I didn’t get much out of the comments which were nominally made on the evolution of institutions.
Nothing new. Some rehashes on economics and Simmons [mderpelding] had his usual irritated statements, this time about how he was working class and I was claiming to be savior of the working class and working class doesn’t understand isms.
Everything was a rehash.
When it comes to institutions we are back where gravity was before Newton and supply and demand was before Adam Smith. Everybody knows it’s there but nobody THINKS it out.
It took us until the nineteenth century to stop thinking about Galen’s Humors and to START seeing microbes, thought the germ theory was common in Germany centuries before. Those tiny things digest our food and cause our plagues.
We all know there are institutions which have lives independent of human beings and which to a large extent determine our destinies. What does that have to do with what the average Southie is thinking about? That is as deep as the analysis gets.
#1 by Simmons on 07/30/2008 - 1:39 pm
That was pelding you are mentioning and the southies he wrote on about.
#2 by Dave on 07/30/2008 - 2:19 pm
Three items that are “deep” stuff regarding institutional parasitism:
#1:
Eli Goldratt, an Israeli physicist turned business consultant, Theory of Restraints is now taught in all business schools.
Unfortunately, there aren’t any professors out there and perhaps one in a million students who understand its implications.
The Theory of Restraints proved the irrationality and lack of scientific basis for most if not all of today’s financial accounting principles.
The Theory of Restraints conclusively demonstrated the means and extent that enterprises such as Boeing and General Dynamics conceal their public subsidies and lie about their profitability.
It will be a cold day in hell when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress compel government procurement officials to enter into contracts that cost government purchasing on the basis of the Theory of Restraints.
Application of the Theory of Restraints in financial accounting is a powerful and pragmatic means of reducing institutional parasitism. It is a means of blocking access to the public treasury by thieves in government procurement.
The Theory of Restraints is to the OMB Financial Management Circulars what modern microbiology is to Galen’s Humors.
#2
Albert Speer’s redefinition of transactions to mean anything that at least two humans must conclude to get something accomplished from it’s traditional financial sense is to today’s corporate benchmarking practices what modern microbiology is to Galen’s Humors.
Albert Speer proved the irrationality and lack of scientific basis for statistical benchmarking.
Employment of Albert Speer’s principles in governmental and private sector enterprises would go a long way to reducing institutional parasitism.
#3
The advent of widely available supercomputing enabling the easy animation of fluid dynamics is to today’s chaos theory math with modern microbiology is to Galen’s Humors.
The ability to directly process enormous data sets of high resolution would put an end to the nonsense of the Global Warmers. They could no longer deny the Deniers.
Science, if it is about anything, is about perceiving things directly. If something needs to be understood, the most effective way to do it is to look at it directly. That is why planetary robot probes and their predecessor the telescope are important.
The parasites hate real science, which isn’t’ complicated. Truth gets in the way of their parasitism.
#3 by AFKANNow on 07/30/2008 - 2:58 pm
in reply to Bob (and Dave):
I read “The Goal” when it came out, and I became quite fascinated by the Theory of Constraints. Goldratt is supposed to have developed some magic software, but we were told by the High Command not to worry about it.
There have been incredible developments in software, such as the system used by John Deere (described in the very first issue of “Fast Company” magazine). Nobody could really understand how it came to the conclusions it did or manufacturing scheduling, but it far outperformed conventional 9 ie; linear model – software.
And, in accounting, someone finally developed EVA.
All to the good, for it punches through the comfortable facades (lies and illusions) of contemporary accounting.
“The Goal” requires someone to be incredibly fluid in termos of allocating corporate resources; institutional barriers block it at all points.
That takes us to Speer.
NOBODY in American management ever read Speer, particularly Chapter 21, Organized Improvisation.”
Speer would have been right at home with Goldratt. Hell, he even mentioned how the inability to constructively criticize the choices of one’s superiors – “SPGG” Thinking, anyone? – stood in the way of so much positive development.
We are finally – way too late – getting to that point, and, even then, it is half-hearted.
Speer made a wonderful change when he dealt with insttituional sclerosis, by insuring that department heads who were 55 or over had to have a deputy who was no older than 40. (Thirty was just fine.)
The larger issue can be seen in Tainter’s study of the collapse of societies.
A model that worked successfully in the past – the Army, during World War 2, for example – is applied relentlessly, even after is has become archaic.
The institutional rigidities prevent it from being displaced by a model more adapted to the new social order in which the society finds itself.
The society either transforms the archaic model and gets it out of the way of the next generation, or the society falls – and, in the Collapse phase, the foundation of the new Meritocratic Aristocracy develops in the hinterland – Constantinople, for example, instead of Rome.
That really has to be the relentless focus of our activities – not only must your schooling not interfere with your education, your education must be focused on developing the founding members of the new Meritocratic Aristocracy.
That is what I am doing with my Nephews, relentlessly, and without remorse.
#4 by Simmons on 07/30/2008 - 3:19 pm
Perhaps if you have the time and temperment a rephrasing of the question might yield more. Frankly I find the whole lot here in West a pile of rot and can find little of salvage value “Harvard anyone?”
Every ism is about the transfer from us and every institution now accepts their role as mother provider for the little orphans of Uglyville. What’s to talk about?
#5 by Simmons on 07/30/2008 - 3:31 pm
Institutions or whatever delete this if necessary. I try to respond to a wordist who feeds the machine of genocide.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=678#comment-172167
#6 by Dave on 07/30/2008 - 10:54 pm
AFKAN
What Goldratt demonstrated was that you couldn’t cost an enterprise in any way except holistically.
He completely blew out of the water the notion the products and services could be costed via allocations of overhead and direct costs on the Ford Motor Company model, which remains generally accepted costing principles to this day (and the means by which governmentally supported enterprises rob the public).
Goldratt demonstrated that the only thing that it is rational to measure is the throughput (net cash) an enterprise generates with all of its activities summed. You can’t allocate to “profit centers” because that approach models irrationally and leads to wrong decisions.
Speer would have understood Goldratt easily. Goldratt was never trained in accounting or finance, but rather as a physicist so he wasn’t hampered by a faulty education.
Speer was greatly advantaged by his architectural background that focuses on multidimensionality and the physical world. Like Goldratt, Speer was not hampered by a faulty education. Reading Speer is a lot like reading Goldratt. Both of them have the same approach, very phenomenological-physical world oriented approach.
Both of them see how crazy we are in letting Wordism lead us astray.
#7 by Tim on 07/31/2008 - 8:24 am
All institutions are by nature parasitic. Because sooner or later they will become more interested in their own survival then their original function. This is most obvious with the US Senate.
When talking about the Russians. It is often pointed out to me that the current Putin crew is parasitic just like the last NeoCon Oligarch crew. Of course, I reply there is a BIG difference. Not all parasites are equal. The Putin crew maybe parasitic because all governments are by nature parasitic. But they are not interested in KILLING the HOST.
We just need to Puitinize things in Washington.
#8 by Pain on 07/31/2008 - 11:35 am
You came across like you were mentally ill, Simmons. Your next comment was even more absurd. You would have better results streaking in a grocery store shouting “Sieg Heil!” and congratulating yourself afterwards.
Is BUGS now a Psych ward?
#9 by Simmons on 07/31/2008 - 12:24 pm
Pain I personally don’t see it, maybe you could help me out on that one with some reasoned critique. TRI is an institution, a job for a few snobs that relies on little old ladies and a few withering old men to leave it in their wills to maintain their scratch living. I asked them a question, they answered back basically saying they would rather rearrange the deck chairs on their little Titanic.
Anyone who goes there and states the Mantra, same result they go back to rearrange the deck chairs.
Personally I wouldn’t have thought of posting the Revilo link, but who would have thought that the deck chair arrangers at TRI would rip the dead man while ignoring the latest “news” from the WOT of the NYT’s commentary section calling for a nuke strike.
#10 by Simmons on 07/31/2008 - 3:36 pm
The institutions that we butt heads against are producers of information not that of widgets or dollars so I am not sure that Speer or Goldratt apply. These outfits change their product line occasionaly (words), but I do not see anyway to account for much in any of these PC factories. Maybe governments but it seems to propose that now is more deck chair re-arranging.
#11 by AFKANNow on 07/31/2008 - 5:03 pm
in reply to Simmons:
Institutions – ALL Institutions – develop to solve A Problem – the Puritans, how to maintain their religious beliefs and social ordering in a hostile environment, the Christians – how to transform society into a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth – General Motors – how to make cars for the masses, and the shareholders/stakeholders happy – the list goes on.
The provlem is, these are Creations, tools and servants that eventually become the Masters, who make us over into becoming their tools, and servants.
The key to understanding the failure of Institutions is to look at the Bureaucracy Index – the extent to which the organization works to defeat its stated purpose, while demanding more and more resources.
Hence, Goldratt and Speer.
Accounting – nominally the servant of management – becomes the Misleading Master, as people follow inaccurate numbers in pursuing foolish, self-defeating policies.
Speer, not having been indoctrinated in The One True Way of organizations, dispensed with the classical command and control models with a true democratic leadership.
Let’s tie this into the issues of Race, and White Nationalism, shall we?
Family is the foundation of Race; Race is the Living Bridge between Family and Culture; and Nation is the collective expression of the Race.
What has been missing is our complete inability to do anything constructive about the atomization of the Family, and the atomization of the Nation.
The Words Do Not Match The Reality, and thus, they are driven slowly insane.
Nobody goes right down to brass tack fundamentals, and asks themselves if the words match the Reality.
Nobody.
Attempts to do so are thwarted routinely, and we are trapped in the functional equivalent of “The Matrix,” a Culture that has lost its transcendent sense of Purpose, and is trapped in battling materialistic definitions that are false, but have the power to enforce themselves, by our collective willingness to be bound by them.
It takes a Goldratt to look at the Talmudic complexity of organizational accounting, realize the whole thing is not working, and see a better way out of it.
It takes a Speer to look at the Talmudic complexity of organizational design, and cut the Gordian Knot with nonlinear thinking of the first magnitude.
I believe the foundation of our Racial Salvation shall be a Cultural Renewal, founded on a Restatement of Christianity that WORKS for the individual, the Families, and the Nation that will develop from them.
First, Christianity has to reduce the Talmudic complexity with the Insights that allow its practitioners to cut the Gordian Knot CREATED by linear thought, and unquestioned assumptions.
Second, it will have to create the fallow soil upon which new organizations can organically develop.
This will take work, and time.
It is part of the Goal towards which I am steering the development of my Nephews.
Let’s use them as an example:
They are high school graduates – Institutionally approved and credentialed.
And, the Institution has failed them; in effect, twelve years of schooling has been all but wasted.
So, do we change the Institution, or do we start over?
White Nationalists have fought at the margins to try to change one Institution after another, all to no avail whatsoever.
That’s where Covington comes in.
His Northwest Republic Analytical Framework allows us the freedom, and responsibility, to develop more effective Institutions from the ground up, this time with an explicit Racial Foundation.
#12 by Prometheus on 08/01/2008 - 5:28 am
Flower children of the 60’s could afford to be PC, it cost them little and they gained a lot. That equation for many, many people has now balanced the other way.
Everyone will say the liberal ideas are widespread because everyone wanted to adopt them, which makes them the correct moral choice. But PC is an economic dead end, its all cost, no return.
When you look at the institution, and ONLY the parasitic institution, you are looking at just one side of the equilibrium, just part of the equation.
#13 by Hoosier on 08/01/2008 - 3:24 pm
To AFKANNow:
Has Albert Speer written a book that talks about what you’re referring to?
#14 by AFKANNow on 08/01/2008 - 4:47 pm
in reply to Hoosier:
Yes, Speer wrote “Inside The Third Reich.”
Chapter 21 deals with his managerial philosophy and practices.
Covington hit upon the decoder right for this masterful book.
Under German law, any book or movie about NSDAP Germany MUST portray it in a negative light; particularly, the it must end badly for those who supported the Recih, in general, and Hitler, in particular.
Covington realized that the sentences in “Inside” that were critical of the NSDAP government, or Hitler, were so jarringly incongruous as to have been planted as a code – “I have to say this to get past the censors, but if you just strike it out, you will see what I really think.”
NOW, read Chapter 21, and see how he didn’t argue with the archaic; he simply removed their ability to do harm to the New System that was developing all around them.
The book is simply inspiring – realizing how far down they were at the beginning, and what miracles they accomplished in such little time.
#15 by Hoosier on 08/01/2008 - 6:19 pm
AFKANNow, I believe I “know” you from a different format. I found this forum after listening to the Peter Schaenk interview. Thanks for replying, I reserved the book from the Library, I will take a look.