Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Human Resources

May 12, 2024 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

10:46

Human Resources

The machine will swallow us whole. Rousseau's Savage: https://www.lotuseaters.com/rousseaus-savage-or-deepthink-x-26-07-22

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There is a particularly sinister way of looking at what a human being is that I've come to find utterly repulsive, and I thought it might be worth talking about for a moment.
	A nation is the product of the work of centuries of one or more ethnic groups.
	These groups have a shared identity, which becomes the personal identity of the people who make it up, and this identity carries with it the cultural particulars of generations.
	Father to son, mother to daughter, they pass on the way of life that the nation builds up over time, each generation adding a small amount to it in ways that can't be predicted and may not even make sense.
	It dictates the institutions that each civilization has, the language they share, the customs they perform.
	The nation becomes something more than the people themselves.
	Over time, it builds up the accumulated wisdom of eons, which instruct the people on how to live in the place in which they are, and in turn, this forms future generations and fills the content of their character with the learned habits of the past.
	This is the great chain of being which Edmund Burke spoke of in his reflections on the revolution in France, and it gives people their character.
	To describe someone or something's character is an aesthetic assessment.
	It is the way we feel as we experience something, and if we are to describe peoples and nations, then we are describing our experience of visiting or living within them.
	The effects of a long-settled culture surround us, envelop us, and instruct us on how things ought to be done.
	To paraphrase Nietzsche, each people has its own language of good and evil that the others don't properly understand.
	Something greater than the material existence of the civilization grows up on top of it, and it is the sense of this that we feel when we are there, and why people often become phyllic towards certain foreign civilizations.
	The total sensory and spiritual experience of being in a particular civilization puts us in a certain frame of mind, and this can be good or bad.
	We might feel that a civilization does things in an evil way that would make us feel gross, dirty, uncomfortable, and wary.
	However, a civilization might, conversely, make us feel that things are being done in the right way, which will make us feel relaxed, happy, content, and at ease.
	To be able to identify the character of a civilization and to respect the people who carry its culture from the past and into the future, one has to identify and know them in a concrete manner.
	They are situated in the here and now, and they possess something greater than themselves, which shapes and forms them in its image to make the people stand out from others when they are abroad.
	One can tell when an Englishman or an American is in a foreign land.
	They aren't like everyone else, and this is true for all cultures.
	But this is not the way that the modern managerial state looks at the various peoples of the earth.
	The managerial liberal state strips away the transcendent cultural particularities of peoples to reveal beneath only the raw matter.
	Instead of seeing them in three dimensions, it instead looks at them as lumps of rational moving flesh, living automata that exist only in the moment, which can be persuaded to perform certain functions through various incentives, such as for pay or for recognition of rights.
	This strips away the characteristics of the people and reduces them to wandering lone agents in a world confusingly full of rich cultural traditions.
	I explored this idea at length in my extensive article on Rousseau-Savage, which you can listen to or read via the link below on lotusis.com.
	It is the way in which liberalism constructs its worldview that lends itself to managerialism, which forces it to see individuals as functional building blocks that can be moved and used to perform actions, which a managerial class could simply operate upon to fulfil a desired end goal.
	The most sinister expression of this inhuman view is found, in my opinion, in the term human resources.
	Humans as a resource.
	Humans as an interchangeable, fungible, spendable resource to be used and replaced as is convenient.
	Humans as a basic type, which can fill up the columns on a spreadsheet.
	Humans used to make the numbers balance.
	Humans as cogs in a machine.
	This is the underlying inhumanness that James Burnham was warning about in the managerial revolution.
	We are, whether we understand it or not, constantly allowing more and more concessions to a class of utilitarian managers over our daily lives, to the point where we don't actually understand why we shouldn't be doing this at all.
	At first it seemed eminently reasonable to allow a managerial class access to the data of our civilizations, but it's got to the point now where big data is the new frontier of the tech industry, with the aim of getting ever more granular information about people and how they operate in order to employ the nudge units to make them do as the managers desire.
	And we really are simply just governed by managers now.
	Almost all of our leaders or potential leaders are managers.
	Joe Biden's handlers, Rishi Sunak, Kierstana, the entire EU and all of its top brass, just managers.
	There is nothing that approaches leadership in any of these people.
	They are simply here to ensure that the managerial regime goes on as it did yesterday and to mitigate any crises that might arise.
	Leadership requires a commitment to a defined group of people for actions and purposes which are in their general interests and are often against the interests of other groups.
	The managerial class cannot think of themselves this way and so cannot truly be of a people.
	And since they aren't from a people, they can't bring themselves to care about their people.
	This variable simply returns a null result.
	It's not that they don't care about you, it's that they can't care about you.
	But something must fill the void.
	In the place of their nation, the system is what concerns the manager, and it is to the service of the system that all people must find themselves.
	This is the source of the bizarre NHS worship in Britain, and why the managerial class are completely in favour of unfettered mass immigration.
	They do not really conceive of people in three dimensions.
	They are looking merely at numbers and trying to make them balance.
	We need more young people in order to work and pay taxes so that old people will have a pension.
	Well, young people are essentially the same young people everywhere, so we can import them from anywhere and it becomes a satisfactory solution to the crisis of unpaid pensions.
	Viewed through this lens, it makes people like Trump and Farage all the more different from the establishment bureaucrats.
	They are from a place and they wear their cultural inheritance with pride.
	They speak to situated peoples and their dignity, their cultural possessions as a group, which belong in a place and to a type of person that has been gifted from ancestors to be preserved for descendants.
	They are leaders of their people and they politicize this being against the managerial regime.
	It's not a coincidence that the right-wing populists are all anti-immigration, because they perceive their people in three dimensions, whether consciously or not, and can see the damage that the unlimited mixing of foreigners amongst a settled people does to the metaphysical condition of the civilization.
	The numbers might well add up on the spreadsheets, but the psychic well-being of the culture is what is under attack, let alone the dignity of a people who feel forced to flee their own cities to live in a manner suitable to them because of the customs inherited from their ancestors.
	Managers, though, who only see human beings in one dimension, can't help but stigmatise this concern for the immaterial as bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and hatred because they don't understand it.
	Naturally, the populist concern springs from a love and care of what was inherited and a desire to pass that on to those who come after us, rather than give it away to peoples from other cultures who won't keep it safe and nurture it.
	To the managers, though, we are irrationally prejudiced against the needed human resources they can vampirically extract from other civilizations, a short-term solution which causes the long-term death of the thing they are ostensibly trying to serve.
	Their blind reduction of the strangest to merely human resources should raise alarms for the immigrant population itself.
	They don't care about you.
	They are just using you.
	To them, you, the immigrant, is merely a means to an end, and they are not shy about telling you this.
	We need immigrants to prop up the economy is a constant refrain.
	We need your servitude in order to maintain a level of prosperity to which the managerial class has become accustomed.
	Leaders understand that their fortunes wax and wane with the fortunes of their people.
	There are times when the collective story of a people is at a low ebb, and where there is widespread poverty and suffering, and others when their story is triumphant and overcoming.
	However, this embeddedness in the story of their own people is out of reach to the managers.
	They aren't of a place.
	They are above it, like a person playing a computer game with real lives.
	All of the ethnic conflict currently plaguing the West is merely an inconvenience to them, while on the ground it needlessly ruins life after life.
	From the human perspective, it should not be this way.
	Cultures, boundaries, customs should all be respected, but from the managerial perspective, the human perspective is bad for productivity.
	Think of the dramatic consequences your bigotry will have for the GDP.

▲