WHY THE GREAT RESET WILL FAIL
On the SNAFU principle, Murphy's Law, Parkinson's Law, the Iron Law of Megaprojects, and the inevitable failure of the Techno-Fascist Globalist Coup
One of my favourite readers is named Charlotte Ruse.
She rarely says anything particularly positive or optimistic, but she’s one of my favourite readers nonetheless, for the simple that she regularly takes to comment on my articles. I value feedback.
Anyway, after I made a cheerful New Year’s post about optimism in which I declared that we are in the midst of a tremendously exciting paradigm shift, Charlotte replied expressing the pessimistic view that we as a society are currently rapidly transitioning towards “a "permanent" neofeudal technocratic biosecurity surveillance state”, to use her words.
Apparently, Charlotte thinks that the paradigm that we will be living in on the other side of the chasm will feature “synthetic programmable currency controlled by either the state or bankster gangsters”.
Now, the reason that I’m taking the time to reply is this is because THAT’S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK.
They want you to think that they’ve got everything under control. But it’s not true.
One reason that the Great Reset will fail is because of something called Parkinson’s Law.
Ronald Wright, writing in A Short History of Progress, explain:
Explanations for Rome's fall run the gamut — plagues, lead poisoning, mad emperors, corruption, babarians, Christianity — and Joseph Tainter, in his book on social collapses, has added Parkinson's Law.
Complex systems, he argues, inevitably succumb to diminishing returns. Even if other things remain equal, the costs of running and defending an empire eventually grow so burdensome that it becomes more efficient to throw off the whole imperial superstructure and revert to local forms of organization.
Exactly. There’s a simple reason for this. You have to understand that bureaucratic bloat is the Achilles’ heel of states.
Basically, civilization is a way of life characterized by the growth of cities. When cities become accustomed to consuming more than they can produce, they require resource colonies. This process is accompanied by a growth in the state bureaucracy, which becomes less efficient over time as bureaucrats become more interested in justifying their own existence than serving the public, the purpose for which they ostensibly exist.
This might not sound like a big deal, but it is. Remember, Fauci was a bureaucrat. The AIDS scam and the COVID hoax were the direct result of bureaucratic intrigue. The C.I.A.’s War on Drugs, which led to so many coups, death squads, and dirty wars, was created to feed the insatiable appetite of the U.S. deep state for padded budgets justified in the name of “national security”.
You ever seen Little Shop of Horrors? It’s kind of like that.
Seriously, bureaucracy is most evil forces on the face of the planet, but it doesn’t get the attention it deserves because it’s simultaneously insidiously evil and mind-numbingly boring.
By the way, part of my new marketing strategy for anarchism is to start talking lots of shit about bureaucrats, because everyone hates bureaucrats. Smart, right?
I got the idea from David Graeber, who was the world’s leading critic of bureaucracy up until his untimely and unexplained death back in 2020.
People should really here what he has to say about class relations in the terminal phase of bureaucratitis - the current dystopian hangtiming freefall in which free government money means everything for everyone forever.
Obviously this isn’t going to last, and it’s morbidly fascinating to observe it from the point of view of anthropologist. What are the effects on a human’s brain when they forced to live in a toxic passive-aggressive soup in which everyone is pretending they don’t all know that they are serving the Beast. It sounds devastating. That’s how amazing of a person David Graeber was - he had actually
I saw a guy do a Ted talk on porn where the guy said “every one of these girls was an innocent child, someone’s daughter… and no one grows up wanting to be a porn star.”
Sure, but no one grows up wanting to be a bureaucrat either.
At least porn stars have fun.
I wonder who’s going to fill Graeber’s shoes as the world’s leading critic of bureaucracy, by the way. Maybe it will be Darren Allen. He’s a devastating clever critic, but sometimes I wonder whether he’d rather be a lumberjack or something.
Try not to think of Darren Allen when you hear this song now!
If you want to understand why statism is a lower form of order than anarchy, one needs to understand that bureaucratic rigor mortis sets in, there’s no going back, because the thing that bureaucrats do best is to look out for number one, which is in direct conflict with the greater good. At a certain point they inevitably form a faction with interests apart from whoever controls their salary, and the state basically has an enemy within itself. The state then becomes schizophrenic, because it is at war with itself. This is why governments get less efficient over time - before bureaucrats sabotage attempts to reduce inefficiency, because efficiency is an existential threat to positions which serve no useful function.
This is the reason that so many Chinese dynasties were conquered by barbarians - because government means bureaucracy and bureaucracy causes an endless proliferation of institutions and sub-institutions and committees… all of whom must be paid with money extracted from the people by means of taxation and war.
More government, more tax, more war. That’s how it works.
But the growth of bureaucracy also renders governments less efficient, less adaptive, and less responsive to human genius. In decadent countries, the bureaucracy is the unseen enemy - unseen because it is an enemy within, and there is no enemy more difficult to vanquish than an enemy within.
The bureaucracy is the elephant in the room - a lot of people work for the government, and so long as they keep getting paid, they’re going to keep going up for work. What are all this people going to do?
The tax burden that bureaucracies require to sustain themselves tends to move predictably in one direction - towards more taxation. Eventually, this results in a crisis, or, in terminal cases, a series of crises ending in the fragmentation of the state into smaller political entities with more limited authority. This is what Ronald Wright’s calls Parkinson’s Law.
At the end of the day, it is more efficient to govern on a more local level, which is the reason that most countries in the Americas eventually broke free from the colonial yoke.
Still waiting on Canada to throw off the colonial yoke, but there’s still time for that!
(Those of you who have never been to Canada have no idea how accurate this video is.)
Bureaucracy becomes more inefficient with time, and this is something that repeats itself historically so reliably that it makes sense to speak about Parkinson’s Law, even though Parkinson himself presented it as a formula that isn’t empirically valid, strictly speaking.
One would also be well-advised to look into the Iron Law of Megaprojects, which states that:
“Megaprojects will be over budget, over time, under benefits, over and over again.”
Keep that in mind next time some BRICS-head is telling you about how China’s Belt and Road Initiative is lifting millions of people out of poverty because the Multipolar World Order’s, like, way better than that icky-gross Old New World Order that no one was ever too amped on.
Come see me in 2030 and let me know how your investments in Djibouti and Sri Lanka are doing.
THE SNAFU PRINCIPLE
We are used to assuming that our rulers have God-like powers and that they have access to a level of knowledge that normal mortals could not possibly hope to aspire to. But this neglects a key aspect of human social organization - true communication is only possible between equals.
Think about it. If you know what’s good for you, you’re probably used being careful what you say around your employer. If you vented about a co-worker to that employer, for instance, that could make it more likelier that they’d get fired. So if you’re not trying to get rid of that person, you will tend to be less honest with your boss than with co-worker. It’s part of politeness and I would expect this to be true cross-culturally as well. The more authority someone has over others, the more likely they are to be lied to. This is one of the many reasons why anarchists believe that authority deforms morality.
Now, compound this problem by a million gazillion times, and you have the
The powerful are surrounded by yes-men who filter all information to them to minimize their discomfort. For this reason, their picture of reality becomes distorted in proportion to the size of the hierarchy. Keep that in mind when you’re thinking about folks like Putin and Xi Jinping
This is known as the SNAFU Principle and it is one of the downsides to top-down authoritarian structures. If the the consequences for being unpatriotic is execution, people are very unlikely to say anything that might be perceived as unpatriotic.
In any hierarchy (business, government, military, etc.) people and employees inevitably distort the truth of reports when dealing with their superiors, in order to avoid any punishment for relaying bad news. As a result, the superiors often operate from a distorted view of the situation, sometimes leading to poor results. This creates a situation where the people on top of hierarchical structures are actually very uninformed about what goes on at the bottom, which is why the Powers That Shouldn’t Be are so obsessed with surveillance.
Let us never forget that the term “military intelligence” is an oxymoron. If someone was intelligent, they wouldn’t be in the military.
Let me say that another way. If someone was genuinely an actualized, enlightened, wise person, they simply wouldn’t apply their mind to achieving the objectives of the ruling class that controls the military of any given country.
Let me define “intelligence” here as the ability to model reality in a way which allows you to get what you REALLY want. I emphasize the word REALLY because if you don’t know what’s good for you, you can’t know what you REALLY want. Therefore knowledge of self is the prerequisite to intelligence. If you don’t know what is good for you, you cannot act intelligently. And given that all human beings want the same things - physical comfort, warmth, love, pleasure, touch, laughter, and fun - knowing what is good for you implies that you know that you want to be happy.
I’ll argue this point with any member of any military in the world, by the way. Military intelligence is not a thing. Militaries specialize in brute force, the preferred persuasive strategy of stupid people. You figure it out. Militarism is and always has been on the side of stupidity. Never forget that.
This is why tyrannical regimes are at a disadvantage, and why they try to keep people stupid by forcing them to attend mandatory indoctrination centre for the better part of their childhood. The system relies on intelligent people working against their own interests. This only works reliably when those same people also get to share in the spoils of war.
That’s been the name of the game for a long time, by the way. The idea that liberals have about freedom being protected by the government is the opposite of true. The state limits freedom. It does not grant it.
Frank Zappa hit the nail on the head when he said:
The real battle isn’t being good and evil. It’s between the forces of intelligence and the forces of stupidity. The current system is based upon a massive parasitic class which feeds on the life-force of the working class. It’s not efficient or intelligently designed, because it’s not designed with collective outcomes in mind. It’s designed to further enrich the rich by funnelling wealth upwards. It’s dumb.
If we had any sense of our true power, we would not put up with this bullshit, because we would realize that it is not designed to optimized human wellbeing.
It has been proposed that the Allies won WWII because of the SNAFU principle.
I’m not qualified to weigh in on that point, but I’d be curious if any historians would like to share their thoughts on that matter.
You might think that you think that you know what Murphy’s Law is, but do you really?
The popular formulation of Murphy’s Law is “what can go wrong will go wrong”, but there’s a lot more to it than that.
Murphy’s Law is a principle in engineering, and was first described after a rocket sled designed by an engineer named Murphy exploded.
It turns out that someone had made the mistake of wiring things incorrectly. Even though the wiring was double-checked by multiple people, the fatal flaw escaped attention because it appeared as if things were properly wired.
“If there’s more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way.”
If that sounds pessimistic, it’s really not. The point is that it behooves engineers to design things in such a way as to prevent such disastrous mistakes from being possible in the first place.
One engineer sums up Murphy’s Law like this:
“If it can happen, it will happen… So you’ve got to go through and ask yourself, if this part fails, does this system still work, does it still do the function it is supposed to do? What are the single points of failure? Murphy’s Law established the drive to put redundancy in. And that’s the heart of reliability engineering.”
By preventing potentially fatal accidents, Murphy’s Law has saved an untold number of lives. Far from being a bleak expression of pessimism, Murphy’s Law is a brilliant axiom which helps people prepare for unintended consequences of their decisions. It trains our minds to be able to predict unexpected events, thereby preventing problems before they happen.
If it’s true that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, Murphy’s Law is some of the best intellectual medicine ever discovered by human beings.
Now, if one thinks about Murphy’s Law in the case of the Great Reset… do I really even need to finish that thought? Just think about it!
Do you really think that they’re going to be to able to convince the entire world to switch from the current paradigm to a techno-fascist dystopia with programmable money in digital gulags?
Yeah, I don’t think so either.
Whitney Webb put it best. She isn’t concerned about the Great Reset or the Fourth Industrial Revolution actually succeeding, and neither am I.
That doesn’t mean that we have a blase attitude towards the fact that there’s a globalist techno-fascist coup going on right now. It just means that we’re not worried that the Powers That Shouldn’t Be will actually succeed in imposing their desired economic system on the people of the world. The world’s a big place, and very hard to rule.
Plus, CBDCs are just indisputably inferior technology to actual crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, so the entire proposition relies among almost everyone in the world acting against their own self-interest in unison.
People might be dumb, but are they that dumb? I doubt it.
The read question isn’t whether or not the criminocrats will actually succeed in establishing a new Fourth Reich.
It is, as Whitney puts it: “How much damage will they do before they fail?”
I rest my case.
NEVERMORE MEDIA is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.