was the Soviet Union whose ideology was (mostly) anti-nationalistic/ international communism. And international left-mandarinism is now the dominant form of government in the West. 

***

Since reading Ringer, when my eyes were opened, my experience has hardened into conviction that - as a generalization - mandarins make very useful servants but very bad leaders. Good professors make bad kings.

The main problem is, I think, that mandarins are expert at ignoring common sense reality and focusing on abstraction.

Mandarins live 'in culture' - they are 'Kultur' experts. Culture is the source of their expertise and prestige - culture comes between mandarins and common sense. 

When, as is normal, mandarin abstractions are substantially incomplete and significantly biased, then there is no limit to how bad mandarin leadership can be; because any feedback provided by 'reality' can be ignored by mandarins in ways which are impossible to normal people.

***

Mandarins can wreck an organization, a nation, with a completely clear conscience; and will then write history to show that they were correct all along.

Conversely, there is no achievement of their enemies that is so large or  blatantly obvious that mandarins will not ignore, sideline, or subvert it.

(In pursuit of discrediting their enemies, mandarins are utterly unscrupulous, dishonest and coercive - they perceive this as nothing less than their duty, indeed heroic.)

Nothing that could conceivably happen would conceivably affect mandarin ideology - which explains everything in advance.

***

Mandarins are therefore unique among humans both in their perspective on life - in their evaluations of what is important; and in being immune to learning from experience.

And mandarins really are, on average, the most knowledgeable and cleverest people, and they know it and they value smartness very highly; so they will not listen to any critics who they think of as dumb.

Undeniably smart critics are labelled crazy or evil (they *must* be, obviously), so they are ignored too.

When mandarins have closed the loop between education, media and power; they are hermetically sealed from alternative perspectives - change can only arise from within the loop, and this change will tend to bolster the power of the mandarinate, and be directed against their enemies in the natural military leadership.  

***

So, once they have taken-over, the mandarinate is uniquely unreformable by argument and experience.

And that is the present situation in the West.

The term 'projection' was originally given a false causal explanation in terms of nonsense psychodynamics; but the phenomenon is real, and the term is useful. 

People really do accuse others of their own faults, their own illicit desires, their own misdemeanors - and on the perfectly understandable grounds that their own character and behaviour is their 'model' for how the world works. 

So, projection may be perfectly sincere - the projector may really believe that his enemy is exactly the same as himself, as bad as himself - only worse, for not being the projector, because he is The Enemy. 

Currently The West, the global totalitarian leadership class; is accusing its enemies of its own evils all over the place, in an automatic and routing fashion, and without regard to plausibility. 

And getting away with it, being believed... Insofar as anybody really believes anything in this post-God culture: belief is now a passive, externally-driven, and labile state.

Believed because The System echoes back the lies from all directions; especially the mass media reflect back the evil assumptions and hostile projections of the political leadership. 

The masses realize that the leadership class are liars; and the masses even 'notice' (i.e. have pointed-out by the mass media) a few of the more trivial lies of their leaders. 

But the assumption behind all this activity is that liars are the exception among leaders; rather than the truth that only those who will lie to order are eligible for leadership positions. And that while there are specific lies devised, pushed and sustained by The System - these happen against a background of valid assertions, and good motivations. 

People cannot, or will not, assume that The System as a whole is evil motivated, or that it is anti-human. They cannot grasp (and find the idea too despair-inducing) that the leadership class uses the masses, cares functionally-nothing for any peoples or nations, for 'rights' or 'freedoms', for 'law' or 'peace'. 

Any such private sentiments (which are never strong in those selected for system-leadership) are stripped away (if not simply sold) by the realities of wielding and retaining power in an evil-orientated System.  

To notice such matters is regarded as cynical, conspiracy theorizing, and despair-inducing; because in a this-worldly sense all these are true. 

If this mortal life and world are all that there is - then it is needlessly cruel to point-out miserable truths - especially when nothing effective can be done to correct or better them them: at least, nothing in a mainstream, socio-political, materialist way. 

If mortal life is everything and socio-political reality is that we are ruled by heartless, selfish, and cruel people - then maybe it really is better to be unaware of the truth - better not to think about such things? 

This is the 'therapeutic' view of human life, a variant of utilitarianism (in which morality is calibrated against an hedonic calculus) - which traces ethics back to human psychology; and regards the primary duties as reducing suffering, and enhancing gratification.

If this life and world are everything, and yet that everything is hostile and cruel; then it is probably best to regard our discourse as a palliative therapy - the kind of terminal health care provided to those who who are dying, who cannot be cured - but can be helped to suffer less, and maybe experience a few more pleasures. 

In other words; the prevalent morality is one of: "eat, drink, and be merry; because tomorrow we die". 

In such a situation; one who points-out the situation - who increases conscious awareness of the miserable nature of life - is an enemy. 

Only if our world view is rooted in the eternal, and if we our-selves are confident both of our post-mortal salvation, a job-to-do while we still liv. Only when others may share this life-beyond-life if (and only if) they understand and choose spiritual truth... Only then is it worthwhile looking beyond the therapeutic perspective - and to matters of reality. 

As I wrote in a comment yesterday - the UK Establishment is imploding before our very eyes. The ruling elite are tearing each other apart, lashing-out, panicking, venting... despairing in an escalating cycle (while repeatedly calling for calm, unity, reconciliation etc).

A post on http://booksinq.blogspot.co.uk reminded me of something I wrote 6 years ago about why secular Mandarins (aka The Establishment, or 'The Cathedral' to use the currenly popular casually-anti-Christian neoreactionary synonym) are a bad choice for rulers - which I repost here for its revelance to the future:

**


It was nearly a decade ago, during the summer vacation, that I read a book which permanently changed one of my cherished beliefs.

The book was The decline of the German mandarins: the German academic community, 1890-1933, by Fritz K Ringer.

The cherished belief was that it would be best if countries were led by their intellectual elite, i.e. by 'Mandarins' - by the likes of Professors, senior administrators and professionals - by those whose jobs require high level formal educational certification.

In other words, I had assumed, up to that point, that if only things were run by people 'like me', then things would inevitably be run better.

***

Before reading the book I had not been aware that I believed this, but although unarticulated, a belief in leadership by intellectals had been a basic assumption.

It is, indeed, an assumption of the modern political elite, and has been the assumption of Dichter und Denker (poets and thinkers) for a couple of hundred years (since the Romantic era) - but it was *not* an assumption of traditional societies before this.

Indeed, as I read in Ernest Gellner at about the same time, in traditional societies the intellectual class (priests and clerks) was subordinated to the leadership - which was essentially military.

Intellectuals were - Gellner said - essentially 'eunuchs' - in the sense that they were not allowed to build dynastic, hereditary power - this was reserved for the military leadership.

So priests and other intellectuals with power were sometimes actual eunuchs, or servants and slaves, or celibate (legally, not sexually, celibate - i.e. they could not have legitimate heirs), or members of a legally circumscribed minority (such as Jewish merchants and money lenders), or - like the Chinese mandarins - they were prohibited from handing on their status to their children (entry to the mandarinate being controlled by competitive examinations).

The 'natural' leaders of human society throughout most of history are the military leaders - the 'generals'. The aristocracy were essentially the military leaders.

***

But in modern societies, the Mandarins have progressively taken over the leadership.

People 'like me' run things; the military leadership (unless they are themselves mandarins - as increasingly is the case - and servile to political correctness) are officially feared, hated and despised; indeed any aspirant for power who is not 'an intellectual' is officially feared, hated and despised.

Fritz Ringer's books was a revelation because he described a familiar and recent society that had indeed been a mandarinate - and this was Germany in the nineteenth century and leading up to the first and second world wars. Germany was at that time the academic intellectual centre of the West.

And 'yet' the mandarinate had been a disaster - leading to two world wars and National Socialism and also (ironically) to the eclipse of the German mandarins - who were purged virtually overnight in 1933 (only a few obedient Nazi mandarins were allowed to stay - like Martin Heidegger).

The German mandarins were nationalist, that was the focus of their ideology (the distinctive superiority of German culture) and that is one variety - very rare nowadays except in small nations and would-be nations like Scotland or Catalonia.

Of course the most widespread mandarinate was the Soviet Union whose ideology was (mostly) anti-nationalistic/ international communism. And international left-mandarinism is now the dominant form of government in the West. 

***

Since reading Ringer, when my eyes were opened, my experience has hardened into conviction that - as a generalization - mandarins make very useful servants but very bad leaders. Good professors make bad kings.

The main problem is, I think, that mandarins are expert at ignoring common sense reality and focusing on abstraction.

Mandarins live 'in culture' - they are 'Kultur' experts. Culture is the source of their expertise and prestige - culture comes between mandarins and common sense. 

When, as is normal, mandarin abstractions are substantially incomplete and significantly biased, then there is no limit to how bad mandarin leadership can be; because any feedback provided by 'reality' can be ignored by mandarins in ways which are impossible to normal people.

***

Mandarins can wreck an organization, a nation, with a completely clear conscience; and will then write history to show that they were correct all along.

Conversely, there is no achievement of their enemies that is so large or  blatantly obvious that mandarins will not ignore, sideline, or subvert it.

(In pursuit of discrediting their enemies, mandarins are utterly unscrupulous, dishonest and coercive - they perceive this as nothing less than their duty, indeed heroic.)

Nothing that could conceivably happen would conceivably affect mandarin ideology - which explains everything in advance.

***

Mandarins are therefore unique among humans both in their perspective on life - in their evaluations of what is important; and in being immune to learning from experience.

And mandarins really are, on average, the most knowledgeable and cleverest people, and they know it and they value smartness very highly; so they will not listen to any critics who they think of as dumb.

Undeniably smart critics are labelled crazy or evil (they *must* be, obviously), so they are ignored too.

When mandarins have closed the loop between education, media and power; they are hermetically sealed from alternative perspectives - change can only arise from within the loop, and this change will tend to bolster the power of the mandarinate, and be directed against their enemies in the natural military leadership.  

***

So, once they have taken-over, the mandarinate is uniquely unreformable by argument and experience.

And that is the present situation in the West.

My interpretation of divine destiny is that we - in England, Britain, The West - are supposed to move forward to a new kind of Christian society different from both the present secular Leftist modernity and the preceding traditionalist religious societies.

If traditional society was, in essence, the immersion of individuals in a public realm of religious practices (with little self-awareness in distinction from society); the aim is, I believe, a society which takes the increased self-consciousness and individual agency (i.e. personal freedom) of modernity and joins-us-together into a voluntary network of loving relationships.

So, if the traditional past had us as something like young children in an ideal family - dependent, and primarily obedient; in the future we are supposed to be something more like the grown-up (fully agent) adult children in an ideal family.

Therefore, I judge current events by their potential for this next (and final) step in the evolution of consciousness and Christian love.

*

From this perspective Brexit (understood as a popular aspiration, rather than the specific vote which revealed it) potentially represents something altogether new; whereas Trump is much more like going-back to an earlier era.

Post-Brexit, England is in a high risk but high reward situation - which may well lead to nothing at all but might be the start of something very good.

Whereas Trump is quite likely to lead to several immediate benefits; but is - at best - essentially business-as-usual from a few decades ago, with a strong (albeit eccentric) Establishment/ Leader figure (and other major social institutions) at the helm.

(The secular Left nature of Trump and his administration can be seen from the key litmus test of being pro the sexual revolution - the sexual revolution having been the primary ideological battering ram of the secular Left for the past 50 years.) 

The power structure and trends (and materialist metaphysics) remain intact - and secular Leftism will resume from the new reset-point.

*

The weakness of Brexit is therefore also its strength. The weakness is that there is no leader, and indeed no leadership class (what little, mostly simulated, leadership there was during the Brexit campaign has either melted away or been swiftly neutralised by the Establishment: corrupted or crushed).

Hence Brexit seems likely to fail in the short term - but if it does not fail then we have something very positive and hope-full for the long term.

Brexit is almost purely a consequence of invisible, politically-powerless people - it is a leaderless movement, unarticulated - unpredicted and unpredictable, undetected and unmeasurable; and apparently utterly uncomprehended and uncontrolled by the major social institutions.  

The nature of Brexit is a consequence of the extremity of corruption in Britain; where the Establishment is so totally-dominant among the leadership of all major institutions (which are now thoroughly assimilated and inverted) that they monopolise all leadership and public discourse.

Therefore in Britain change will have to come (if it comes at all) by some wholly-novel 'mechanism' - based upon a mass of individual 'awakenings' - each of which is very private, very autonomous, against-the-odds - and very difficult, therefore, either to control or to extinguish.

*

If the underlying social change represented by Brexit gathers strength, then it would have its effect (at least initially) either invisibly or negatively - since it lacks explicit and recognised representation.

Of course there may be, I hope there is, a small and organised core of honest and competent leadership for the Brexit movement - but this would be secondary; it would have to be secondary, or else Brexit would quickly and easily be snuffed-out.

*

How is positive change even possible under a Brexit scenario? Well, modern society requires, and gets, a truly massive degree of self-policing, self-control, self-punishment - whereby the mass of people have been ideologically inverted into active support of evil (of nonsense and lies enforced as truth; ugliness as beauty; and wickedness as virtue - and vice versa).

This is done by the people, to the people - because it is expedient when Life is regarded relativistically, materialistically, and as terminated by death.

But if people have, as individuals, awoken to a new metaphysical awareness - that is, a new system of assumptions which they know from-themselves - then individuals become agent; and immune to the divide-and-rule system of control.

*

A system of true and self-aware agents would be new; and impossible to control - except by enrolling agency to positive goals - presumably by Love.

At present, modernity denies genuine agency, and indeed real-reality. If this changes - then everything changes. Inexorably, unstoppably, bottom-up.

And Christian agency (assuming that is what eventually emerges) just keeps bouncing back - no matter how many errors and failures it suffers, it cannot be demoralised because of the infinite power of repentance.

When Christian agency is sustained even in the absence of a strong, honest and true church and institutional leadership - then it indomitable; and indeed is all-but indestructible (in the eternal perspective).

*

So far as I can tell, the only solid hope for the the future of real Christians in the Church of England and for the Anglican communion generally, is the organization GAFCON - Global Anglican Future Conference

http://gafcon.org

Which is led from Africa by the Bishop of Kenya.

Is this an example of what real Christians may have to do, and perhaps reactionaries more generally - accept leadership from outside not just their own nations, but their own cultures - to offshore 'ideology' including spiritual leadership?

*

It would not be the first time - because for much of the twentieth century Leftists subordinated themselves ideologically to the Soviet Union: swapped their own national identities of Socialist Internationalism (hence the ritual singing of The Red Flag all over the world, including the Labour Party and Trades Unions in the UK).

George Orwell wrote a lot about this - how British Leftists were a subversive fifth column for Soviet interests, whether officially (via Communist Party membership) or unofficially due to their personal convictions.

(This view of Orwell's was treated as paranoia by Leftists for many years, but it turned out to be the literal truth - many British politicians, intellectuals, unionists really were taking orders from Moscow: there really were Reds under the Bed!)

So that is one precedent, and an effective one - albeit a badly misdirected one! 

*

Another more relevant example is Roman Catholics who - wherever they may dwell - obviously take their leadership from Rome. The problem is that 'Rome' (i.e. the senior Catholic hierarchy) is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

What is needed is to seek leadership wherever it is best, which is going to be outwith the scope of Leftist Internationalism - or, at least, where that ideology is weakest.

*

GAFCON may emerge in the next few months or years as the basis for a new Anglicanism which is a real Christian faith in contrast to the subversive Leftist anti-Christianity of the mainstream Church of England leadership and pastorate.

(And if it does not, then I don't see much hope of the survival of Christianity in the Anglican communion.)

Maybe GAFCON provides a lead for other Western social systems which have - like the Church of England - been subverted, hollowed-out and inverted by decades of Leftism?

*

I often read secular, non-spiritual, analyses of what is going-on in the world - in particular the motivations of the global, national and large institutional leadership class; who are now Very Obviously destroying world civilization. 

Such analysts exclude - by prior assumption - what I regard as the correct answer; which is that the underlying reason for the leadership class behaving the way they do, is that they are affiliated with the supernatural beings of purposive evil who oppose God: Satan, Lucifer, demons, devils... whatever you want to call them. 

Of course, it is always possible to explain anything using any model... so long as one is not too fussy about incoherence, and is prepared to add incremental complexity to account for exceptions and contradictions. And when an 'explanation' becomes complex - it ceases to 'explain' and becomes impossible to refute...

Thus, by my criteria that the increasing harm being done to world civilization should be explicable on the basis of simple, coherent and commonsensical motives - none of the usual attributed motives stand-up. 

My list of the major attributed motives for the upper classes 'destroying society' is - greed, psychopathy, incompetence and insanity. All are partly true, but none explain large and obvious features of our situation. 

1. Greed. The ruling class are greedy - for money and power, primarily. But this does not explain why they are so aggressively - and on multiple fronts - destroying the world economy (including food and energy), trade and social cohesion. 

Active civilizational destruction can be exploited for a short time, as a type of looting; but when one is already the wealthiest, most powerful class in history it does not make sense to kill the goose that is laying you so many golden eggs. 

Active, strategic, repeated self-destruction (i.e. of their own sources of power and wealth) by the leadership class did not happen in historical civilizational collapses. Something extra is at work now. 

2. Psychopathy. Psychopaths are people who lack empathy, are selfish and short-termist, and manipulate others for their own satisfaction. 

Plenty of the ruling class are of that type - yet psychopathic rulers do the same to each other that they do to everyone else. Therefore a government of psychopaths must self-destruct with infighting. 

Further, psychopaths do not not stick to long term plans. They will always put 'me, now' above the objectives - so strategies would be abandoned whenever expedient. Whenever we observe a long term, cumulative social trend - we should recognize that this cannot be explained by psychopathy.   

3. Incompetence. Because gross incompetence among the ruling class has become so prevalent and is rapidly accelerating, it must contribute to ongoing civilizational destruction. 

But incompetence leads to errors in many directions whereas the current civilizational destruction is all due to leftward 'errors', and over several generations. 

Furthermore, there is no reason why incompetents should 'double-down' on their mistakes - even when this makes their own lives immediately harder - in the way that happens routinely nowadays. 

No: incompetence is real and worsening, but like psychopathy it is not strategic. 

4. Insanity. It seems quite common for analysts to attribute insanity to world leaders. Mostly, this is unthinking name-calling - because the attribution is combined with contradictory motives that would not coexist with insanity. 

Nonetheless, so increasingly bizarre, contradictory to common sense, obviously harmful and self-destructive are the behaviours of the leadership class, that they are often called insane: as if the individuals concerned were in the grip of false and impossible private delusions, hearing mad voices prompting weird actions, and/or experiencing disjointed and distorted thinking processes. The insane lack 'insight' into their own insanity, and are incapable of 'reality testing' their ideas - which also seems to fit. 

The transagenda is probably the strongest evidence for insanity among leaders; because such an obviously-false and destructive set of ideas has never been seen before - yet is already a worldwide, officially/ legally mandatory, mass media promoted, bureaucratically-enforced set of rules and mores; and the 'insanity' continues to increase month by month. 

But while insanity does potentially supply a measure of long-term consistency of motivation - thus of strategic, directional change - genuine and motivating insanity is not a large-scale and coherent group phenomenon, nor does it spread widely and rapidly. 

Insanity further lacks the self-promoting/ other- manipulating and other-exploiting aspects that are so prevalent in the ruling class.  

Therefore, assuming one believes in the reality of the demonic; the affiliation of the leadership class to the interests of personal, purposive, evil-beings - seems like the simplest, most common-sensical, coherent and predictively-valid of the explanatory models available. 

Note added: To summarize the above argument; it is hard to explain what is going-on on the basis of human motivations, but easy to explain it on the basis of demonic motivations (assuming one knows something about what these are). 

Indeed, the most coherent alternative 'master-hypothesis' to demonic affiliation is probably one or another version of the idea that the ruling classes are (to a greater or lesser extent) literal aliens. 

To attribute control to aliens has the advantage of explaining why the ruling classes are acting strategically against their own interests - and indeed against their own survival. 

To my mind; the alien hypothesis is, at root, mostly a speculative and secularized version of the reality of demons. But the main difference is that demons seek the damnation of souls; while the posited aliens seem to have attributed to them the same kind of motivations as human rulers - greed, psychopathy, incompetence, or the 'insanity-equivalent' of being alien and therefore weird.  

A few months ago I formulated the term Social Apoptosis as a model which may help to understand the way that Western Civilization is eliminating itself. 

The idea is that in the individual cells of multicellular organisms, or individual organisms in social animals such as humans; there are evolved mechanisms by which individuals (and probably groups of such individuals) delete themselves from society, by choosing not to reproduce. 

Such apoptosis can be understood as intended to pursue "strategic", long-term and overall benefit at the expense of short-term and individual benefit; so that the individual has some kind of built-in "programme" to sacrifice its own survival and reproductive prospects in order that larger goals may be achieved. 

 

Something of this kind certainly seems to be at work in Western Civilizations; both individually - where a majority of the native populations choose either not to reproduce at all, or to be subfertile (with much below replacement levels of offspring). 

Modern societies exhibit little in the way of what used to be regarded as natural instincts for self defense or survival - there is a much greater observable concern to avoid avent moderate or brief suffering and pain than to stay alive and leave-behind children. 

(The idea that it would be thought necessary to encourage people to defend themselves and their conditions, or to have children, would have seemed bizarre to most humans throughout history!) 

And apoptosis apparently also operates at a societal level, where whole nations (essentially all Western nations) have for some decades tolerated, and often enthusiastically embraced, multiple policies whose consequence is self-extermination - even when self-extermination is explicitly stated and aimed-at. 

 

Of course; there are many other external and top-down factors at work. But I feel that there would have been a great deal more in the way of mass resistance and refusal if it was not that so may individuals and groups apparently regard themselves are deserving of elimination. 

This widespread sense that "we" - as individuals and societies - deserve to be eliminated, meets with a leadership class that is increasingly motivated by a spiteful desire for destruction. 

A leadership class that demonstrates an implicit - and sometimes explicit - personal satisfaction at the suffering of individuals, and the decline of social institutions. 

 

One reason why unrestricted world war is now such a high probability, is this combination of a Western Civilization that feels it ought to be eliminated, and is motivated by the desire for elimination; with a totalitarian leadership class that would enjoy creating a situation in which this elimination would happen on a rapid and massive scale - accompanied by the greatest possible degree of human fear, misery and suffering. 

 

(While it is only The West that is ruled by a class many of whom are actively seeking destructive war on any excuse, or none; it only takes one side to make a war. Or rather, the only alternative to war in such circumstances, is passive acquiescence to being genocided.)

 

In a spiritual sense; this is understandable in terms of the elimination of religion, and indeed the reality of the spiritual, from the minds of modern Men. 

Our publicly operative metaphysical assumptions are utterly nihilistic; we are taught and believe that there is no purpose or meaning to our lives, or indeed to life itself. All is accident and determinism.

In The West it is fashionable, and publicly approved, to regard Mankind as a plague upon the planet - and the universe... 

The obvious conclusion is that we should eliminate ourselves. 

 

This is our situation here and now; and one reasons why the prospect of explosive and wholesale destruction seem to be increasing all the time.  

An implication of this spiteful-suicidal synergy is that The West will continue to destroy its own military capacity, even while trying to escalet wars on mutliple fronts. 

So "They" want war - but they are Not planning to fight a war... 

What does this imply?

 

To me it suggests that if, or when, They get the war they so much want, involving Western populations who deeply feel that they deserve to die; instead of trying to win the war by fighting - the leadership class will implement a mass distribution of "Suicide Pills". 

Thus there will be a war, and from fear and despair, encouraged by a monothematic propaganda onslaught; the Western masses will kill themselves in droves - the Suicide Pills enable the masses to kill themselves without suffering, and fear of suffering is the only thing that stands between many people and desired annihilation.

That is my prediction. Sooner or later we will be hearing about a plan to distribute Suicide Pills, freely, to the Western Masses - to be used "compassionately" in case of the third world war that is the leadership class's major current project. 

 

Of course, painless death will rather thwart the desire to inflict suffering - and the sadistic demons won't like it... 

On the other hand, the Master Agenda is that of Satan - and that is self-chosen damnation, of which a pretty reliable preparation is to die in deliberate and unrepented sin. 

To kill oneself in fear and despair (and, probably, in a state of seething resentment against God and Jesus Christ) is itself a rejection of Heaven, and the willed choice of Hell.   

The so-called Leaders of (nearly) all Western nations are not leaders at all - but over-promoted middle managers; and this also applies to most major churches, the most famous universities, multinational industrial and media corporations, a multitude of schools, government departments...

Indeed, nowadays, almost everyone in charge of almost every type of major social institution is intrinsically incompetent.

By why? Considering that these people are constitutionally incapable of doing their jobs - why do they keep getting appointed - increasingly and in all situations?

An over-promoted middle manager lacks leadership qualities; and is capable only of following instructions. And that is the clue to why such people are appointed.

The presence of a middle managerial mediocrity in a senior leadership position that they cannot possibly fill - no matter hard they might try, indicates that those who made the appointment wanted to be sure that the individual would do what s/he was told.

It confirms the truth of what 'conspiracy theorists' tell us; which is that the pseudo-leaders of the West are just a fake facade; and the real power, influence, decision-making - the real 'leadership' - lies hidden and behind the scenes.

A further, and synergistic, aspect is that real leaders are never abundant - and are found at an even lower proportion among the affirmative action groups that are favoured and privileged in the West.

And this provides a perfect excuse for placing incompetent but compliant bureaucratic drones into positions that need leaders - or would need leaders if the objective was to optimise social functioning; rather than to create a totalitarian system of universal surveillance and micro-control; to spread and amplify an environment of fear, resentment and despair.

In that sense, middle managerial mediocrities are doing a great job!

We have been following the Indian Premier League (IPL) over recent weeks, which is the biggest, most highly paid tournament in world cricket. 

Each team has at least seven out of eleven Indian players, and the rest can be overseas signings; and IPL salaries and standards attract from the best players across the world. 

The IPL plays the T20 version of cricket (an English invention, from 20 years ago!) - which is a 20 overs per side, approximately three and a half hour, game; in which the winner is the side that scores the most runs when batting. 

The resulting game is very tense and eventful, in which every one of the 120 balls per innings counts; and which often leads to close, exciting finishes. 

Today is the finals day, and the two sides that have made-it through the long competition up to here (involving 15 or 16 games) are - not by coincidence - the two best captained sides (and both have Indian captains). 

The Chennai Super Kings (CSK) are captained by wicket-keeper/ batsman MS Dhoni, who is nothing short of a legend in India - perhaps the most popular famous person in the country? (If not Dhoni, then the current star batter Virat Kholi.) CSK have won the IPL, and got into the finals, many times before.

The Gujarat Titans (GTs) were only formed last year, and won the competition immediately. They are captained by all-rounder Hardik Pandya - who explicitly modelled his captaincy on Dhoni. Indeed the GTs management (coach etc.) contain many people who have worked with Dhoni, and learned from him.

Thus, in the IPL, we can see an old-style apprenticeship system informally developing, in which one successful leader serves as a mentor and a model for others capable of learning by participation. 

Dhoni's calm and decisive leadership style on the field is only at the surface of what he does - most of which is preparation. It is a paternalistic system - with Dhoni as a 'stern and loving' father, one who cares about each member of the team, treats each as an individual - shaping the organization around each man's particular nature and strengths; who rewards effort and achievement by loyalty.  

Pandya's style on field is much more genial - more like a brother than a father. He is demonstrative, always cheerful and seems confident, never mind the situation; always positive and encouraging. Pandya reminds me somewhat of the current English Test Match (not T20) cricket-genius leader - Ben Stokes. 

Also, Stokes and Pandya are similar in being (to me, anyway) not-at-all-obvious 'leadership types', and with 'naughty boy' reputations off- and on-field. 

In military terms, both Stokes and Pandya more like NCOs than junior officers - Sergeants rather than Dhoni coming-across more as a Lieutenant or Captain (although Dhoni's social class background is modest, middling). 

I find it cheering to see the benefits of genuine leadership coming-through and triumphing in such a highly competitive 'system' as the IPL. 

And to see how each genuine leader - whether tactical, like a cricket captain; or more strategic like the off-field coaches - is unique; because such excellence must be rooted in specific persons - not systems.

In a world where most 'leaders' are obviously merely docile (or indeed demented) puppets, pretending to administer inhuman bureaucracies - it pleases me to observe what remarkable things are possible for individuals when they are given scope. 

And after seeing so many pseudo-leaders lavishly rewarded for corrupting, inverting, or destroying, their institutions; it is a refreshment to turn to a residual social activity in which the ability to do a good job is still of primary importance.   

 

It looks very much as if the UK is currently being prepped for annihilation as a nation. 

While the cultivated ignorance and delusional nature of mainstream Western officials and media are predictable appalling; the supposedly alternative analyses of the West versus Fire Nation war is more deeply concerning to me. 

The military experts and analysts persist in regarding this as a modern version of the kind of wars throughout history; whereas this is a situation the world has never before experienced.

Because the leadership of the Western (i.e. globalist) world (and I mean the real leadership, those who set the Western strategy) are qualitatively different in their motivations from any group of leaders in world history. 

The military expert analysts assume that the West ultimately wants the West to win this war - which is Not True. 

Those who are strategically responsible for the FN war, its continuation and escalation towards totality; primarily want the West to lose. 

That is their core motivation. "They" mainly want the West to be destroyed * - and the FN war is one of several, simultaneously pursued, means to that end.

Destruction of the Fire Nation, Earth Nation and other places are also real motivators - but secondary, optional. 

(Other means to the end of Western destruction include other wars; but also the many long-term self-destructive strategies I call Litmus Tests: e.g. the birdemic-peck, the climate agenda, the sexual revolution, the "antiracism" agenda - and the whole raft of leftist political auto-lethalities.)

   

On the other side; the core and strategic motivation of the Fire Nation is easily understandable (for normal people!), conventional, and historically multi-precedented - the FN mainly wants Not to lose. Wants to preserve and strengthen its culture and people. 

So the FN War is grossly asymmetrical in terms of motivations; in a way never before seen - at least never on a sustained and global scale. 

Indeed, the FN conflict may not even qualify as a "war" in the conventional sense; because The goal of the Western leadership is an orgy of insane multi-national mutual- and self- destruction - which is not really "a war"...

But that is precisely what the Western leadership strategists are working towards...

And for as long as so many people are so utterly unaware of the fact; for so long as they continue to think of this as "just-another war", like so many wars before: for so long They will continue to progress incrementally towards their major goal of destructive chaos primarily affecting the West. 

Note added: An overall interpretative perspective on the nature of the FN war (and the world generally) does not derive from evidence, and cannot therefore be overturned by observations - it is a matter of assumptions not empirical data. (Because assumptions both select and interpret the data.) Nonetheless, the immediate action of the Western side in coercively-imposing self-destructive sanctions, and the way that the West has continued to increase these in the face of massive evidence of their self-destructive nature; plus the self-destructive act of the West destroying a major conduit for Western energy supply - could certainly be taken as consistent-with the assumption that the war is primarily aimed against the West.