Business & Ideologies

One of the most important issues completely ignored both by managers and the general public is the role of ideologies in business or the role business plays in spreading very specific ideologies.

Ideologies do play a central role in the organizational aspect of companies – something that is also almost completely ignored or is fully confused with mechanical processes. In fact, thinking that artificial, mechanical processes, that are merely the fantasies of unqualified specialists, constitute the organization, is an absurdity that speaks volumes about the dominating weltanschauung that serves as a foundation for the ideologies and actions of managers. The absurdity lies in the fact that a mechanical organization contains an inner contradiction: it’s an impossibility. Companies as they subsist today, are simply not organizations.

Philosophically we can depict two polar positions: naive realism and subjective idealism, the former serving as the de facto weltanschauung of all managers, the latter as the weltanschauung of the greatest leaders in the history of mankind. Naive realism has managed to produce companies only – a grotesque parody of organic organizations. Subjective idealism has produced organic states and societies; empires that have lasted for thousands, later, as the quality of people deteriorated, “only” for hundreds of years.

A characteristic specimen of naive realism is the celebrated manager Elon Musk, or the transhumanist Ray Kurzweil; although we could have picked practically any manager from Silicon Valley firms or from global corporations, we picked these two because of their “leading” role in selling naive realism as an ideology.

False ideologies are only able to support false agendas and they relate to the Truth with corruption. They lie even when they’re honest and they can’t escape an inner contradiction that is recognizable in everything they do: they claim to be pacifist but they are combatant to an irrational degree, they aggressively demand tolerance and diversity but they ruthlessly marginalize or eliminate different views, they hate the concept of elitism (their own necessarily grotesque concept of it that is) but they arrogantly marginalize everybody outside of their own bubble, they “value” intelligence but they confuse it with IQ, they “value” people but humiliate them as assets, resources or capital; the list continues.

The recent jerk – reactions from the managers and investors in Silicon Valley to Trump’s specific moves or to Trump simply being elected is a testament to all of the above.

We won’t deal with Trump here, but can’t not notice the irony of the situation since Trump represents the same weltanschauung as his opponents, ultimately both of them serving ideologies that, without a well-articulated world-view, neither of them understands, or want to understand: rolling up the sleeves and getting busy INSTEAD OF thinking, or as they say, instead of “philosophizing” is characteristic of both. By serving ideologies they don’t understand, they, unavoidably, are serving interests that are using such ideologies, without being aware.

One last note, offering for those interested, a 180 degree different view on organizations in the business domain: a company’s purpose is to offer the chance of self-realization for people. Once this is accepted and “done”, all absurd statements about people in business will become superfluous and political deviations will lose their foundation.


The pseudo-elite & the masses

Ren? Magritte, The Son of Man, 1964, Restored by Shimon D. Yanowitz, 2009 øðä îàâøéè, áðå ùì àãí, 1964, øñèåøöéä ò"é ùîòåï éðåáéõ, 2009

The tendency of degradation that eliminates qualitative elements from life and replaces them with pseudo-qualities or more precisely with contra-qualities, is reaching a new stage.

This tendency has already brutally removed a sacred hierarchy and replaced it with one that is based purely on quantitative (and mostly financial) measures; in parallel to this, with nationalism (a fundamentally left-wing concept) and then with its progression to internationalism it further deteriorated vertical differentiation and after the sub-human rise against the monarchs (with the symbolic stages of 1789, 1917 when they were bestially murdered), a little more subtly it eliminated nobility as well, continuing the top-down liquidation of values and replacing them with contra-human ideologies.

It didn’t stop there. In lack of values to comply with, the role of commerce has become pure profit and thus this tendency eliminated the organic function of the 3rd order (traders) and the 4th order as well, and what was before a phenomenon on the periphery of organic structures (beings of almost no quality) has become a mass phenomenon.

For emphasis: business, to use the modern term, has a place in an organic structure. But it’s not at the top, but on the third level at best. Why at best? Because it has the right to occupy the 3rd level only, if it’s not conducted according to modern ideals, but seamlessly aligns itself to the first 2 principles and corresponding levels.

The tendency of deterioration has also replaced the elites it murdered with a pseudo-elite. True elitism orientates itself to the superior: always up, on any level of the hierarchy, including the top one. Because of this orientation qualities are maintained that are unimaginable and unattainable both for the masses and their “keepers”: wisdom, intellect, power, loyalty, respect, sacrifice, responsibility, etc.

The pseudo elite also organizes itself vertically, but this is an anti-hierarchy: the context is unknown for the players – only the style and the method is clear: quantity and pragmatism. In this hierarchy, there is no “up”; in other words there is no top, only a bottom. It’s not an upside-down hierarchy, where the lowest is at the top (although when it comes to personal qualities, this is often true). It’s more like a bottomless hole where the players take turns jumping in and whoever falls faster “leads” the mass downward. To use their expression: everybody is a leader. Well, sort of.

There is no wisdom, because the Truth is out of reach. True power is unknown and is confused with violence. Loyalty, respect and sacrifice are running jokes in the comedy circuits.

Now the tendency of degeneration is approaching a new phase: democracy, which has been a good instrument in the elimination of qualitative differences is no longer needed and the pseudo-elite will directly control their peers, completing the circle and completely replacing all traditional values with anti-values, all principles with finance, thus creating the ultimate mockery of traditional structures: the reign of the stupid.

Nationalism and internationalism suffered a similar fate: they were invented, used and discarded. Now they use new terms in their rhetoric just as non-nonchalantly as when they used these in 1789 and 1917 all the way until now. The only constant is their enemy: Tradition and its manifestations: sovereignty, dignity, authenticity, organicity, loyalty and sacrifice for values that stem from the Truth and finally the Truth itself.

In their confused announcements they depict terms like values and tradition as nationalistic traits (which in their views are right – wing). They announce the end of the righ-left political spectrum (which was also just an instrument: there has never been true right – wing presence in democracies), announcing the beginning of the new spectrum: pro-business vs. contra – business, contra business being de facto insane (the pragmatists vs. the fist shakers) or ignorant.

Perhaps politics will realign itself around the axis of globalization, with the fist-shakers on one side and the pragmatists on the other. The nationalists would win the loyalty of working-class and middle-class whites who see themselves as the defenders of sovereignty. The reformed center would include the beneficiaries of globalization and the poor and non-white and marginal citizens who recognize that the celebration of national identity excludes them.”

Or here:

“Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites. I was recently in Poland, where a far-right party appealing to nationalism and tradition has gained power despite years of undeniable prosperity under a centrist regime. Supporters use the same words again and again to explain their vote: “values and tradition.” They voted for Polishness against the modernity of Western Europe.”

Quotes from an article  by James Taub “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise up Against the Ignorant Masses”.

It’s hard to miss the propagated agenda. The only thing honest about such a piece is the profound confusion of its author about the terms he’s using.

Alas, theatrically calling (same article) for a contra-elite to rise (on!) was just a question of time; considering that this elite has long been on the top already, it’s quite cynical that they are not calling for them to simply step forward…maybe the time is not right for that.

Closing note: the pseudo-elite is evidently not differentiated from the masses by the same qualities that differentiates the true elite. In some (quantitative) respect they are differentiated from them, in most (qualitative ones) they are not. The analogy I used earlier about falling faster is quite precise. There are other analogies: “feeling out” where things are heading and trying to lead the way (typical in the tech business for example, but in politics, too). It would also be irrational to deny that the pseudo-elite on the highest levels is very powerful – but we must see that they are also blind and thus always under the influence and control of others!

And last but not least: there is no pseudo elite without the masses: the former needs the latter and both feel an existential threat in the presence of the true elite. From this point of view the term pseudo-elite is not strong enough; contra-elite is more fitting.

True elitism and the masses are mutually exclusive terms: when one is present, the other is not.





Refugee crisis: the blind leading the blind


The convergence between the domains of politics and economics is undeniable: in most questions of politics the deciding factor is increasingly economics; economic sanctions have become a tactical tool in the political arsenal, corporations finance parties, countries provoke wars for economic gains, etc.

When considering how this is possible (and we should consider this seriously), we mustn’t forget that all converging tendencies have a vantage point that reflects a position of power and an INTENT that provides context for the converging areas.

When it comes to the specific domains of business and politics, the actors below this vantage point are operating oblivious to this vantage point. The top players, who otherwise have tremendous power of influence to a lesser degree, the players below them completely, but it’s safe to say that all actors who are on the front lines, all the public characters are clueless. The faces of those who represent the vantage point are not known even to the “elite” minority decorating the cover pages of magazines and news sites. The latter pursue their agendas blindly to such a degree, that they are not aware that these agendas are not theirs: they merely act as mediums, spreading influences that they passively identify with and which they are emotionally tied to. It’s their passion as they say.

Today this is much easier to recognize than it was 50 years ago. It seems that being so obvious is precisely what makes it easy to hide the agenda. By being huge, the elephant remains invisible in the store; and although small and insignificant, the mice is getting on the nerves of everybody.

One example of “acting under the influence” is when people in the business domain cross the line into politics (the pseudo opposition between political parties is another example). Not when they run for president, proposing to treat the country as a company, but when they remain active in the business domain and simply spread political ideologies. Many topics serve as opportunities to do that, the refugee crisis is one of these.

We use two examples to show this in practice, including some tools of manipulation.

In this example Tomas Sedlacek, a Czech economist exhibits this tendency when he completely disregards (implicitly denies) the mechanical nature of the crisis. Mechanical because the migrants (almost always treated indiscriminately, as a homogeneous mass, irrespective of their country of origin and motivation) target Western Europe not by accident but by external motivation: they are moved by agents.

The rest of the story in the article (not written by Sedlacek, but about him) follows the classical recipe of manipulation: mix a little lie into a lot of truths or keep quiet about the essential matter and talk only about the substantial: the migrant crisis is not a financial but a moral question: well, it’s true that it’s not a financial question.

They are from a war torn country, we must help them: “If a person is dying next to you, do you go back and ask an economist whether it pays to be good or not?”: sure, if the person is dying next to me, I must help them (if I can), but this is not the situation here on any level. If there was war in Poland for example, the Czechs or the Germans should definitely help the refugees (there is a war in the Ukraine, but no refugees are flooding the neighboring countries like Poland, Slovakia or Hungary for example; some sources say that some do target Germany, but curiously Germany refuses them). 

“These are questions for philosophers. but we ask economists, because they’ve become the high priests of our age.”: this is true (as long as we don’t refer to modern philosophers building their careers in academics) so one must wonder why he (en economist) feels qualified to make statements, like “Europe does need the migrants from both an economic and a security point of view“, or that this is a spontaneous EU enlargement and that “in the past, enlargement has always been celebrated and it has brought prosperity”  where he’s mixing growth as the result of sovereign acts with instigated upheaval.

He draws analogies from TV shows and video games (an indication of his targets) and then goes on to venture an individualistic interpretation of a passage from the Bible, reaching a low point in the end implying judgement on Jesus “They have no wives or children of their own. So they love people from a certain distance” , showing a complete lack of understanding of the doctrines of not only the Catholic tradition but also that of all big Traditions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and many others (religions based on Sofia Perennis never propagated the sentimental interpretations of love that is typical to our age).

He argues correctly that it is not good that economics took over the role of ethics and that the dominance of an economics discourse is a threat: again mixing in some truths.

The other one is from Prof. Günther Faltin whose work in entrepreneurship we truly respect (just as much as the work of Tomas Sedlacek in economics). Prof. Faltin’s concept of entrepreneurship is that the deciding factor in launching an enterprise is the concept and that the concept should be beneficial to the community. He encourages everybody to go ahead and solve problems and contribute to an ecosystem of people doing what they are the best at and enjoy the most. He exhibits some negative meta-views we outlined in our book but the overall message and focus must be appreciated and supported.

He also felt compelled to use the topic of mass migration to spread destructive views: while his idea of people doing what they are good at (in our terminology: performing their organic function) is better than a sentimental “we must love everybody” pseudo-dogma, it fails to consider that organicity must extend to the state as well (only an organic state is capable of integration) and similarly to Sedlacek, he also disregards the artificial nature of the migration. This latter is a grave mistake because it propagates the idea that economics is in fact a principle of integration: this view is one of the main reason why the state is no longer organic. When organicity is a no factor, entrepreneurship is nothing more than a bunch of business cliches, leading to absurdities (inherent contradictions), as is clear both from his and Sedlacek’s statements.  He tries to explain this in this piece.

These two examples (out of many) show how highly educated and influential people who otherwise do valuable work in their field are passive mediums of destructive tendencies, driving agendas that they don’t own, inadvertently  contributing to a crisis they intend to solve.

An indicent proposal

merkel refugee

False agendas are destructive.

This is evident if you are in the ring fighting against Tyson Fury and your trainer keeps on shouting: hands down, move slower, let him come closer, take this one, don’t hit!

False agendas need a context where they can flourish. A context that makes the bizarre seem normal; a setting where you can lock the (supposedly) smartest people you can find in a country (or in many) into a room to handle a crisis situation only to see them fail inevitably.

The wrong context is based on the wrong views; views that fail the most basic test of logic. If any initiative starts from a false context it can only go in the wrong direction from the start.

This is the reason why all career politicians fail even if they are saved by the bell at the end of the four year period.

Democracy is a context that is based on a fundamental lie packaged in sentimentalism: it says that A=B. More precisely it says that the high equals the low. It goes further and says that that there is no such thing as high, there is only low. It doesn’t stop there and says that if the high and its analogies do come to the surface somehow, it must either serve the low, or it must be liquidated; it is quite combatant and shows zero tolerance in this regard.

This is precisely what the events that happened 1789 in France or 1917 in Russia symbolize. Other events too that swept across Europe: 1830s, 1848 or even earlier in the 17th Century in England with Cromwell.

Democracy is of course not an organic concept; it’s a concocted concept that was created to serve false agendas in the first place! Naturally, people using it  (agendas that go against the Truth) are the last ones to take it seriously.

To expect career politicians to look for the Truth and to defend it is dangerously naive; from another point of view ignorant. Greatness is hard to come by in such a system. Small men and clowns serving the mass, competing on who can go even lower (Trump’s “freedom song” is a testament to all this). The only way this terrible system maybe eliminated is if the intellectual passivity that tolerates it is eliminated.

I am wondering if Merkel and her cabinet, supported by career “intelligentsia” will come up with a plan, under the aegis of pragmatism, as a proactive measure, to supply German girls to migrants, thereby preventing further atrocities.

Seneca, to show the contrast between intelligence and democracy depicted Socrates’ tribulations as such: “…he lived either in time of war, or under tyrants, or under democracy, which is more cruel than wars or tyrants…”. 




Unmasking false agendas

The Truth manifests itself both as intellect and beauty. This should make it easy to recognize it.

Today however the state of affairs is such that people think about the Truth as a question of individual opinion and there is no room for beauty or the intellect; in fact in the war for attention the opposite dominates: the stupid (but pragmatic) and the repulsive. The opposite of intelligence is more than stupid: it is an intellectual inertia; a void, a lack of drive that seeks compensation in being busy with the insignificant.

A good example of this intellectual inertia is the typical business executive or the career politician: highly educated and very effective when it comes to shipping stuff, but completely confused when it comes to areas that stand above the business domain, including questions of identity be it gender, national or others. Small people with small agendas; however when the agenda is not specifically to understand and defend the Truth, it is to deny it – and this is no small agenda at all.

The wrong agendas are always stupid and repulsive, but the mass doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between even between the beautiful and the disgusting, providing an ideal medium for the spread of lies.

The wrong agendas are stupid in that they don’t stand the test of  even the most elemental rules of logic. A recent example from the political domain is the efforts to belittle the significance of the identity of the perpetrators of sexual violence against women in Germany (and Sweden and elsewhere in Western Europe) and the refusal to put it into the correct context.

One of the most insulting arguments in this question so far is that the perpetrators’ identity must be separated from the act. Of course the same agenda wouldn’t stand the test of common sense if it was used in a war situation for example. It would sound something like this: “this is not the first bombing here or elsewhere so just because it’s been being done by the Americans (randomly picked example) it would be false (God forbid discriminatory or hate – inflicting)  to say that it’s an American bombing or that we are in war with America.”

We won’t deal here with the more immediate agendas (besides the larger context of fighting against the Truth).