The thing is government bureaucrats don't get job security from solving problems. They get it from failing to solve them but making it look like they are trying. Hence "a future of ‘permanent crisis and breakdown’ is much more likely to emerge from authoritarian attempts to stave off such a future than the emergence of particular events (pandemics, financial crises, environmental disaster, etc.) in themselves" is a feature not a bug to the bureaucracy
Wonderful piece here, David. Foucault's notion of the transition from medieval to modern governance perfectly summarised.
Two passages in particular drew my attention:
"The Covid lockdowns are of course the paradigmatic example of this. To this extent global governance is inherently fragilising: it puts all of the policy eggs in one basket, and thus massively amplifies the threat of breakage."
And
"the biggest risk of all which humanity faces is probably a totalitarian world government which, precisely because it covers the whole world, cannot be escaped."
Precisely my greatest fear.
You didn't mention the Club of Rome, which inspired all this with their *Limits to Growth: A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind* in 1972. This text launched the alarmism: the notion that limited global resources threatened human comforts as populations exploded and that exponential growth was bringing us rapidly toward a tipping point. What was needed was a “world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.” Sound familiar? Interestingly enough, this group made no bones about the fact that they were the wealthiest and therefore most morally equipped to direct global affairs--since they have more time on their hands. Their language is equally benign sounding until it suddenly isn't... and then watch out!
In 1991, they published another "report" *The First Globalist Revolution* where they go all out Machiavelli:
"The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies. The scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself. When things become too difficult at home, divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose." (108)
And where did these nutboxes steer their humanitarianism?
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (115)
The prestidigitation is drunk on its own cleverness. This is psychopathic ethics of the sort one finds in the Marquis de Sade. But there you have it: this is the think tank that gave birth to the Anthropocene--a Rosemary's baby if I ever saw one. These folks are pushing depopulation. They are sinister. In case anyone finds it all hard to believe, check out this interview with one of the lead authors of *Limits to Growth*: https://youtu.be/Dbo6uvJBtZg. As you put it David, "they hide their plans in perfectly plain sight."
As one who believes there is wisdom in the adage that 'our diversity is our strength', I resonate with this piece on those unlikely terms(!). But I must immediately clarify that this phrase as it is usually deployed is self-denying, as it presumes in advance to know what that diversity is and means, and therefore in fact can only ever urge conformity. It becomes self-defeating. Thus despite personally having been an advocate for diversity, I oppose DEI et al which propose conformity to a preset image of diversity. We live at a time when authentic diversity - freedom of thought, freedom for communities to decide for themselves - is under immense threat, because those who believe in the ideal of the nation are terrorists and thugs, and religion is backward superstition (except when it is anything other than Christianity, then it is weirdly exempt from criticism).
It is darkly hilarious that those who would espouse global governance think that pandemics and war will be prevented by a larger leviathan. It is abundantly clear that those in favour of the globalisation of control are in hock to corporations who manufacture munitions and pharmaceuticals - commercial powerhouses who simply cannot afford to have any of these things prevented. And as you touch upon here, the recent Nonsense that erupted over the evoked terror of a pathogen comparable in its inherent mortality to a bad flu year make it abundantly clear that global governance will gladly kill us all to keep us safe.
One final point: I believed at first you had made a mistake suggesting that the 1994 piece evoked the term 'equity', which to my mind did not circulate until the 2000s. So I went and checked, and you are absolutely correct. Here's an extract of that piece for context:
"A concern for equity is not tantamount to an insistence on equality, but it does call for deliberate efforts to reduce gross inequalities, to deal with factors that cause or perpetuate them, and to promote a fairer sharing of resources. A broader commitment to equity and justice is basic to more purposeful action to reduce disparities and bring about a more balanced distribution of opportunities around the world. A commitment to equity everywhere is the only secure foundation for a more humane world order in which multilateral action, by blunting current disparities, improves global well- being as well as stability."
Do those 'gross inequalities', one wonders, include the gross inequalities in power and influence between those who would call for global governance, and those who would rather we were allowed to live our own lives as citizens collectively deciding on our own shared conditions for living together...? I believe we already know the answer to this rhetorical question. And since such people are exempted, 'equity' can mean nothing less than ensuring the equal impoverishment of everyone else.
But I insist: diversity is our strength, if we choose it. And this means accepting the nation as a carrier of collective will of a people in order to gain the strength of diverse national peoples who think differently from one another, accepting all ethnicities including white people in order to gain the strength of diverse individuals who think differently from one another, and never silencing criticism of government of any kind, wherever it comes from.
Working on a piece right now, and came up with the following... in line with your thoughts here on diversity. I'm thinking of an ecological model:
Imagine each system we design is not only a tool, not only a model, but its own creature, it’s own sort of spider, projecting its analytical web over the world. Let it not be one beast, but rather an abundant garden sustaining many varieties. Only in that way will humanity continue to thrive and to truly evolve.
Aye, but these riots and protests also sadly fall into Starmer's realpolitik trap. The surveillance technology Sunak already purchased now has the requisite excuse to be deployed. Dark times for us all.
The word 'loyalty' stood out for me as it is bargained for ( store loyalty cards), or conscripted ( in war), or seen as a way of belonging ( football team, community societies etc), or 'causes' ( currently the 'environment'/ 'saving the planet'), and probably more meanings of 'loyalty' that I can think of right now.
Loyalty is an important part of being human and has underpinned existence from the cave to to the village to town and city life. The question for this would be global governance/ global pact is how to transfer that loyalty to 'it'. The world has natural and man made crises, or, imagined crises( eg, 'global boiling) but 'loyalty' is not something that can be fixed or guaranteed, yet that is what these global overlords demand!
The more 'loyalty' to their casus belli ( war on disease, war on 'climate change', war for 'democracy' eg Ukraine) they greedily demand, the more the costs of that loyalty mount up. It will stretch the human psyche beyond its capability.
When our daily existence is under threat, which appears to us as the outcome of government pursuing global agendas, ( eg, rapid transition to Carbon Net Zero, power blackouts, rapid mass immigration and the strain on housing and public services), how can loyalty ever be a given to a mish mash of NGOs, WEF, UN, Charities, which would seem to 'govern' for the whole world?
Where in the midst of all this globally orchestrated 'drama' does our loyalty lie?....it will be localised, it will be tribal, and it will in many instances be fiercely expressed.
Loyalty isn't a 'one way street' ( for global governance ...ha, ha) it has an unspoken 'contract', we are loyal to families, and local communities, we help them first, they are our starting point.
The interconnectedness of the world today cannot override those inherent bonds of loyalty, and, it's the 'globalist's' Fools Paradise if they think it's theirs for the taking.
Loyalty is, in my experience, aggregated upwards, not down. In the military, for example, you are fiercely loyal to those in your immediate team, and you can aggregate that up to the regimental/squadron/ship level but not effectively beyond that. At a societal level, the experience of the the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire and USSR (as but three examples) would indicate to me that the nation state is about as far as you can take it. Beyond that, only those directly benefitting (members of the EU Commission, UN agencies, WHO (as another three examples) really feel any loyalty to the. Supranational organisations mean nothing to the average person.
'Cults' and 'ideologies' seem to be like a thickening smoke swirling around and atop the nation state, as though to obscure the 'nation' from how it was once known. In its own way it is obscuring the global 'government'...."smoke gets in your eyes....." irritates eyes, makes one want to turn away. Not quite what the lyrics were about, of course.
I believe it is inevitable that an organisation will, over time, be run for the benefit of its managers and the 'de-prioritisation' of its founding principles. Plus also the 'Spanish Practices' of its workers. I offer the NHS in the UK as an example of this.
I offer from my own observations - in established large organisations the proportion of people who fail morally is around 3%. And in a large organisation the 3% tend to rise to the top, subordinating everything to their desires and corrupting the original purpose.
So a global government will become corrupt - and there is no other organisation large enough to keep the corruption under control.
With regard to your first sentence, yes, a quick look at the charity/NGO sector reveals many examples. I had it put to me that there were two types of people in an enterprise , those dedicated to its original purpose (e.g. making cars, delivering medical services, stopping industrial whaling), and those dedicated to the organisation itself and their position in it. It may be a bit simplistic, but it does help one identify the types best avoided. The challenge always is how to control the necessary bureaucracy in an organisation so that it does not become dominant over the foundational purpose, and hence essentially parasitic.
True, and the source of my inspiration. The 3% morally failing floating to the top is my own theory though.
But ask yourself if Pournelle's "iron law of bureaucracy" is well known, how come it has no traction on daily life? Organisations (generally) contain no immunisation against it?
Two other of my favourite inspirations include "guta cavat lapidem" (the drip erodes the stone) and Sturgeon's law - an adage stating "ninety percent of everything is crap". 90% of crap dripping over and over will eventually erode or undermine most things.
The problem is one of legitimacy. How can democracy work at a supranational level?
Answer: it cannot. Every supranational organisation is an appointed bureaucracy with no popular mandate. That is why global governance is inherently totalitarian
I would also add that this assertion that humanity, by uniting together, can solve the problems of the world, without any need for God, is the key lie told by Satan. It is essentially an assertion that we don't need God, and that it is better for us to put ourselves in His place.
It is basically an exhortation for us to make ourselves God.
This is explored in a very engaging way in the movie "Left Behind" and its sequels https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2467046/ which ultimately end up with Satan telling humanity that they can end suffering in the world by uniting under his rule. It is a seductive lie, but still a lie, as the movies make abundantly clear.
I think we need to be very aware of when we are simply substituting one external authority for another. It depends of course what each of us means by "God", but I've come to see the eternal attempt to make us outsource our personal sovereignty as the chief way in which we can be controlled, whether it's to a government, monarch or indeed an external spiritual power. And I speak as someone who has spent a lifetime involved in Christian communities.
Maybe you need to read Foucault, because this is in a sense what 'Security, Territory, Population' is all about. I've come to the view that it is probably ineluctable that one has to be 'governed' by something - and 'God' (whatever that means) is preferable to the alternatives.
If "God" is interpreted as the driving force of Nature or the Universe, our source of life, and as Love, then I agree. We have so many images of "God" that are just substitutions for worldly authority and that's what we need to watch out for, because they've usually been given to us by external and worldly sources.
Foucault does intrigue me, if only because before reading your Substack I'd come across him mainly in association with critical theory, and I can now see there's a lot more to him than that. Oh dear, so much to read!!
Sorry to use this method, but Substack says: ....."It looks like there haven't been any charges on your account for subscriptions, including any pledges. If you've made a pledge, it would not involve any charges until the publication activates paid subscriptions. If you need further details or assistance, feel free to ask!"
That government as traditionally conceived is the problem and not the solution is borne out by Milton Friedman's observation that if we put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert in 5 years there will be a shortage of sand.
The song "I'd like teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...." is what 'they' might like to present to the seemingly pliant masses but it is a chimera, it is 'their' dupe for humanity...humanity won't buy in to it.
The thing is government bureaucrats don't get job security from solving problems. They get it from failing to solve them but making it look like they are trying. Hence "a future of ‘permanent crisis and breakdown’ is much more likely to emerge from authoritarian attempts to stave off such a future than the emergence of particular events (pandemics, financial crises, environmental disaster, etc.) in themselves" is a feature not a bug to the bureaucracy
Absolutely. What managers do is manage problems. It isn’t in their interests to solve them.
This is why Thomas Sowell can cite endless statistics proving black America has only gone backwards since the advent of the Great Society programme.
Wonderful piece here, David. Foucault's notion of the transition from medieval to modern governance perfectly summarised.
Two passages in particular drew my attention:
"The Covid lockdowns are of course the paradigmatic example of this. To this extent global governance is inherently fragilising: it puts all of the policy eggs in one basket, and thus massively amplifies the threat of breakage."
And
"the biggest risk of all which humanity faces is probably a totalitarian world government which, precisely because it covers the whole world, cannot be escaped."
Precisely my greatest fear.
You didn't mention the Club of Rome, which inspired all this with their *Limits to Growth: A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind* in 1972. This text launched the alarmism: the notion that limited global resources threatened human comforts as populations exploded and that exponential growth was bringing us rapidly toward a tipping point. What was needed was a “world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.” Sound familiar? Interestingly enough, this group made no bones about the fact that they were the wealthiest and therefore most morally equipped to direct global affairs--since they have more time on their hands. Their language is equally benign sounding until it suddenly isn't... and then watch out!
In 1991, they published another "report" *The First Globalist Revolution* where they go all out Machiavelli:
"The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies. The scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself. When things become too difficult at home, divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose." (108)
And where did these nutboxes steer their humanitarianism?
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (115)
The prestidigitation is drunk on its own cleverness. This is psychopathic ethics of the sort one finds in the Marquis de Sade. But there you have it: this is the think tank that gave birth to the Anthropocene--a Rosemary's baby if I ever saw one. These folks are pushing depopulation. They are sinister. In case anyone finds it all hard to believe, check out this interview with one of the lead authors of *Limits to Growth*: https://youtu.be/Dbo6uvJBtZg. As you put it David, "they hide their plans in perfectly plain sight."
'The real enemy is humanity itself' - you have to love the barefacedness of it.
Humanitarian misanthropy!
It was necessary to destroy humanity in order to save it.
David,
As one who believes there is wisdom in the adage that 'our diversity is our strength', I resonate with this piece on those unlikely terms(!). But I must immediately clarify that this phrase as it is usually deployed is self-denying, as it presumes in advance to know what that diversity is and means, and therefore in fact can only ever urge conformity. It becomes self-defeating. Thus despite personally having been an advocate for diversity, I oppose DEI et al which propose conformity to a preset image of diversity. We live at a time when authentic diversity - freedom of thought, freedom for communities to decide for themselves - is under immense threat, because those who believe in the ideal of the nation are terrorists and thugs, and religion is backward superstition (except when it is anything other than Christianity, then it is weirdly exempt from criticism).
It is darkly hilarious that those who would espouse global governance think that pandemics and war will be prevented by a larger leviathan. It is abundantly clear that those in favour of the globalisation of control are in hock to corporations who manufacture munitions and pharmaceuticals - commercial powerhouses who simply cannot afford to have any of these things prevented. And as you touch upon here, the recent Nonsense that erupted over the evoked terror of a pathogen comparable in its inherent mortality to a bad flu year make it abundantly clear that global governance will gladly kill us all to keep us safe.
One final point: I believed at first you had made a mistake suggesting that the 1994 piece evoked the term 'equity', which to my mind did not circulate until the 2000s. So I went and checked, and you are absolutely correct. Here's an extract of that piece for context:
"A concern for equity is not tantamount to an insistence on equality, but it does call for deliberate efforts to reduce gross inequalities, to deal with factors that cause or perpetuate them, and to promote a fairer sharing of resources. A broader commitment to equity and justice is basic to more purposeful action to reduce disparities and bring about a more balanced distribution of opportunities around the world. A commitment to equity everywhere is the only secure foundation for a more humane world order in which multilateral action, by blunting current disparities, improves global well- being as well as stability."
Do those 'gross inequalities', one wonders, include the gross inequalities in power and influence between those who would call for global governance, and those who would rather we were allowed to live our own lives as citizens collectively deciding on our own shared conditions for living together...? I believe we already know the answer to this rhetorical question. And since such people are exempted, 'equity' can mean nothing less than ensuring the equal impoverishment of everyone else.
But I insist: diversity is our strength, if we choose it. And this means accepting the nation as a carrier of collective will of a people in order to gain the strength of diverse national peoples who think differently from one another, accepting all ethnicities including white people in order to gain the strength of diverse individuals who think differently from one another, and never silencing criticism of government of any kind, wherever it comes from.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Great point about equity and inequalities, Chris. Nothing of course that Orwell wouldn’t have warned us about.
Working on a piece right now, and came up with the following... in line with your thoughts here on diversity. I'm thinking of an ecological model:
Imagine each system we design is not only a tool, not only a model, but its own creature, it’s own sort of spider, projecting its analytical web over the world. Let it not be one beast, but rather an abundant garden sustaining many varieties. Only in that way will humanity continue to thrive and to truly evolve.
Aye, but these riots and protests also sadly fall into Starmer's realpolitik trap. The surveillance technology Sunak already purchased now has the requisite excuse to be deployed. Dark times for us all.
The word 'loyalty' stood out for me as it is bargained for ( store loyalty cards), or conscripted ( in war), or seen as a way of belonging ( football team, community societies etc), or 'causes' ( currently the 'environment'/ 'saving the planet'), and probably more meanings of 'loyalty' that I can think of right now.
Loyalty is an important part of being human and has underpinned existence from the cave to to the village to town and city life. The question for this would be global governance/ global pact is how to transfer that loyalty to 'it'. The world has natural and man made crises, or, imagined crises( eg, 'global boiling) but 'loyalty' is not something that can be fixed or guaranteed, yet that is what these global overlords demand!
The more 'loyalty' to their casus belli ( war on disease, war on 'climate change', war for 'democracy' eg Ukraine) they greedily demand, the more the costs of that loyalty mount up. It will stretch the human psyche beyond its capability.
When our daily existence is under threat, which appears to us as the outcome of government pursuing global agendas, ( eg, rapid transition to Carbon Net Zero, power blackouts, rapid mass immigration and the strain on housing and public services), how can loyalty ever be a given to a mish mash of NGOs, WEF, UN, Charities, which would seem to 'govern' for the whole world?
Where in the midst of all this globally orchestrated 'drama' does our loyalty lie?....it will be localised, it will be tribal, and it will in many instances be fiercely expressed.
Loyalty isn't a 'one way street' ( for global governance ...ha, ha) it has an unspoken 'contract', we are loyal to families, and local communities, we help them first, they are our starting point.
The interconnectedness of the world today cannot override those inherent bonds of loyalty, and, it's the 'globalist's' Fools Paradise if they think it's theirs for the taking.
Loyalty is, in my experience, aggregated upwards, not down. In the military, for example, you are fiercely loyal to those in your immediate team, and you can aggregate that up to the regimental/squadron/ship level but not effectively beyond that. At a societal level, the experience of the the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire and USSR (as but three examples) would indicate to me that the nation state is about as far as you can take it. Beyond that, only those directly benefitting (members of the EU Commission, UN agencies, WHO (as another three examples) really feel any loyalty to the. Supranational organisations mean nothing to the average person.
'Cults' and 'ideologies' seem to be like a thickening smoke swirling around and atop the nation state, as though to obscure the 'nation' from how it was once known. In its own way it is obscuring the global 'government'...."smoke gets in your eyes....." irritates eyes, makes one want to turn away. Not quite what the lyrics were about, of course.
I believe it is inevitable that an organisation will, over time, be run for the benefit of its managers and the 'de-prioritisation' of its founding principles. Plus also the 'Spanish Practices' of its workers. I offer the NHS in the UK as an example of this.
I offer from my own observations - in established large organisations the proportion of people who fail morally is around 3%. And in a large organisation the 3% tend to rise to the top, subordinating everything to their desires and corrupting the original purpose.
So a global government will become corrupt - and there is no other organisation large enough to keep the corruption under control.
With regard to your first sentence, yes, a quick look at the charity/NGO sector reveals many examples. I had it put to me that there were two types of people in an enterprise , those dedicated to its original purpose (e.g. making cars, delivering medical services, stopping industrial whaling), and those dedicated to the organisation itself and their position in it. It may be a bit simplistic, but it does help one identify the types best avoided. The challenge always is how to control the necessary bureaucracy in an organisation so that it does not become dominant over the foundational purpose, and hence essentially parasitic.
Also Hayek's description, https://fee.org/resources/the-road-to-serfdom-chapter-10-why-the-worst-get-on-top/.
That's Pournelle's "iron law of bureaucracy". And one of Parkinson's laws
True, and the source of my inspiration. The 3% morally failing floating to the top is my own theory though.
But ask yourself if Pournelle's "iron law of bureaucracy" is well known, how come it has no traction on daily life? Organisations (generally) contain no immunisation against it?
Two other of my favourite inspirations include "guta cavat lapidem" (the drip erodes the stone) and Sturgeon's law - an adage stating "ninety percent of everything is crap". 90% of crap dripping over and over will eventually erode or undermine most things.
The problem is one of legitimacy. How can democracy work at a supranational level?
Answer: it cannot. Every supranational organisation is an appointed bureaucracy with no popular mandate. That is why global governance is inherently totalitarian
Bravo, David! I agree wholeheartedly.
I would also add that this assertion that humanity, by uniting together, can solve the problems of the world, without any need for God, is the key lie told by Satan. It is essentially an assertion that we don't need God, and that it is better for us to put ourselves in His place.
It is basically an exhortation for us to make ourselves God.
This is explored in a very engaging way in the movie "Left Behind" and its sequels https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2467046/ which ultimately end up with Satan telling humanity that they can end suffering in the world by uniting under his rule. It is a seductive lie, but still a lie, as the movies make abundantly clear.
I have a post brewing about that theme.
I think we need to be very aware of when we are simply substituting one external authority for another. It depends of course what each of us means by "God", but I've come to see the eternal attempt to make us outsource our personal sovereignty as the chief way in which we can be controlled, whether it's to a government, monarch or indeed an external spiritual power. And I speak as someone who has spent a lifetime involved in Christian communities.
Maybe you need to read Foucault, because this is in a sense what 'Security, Territory, Population' is all about. I've come to the view that it is probably ineluctable that one has to be 'governed' by something - and 'God' (whatever that means) is preferable to the alternatives.
If "God" is interpreted as the driving force of Nature or the Universe, our source of life, and as Love, then I agree. We have so many images of "God" that are just substitutions for worldly authority and that's what we need to watch out for, because they've usually been given to us by external and worldly sources.
Foucault does intrigue me, if only because before reading your Substack I'd come across him mainly in association with critical theory, and I can now see there's a lot more to him than that. Oh dear, so much to read!!
Sorry to use this method, but Substack says: ....."It looks like there haven't been any charges on your account for subscriptions, including any pledges. If you've made a pledge, it would not involve any charges until the publication activates paid subscriptions. If you need further details or assistance, feel free to ask!"
Thanks, Hywel. I haven't activated paid subscriptions yet - I will do it shortly and I suppose we'll see what happens!
That government as traditionally conceived is the problem and not the solution is borne out by Milton Friedman's observation that if we put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert in 5 years there will be a shortage of sand.
Lol!
Globalism is nothing more than socialism hidden by a cloak of environmentalism and sustainability. It will bring poverty to us all.
The song "I'd like teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...." is what 'they' might like to present to the seemingly pliant masses but it is a chimera, it is 'their' dupe for humanity...humanity won't buy in to it.