That the world is ethical is evidenced by man's increase in total awareness. That the world is becoming unethical is evidenced by the billions of people who are continuously increasing their and others' entropy by playing the Game of Pleasure.

Most of the nations of the world are unethical. That is to say in most nations most of the people are playing the Game of Pleasure more often than they are playing the Game of Life. However ethics are relative and no nation as yet seems to be immoral. Some nations such as Russia are becoming immoral because most of their leaders are immoral. These are the nations which deliberately suppress the freedom of their citizens. Only indecent, immoral men will do this. Similarly other nations such as the United States are becoming unethical through decent, immoral leaders who seek only to make their citizens happy and destroy their negative feedback. The latter case, however, creates a situation in which eventually indecent men replace the decent, immoral leaders. The etiology of these phenomena is the major subject of this chapter.

 

Good

The good in the world has its roots in the fact that throughout the ages some men have chosen to face reality and play the Game of Life in lieu of ideological security and insulation from negative feedback. All such men have been, in the broad sense, ethical.

Ethical men have increased total awareness directly through the scientific method which enabled mankind to predict and control his physical, biological and to a much lesser extent his psychosocial environment. Ethical men have also increased man's awareness indirectly through art by making man aware at the unconscious level of the evolutionary force driving him toward total awareness. No awareness seems possible in the total absence of scientific method and art.

Science has made man ethical by enabling him to predict and control the consequences of his actions. As man's ethical powers evolved, so did his power for good or evil. To increase man's power is always ethical. However, only men who use power to expand awareness are ethical. Men who use power to diminish awareness are unethical. The ethical men of the world are becoming unethical by deliberately abdicating their power to men who are already immoral.

 

Evil

The evil in the world has its roots in the fact that an ever-increasing number of persons are declining the challenge of the Game of Life in order to play the Game of Pleasure. This is clearly manifested in the actions of the principal decision-makers who directly guide the destiny of the human race. They have neither the desire nor the knowledge to expand man's total awareness. Their decisions are made without benefit of the purposes and methods of science, but are often implemented with the force of a captive and sometimes perverted science. The prime decision-makers, such as government officials, politicians, religious, labor and business leaders, professional educators, etc., are, in general, extremely ignorant of both science and art. Consequently, they are often immoral psychosocial specialists in the Game of Pleasure; they are experts in manipulating persons by catering to their most primitive emotions and desires for security.

This group of men is representative of pre-scientific authority which was assumed to know of what it spoke solely because of its authoritative position and because of the irrational force and/or ideology with which it supported its contentions. This community of influential decision makers and self-styled experts which reflects pre-scientific values and methods will be called the "Immoral Community." The Immoral Community controls almost every society in the world, as it usually has for thousands of years. Human progress occurs in spite of the Immoral Community, not because of it.

The special preserve of the Immoral Community is the psychosocial environment. The traditional "experts" of the Immoral Community vigorously resisted the onslaught of science in the physical environment until they were overwhelmed. In the biological environment they are still resisting, although ever more weakly after more than one hundred years of scientific progress. In the psychosocial environment the Immoral Community remains truculent, intransigent, and uncreative. Still they are effective in their destructive desire to control other persons by entropic means. They use the weaknesses of children and immoral men to maintain their power. They are experts in the psychosocial environment in the same way that an efficient killer is an expert in the biological environment.

Since the Immoral Community can no longer challenge the basic tenets of science, it defensively claims that the psychosocial environment is not amenable to the ordinary scientific approach because 1) it is too complex, and 2) it is not possible to make controlled experiments. This is false as will be shown later. However, the most insidious defense of the Immoral Community against science has been to have its "experts" assume a deceptive appearance of science while remaining largely unscientific. This is done by simply having a new rite of passage — imitative of the more trivial aspects of scientific preparation — called the "Ph.D." The rite of passage involves learning the currently accepted ideology of the social "sciences" and becoming proclaimed a "Doctor of Philosophy."

Once a person has gone through the rite of passage, although ignorant of mathematics, physical science and biology, he is proclaimed a "social scientist" and thereby an expert in the problems of the psychosocial environment. The reasoning seems to be that since they are largely incapable of dealing with the simpler aspects of the environment, social scientists must be experts in dealing with the more complex aspects. Such is the case with the overwhelming majority of psychologists, sociologists, political "scientists," doctors of education, Marxist theoreticians, and other theologians. In this way the Immoral Community attempts to obtain scientific respectability while remaining insulated from the methods of science. Ironically, this is not done maliciously or even deliberately by either the leaders or the "experts" of the Immoral Community. Instead it is the unconscious result of the "natural" entropic forces of ideology and bureaucratization. No person considers himself immoral. Persons only become immoral by refusing to play the Game of Life.

The power of the Immoral Community is ideologically based, but its members are not committed to any particular ideology. The Immoral Community can be fascistic, theocratic, communistic or democratic. The prime motivating force behind the Immoral Community is not ideology but a desire to control the destinies of other men. Ideology is only a means to an end. The Immoral Community seeks only power. Usually this is done for self-serving purposes as an end in itself. Such is the case of the professional politician. Sometimes it is done by apparently sincere, altruistic ideologues who feel that they have a monopoly of "truth" and will resort to any means in order that this "truth" may be propagated. Lenin was such a man. St. Paul and Mohammed were others.

The direct pursuit of power is a manifestation of the evolutionary force and as such is good. However, the direct pursuit of power over men, untempered by an at least equally strong desire for the expansion of man's total awareness, leads to a suppression of feedback and an increase in entropy. As such, it is an evil perversion of the basic innate drive in all men toward total awareness. It leads in time to the extinction of awareness. Only immoral men seek power without awareness.

Because of the entropic structure of the current world social order, it is inevitable that immoral men whose main desire is power will be the ones who obtain it, while moral men whose main motivation is the expansion of awareness remain relatively ineffectual in shaping the psychosocial environment. The entropy is augmented by the fact that at this time the vast majority of people, the masses, are children who are motivated primarily neither by power nor awareness, but by the direct pursuit of happiness. As such, they are Pavlovian pawns of the Immoral Community in the Game of Pleasure.

The Moral Community on the other hand lives mostly in contemptuous, smug isolation from both the Immoral Community and the masses. The Moral Community is thereby continuously turning inward and concentrating more and more on irrelevancies as it produces ever narrower, and as a consequence less ethical specialists who are increasingly ineffectual in the psychosocial environment. Because and only because segments of the Moral Community can, at times, serve the purposes of the Immoral Community, the latter cautiously but deliberately nurtures an ever-more willing Moral Community in a process of domestication. The Moral Community, therefore, while not exactly a pawn of the Immoral Community, has become not unlike a semi-tamed domestic animal that is useful but can still overcome its master. If the Immoral Community should succeed in completely domesticating the Moral Community, then man's awareness may be extinguished forever. In domesticating the Moral Community they will destroy the last vestige of feedback in the society. The destruction of feedback leads invariably to extinction for any organism. The elimination of feedback is the main function of bureaucracy.

 

Bureaucracy

An organization is a group of men tied together by some common goals and rules of behavior. A bureaucracy is an organization with a built-in mechanism for continuously reducing feedback. Therefore, all bureaucracies are organizations but not all organizations are bureaucracies. It seems inherent in human nature that man shall turn all his organizations into bureaucracies unless 1) some outside force prevents it or 2) he recognizes the phenomenon of bureaucratization and uses scientific method to prevent it deliberately. The former is accomplished mostly by competition from another organization; competing organizations provide unavoidable feedback to one another. The latter has never occurred but is essential for an Ethical State.

Organizations are transformed into bureaucracies by unethical behavior. An organization is a social system of collective decision-making with the de jure purpose of expanding awareness in some way. When its primary de facto purpose is the happiness and security of its members, the organization has become a bureaucracy. This leads to continuously diminishing negative feedback in the system so that the individual decision makers, whatever their position in the system, become insulated from having to face their own inadequacies and mistakes. The avoidance of all mistakes and the means for detecting any mistakes (negative feedback), even by the decision makers themselves, becomes the central goal for all bureaucracies. This may not be deliberate on the part of a bureaucrat but the result of decent immorality. A decent, well-intentioned bureaucrat can unconsciously cut-off all negative feedback. He may, for example, seek security in a common set of rigid rules and procedures of operation. A bureaucrat can always avoid responsibility for his mistakes by claiming he was following standard operational procedures. Bureaucracies, not organizations, exist only because some persons would rather be happy and secure than aware and/or effective. Bureaucracies create illusions of reality by diffusing responsibility and making the environment appear predictable.

Organizations are formed whenever a prime decision maker feels that the decisions that are his responsibility are beyond his ability to cope with because of their number and/or complexity. Organizations, therefore, have the ostensible purpose of enhancing the decision-making process in order that a prime decision maker can arrive at better decisions more quickly. In fact, organizations have inevitably become bureaucracies by becoming instruments for avoiding decisions until events force the decisions to be made in a context in which there are virtually no longer any alternatives save one. Bureaucracies, therefore, react to prime events instead of creating them.

A "prime event" is an occurrence novel in character that was not readily predictable from previous events. Hitler's taking power in Germany and then setting out on world conquest was a prime event. The Allies reacting to their threatened security, defending themselves and defeating Hitler was a secondary event implemented by bureaucracies when they no longer had a choice. The American Revolution was another prime event engendered by a few ethical men. England's reaction was a secondary event which failed. There is nothing inherent in prime events or secondary events that makes them good or evil. The evil in bureaucracy lies in the intrinsic corruption of the system which destroys feedback and transforms a decision-making society into an immoral decision-avoiding society which can only increase entropy.

"Bureaucratic corruption" does not necessarily mean "malfeasance" or bureaucrats taking bribes, although this of course sometimes occurs and may be a part of the overall pattern. "Bureaucratic corruption" is a process of diminishing feedback that increasingly puts more emphasis on the security, i.e., lack of unhappiness, of the bureaucrats than on the efficacy of their decisions. "Corruption" means that bureaucrats eventually destroy all forms of feedback in order to maintain their illusions of security. This is usually done in a passive way by avoiding all decisions that may produce negative feedback. The same process that destroys negative feedback eventually leads to the suppression of all feedback — until the bureaucracy is totally corrupt and immoral. This passive type of bureaucratic corruption merely means that the bureaucracy becomes incapable of generating prime events, good or evil. There is, however, also an active component to bureaucratic corruption.

Bureaucracies become actively, as opposed to passively, immoral when they are controlled by aggressive or power-seeking bureaucrats. These men take initiative in obtaining security by deliberately acquiring control of all means for detecting their mistakes, i.e., all means of feedback. Power-seeking bureaucrats will, whenever possible, suppress freedom as a means of suppressing feedback. They will also deliberately prevent others from taking initiative in performing any function with which their bureaucracy is entrusted. In this way power-seeking bureaucrats try to prevent all good prime events by producing nothing but evil, destructive secondary events. Power-seeking bureaucrats are therefore usually indecent and not merely immoral.

Power-seeking bureaucrats differ from the security-seeking bureaucrats, who are more likely to be decent but just as immoral, only in having more courage. Power-seeking bureaucrats are rare in most systems; they are found mainly in the political bureaucracies, such as the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States and the Communist Party in Russia. In political bureaucracies most, not all, of the leading bureaucrats appear to be power-seeking. In contrast to the aggressive bureaucrats, most bureaucrats seem much more desirous of passive security than they are of active security — i.e., power. They become willing tools of the power-seeking bureaucrats.

The net effect of bureaucratic corruption is that organizations become instruments for hindering progress instead of enhancing it. When prime events of an evil nature occur, even well-intentioned bureaucracies often cannot react in a positive way to counter them. This is particularly true of events that have long-range effects, such as environmental pollution, genetic decay, cultural decliner and so on. In this case, the bureaucrats are not immediately threatened by these events and do nothing about them, since to do so might expose them to negative feedback and diminish their illusions of security. In the case of environmental pollution, this procrastination may prove catastrophic. Furthermore, the leadership in the upper echelons of any bureaucracy eventually goes through a selective process that sifts out the most ethical persons and allows only the most innocuous mediocrities or power-seeking bureaucrats to survive. These latter persons rarely can perceive their responsibilities, let alone execute them. Moral persons will not deliberately associate themselves with a bureaucracy. Ethical children will inevitably be turned into immoral men by bureaucracies.

This corrupt system of decision making is ubiquitous. It is the dominant feature of government, politics, business, religion, and education in every country. It is a natural manifestation of man's desire to be happy and secure. Bureaucracy is, therefore, an evolutionary analogue of specialization. It exists least in situations where there is good feedback. Feedback is the implacable enemy of bureaucracy.

Feedback is a system for checking the efficacy of one's actions, including the avoidance of action. It is the foundation of science and is anathema to a bureaucracy. In order for good feedback to exist, it is necessary for alternative decisions, which can be evaluated scientifically, to exist. It is not enough to show that a decision had the predicted results in order to prove that it was good. It is necessary to show that it was better than any proposed alternative. This can only be done when there is personal freedom and competition. For this reason, bureaucracies will restrict freedom and resist competition against which they can be evaluated. In order for feedback to be effective, however, it is essential that a Darwinian-type of natural selection occur in order that systems which produce good decisions multiply and systems which produce poor decisions perish. Immoral men thrive in the absence of feedback and perish in its presence.

In conclusion, "bureaucratization" is an unethical process by which an organization's decision-making potential is gradually deprived of feedback through the formation of bureaucracies. Through internal corruption, the bureaucracies become self-serving and increasingly ineffectual in making decisions until they are utterly corrupt and immoral. Bureaucratization is independent of any particular ideology, but it becomes most pernicious when it is ideologically based.

 

Ideology

We recall from Chapter 1 that 1) an ideological belief is a belief in a cause and effect relationship that is not based on scientific evidence; and 2) an ideology is an organized set of interdependent ideological beliefs. Ideologies are intrinsically neither true nor false. They are merely unscientific. They may also be logically inconsistent. Ideologies are evil because they impede the expansion of awareness. Unlike true scientists, ideologues rarely doubt their "models." Usually, the less proof they have for their ideology, the more vigorously they will defend it. It is hard to learn when one has no doubts. Ideologies are, therefore, always unethical and they can make any person immoral.

Ideology is a theory which is not tested scientifically. It is ethical to theorize; but it is unethical to accept an untested theory as true. Ideologues do not correct their mistakes. All ideology is a deliberate form of self-deception that man imposes upon himself to create the illusion that he is aware when he is not. Ideology in general and religion in particular have their roots in fear — fear of the unknown, the unpredictable, the uncontrollable.

Ideologies range from the rather simple to the exceedingly complex. Democracy (liberalism) is the simple ideology that freedom will automatically make persons happy and secure while enabling them to build a progressive culture. Catholic ideology is much more complex and includes abstruse notions about the nature of God, "natural law," the infallibility of the Pope, and other myths. The most complex ideology is that of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Communism, etc. This fragmented and contradictory ideology will be called collectively, "Communism." Communism claims to have discovered "scientific" deterministic laws about historical development and the nature of man. (Recall that in science only probabilities exist; no model of nature is ever beyond question.) The fact that these "laws" have proved very poor predictors of events in the past one hundred years does not seem to trouble the Communist ideologues.

The religious ideologies that have shaped so much of human history are, as a result of the greater effectiveness of science, everywhere on the decline. They are playing an ever decreasing role in the making of important decisions and are now mainly concerned with the "spiritual" part of man's life. However, more will be said of religion later. The major ideological split today is along the Left-Right continuum.

 

Of Right and Left

In the United States the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are often incorrectly used to denote rightist and leftist views respectively. Both types of descriptors exist on a continuum. Hitler was a rightist, but he was not conservative. Stalin was a leftist, but he was not liberal. Only the terms "rightist" and "leftist" will be used as ideological indicators in this context.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are not ideological indicators. An extreme liberal is a person willing to tolerate any change. An extreme conservative is a person unwilling to tolerate any change. When ideologues of any persuasion acquire power, they become increasingly conservative. When they have no power, they are liberal to the point of being revolutionary.

An extreme leftist is someone who believes that the behavioral differences between persons are totally a product of their environment and that heredity plays no differential role in shaping what they become. An extreme rightist believes that environmental differences are unimportant and that only heredity, not environment, shapes people's behavior. There do not appear to be any persons at the boundary of the Extreme Right. But there are some people at the boundary of the Extreme Left. Most people fall somewhere along the continuum between the boundaries in a distribution that is being continuously skewed to the left. The question of where on the Left-Right continuum the range of truth lies, under what circumstances, is a purely scientific problem that can be readily solved by science and technology. For example, a controlled experiment could be done among young orphaned children to see if the range of environmental differences in a country produced significant differences in the total awareness the children achieved as they matured. The reason that it has not been adequately solved is because the Immoral Community has no wish to solve it. Yet at the heart of today's most divisive ideologies is an assumption that the "truth" is at one end or the other of the continuum.

A rightist ideology is, therefore, one based implicitly or explicitly on the ideological belief that the "truth" lies somewhere right of center. A leftist ideology is the converse of a rightist ideology. The basic rightist or leftist assumption is so basic to the respective ideologies that if the hypothesis of the extreme left is proven correct, then any rightist ideology will totally collapse. The same applies to a leftist ideology if the extreme rightist hypothesis is proven correct. Ideologues of both the Right and Left are often unaware that at the center of their ideology is an ideological belief about heredity and environment.

 

Etiology of the Left

The last significant rightist ideological movement was that of Nazi Germany which assumed that "Aryans" (a misuse of a linguistic term) were innately, uniformly "superior" to all other "races" (a misuse of "race"). The Nazi ideology was arbitrary and illogical. It had no scientific basis as to what constituted "race" or "superiority" let alone how one could measure differences. The fact that the Nazis were so savagely cruel and irrational and that they were totally defeated by the combined forces of the Left has made it inevitable that almost all decent humane persons in the world would become leftists with strong antipathies toward rightist ideologies. This, of course, has nothing to do with where on the continuum the truth lies.

The leftist bias in ideology is reinforced by the fact that most of the better educated persons in all the advanced countries are leftists while the rightists are usually less educated and have a penchant for fundamentalist religious beliefs and brutality. In the United States most university professors are leftists while most fundamentalist preachers and Ku Klux Klan members are rightists. The overwhelming majority of the members of the Immoral Community in all civilized countries are also leftists, though there are also Immoral Community rightists in every country awaiting their chance for power (viz. the current military dictatorships in Greece and Brazil).

The ideological differences in the Moral Community show a curious split. Engineers, particularly civil and mechanical engineers, seem to have a tendency to be rightists. Biologists and experimental scientists in general apparently tend to cluster near the center of the continuum with a slight leftward bias. Mathematicians, theoretical scientists and the social scientists seem well to the left. Artists may be anywhere on the continuum. What all this implies is that the ideologies of Left and Right are relatively impervious to logic and scientific evidence. The leftward bias of world opinion seems to occur as follows.

Most educated people are aware of the opinions and theories of the behavioral "scientists." They assume that like most scientists, the behavioral "scientists" can predict and control events within the environment in which they are alleged experts. So they accept their theories which are mostly those of the Extreme Left and which have little or no scientific basis. The behavioral "scientists" have a vested interest in supporting leftist ideology because it helps justify their existence. If all behavior were determined by heredity (which it clearly is not), there would be little need for behavioral science. However, if all behavior were determined solely by environment, then behavioral science is all important.

The more theoretically-inclined members of the Moral Community are usually those of a more intellectual bent and are (1) more likely to be well read and familiar with behavioral science theories and (2) more inclined to accept plausible coherent theories as true in the absence of experimental evidence. Engineers as a group seem to have a rather mechanistic, pragmatic view of the world, are usually totally ignorant of the behavioral sciences, and are unsympathetic to theoretical arguments. To them, things are the way they work. The uneducated masses apparently have a similar attitude. It seems that man is instinctively a rightist. Experimental scientists usually assume that in a case when there is no experimental evidence, both sides of a question are just as likely to be correct. Therefore, they are mainly middle-roaders because they are not familiar with the evidence. Most geneticists are moderate rightists in a rather sophisticated way. They assume from past experience that although a phenotype may be determined primarily by genetics, environmental effects can cause dramatic alterations of the phenotype. Artists are basically non-analytic and formulate their ideologies entirely on the basis of taste; therefore, they may be anywhere on the continuum.

 

Etiology of the Right

Rightist ideologues occur as a consequence of privilege. Privileged persons in an attempt to justify their special status to themselves will sometimes assume that their position is due to some innate superiority on their part vis-à-vis their less fortunate brethren. The privileged person need only be slightly privileged relative to someone else in order to adopt a rightist ideology (e.g., the poor Whites in the Southern United States).

An impediment to rightist ideology is the leftist ideology of the social "scientists." Humane, sensitive and privileged persons who are familiar with and believe the leftist ideology often will develop guilt about their special status. They will accordingly attempt to compensate for their feelings of guilt by supporting leftist causes and engaging in charitable enterprises that benefit less privileged persons. They may become the most militant of leftist ideologues. Leftists may more often than rightists, appear to be decent persons because they express concern for the welfare of others.

The rightist ideologues, therefore, tend to be the less educated and/ or less sensitive persons with a relatively privileged position. For this reason, as will be shown in the following paragraphs, rightist ideologues tend to be conservative and have a penchant for fundamentalist religion and brutality. Non-ideological rightists on the other hand, are not any more likely to have these characteristics than are the leftists.

In an established democracy fundamentalist religion is a supporter of the established order. The clergy obtains privilege, independent of merit, and it in turn supports the privilege of those who support it. Some clergy (e.g. the White Southern Baptists in the United States) go so far as to invoke divine sanction for the privileges of their adherents.

Because the rightist ideologues are as a group rather insensitive to the sufferings of others, they find it easy to justify brutalizing their leftist opponents. The Leftists are regarded as either innately inferior themselves or diabolical revolutionaries intent on upsetting the "natural" order of things by taking privilege away from those who deserve it and giving it to innately inferior, i.e., subhuman, beings. In most countries the military and the police consist primarily of rightists while teachers and social workers are primarily leftists.

In Communist countries where all privilege is vested in the bureaucrats who support the leftist ideology, the leftist ideologues acquire most of the conservative and brutalizing characteristics of the rightist ideologues in the democracies. In Communist countries the rightists are revolutionaries whom the established order brutally suppresses.

 

Evidence

Both the ideologies of the Right and the Left are, therefore, equally unscientific but not equally illogical. The fact that Leftist ideology is more logically coherent than rightist ideology has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the leftist hypothesis. Indeed, insofar as scientific evidence exists, the indications are that some important (important being the converse of "trivial" means significantly affecting awareness positively or negatively) differences in behavior within a given culture are primarily determined by heredity. This applies particularly to intelligence.

Intelligence was defined as the ability to predict and control the total environment. As such, it is completely subsumed within the notion of "awareness." There are no objective, coherent measures of this characteristic. The measures that do exist are the so-called "mental aptitude" or "I.Q. tests." These tests measure some aspects of a person's ability to predict and control within a particular cultural context. I.Q. tests almost completely neglect such important intellectual factors as Imagination, important Information and force of Will. I.Q. tests crudely measure Logic and Memory. One would expect I.Q. scores to be somewhat correlated, not perfectly, with "true" intelligence scores if the latter existed. In spite of all these deficiencies, I.Q. scores are good predictors of performance in school, particularly at the elementary levels. They are also correlated with income, health, social status, and other factors indicative of a person's ability to predict and control his total environment.

Arthur Jensen, a scientifically-inclined educator, has gathered considerable scientific evidence to support the proposition (i.e., elementary scientific model) that the I.Q. of persons living in the more advanced societies of the West has a heritability factor of at least .80. A heritability factor of 1.0 would indicate that environmental differences as currently constituted within these countries had no effect on I.Q. scores.

Other scientific studies and the whole field of behavioral genetics tend to support the proposition that intelligence has, within an advanced, modern, democratic culture, a large hereditary component. This does not mean that drastic environmental factors cannot have drastic effects on behavior. What it means is that the environmental differences between most people in western countries are not as significant in their important effects as are the genetic differences.

A position on the Left-Right continuum can have a scientific as opposed to an ideological basis. A leftist can be non-ideological if his position is based on scientific experiments that support the leftist hypothesis. The same applies to rightists. A careful analysis of all the scientific evidence at this time gives overwhelming support to the rightist hypothesis.

The evidence supporting the rightist hypothesis as it exists now, although significant, is not conclusive since it only explains the past in a scientifically consistent manner. It implies the need for controlled predictive scientific experiments. The ideologues of the Left are not even willing to consider these experiments. They have already made up their minds in the absence of scientific evidence. They have no doubts. Additional scientific evidence from controlled experiments on the naturenurture problem might move one either farther to the Right or toward the Left, but probably not to any of the extreme boundaries.

What both the rightists and the leftists ignore is that the most important aspect of behavior is ethics, not intelligence. Both the rightists and the leftists in their respective zeal to proclaim that there are or that there are not significant genetically-based intellectual differences between human groups distort the real issue, which is ethical behavior. It is self-evident that all human beings are born ethical because all human beings increase their awareness as children. The important question is what is it that causes so many of our fellow men to stop increasing their awareness and to become unethical. This phenomenon may have a genetic basis, but it seems much more likely to be a result of an unethical culture than of genes.

The innate intelligence of a person determines how much he can expand his knowledge within the cultural context in which he lives. However, it is his ethics that determines his total awareness. It is ethics that determines whether a person expands human awareness or decreases it. An ethical person, no matter how low his intelligence, will contribute to human progress. An unethical person, no matter how great his intelligence, will serve only to increase entropy. Indeed, the more intelligent an immoral person is, the greater will be the increase in entropy that he produces.

For this reason, it is more important that we find a way to keep children ethical and turn them into moral men than to show that intellectual differences are primarily hereditary. Still, the evidence that human intelligence is in large part a hereditary phenomenon and not purely an environmental accident has serious implications.

 

Implications

Most of the persons who could significantly help expand man's total awareness are leftists. The dominant position of the apparently incorrect leftist ideology in all major countries is a serious impediment to the establishment of an Ethical State. It is one of the root causes of the immorality in the world. This is the case because a concomitant of leftist ideology is the belief that the happiness of persons is more important than the awareness of the entire human race. If the ideology of the extreme Left is proven false, then a eugenics program is essential to expand man's total awareness. This is the case even if the truth is left of center, but not on the left boundary. If there is any genetic basis to intelligence, then eugenics is essential to reduce entropy. Eugenics in this case is ethical and dysgenic policies are unethical. Deliberately to refuse to increase the genetic quality of the human race is immoral.

Eugenics is essential because spontaneous mutations among the human gene pool cannot be stopped by any foreseeable technology. Since almost all mutations are deleterious, the absence of some form of natural selection in the form of eugenics would lead to a steadily decreasing intellectual potential in the human race until progress would no longer be possible. It is a law of genetics that any gene not selected against eventually spreads to every member of an interbreeding species.

Unfortunately, eugenics and the entire ideology of Right and Left are so heavily laden with emotion that even the most intelligent persons, who can be completely scientific in their work and many other aspects of their life, find themselves irrationally committed to leftist ideology. The ideologues of the Right, by their crudity, brutality and ignorance, make even the consideration of a rightist hypothesis abhorrent. Of all the evil that Hitler did, the most disastrous may be not the killing of millions, but the condemning of billions by making it impossible for so many ethical persons to discuss eugenics with an open mind.

If man cannot deal objectively and scientifically with the problems of Right and Left, he will never be able to expand his total awareness continuously. His ideology will make all sociopolitical problems insoluble. The entropy will increase without limit. Ideologues are usually unethical, but not always indecent. Rightist ideologues are almost never decent. Leftist ideologues may be decent, but they are in the end just as destructive as the rightist ideologues. When leftist ideologues achieve a monopoly of power as in Russia, they become indecent.

The major differences between the Communist countries and the democracies is not one of fundamental ideological belief. The Immoral Community in both systems is predominantly leftist. The major differences are those of tactics and the fact that the political bureaucracies feel threatened by tactics radically different from the ones they are following. The democracies are fully committed to the diminishing effectiveness of feedback through the democratic process. The Communists are committed to a rigid totalitarian formula of development which, while not totally illogical, is unscientific and has very poor feedback. It seems to be producing an immoral society.

The Communist political bureaucracies have committed unspeakable atrocities in the past and are still imposing unnecessary hardships on their people all in the name of ideology. If they admit that they have been wrong, they may find it impossible to control their subjects. As in every other ideological totalitarian state of the past, the political bureaucracy in the Communist countries has almost completely lost sight of its original objectives and is concerned mainly with perpetuating itself. It is probably totally immoral. However, before discussing the democratic and Communist states in greater detail, an analysis of religious ideology is in order.

 

Religion

Religion, like all ideology, results from man's innate need to be aware. Religion is the most evil form of ideology because it quickly causes man to become complacent in his illusions and eventually to completely stop expanding his awareness. Religion invariably makes men immoral. Religion differs from all other ideology by stressing cause and effect relationships concerning man's "soul."

The purveyors of religion have never precisely defined the soul. Man perceived intuitively at the unconscious level that he had a soul because he perceived directly that he had a mind, (Cogito, ergo sum). Indeed, an analysis of religious writings on the soul would show that the concept of "soul" was no more than the concept of mind tied to supernatural cause and effect relationships. Mind is an indisputable reality. The supernatural cause and effect relationships are ideological beliefs devoid of any scientific evidence. Therefore, the concept of "soul" cannot be logically or scientifically shown to necessitate more elaboration than the concept of mind. The mind being an effect of life is mortal just as life is mortal (see chapters 2 and 3). Therefore, the soul must also be mortal. Since our souls are identical to our minds, they die with our bodies.

No matter how unaware man has been in the past, he has always known that he had a soul, for he perceived it directly. As fundamental as man's need for security is his need for awareness. Man has an innate need to predict and control his total environment. The evolutionary force driving man toward the Moral Society has always created in him a need to be a part of something greater than himself. He could not tolerate the thought of his own finiteness. He could not tolerate the thought of not being able to predict or control the activities of his soul beyond the lifetime of his body.

It was this need which man could not understand or control that became the focus of most religions. Religion met the need to create the Moral Society with the ideological belief that the soul was immortal. Around this belief grew an ideology that embraced all aspects of the environment. Like any ideology it began to crumble when overwhelming scientific evidence began to contradict the underlying dogma in its structure. However, the unconscious need to create the Moral Society is so strong in man that, in the absence of any satisfactory alternatives, he tried desperately to cling to religion even as it crumbled all around him. Only religion seemed to give true meaning and purpose to life. When men lost their religion, only those who were directly involved in the expansion of awareness seemed to find satisfaction in life. The others abandoned themselves to a frustrating, suicidal pursuit of happiness without meaning. Religion, therefore, fills a basic and important need in man. Any society that ignores this need is doomed to failure. In order to understand better the nature of man's religious needs, it is useful to examine religion in its evolutionary context.

 

The Evolution of Religion

As was discussed in Chapter 2, religion is the evolutionary analogue of pre-human awareness. Therefore, religion can only increase awareness by being mutated into new religions. New religions are formed in an ethical attempt to create a new, coherent, general model of the universe when the models represented by the existing religions are found to be inadequate. The creators of religion are, therefore, usually moral men who have a sincere ethical desire to increase man's total awareness. Religions become immoral when they become bureaucratized. Since religions are unscientific organizations, they inevitably become bureaucratized. Once a religion is bureaucratized, it can no longer evolve because it deprives itself of feedback until entropy destroys it. This usually occurs by forcible or voluntary conversion of its adherents to another religion that is more vigorous and/or progressive. In the process of becoming bureaucratized, religions suppress freedom and destroy awareness for all humanity. However, bureaucratization is not an instantaneous process and as long as religions remain at least partially ethical they are not an absolute impediment to increasing the awareness of humanity. Therefore, new religions are usually associated with progressive societies and old religions are associated with decaying societies. An exception to this rule is Judaism.

 

Judaism

Judaism occupies a unique place within the pantheon of established religions because by a series of historical accidents Judaism acquired an internal structure which provided continuous feedback and inhibited bureaucratization. First of all, Judaism was as its inception a radical mutation completely different from all religions that had existed previously. Because of a multitude of reasons, some conjectured and some unknown, Moses developed a unique concept of a single, all-powerful god. He viewed God as an abstract force that could not be represented by visual imagery. God was seen to be the ubiquitous author of universal laws with which there was no compromise. The Jewish concept of "God" was almost identical to the scientific concept of "cosmic force." The only difference lay in the Jewish notion that God was individually aware and purposeful as opposed to the notion of the mindless, random cosmic force. Judaism, therefore, represented an enormous leap in ethical development. The Ten Commandments were a totally rational code of ethics compatible with the evolutionary force. However, Judaism began to become bureaucratized as do all religions.

First the basic ethical code of the Ten Commandments was corrupted by other rules of conduct that were not ends in themselves but solely means to ends. The ultimate ends such as good health and social cohesiveness were perfectly ethical; however, as is always the case, the means became the ends and Judaism became burdened with an ever increasing load of superstition and compulsive, irrational behavior plus an entrenched priestly class that represented the religious bureaucracy. Then another accident occurred.

When the Jews were conquered by the Babylonians and deported to Babylon, the religious bureaucracy was destroyed. However, the ethical principles of Judaism had still not been so corrupted that they were not vastly superior to the ethical system of the Babylonians' primitive worship of Baal. The Jews were then faced with a much stronger foe who was their obvious ethical inferior. It was at this time, while in Babylonian captivity, that Judaism was re-mutated and took its special form of a completely abstract ethical religion independent of geography and nationhood.

This new type of Judaism acquired tremendous vigor and resiliency when the Jews were repatriated to their homeland fifty years later, after the Persian conquest of the Babylonian Empire. (Note that the Persians at this time had recently adopted Zoroastrianism as the new official religion. Zoroastrianism was almost on the same ethical plane as Judaism, but it became bureaucratized.) The cultural shock of being the captives of an intellectually superior but ethically inferior civilization had tempered Judaism into a powerful world force. After the Babylonian captivity, the new Jewish vigor began to decline under the new priestly bureaucracy and the intellectual challenge posed by the most amazing intellectual force in history, classical Greece.

As Judaism was being corrupted by the new religious bureaucracy, the Jews began to become Hellenized under the overwhelming force of Greek intellectual expansion that followed Alexander's conquests. The Jews successfully resisted Hellenization by force, but were slowly being assimilated intellectually when Rome conquered Judea.

Under the Romans occurred the final mutation that was to shape Judaism as a unique vital force in human history.

The hybridization of Greek philosophy and religion with Judaism produced Christianity. Christianity would probably have completely replaced the ever more bureaucratized Judaism of Palestine except that as Christianity was being born the Jewish nation was destroyed by Rome, not to be revived for two thousand years. The destruction of the Jewish nation destroyed the Jewish religious bureaucracy and made Judaism a family-centered religion without a priestly caste. Because the family is the fountainhead of morality, Judaism has been able to maintain its ethical structure. As a minority religion Judaism could not avoid negative feedback. As an ethical religion, Judaism was self-selecting. Only the highly ethical Gentiles would convert, and only the highly unethical Jews would convert to the competing religions in order to obtain material gain and security.

The Rabbis were teachers and interpreters voluntarily supported by each Jewish community. They had no priestly powers and were not assumed to speak for God. Rabbis had to convince by logic and not by authority. There was no bureaucracy.

It was at this time, from about l00 to 500 A.D., that the Talmud (Babylonian and Palestinian) was written. The Talmud was a highly democratic document filled with thousands of conflicting opinions on Jewish law, but almost totally devoid of ideology because there were no priests. Talmudic analysis continued for many centuries after its completion and had its ultimate expression with Maimonides (twelfth century A.D.), who revised the Talmud and tried to make it completely compatible with Aristotelian logic and scientific knowledge. Maimonides was a great generalist with deep knowledge of the physical, biological and psychosocial environment. Although Maimonides' radical teachings were not to become an integral part of Judaism for hundreds of years, they were eventually assimilated and they have had their influence on all the Jewish philosophers who followed, most notably on Baruch de Spinoza (seventeenth century A.D.).

Spinoza is the ultimate Jewish philosopher. In Spinoza Judaism reached its logical conclusion by becoming totally abstract and depersonalizing God into the cosmic force. The philosophy of Spinoza is devoid of ideology and attempts to prove everything deductively from axioms and scientific laws. Spinoza's philosophy is a logical failure that was ethically successful. It freed ethical behavior from supernatural imperatives. Like Maimonides, Spinoza was not readily acceptable to the Jews because he was extremely radical. Indeed, he was so much more radical than Maimonides that Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jewish community and is still considered an apostate by the orthodox. However, Spinoza laid the philosophical basis for Reform Judaism and the Reform Jews have almost completely incorporated the ethical teachings of Spinoza. Most of the Jews in the world today are de facto Reform or agnostics.

The evolution of Judaism is, therefore, clearly in the direction taken by Spinoza — a scientific, non-ideological concept of ethics devoid of the notion of an anthropomorphic God. The ultimate form of Jewish ethics is compatible with the Game of Life. Indeed, the Game of Life is implied by Spinoza's ethics.

In spite of its ethical superiority, Judaism as a culture has not been as directly responsible for human progress as have other religious cultures. Although in recent years many individual Jews have contributed disproportionately to progress, the Jews throughout history have been more the catalysts of progress rather than the direct causes. Indeed, from a historical point of view, the main contribution of the Jews during the last two thousand years has been to create other religions that have directly influenced human history, most notable among these being Christianity, Islam and Communism. These are all Jewish creations that have shaped the world we live in. Communism is regarded as religion because it is a coherent model of the universe which has an ideological, as opposed to a scientific, basis and assumes the soul to be an effect of matter. If Judaism is regarded as being on the main path of psychosocial evolution, then Christianity, Islam and Communism are slight mutations which went their own way but may rejoin the mainstream of human evolution.

 

Christianity

In evolutionary terms Christianity is to Judaism as Neanderthal man was to the mainstream of hominization. Catholicism is the analogue of the European Neanderthal who over-specialized and became extinct. Protestantism is the analogue of the non-European Neanderthal who seems to have been reabsorbed into the mainstream of evolution before he became too specialized.

Christianity was ethically inferior to Judaism but it had one essential ingredient that Judaism lacked. It made each person feel that he was an integral part of a greater whole as opposed to being merely an obedient servant of an omnipotent despotic God. This notion also existed within Judaism but not to the same extent. The Christian believed in the union of all souls within the mystic body of Christ. This belief was probably an ideological expression of man's unconscious awareness of the possibility of his ultimate union in the Moral Society.

When Protestantism began, after over one thousand years of bureaucratic corruption within the Catholic Church, Christianity became revitalized because feedback was introduced into the system. The Protestant sects were the least bureaucratized and accordingly the great post-Reformation contributors to human progress were disproportionately Protestants, e.g., Shakespeare, Newton, Leibniz, Bach, Goethe, Gauss, Darwin, etc. However, the Catholic church itself was revitalized by the newly established feedback of the Reformation. This expressed itself most notably in the Jesuit order of the Counter Reformation.

The Jesuits were for a time one of the most potent forces in the world for expanding human awareness. Even today the Jesuits provide education to millions of students the world over. Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit priest.

Because the Reformation produced the secular state, competitive Christianity and its consequent feedback have been maintained in most of the formerly purely Catholic countries. Therefore, Christianity has continued to evolve. Protestantism as represented by Unitarianism has indeed evolved to the same ethical state as Reform Judaism. Unitarianism is Reform Judaism without Jewish tradition. As such it is more ethical because it is more inclusive.

Catholicism has evolved much more slowly than Protestantism because it is still highly bureaucratized. However, the ecumenicism of Pope John XXIII together with the progressiveness of the Jesuits portends hope that eventually Catholicism, Protestantism, and Judaism will abandon ideology and unite with all men in an Ethical State.

Not all religions have shown the evolutionary vigor of Judaism and Christianity. Islam is almost totally corrupt and Communism is reaching the same state. These may represent deleterious, indeed lethal, mutations of Judaism. The religions that have not mutated from Judaism, including Buddhism, appear to be evolutionary dead-ends not likely to have any further effect on human evolution. Only Communism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in that order of importance are still likely to have a significant historical effect. Islam's effect is likely to be entirely negative as discussed in Chapter 5.

 

Islam

Islam is almost identical in concept to seventh century Judaism. The major difference is in 1) the relative emphasis on the immortality of the male soul (women are assumed to have no souls); 2) a totally hedonistic sensual view of the sours' afterlife; and 3) a non-analytic, literal approach to the interpretation of the scriptures. Islam also gave a peculiar twist to the absolutist concept of Jewish ethics. Islam had the notion of relative ethics and equity as opposed to rigid law.

Islam started with a tremendous advantage over other religions in that it did not have a priestly bureaucracy. All male Muslims were assumed to be equal. However, Islam became bureaucratized in other ways. It was primarily a political religion used to unify what was to be a single, all-encompassing empire. The bureaucratization of Islam was, therefore, inextricably interwoven with the decay of the Arabian and Ottoman Empires and it will be discussed later in that context. Communism (Marxism) has much in common with Islam in that it is primarily a political religion.

 

Marxism

Marx was born a Jew; while still a child, he was baptized; and as a man became an atheist. He attempted to formulate a coherent model of the universe that was consistent with mid-nineteenth century science and Judeo-Christian ethics. Marxism was, therefore, a synthesis of Judaism, Christianity and science. Systematic science itself was a logical outgrowth of Judeo-Christian philosophy, which saw the universe ordered by immutable natural laws emanating from a single source, God. The laws had to be logical and consistent because God, as the supreme intellect, had to be logical and consistent.

The fact that Marx did not derive a superior system of ethics was due primarily to his ignorance. He was essentially a scientific illiterate. Furthermore, mid-nineteenth century science was still Newtonian and deterministic. The psychosocial sciences were primitive and Marx tried to create them almost from scratch. He formulated his theories in the absence of feedback and his followers, most notably Lenin, turned them into the rigid, unscientific ideology of Communism. Still, Communism was to become the most significant religious mutation since the Reformation. It replaced traditional religion for millions of people.

Communism had the essential ingredient of making one's life a part of a greater whole. It had the flavor of religion, but the appearance of science. It almost worked. Bureaucratic corruption soon disillusioned any who lived under it. Its success in providing greater security made it defeat its own purposes because it had no goal beyond security. The Communists have failed to learn a lesson from the democracies which already have greater security than they are ever likely to achieve. Yet the democracies are already in a state of decline. Man vitally needs a goal beyond security and happiness.

Communism played the Game of Pleasure. Science was seen only as a means of making men happy. Communism became unethical because it had no objective beyond making men happy. In the process it increased entropy and began to make all ethical persons who lived under it miserable by destroying all negative feedback.

Communism is a religious state as was Islam and the Medieval Church. The religious states of the past have two lessons to teach us. The first is that ideologically-based totalitarianism knows no limits of corruption and can completely stop the expansion of awareness until a totally immoral society results. The second is that a state dedicated to reaching a goal beyond men's personal lives can unite men as no other cause can.

 

Religious States

All religious states of the past were totalitarian. A totalitarian form of government is a centralized government in which any means are justified if they "advance" the ideology or the wishes of the leaders. This results from the belief that the leaders have a monopoly on truth and that rival opinions are always in error. Science is incompatible with totalitarianism. As in all political systems, however, the ideological basis of the state was no match for the process of bureaucratization which led to complete corruption of the system and its eventual downfall.

The bureaucratization of the Catholic totalitarian state ended in total decay. This caused the Reformation. The resulting states had "competitive Christianity." This reintroduced feedback and revitalized the former Catholic states.

The predominantly Protestant states acquired a new ethical code, "The Protestant Ethic," which was in harmony with the rules of the Game of Life. They, as a consequence, became the most progressive countries in Europe. The nations that remained predominantly Catholic had formerly been the most progressive European nations. After the Reformation they began a decline relative to the Protestant states. This decline is still continuing. It manifests itself most in Spain and Portugal where Catholic ideology has been firmly implanted in most of the population. It manifests itself least in France where a large number of Protestants and agnostics co-exist within a basically Catholic State. Italy, which was the most advanced country in Europe prior to the Reformation, seems to have avoided sinking to the same level as Spain and Portugal by a peculiarly Italian characteristic of accepting the Catholic religion while not taking it seriously. Italy was helped by its own cynicism.

The leaders of most post-Reformation nations, however, tended to eschew controversial religious ideology as a means of uniting their people in favor of a new, more parochial ideology called "nationalism." This type of ideology had its culmination in Nazi Germany.

The great ideological rival of the Catholic Church was the ideological totalitarian state of Islam. It underwent the same bureaucratic decline as the Catholic Church, but had no comparable cleansing reformation with which to reestablish feedback in the system. Islam simply decayed and fell to pieces. The pieces themselves are now so entropic that neither nationalism nor even a Communist revolution seem likely to revitalize them. Islam has apparently reached irreversible entropy.

The decline of Islam shows what can happen to a once vital people. The Arabs, from about the ninth to the fourteenth century represented the vanguard of human civilization. They carried the torch that had been ignited in Greece. They were in the forefront in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and many of the arts. In a few hundred years they made great inroads into the rival empire of the already decaying Catholic Church. But bureaucratic corruption set in. The religion supported by a monolithic political bureaucracy deluded the people into thinking that it answered all important questions. The expansion of awareness stopped.

The only part of the Catholic totalitarian state that survived the Reformation intact was Iberia (Spain and Portugal). Perhaps because of its centuries-long life-and-death struggle with Islam, the Catholic totalitarian state reached its most pernicious level of corruption in Iberia. Iberia's decline, which closely parallels and is intimately involved with that of the Arabs, began when the bureaucracy of the Catholic Church obtained a monopolistic position by forcibly converting, expelling, and/or killing the rival Moslems and Jews. Up to that time, the feedback from three competing ideological bureaucracies had made Iberia the most vital region in the world and among the most culturally advanced.

The momentum of vitality that had been built up in Iberia prior to the start of its decline enabled it in only fifty years to build the most far-flung empire the world had ever seen. But it was an empire whose corruption had begun at its birth. It began to decay as it grew. That decay is still going on today. Iberia and some of the remnants of its empire are the only remaining Catholic totalitarian states. Their decline and entropy are almost as great as that of Islam. Only the feedback that they have obtained from a peripheral association with the mainstream of European civilization has enabled them to avoid sinking to the same level as Islam. Iberian art remained the only means for intellectual expression in a basically anti-analytic culture. Artistic expression was partially stimulated by association with the progressive culture of France. A revolution of reason against the immoral and homosexual society of the Catholic Church might still save Iberia from continuing entropic decline.

In the end, both Catholicism and Islam became immoral societies because the religious bureaucracies insisted that they had a monopoly of all important truth and women were totally excluded from the decision-making process. They produced a rigid, anti-analytic, destructive culture. Through coercion and control of the educational system they were able to instill their ideologies in the vast majority of the population, thereby depriving the people of feedback, destroying their vitality, and stopping the expansion of awareness. Religious ideology has also destroyed other states in the past. Today the ideology of Hinduism has so increased the entropy of India that she is on the verge of total collapse from internal decay.

Islam and Catholicism were potent political forces. They made it possible to form vast empires serving to unify man and thereby contributed to the building of the Moral Society. The ideology of nationalism has never been so successful; it was too parochial. It united a small segment of humanity at the cost of isolating it from the rest. Nationalism was contrary to the evolutionary force. Those ideologies that tend to unite man in an all-inclusive world system are most consistent with the evolutionary force. Only they can have important long-range political effects.

For this reason, totalitarian states with no ideological bases, such as the Latin-American dictatorships and some of the oriental despotic states, have little historical significance. A state which attempts to make each person feel that he is contributing to something greater than himself and that all men are brothers whether democratic or totalitarian, has historical significance. Such was the case with Communism, such was the case with democracy. In the end, all countries irrespective of their ideological basis have succumbed to bureaucratization. Ideology merely accelerates the process.

 

Bureaucratization of Nations

The effect of bureaucratization within nations is most readily seen in the caliber of the leaders. When a completely new nation is formed by revolution, there is no effective bureaucracy. Its leaders, regardless of their ideological bias, are usually brilliant, ethical persons of broad awareness and courage. They include moral men. This was the case in the formative years of the United States, Republican France, Soviet Russia and modern Israel.

In the early years of the United States, the leadership consisted of men such as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson. These highly ethical men were remarkably aware. The United States has never again had a President who even approached the intellectual, let alone the ethical caliber of Jefferson. It is difficult to believe that genetic decay in the United States has progressed to the point where today the best leadership that the country can produce is represented by those found in public office. There must be another explanation.

The decay in American leadership went from 1) moral men who were generalists (e.g., Jefferson) to 2) brilliant children (e.g., Adams) to 3) ethical children (e.g., Lincoln) to 4) decent unethical men (e.g., F. D. Roosevelt) to 5) indecent men who are the scientific and ethical illiterates governing the United States today. Even when indecent men consciously try to do well, the corrupting process they went through in order to achieve power has completely destroyed their capacity for ethical judgment.

Since they are immoral men they use entropic strategies in the Game of Pleasure. Death is the minimax strategy that they unconsciously pursue by destroying their feedback and that of others. This continues until the society is immoral and destroys itself through hedonism and immoral wars that the indecent leaders wage for political expediency. Immoral men are not repelled by death because they unconsciously long for it. Bureaucracy seems inevitable to immoral men because they project their own unethical motivations onto all men.

In a bureaucracy a necessary means to power is a thorough understanding of the structure of the organization — i.e., the written and unwritten rules by which the bureaucracy operates. The rules are usually very simple in quality but of voluminous quantity. They are also not always clearly specified. Worst of all, they rarely have a logical basis and are contradictory. The training which best prepares a man to work within a bureaucracy is typified by that of the lawyer. A lawyer is trained to interpret and manipulate rules of bureaucratic behavior.

A "legal" type of mentality is one that is concerned neither with truth nor awareness but with the manipulation of power through the exercise and interpretation of "unnatural" bureaucratic rules of behavior. Bureaucratic rules of behavior are "unnatural" because they usually have no basis in natural science such as physics, biology or what little is known in the behavioral sciences. They are overtly unethical because they serve mainly to destroy feedback and increase entropy. Sometimes they are completely illogical and contradictory and represent political expediency as opposed to a coherent policy. This is typified by the real estate and income tax laws of the United States and most other nations.

These men are the technicians of the Immoral Community. A legal mentality will usually seek to acquire the training of a lawyer. The technicians of the Immoral Community are, therefore, likely to be lawyers but certainly not all lawyers are legally minded. The "legal mentality" is, therefore, the antithesis of ethical mentality, which is concerned primarily with "truth" interpreted as prediction and control of the natural environment. Only unethical persons have a legal mentality.

The bureaucratization of government in the United States has led to a system that is dominated by men with a legal mentality. Indeed, the majority of all elected officials in the United States have for many years been, in fact, legal minded. Almost all power-seeking bureaucrats in any bureaucracy are legal-minded.

A lawyer is intrinsically neither moral nor immoral. It is certainly possible for a person to be trained in both law and science, as some are (e.g., Jefferson was both a moral man and a lawyer). However, it is not possible by definition for a person to be ethical and legal-minded at the same time. An ethical person can never fit into the structure of a bureaucracy which serves only to support the Immoral Community. The lawyer, when he is legal-minded, fits perfectly. A person trained in science may, of course, become a technician of the Immoral Community by becoming legal-minded. Many former scientists have so done. This occurs most often when the scientist is highly specialized. It occurs least to generalists. Generalists of great ability and integrity are usually ethical members of the Moral Community as were Franklin, Hamilton and Jefferson. In a bureaucratic state such persons are not only ineffectual in achieving political power, but they find the process so distasteful that they generally avoid it altogether. The entire syndrome is reinforced by the fact that in capitalist countries in general, and the United States in particular, access to large sums of money is indispensable for political success.

This partially explains why scientifically illiterate lawyers and scientifically illiterate millionaires almost completely control the only two effective political bureaucracies in the United States. It partially explains why the many brilliant, courageous, ethical persons in the United States have no effective role in the Government.

The trend is clearly established. The leadership is steadily becoming immoral. The Moral Community does not yet have a strategy for correcting its mistakes and removing the immoral leaders. This trend toward ever greater entropy in society as a consequence of increasing entropy in government can only be reversed if moral men become the political leaders. Means toward this end are outlined in Chapters 6 and 7. However' first the phenomenon of bureaucratization must be more fully discussed because this phenomenon is sweeping the world at an accelerating pace and threatens to destroy it in the near future.

A similar picture of decline in leadership through bureaucratization can be seen in every country. In France, we go from the brilliance and daring of Napoleon, a brilliant child who was well versed in science and technology, through successions of ever greater mediocrities and unethical men with occasional flashes of brilliance during times of great internal turmoil and corresponding decline in bureaucratic power.

In Soviet Russia the leadership of today is a far cry from the brilliance of Trotsky, a generalist and a moral man who tried to correct his mistakes. Instead, he was quickly replaced by indecent men (e.g., Stalin) who deliberately suppressed freedom wherever they could. Today they invade and destroy freedom in every country they can because they are terrified of any feedback. They will not feel secure until they can suppress personal freedom as effectively in every country as they do in their own.

Even in Israel, where the constant threat of imminent annihilation and frequent battles give a great deal of feedback, we see in only twenty years children replacing the leadership of a generalist and moral man such as Chaim Weizmann.

If bureaucratization occurs in countries with such widely different ideological bases as the United States, France, Soviet Russia and Israel, then there must be something in the process that is independent of ideology. In order to understand this better, it will be useful to examine the bureaucratization process in various ideological and operational settings.

 

Democracy

"Democracy" in the classical sense is clearly an unworkable system for any modem state. Instead, "democracy" has come to mean a republic can form of government where the representatives of the people are chosen by all the people in "free elections." In order for elections to be "free," it is assumed that there must be 1) freedom of expression, 2) freedom of assembly, 3) freedom to run for any political office and proselytize for any political cause, and 4) ready and equal access to all the differing opinions, points of view, and partisan arguments.

Freedom as used above means that anyone can engage in these activities without unreasonable interference from either the state, political rivals, or anyone else and that the state exists solely to guarantee personal freedom. Although democracy as here described does not exist in a perfect state anywhere, it is an ideal that is approximated in various ways in all English-speaking countries (except those in Africa), most European countries (except the Soviet bloc, Albania, Greece, Spain and Portugal), and to some degree in other countries, most notably Japan and India. It clearly does not exist in any Communist country. The Communist lexicon, as well as others, define democracy in different ways. However, in this book, "democracy" will mean only the concept identified above.

 

Democratic Government

In practice what happens in a democracy once it is established is that the legal-minded politicians soon achieve a monopoly of political power even though several political bureaucracies called "parties" may be involved. The greater the number of effective political parties, the broader will be the ideological base of political power. As political parties decrease in number until there are only two effective parties (an inevitable consequence), fundamental ideological distinctions tend to vanish. Political parties then become instruments solely for achieving power even though they may still use ideological labels and slogans. The stability of the political system is inversely proportional to the number of effective political parties. Conversely, the feedback in the political system is directly proportional to the number of effective political parties.

It was once asserted by Bertrand Russell that in a bureaucratized democracy the only persons who can be elected to office are those who are either 1) stupid, 2) hypocritical or 3) both hypocritical and stupid. By "stupid" Russell presumably meant someone of significantly less intelligence than his own. His reasoning seemed to be that if someone is intelligent, he is likely to have opinions and attitudes that are contrary to the prejudices of the majority. If he is stupid, he probably shares the prejudices of the majority. Voters elect only candidates who openly share most of their prejudices. Therefore, only stupid and/or hypocritical politicians will get elected. A corollary is that most voters are stupid.

Russell's dictum appears to be partially correct, but ignores the crucial factor of morality. It would not be so bad if the leaders were stupid if they were also moral. The most important consequence of stupid and hypocritical leaders is that it means immoral men have achieved a monopoly of political power.

A final observation concerning the behavior of voters is that most persons seem to value security over freedom (as defined in Chapter 1) in the sense that they will more often than not sacrifice their freedom in order to preserve or expand their security. An example of this is the acceptance of a police state by the White citizens of South Africa in order to avoid direct competition with the non-White population. Hitler legally taking power in Germany is another example. The growing tolerance of and demand for police-state tactics in the United States in order to suppress increasing crime and disorder is a third. The current indecent leaders are most willing and ready to accommodate the voters on this matter.

The net result in a democracy is that the feedback and freedom inherent in the system are sacrificed for the sake of security by reducing the number of effective parties to two and sometimes one, thereby temporarily increasing the stability of the system. The competition for power becomes one of technique in manipulation of the prejudices of voters as opposed to one of providing meaningful alternatives to the voters. Instead of educating the voters, the object is to deceive them. The voters themselves rarely vote for a candidate, but rather vote against the most obnoxious candidate. Therefore, candidates who have blatantly violated the voters' prejudices and need for security while in office are usually voted out of office. This means that at best democracy is a minimax strategy that gives the voters the best of the worst, thereby allowing them to avoid the worst of two bad alternatives. Minimax strategies lead inevitably to total entropy — death. This is most clearly shown by the democratic election of indecent men to high office in the United States.

The recent elections in the United States, where the technology of electoral engineering is most advanced, indicate that any candidate with moderate acting ability can be sold to the voters by semi-scientific merchandising techniques. These consist in continuous feedback obtained by means of scientific public opinion polls together with packaging of the candidate in such a way that he maximizes his appeal while constraining his offensiveness. The technique involves avoiding significant issues that involve judgment or reason and making a direct emotional appeal to the voters.

The ultimate outcome will be that political power goes to the candidates able to muster the largest financial resources with which to buy the best professional merchandising team and advertising media. As professionals, the candidates will have no political or ideological views per se, but will tailor their image to suit the current whims of the public. Only unethical men will do this.

Even the argument that the people are getting what they want becomes a sham because what they want is determined primarily by the communications and news media. Ultimately, in a democracy, whoever controls the means of propaganda and information controls the country as effectively or more so than the most tyrannical dictator in the most oppressive police state. The argument that competition among the communications media will prevent this is a dream. The media in any capitalist country are for sale to the highest bidder. In the more socialized countries there is even less competition and the media are easier to control. In completely socialized countries, the media are an instrument of the state for controlling the citizens.

There will, of course, always be a minority of mavericks who will do the opposite of what the propaganda is exhorting them to do. These mavericks may even print their own newspapers, propagandize and engage in mass disruption; however, the "silent majority" will despise them for it and give even more power to the establishment to crush the dissension. Minority dissension can be very effective in a conventional dictatorship when the dissenters reflect the will of the majority; in a democratic dictatorship with majority support it only serves to strengthen the establishment by offending the prejudices of the majority. A democratic dictatorship of immoral, indecent men can be created and is being created in the United States while faithfully adhering to the myth of democracy. The tyranny of the majority can be just as terrible as the tyranny of a minority. This was amply demonstrated by Adolf Hitler.

Of all the myths perpetrated about democracy, the most absurd is that people want democracy because it gives them freedom. Democracy works because it gives people security. It gives security by providing more effective feedback to the political bureaucracy than any other form of government. Therefore, in order to maintain its power, the political bureaucracy gives the voters what they want and think they need. This is never more freedom. Every democracy is in the process of decreasing personal freedom by converting from capitalism to socialism.

The essential ingredient in socialism is not public ownership of the means of production, but rather the notion that every one is responsible for the welfare of everyone else. This notion is "socialism." Public ownership of the means of production is only a notion the traditionally-minded Marxists have emphasized as being the necessary condition for socialism. A counter-example to the Marxist dogma is modern Sweden, a socialistic, democratic country where most production is in private hands.

Socialism gives greater security at the price of less freedom. It gives the state the right to demand an increasing part of each person's life for the "welfare" of others. The majority of the voters in all democracies have shown themselves ready to pay the price. They allow the state to have a claim on an ever-increasing part of their lives in exchange for promises of more security.

Pure capitalism and anarchy are synonymous. They represent the survival and prosperity of the strong at the expense of the weak. It was rightly decided by the romantic political theorists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (i.e., the theorists of "Liberalism") that pure capitalism, i.e., anarchy, would not provide as much freedom as a capitalist democracy where the main function of the state was to enforce contracts and protect private property and life, and where all other decisions were left to the individual citizen. In this system the citizen only gave up his freedom to blatantly defraud, rob and kill his neighbor in exchange for the security of his own life and property. This was clearly an optimal compromise for maximizing freedom.

The United States was originally structured as a nearly perfect capitalist democracy. It did not remain so because of the fallacy of the assumption that the majority of people preferred freedom above all else. This fallacy, however, was a natural mistake for the Founding Fathers to make since they were broadly aware persons who saw freedom as a means for enhancing their own awareness. They made the common mistake of projecting their ethics on those who do not share them.

In the final analysis, a political system based on freedom fails because freedom is not an ultimate goal for anyone. It is only a means to an end. Means that are not ends cannot succeed. Democracy proved to be a means of obtaining security in democratic countries by providing feedback. It should also be a means for enhancing awareness in an Ethical State for the same reason, but freedom will be a consequence of structuring a nation to maximize awareness; it will not be only a means. Freedom is a negative quantity. It is the absence of outside interference in our personal lives. Man can only be truly moved by positive quantities.

Communism has in fifty years captured half the world by directly promising the positive quantity of security in the absence of freedom. Democracy as a revolutionary force was less spectacularly successful because it was more abstract and promised security indirectly as a byproduct of freedom. Communism has failed, except by using outside force, to replace a working democracy; not because it provides less freedom but because it provides less security.

In a democracy, the important decisions become socialized and thereby more quickly bureaucratized than the trivial decisions. Eventually the only prime events generated in the society are trivial ones. Because of better feedback, the least bureaucratized part of democratic society, the trivial part, is much more vigorous and dynamic; soon it assumes an overwhelming importance in the minds of its citizens. They become more concerned with legalizing drugs than with passing better educational laws. Rock and roll concerts often draw more attention and response than debate on the most crucial political issues (e.g., Woodstock). Since it is a democracy, the political bureaucrats must make it possible for the citizens to obtain what they want, in order to maintain their power. Therefore, they pass legislation strengthening even more the forces of trivia. The most universal desire for trivia being that for unessential consumer goods and entertainment, the politicians almost without knowing what they are doing structure the society to maximize the production and consumption of entertainment and consumer goods.

The bureaucracies of business and commercial entertainment, i.e., the corporations, have the best feedback and are the freest. They find it easier to make money, their main purpose, by selling unnecessary goods and entertainment to the masses who have been convinced that the only purpose of life is to be happy by desiring and possessing trivia. The corporations further augment the process by using large percentages of their profits to corner the artistic and scientific energies of society for the sole purpose of inveigling ever more consumers to buy increasing amounts of trivial goods and services that the consumer feels he must have in order to be happy.

In a democracy the Game of Life is ultimately lost by default in an all-absorbing, suicidal scramble for trivia in which the entire creative energy of the society is consumed until entropy destroys it.

For this reason, unless purposeful action is taken soon, the democracies will probably begin to decline faster than the more bureaucratized Communist countries even though democracies have better feedback and greater inherent potential for being transformed into an Ethical State. However, the Communist countries will not be far behind. They too will succumb in time to demands that education become entertainment and that scientific research be sacrificed to producing more consumer trivia. The communist leaders will learn that it is easier to control the masses with trivia than with police-state tactics.

It is even more likely, however, that both the democracies and the Communist states will destroy themselves and the rest of the world through nuclear annihilation and/or environmental pollution. In order to understand this phenomenon better, it will be necessary to understand the bureaucratization of the democratic infrastructure.

 

Democratic Infrastructure

The bureaucratization of government is the most pernicious aspect of our moral decay since government is ultimately responsible for all important decisions in a bureaucratic state. However, one might expect that in relatively free, advanced societies, such as Sweden or the United States, the non-governmental parts of the society should be able to do something to prevent decline. This indeed might be the case if the government alone were bureaucratic, but by the time government is bureaucratized, the whole infrastructure is also bureaucratic.

The basic infrastructure of modem democratic society has the following four major components:

• 1. The Military: includes all the forces of direct coercion which are available to the government. It includes the army, police, coast guard, spy organization, etc.
• 2. Industry: includes all means of production of goods and services, except entertainment and education. Industry includes agriculture, manufacturing, medical care, etc.
• 3. Entertainment: includes all means of production of goods and services that directly cause happiness, but are primarily trivial in nature. It includes most of the communications media.
• 4. Education: includes all the means of production of goods and services that directly expand awareness. It includes most schools, research institutions, and a small part of the communications media.

The same infrastructure, of course, also exists in a Communist society. However, there the political bureaucracy has complete control of the infrastructure and the corruption is greater. In a democracy the political bureaucracy has only partial control over the infrastructure, the greatest control being over the Military and in descending order over Education, Industry, and Entertainment. The more socialized the democracy, the greater will be the control of the political bureaucracy over the infrastructure. The least socialized major democracy is the United States. It will often serve as a model, because whatever can be said about the bureaucratization of the infrastructure of the United States applies even more to the other democracies.

 

The Military

The Military has as its ostensible major objective the implementation of the will of the political bureaucracy controlling the government. The Military in effect becomes the refuge for the least productive members of the society and is the most bureaucratized of all the bureaucracies. The Military is essential to the survival of society since without it the predators from within (criminals) as well as the predators from without (aggressive foreign political bureaucracies) would consume it. The Military is, therefore, analogous to our white blood cells — we need it to protect society from the spread of disease. However, if the Military gets out of control, it can become a cancerous growth just as excess white blood cells are symptomatic of leukemia.

The most effective source of feedback for the Military is encounter with the enemy. The Military becomes most effective during times of continued warfare and most corrupt during prolonged peace. During periods of prolonged peace, the Military finds it increasingly difficult to justify its existence. On the other hand, like any other bureaucracy, it would like to avoid feedback. An optimal situation from the military bureaucracy's point of view is, therefore, the continuous threat of imminent war without the consequences of war, i.e., feedback. This situation can only be achieved by cooperation, not necessarily deliberate, between the Military and the enemy. Only unethical men will do this.

Each military bureaucracy must convince the political bureaucracy which controls it that other nations have aggressive intentions and capabilities. This is usually easy to do. The political bureaucrats, being aggressive, power-oriented members of the Immoral Community are ready to project their own motivations into their foreign and domestic counterparts. In the case of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, the implied threat was even true. Once a balance of terror is established between rival military bureaucracies, it is virtually impossible to end it without open warfare in which one or both rivals are destroyed or seriously damaged. Even a domestic revolution, unless it is inspired by the rival, will be ineffective in changing policy. Once the balance of terror is established, the threat of war is real and it will affect any political bureaucracy in power. The military has become a cancer, but it has not yet metastasized.

When war does ensue and rival military bureaucracies test each other, the competition is mainly one of relative incompetence between the two bureaucracies. The Military that had the least feedback is the most corrupt and has the highest entropy. Therefore, the relative efficiencies of rival Militaries are completely a product of their relative entropies resulting from poor feedback. For this reason, in every major war of the last two hundred years, the more democratic side has usually won because the democratic Militaries invariably have better feedback than the Militaries in totalitarian states. Of course, a highly corrupt military bureaucracy may defeat a more efficient Military by sheer size. Such was the case when Soviet Russia defeated democratic Finland.

The same processes apply to domestic terror inspired by criminals, revolutionaries being rare in established democracies. It is to the police's bureaucratic advantage to exaggerate the threat of crime and underrate their capability for dealing with it, the implication always being that they are understaffed. But, then, all bureaucracies claim to be understaffed.

In the United States the military bureaucracy, although quite heterogeneous, has a tendency to attract two distinct personalities. The overwhelming majority of military personnel are passive, security-seeking types — as are most bureaucrats. They make a military career because it gives them the security of a highly predictable environment in which moderate advancement is assured by simply not being offensive to their superiors. The tasks that they have to do are usually clearly defined and the means for doing them are specified. There is also virtually no risk of being fired for incompetence since there is very little feedback. The grossly incompetent, when they fail to follow the rules of the bureaucracy because of sheer stupidity, are merely relegated to the lower ranks and do not get promoted. Only the outright destructive criminals or uncooperative innovators (e.g., Billy Mitchell) are fired.

The other major type of military careerist is the chronic psychopath who delights in exercising his authority over others and/or brutalizing them. He, unlike most of his fellows, thoroughly enjoys encounter with the enemy. This type of militarist is much rarer in the bureaucracy and is found mainly within the police organizations. When he is a commissioned officer, he has a tendency to make his fellow officers uneasy and finds it difficult to obtain promotions. However, the psychopathic-type militarist makes the most effective leader in wartime and he is also likely to be among the most intelligent and least bureaucratic militarists. Therefore, although rare, he may sometimes be found among the highest ranking officers (e.g., General George S. Patton, Jr.). Ironically, the psychopathic militarist is the one most likely to be an ethical man. He plays the Game of Life in a primitive Darwinian sense by testing the ability of other men to survive. The psychopath is invaluable in war and an anachronism in peace. In peace time his life is plagued by ethical mistakes.

With this background it is not surprising to find that the Military is the least effective bureaucracy for expanding awareness. Because of the peculiar socio-economic structure of the United States and a few other countries such as Israel, the Military often serves as an indirect means of subsidizing the educational process. Insofar as the Military helps perform an educational function, it serves its only creative purpose. It is a very inefficient organization for educating people, but it is often better than nothing.

The evil of the military bureaucracy lies in 1) its potential for catalyzing destructive or even totally annihilating wars through its own incompetence and/or the psychopathic tendencies of some of its leaders; and 2) its insatiable appetite for consuming the entire physical and intellectual resources of the people it is allegedly defending.

 

War through Incompetence

The triggering of a merely destructive war such as the AmericanIndochina conflict or a war of nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union (as is always being threatened) results not from hostile intent on the part of the military bureaucracy but primarily from its incompetence. As science and technology advance, war becomes more complex. The point was reached long ago (World War I or before) when the scientific illiterates, who make up the bunk of the military bureaucracy, had virtually no understanding of the weapons available to them, the possible strategies for their deployment, and the complex consequences of their use. Therefore, they began to hire a captive community of scientists and technologists who offer their talents to the Military sometimes out of patriotism but usually for simple economic gain and security. These former members of the Moral Community form a sub-bureaucracy within the overall military bureaucracy. They may be employed directly by the Military or indirectly through contracts and grants to industry and universities. They often profess disdain and contempt for the professional militarist yet they do his bidding.

Because they are an integral part of the most corrupt of bureaucracies, the scientists become corrupt and in the process unscientific, legal-minded, and immoral. They waste enormous resources in extremely inefficient development of new weapon systems. They make decisions not on the basis of what is scientifically correct and technically sound but on the basis of what is politically expedient. They deceive their scientifically illiterate military clients with the appearance of science devoid of the substance of science. The fact that all their work is cloaked in secrecy spares them the feedback of scrutiny from the Moral Community which is the only group of people capable of evaluating the "scientific" deception. The captive former scientists and technologists become the single most corrupt group within the military establishment — far more corrupt than the military careerists who are more often patriotic idealists and ethical persons. Only the highly intelligent can be immoral.

In spite of all this corruption, there are still a few persons, a minute percentage of the scientists and technologists supporting the Military who remain ethical. They are technically competent and scientifically honest (e.g., Admiral Hyman Rickover and Dr. Edward Teller). They, and only they, are responsible for the effectiveness of the new weapon systems. They do their work in the inertia of an ineffective, corrupt military-scientific-industrial bureaucracy. The results sometimes cost thousands — even millions — of times more than they are worth, but the results are eventually produced. These weapons are almost entirely automatic. Their use involves only simple responses on the part of the users. Some of these weapons have the capacity for destroying the entire biosphere. They are becoming increasingly destructive and automatic.

Eventually it will be possible for a psychopath deliberately to trigger a war of total annihilation. But more likely a fool, or more aptly a series of fools, will trigger the war through a series of mistakes.

The American-Indochina war represents a decision that was made because of poor feedback from corrupt bureaucracies. The corrupt bureaucracy of the U.S. Department of State gave the President the deceptive feedback with which to justify the causes and purposes of the war. The corrupt bureaucracy of the Military establishment gave the President the deceptive feedback with which to justify the technical and economic feasibility of the war. Both analyses were based on a poor or nonexistent understanding of the psychosocial context in which the war was to be fought.

The ideological scientific illiterates of the State Department understood nothing and could predict nothing about the cause and effect relationships between freedom, security, nationalism, socialism, Communism and democracy. The Military could not understand why, against a determined minority of militant ideologues in a primitive environment, modem weapons of mass destruction are totally ineffective for imposing a non-ideological, totalitarian minority regime under the name of democracy. The Military could not perceive the true nature of its strengths and weaknesses.

The only way the United States could have obtained its objectives in Indochina was by killing the majority of the population of North and South Vietnam. Fortunately, the bureaucratic corruption in the United States has apparently not yet reached the point where this is an acceptable solution to a rather trivial problem of 1) whether to support a corrupt, non-ideological, unethical foreign military dictatorship which is ostensibly friendly to the United States or 2) whether to try to win influence directly with a new, non-bureaucratic, vigorous, ideological dictatorship of the Left which expresses hostility toward the United States and will eventually become immoral but is likely to be more motivated by ethical nationalism at present than by political ideology. The United States chose what it thought was the lesser of two evils. However, unethical means never achieve ethical ends. A nation which is moral and seeks to maximize awareness would not have become involved militarily in Vietnam. Even if it made a mistake in the beginning (as was the case), it would have corrected it when it saw its policies could not possibly increase the totality of man's awareness. Instead, this unethical war continued because of political expediency. Only indecent men will sacrifice human life to political expediency.

 

Military Consumption

The wasteful consumption of resources by the Military of today has no counterpart in history. Besides diverting millions of potential members of the Moral Community into a corrupting bureaucracy, it consumes directly and indirectly the majority of the economic and natural resources in every advanced country in the world except Japan and West Germany.

The remarkable progress made by Japan and to a much lesser extent by West Germany since the end of World War II is in large part due to their not having to support an all-consuming, parasitical military bureaucracy. Japan, with the proportionately smallest of all military establishments, is correspondingly more progressive than West Germany, which has a considerably larger military bureaucracy.

The greatest costs of the military bureaucracy are the indirect costs in human resources. The costs in terms of corrupted scientists are staggering. The revulsion for all science being generated in the youth of the world by the obvious corruption of scientific purpose and method in the Military may in time eliminate all feedback in the society and cause the entropy to increase in an irreversible reaction.

This revulsion against science is probably the single greatest cause for the hedonism and anti-intellectualism among the youth of the world. However, it is not the only cause. All the bureaucracies in the democratic infrastructure together with the political and government bureaucracies are jointly contributing to the decay of world culture and the extinction of awareness.

The Military interacts with the other parts of the infrastructure in a symbiotic fashion. The Military provides resources to the entertainment media and the entertainment media perform "public relations" services for the Military (e.g., war films). The Military recruits and trains its future officers at the educational institutions, and it in turn subsidizes research activities at the same institutions. The closest symbiosis is between the Military and Industry. Some of the largest industries are completely dependent on military contracts. The Military in turn is completely dependent on Industry for the development of all its armaments. Industry is the prime corrupter of the democratic infrastructure.

 

Industry

In democratic countries Industry is predominantly capitalistic. This is true even when countries are highly socialized, such as Sweden, England, most of Western Europe and to a lesser extent Japan. "Capitalism" simply means that any person with the necessary capital can produce and sell any goods and services he wishes in any manner he wishes, in competition or in the absence of competition with any other person or groups of persons, and keep his profits. "Capitalism" as defined is virtually non-existent in any country and may have never existed. Instead, there are various approximations to the ideal involving greater or lesser degrees of bureaucratic control and confiscation of profits. The economic system of the United States in the nineteenth century, which was a logical consequence of democratic ideology, was probably the closest approximation to pure capitalism (economic liberalism) in history.

The success of capitalism rests entirely on the feedback inherent in competition. However, pure capitalism does not work for very long because the more efficient producers and distributors eventually replace all their competition in a process of natural selection called "monopoly." Once a monopoly is established, the enterprise, by controlling virtually all the market for its products, destroys any potentially more efficient competitor by underselling him at a loss or otherwise undermining him until he goes bankrupt. Usually this is not necessary because potential capitalistic competitors prefer using their resources to attack a less competitive and therefore less risky market than one controlled by a monopoly.

Once a monopoly or near-monopoly is established, a capitalistic enterprise becomes as bureaucratic and corrupt as any government agency. Therefore, in order to keep their economic system vital, democratic governments usually find it necessary to pass anti-monopolistic laws (called anti-trust laws in the United States) and pure capitalism no longer exists. This is not necessary in the rare cases when there is considerable "free" competition with foreign industry. Eventually the capitalistic entrepreneurs have to contend with an artificially-fostered competition as well as the government bureaucrats in charge of assuring that competition is maintained. Even without the problem of monopoly the democratic process forces the government to become involved in Industry.

Successful capitalistic enterprises, whatever the specific industry, soon develop a special bureaucratic structure called a "corporation." The corporate structure serves two major purposes: 1) it enables the individual entrepreneur to avoid personal responsibility for many types of crimes and mistakes that the corporation may commit, and 2) it provides a means of collective ownership by which very large amounts of capital may be concentrated to a degree not possible even by the richest individual entrepreneur. The corporation, in turn, is a soulless entity with a single goal: the concentration of ever greater power and wealth by whatever means are feasible for its owners and/or controllers. As such, the corporation becomes a completely predatory but not necessarily immoral entity within society. Therefore, democratic pressure forces the government to form additional bureaucracies to regulate the activities of the corporation and protect the ordinary citizens and other corporations from its machinations.

In a democratic society the net effect of this means of production is a losing battle against the monopolistic forces of capitalistic predation and corruption. The larger, more monopolistic corporations have highly corrupt immoral bureaucracies. They find it easier to use the large amounts of capital at their disposal to lobby the legislators and government bureaucrats for favored treatment as opposed to competing honestly within the system on the merits of their products. The further corrupting of immoral bureaucracies is always a process that immoral men understand best. They corrupt the democratic process by using their concentration of capital to elect to office politicians who will serve their power-seeking and money-making purposes. The overwhelming majority of the political bureaucracy is soon beholden to the corporations. This is usually kept secret by a tacit understanding among all the politicians, the exception being the politicians beholden to the special corporations called "labor unions."

Most of the people in the society being workers, it is assumed that obligation to labor unions is not a serious political liability and may even be an asset. However, the labor unions are the most corrupt and immoral of all the corporations because only they are allowed to have an outright monopoly of their product, which is labor. Since they have no competition, they provide an ever-decreasing quality of labor at an ever-increasing price.

The net effect on Industry is primarily beneficial because it becomes increasingly cost-effective to substitute machines and automation for an ever more deficient labor force. The competition between industries becomes primarily one of technique in being able to produce in the absence of effective labor. Since this produces an ever-decreasing market for many types of labor (typified by that of the less versatile and intelligent worker), the politicians who represent labor attempt to pass legislation that will take an ever-larger percentage of the profits produced by an increasingly-automated industry and redistribute them in some form to the ever less productive workers.

Industry retaliates by attempting to elect a larger percentage of its own captive politicians than labor, but finds it very difficult when the majority of the electorate is composed of working people. However, the competition for automated production eventually leads to such an efficient means of production that the number of de lure workers is very small and the number of de facto workers is nil. Instead, almost everyone is living a parasitical existence in the bureaucracies that administer Industry, Government, the Military, Education and to a much lesser extent Entertainment. The competition is no longer one of efficiency in production, rather it is one of how 1) to rise in the bureaucracy through the typical bureaucratic tactics and 2) to obtain the largest share of resources and power for one's own bureaucracy. The actual production of essential goods and services already has become a trivial matter.

Eventually a few hundred surviving giant corporations control almost all production and split the markets between themselves on the basis of a fixed formula, which is illegal, but this does not stop them. They also allow token competition to keep alive the myth of competitive capitalism. However, by this time most people are not really interested in rising in the bureaucracy or power since the democratic process of socialization, together with the application of science and technology to Industry, has produced an almost uniformly high standard of living independent of merit. Instead, the major preoccupation of the ever more immoral society which results is a concern with being happy.

Competing industries sell their trivial and unnecessary wares, not on the basis of their relative merits, but on the basis of their ability to convince the consumers that their wares will make them happier than those of their competitors. The power-seeking bureaucrats who dominate the bureaucracies also give promises of happiness and security to their subordinates in order to concentrate power in their hands and in their bureaucracies.

The politicians run for office by promising happiness to the electorate. They promise to make it possible for the electorate to acquire and protect the consumer goods which Industry has spent billions of dollars advertising in order to condition the public to identify them with happiness.

The end result is that Industry contributes little or nothing to the enhancement of awareness. It uses its vast concentrations of power and money primarily to maintain the corrupt bureaucracy which administers it. This is done by 1) influencing and/or buying politicians and bureaucrats to protect and extend their privileges, and 2) advertising in such a way as to condition the public to desire its products above the expansion of awareness.

All this occurs almost automatically. Hardly anyone realizes what is happening and why. Science and technology have automated the production of wealth. The surplus wealth is used to keep the masses in an immoral stupor of happiness and ignorance. The degradation is augmented by bureaucratized Entertainment.

 

Entertainment

"Entertainment" is any process that normally produces happiness in some person(s) without necessarily increasing the awareness of any person. As such, Entertainment is merely trivial. The evil in Entertainment is similar to the evil in religious ideology. It can create the illusion of satisfying all of one's needs and lead to the extinction of awareness. The good in Entertainment results from its being a powerful tool for psychological conditioning which can be used to enhance the expansion of awareness by couching the learning process in an entertainment context.

Games, for example, all entertain but they are not trivial since they can condition persons to play the Game of Life. This is most clearly illustrated in competitive games, i.e., games in which persons compete against each other such as in sports and chess. The playing of these games by young children communicates at the unconscious level the basic evolutionary pattern of Darwinian competition and it teaches children that men are all created different, not equal. Competitive games also teach children that no matter how proficient they become, they can always improve their performance in any game. Games, therefore, almost always begin as variations on the Game of Life, but they become variations on the Game of Pleasure when they no longer teach but serve solely to entertain. A person who becomes extremely proficient at a competitive game is usually playing the Game of Pleasure. Eventually all children who are to become moral men must begin to play the Game of Life directly.

The Game of Life is not a competitive game but a cooperative game where all who play win. It is a non-zero sum game. (A non-zero sum game is a game in which the stakes are greater than the total ante; it is possible for each player to win without depriving any other player of a chance to win.) Entertainment can be a substitute for the Game of Life when it is a variation on the Game of Pleasure. However, Entertainment when used in combination with the Game of Life can become a powerful device for expanding awareness.

This is seen in the structure of great literature where logically consistent theories about the psychosocial environment are presented in the context of an entertaining story (e.g., Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov). The current decline of literature is in large part due to the formalization of psychosocial theory building within the so-called "behavioral sciences." Only broadly-aware persons can be great writers. Broadly-aware persons usually wish to continue the expansion of their total awareness. Therefore, the potential great writers of today are mostly generalists who do not write anything except technical papers, while the actual "literary" writers are mostly entertainers. The same process applies in all the arts.

 

Art

"Art" is Entertainment used to expand awareness. The art of a culture is primarily a reflection of its awareness rather than a cause. It is a means through which the awareness of some is communicated to many, usually at the unconscious level. The art of a people communicates the deepest essence of their awareness. The ancient Greeks were a vital and broadly-aware people; their art reflects it. This applies even more to the artists of the Renaissance who were probably the most broadly-aware artists in history.

Being a generalist with depth and having social morality is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for being a great artist. Leibniz was a great generalist with little social morality. Goethe was a great generalist with social morality. However, art is largely an unconscious process which does not require a conscious knowledge of science (e.g., Bach). Great art seems to be catalyzed by generalists (e.g., the Renaissance).

Art is intrinsic in the psychosocial makeup of man. It has always been a part of our species. Therefore, art must be part of the evolutionary force expanding awareness and driving man toward the Moral Society. Art represents a means of communicating the total awareness of a culture at the unconscious level. It reflects the spirit rather than the substance of cultural awareness. It stimulates the unconscious mind to synthesize the overall pattern of awareness and build upon it. It communicates the unity of man and knowledge. Art is to a culture what dreaming is to the individual.

All persons dream; but most forget their dreams. If an electroencephalograph is connected to a sleeping person, it is possible to tell when the person is dreaming. If every time the person begins to dream, we wake him, he will undergo psychological change. The systematic interference with dreams causes the frequency of dreams to increase. It is as if a person has to have a certain number of dreams. The continued interruption of dreams leads eventually to serious psychological disturbances. In dreams we bring about a synthetic union between our conscious and unconscious awareness in an attempt to resolve the differences and thereby increase our total awareness. The patterns that emerge are represented symbolically and figuratively as opposed to literally.

The art of a culture is the symbolic synthesis between its total conscious awareness (science and technology) and its total unconscious awareness (the evolutionary force). The artistic process and its interaction with total awareness is not well understood. For this reason it is essential that art remain free and that no one tamper with the dreams of a culture.

Art is not free. In the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent in other Communist countries art is brutally regimented to meet the prejudices of the bureaucratic ideologues who control it. There, art is being systematically fumed into rigid entertainment and propaganda. In the democracies it is almost as bad. The bureaucratic infrastructure has corrupted the artistic process by industrial commercialism and/or educational specialization.

 

Artistic Corruption

Industry, through advertising, has taken Entertainment and used it psychologically to condition the population to buy its wares. The object in advertising is to influence as many people as possible. Therefore, Entertainment is structured to satisfy the lowest common denominator of taste. To Industry the only criterion for the "quality" of Entertainment is how well it sells. Therefore, Entertainment has apparently perfect capitalistic feedback.

This would be strictly true only if the communications media (radio, T.V., books, films, theater, records, etc.) had sufficient capacity to give everyone what he wants. Instead, the media represent a limited resource which is sold to the highest bidder. The highest bidders in a capitalistic democracy are the corporations whose main purpose is to make money. They use the media to make even more money. They pre-empt the channels of communication with Entertainment devoid of art. In the process of conditioning the public to buy their wares, they also condition it to accept the lowest common denominator of Entertainment as the standard. They ruin the taste of a generation by conditioning it to look only for escapist fantasy and happiness in Entertainment—never a means for expanding their awareness. Such is the fate of radio and television in a capitalist democracy. However, there are still other entertainment media such as films, theater, books, and records.

Films represent the most complete, all-encompassing art form. Films are also the most commercialized of all the arts. The corporations producing films do so only to make money. The lowest common denominator of Entertainment is not only easier to produce, but also makes more money since more people will buy it. In a capitalistic society films soon become degenerate. Films which seek to make people aware find an ever-decreasing audience in the "art houses." Corporate monopoly and bureaucratic corruption increase the entropy of Entertainment just as they do with the rest of Industry.

Underlying the whole corrupting process is the fact that persons who are artistically inclined are becoming increasingly unaware of the total environment. They begin specializing at an early age and seldom learn science; they become unethical and espouse an art-for-arts-sake philosophy. The artists soon develop utter disdain for science and technology, regarding them as inhuman and cold. They are concerned with emotions, particularly perverse ones. The scientists and technologists they meet appear to be mostly narrow, dull, and insensitive people. The worst part is that the artists are right. Science in general and the scientists in particular are becoming just as they see them. The cleavage between art and science becomes complete and both lose in the process. Art becomes Entertainment and science becomes irrelevant. (Science is irrelevant when it makes a few persons narrowly aware, but does not significantly enhance man's total awareness. Science is irrelevant when it is devoid of social morality and serves only to satisfy the personal morality of a few specialists.) The main purpose of art, the unconscious expression of the total unity of man and knowledge evolving toward total awareness, is lost. Its loss becomes one of the reasons for the disintegration of science.

Books become repositories of pornographic fantasies which the other media cannot yet fully express. The mildly Homographic, simpleminded, sentimental books which only entertain and make no effort to expand awareness become the best sellers of all time. Some of the publishers, whose sole purpose is to make money from producing and distributing books, try to find "formulas" for producing more best sellers to satisfy an ever more jaded public. They do not try to find any intrinsic merit in books, but only try to estimate on the basis of past successes and the trends in taste whether or not the books will make money.

 

Music

Music, like all art, reflects the evolutionary force directly by the complexity of its forms (greater awareness) and the unity of its style (the unity of structure in all evolution). Music is pure symbolism working directly on the nervous system to expand total awareness. Music is the purest of all the arts and as such the most important because it expresses man's most profound unconscious knowledge. Music is the only art form devoid of conscious meaning. The abstract visual arts may be approaching the same level of purity, but these arts are plagued by frauds.

Great art is that art most appreciated by great men. The greatness of a man is measured by the totality of the awareness which he engenders. While it seems that J. S. Bach is the greatest of composers, the order of the next ten is less clear, but it would probably include one or more of the following: Monteverdi, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Brahms, Verdi, Mahler, Nielson, Ives, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Shostakovich, Honegger, Vaughan Williams, Schoenberg, Hindemith, Stravinsky and Penderecki. These composers wrote in drastically different styles. The only thing they have in common is complexity of form and unity of structure. Great music has survived and is still being created even while the other arts seem to be in a state of acute bureaucratic decline.

The music that is most heard on the media ("popular music") like the rest of the media represents the lowest common denominator of taste. It is simple in form, monotonous, repetitive and primitively rhythmic. It makes no appeal to the intellect; it reflects the lowest common denominator of awareness. Yet a full spectrum of contemporary music exists from the greatness of Penderecki to the simple primitiveness of rock and roll.

The split between the style and complexity of contemporary great music and current popular music is illustrative of the schizophrenia in our society. We are a society with the greatest total awareness that the world has ever known. We are also a society in which the majority of people are being turned, ever more willingly, from the pursuit of awareness into a plunge to primitive hedonism and immorality. The devolution of popular music illustrates that at an ever-increasing rate men have only their most primitive emotions in common. For this reason, primitive contemporary music is becoming increasingly popular among highly aware persons as well as the masses. It is the only way in which "art" can still unify men.

The great music of the past was the music of life. The music reflected the evolutionary patterns directly and communicated them to the unconscious mind. This phenomenon is most clearly demonstrated in J. S. Bach's The Art of the Fugue.

The Art of the Fugue (Click here to play) begins as a relatively simple fugue with the embryonic theme of BACH (German notation). Bach, therefore, was representing his personal awareness (ego) within a musical form. As The Art of the Fugue progresses, the simple fugues become increasingly complex yet they mirror the patterns of the previous fugues. The elements of the simpler fugues are then joined into larger, more complex fugues which still continue to evolve until they again reach such a high level of complexity that new complexity is only possible by further joining. This progression continues with all the fugues together forming one great fugue of incredible complexity. Throughout all the fugues is the central developing theme of BACH, distinct yet an integral part of the over-all complexity. Eventually the BACH theme is fully developed in the last fugue which is the point at which Bach died. He died with the unconscious awareness of himself as part of a greater whole. He did not finish The Art of the Fugue in the conventional sense, because this music represented the unending spiral of evolution. It could not be finished because what Bach was expressing never ends. Only his personal awareness stopped.

In The Art of the Fugue Bach expressed the evolution of all life and mind toward ever greater awareness by fanning out and joining in an ascending spiral of increasing unity. Yet it is a complexity in which the individual remains distinct while becoming ever more aware. This is the pattern of the Moral Society.

The true artist can only reflect the awareness of his time. He cannot express what is not there. Today man is unconsciously aware of his impending doom and his descent into entropy. We live in a world dominated by a simultaneous desire for and fear of death. This is clearly demonstrated in the music of Penderecki.

In Penderecki's music there is death plus horror at the hopelessness of man's plunge into irreversible entropy. For this reason, the truly great music of our time is not pleasant listening. It makes us aware of what we do not wish to admit. The great music of today gives negative feedback.

Today when music is great, it expresses death. When music is entertainment, it expresses the schizophrenia and disintegration of our society. Much of modem popular music serves to blind man to the truth that all science and great art is showing him — the impending death of humanity.

All the arts reflect this. All the means of Entertainment are being used to accelerate the disintegration process. It is all happening blindly. The major defense of the culture against this decay is Education. But Education is caught in the same entropic force of bureaucratization as the rest of society.

 

Education

Education is any process which directly increases the total awareness of persons subjected to it. It includes, but is not limited to, schools, research centers, and parts of the communications media. Therefore, Education is the most important activity of any society. A rational society wishing to expand its total awareness would structure itself to maximize the educational output. All other functions — Government, Industry, Entertainment, and the Military — would be support functions, useful only if they enhanced the educational process. The Ethical State described in Chapter 6 is such a society.

In all countries Education is presently considered a support function to what are viewed as the much more important activities of the Military and/or Industry. Because, and only because, both the Military and Industry are so heavily dependent on science and technology, there is considerable support for scientific and technical education. The educational bureaucracy, like any bureaucracy, sees its role primarily as one of self-preservation and security for its own sake, not as a means for expanding awareness. Therefore, as the educational bureaucracy becomes corrupt, it becomes less a means for expanding awareness and more a means for constraining it. This comes about in a variety of ways.

The educational bureaucracy is rigidly structured in a hierarchical fashion. In the United States a few great universities and research institutes (Harvard, Berkeley, California Institute of Technology, Chicago, M.I.T., Yale, etc.) are at the top; then come the much larger number of lesser universities and colleges; at the bottom is the enormous, highly corrupt, entrenched bureaucracy of secondary and primary education. In varying degrees of association with the hierarchy, sometimes peripheral sometimes integral, are the research centers of Government, Industry, and the Military together with the artistic community, journalists, publishers, the television networks, and so on.

A similar structure exists in every other country except that there the educational systems are even more centralized and bureaucratized. Therefore, anything said about the evil effects of the educational bureaucracy in the United States applies even more to other countries.

The great universities set the standards for the rest of the educational system by 1) setting their own standards of admission and 2) training the most influential members in the other parts of the interlocking bureaucracy. The educational system attempts to prepare its students to advance within the hierarchy. The number of their students qualifying for admission to and/or high position at the great universities is considered as the principal objective measure of the success of the lower echelons of the hierarchy. By their ability, prestige and contacts, the trainees of the great universities often obtain commanding positions in many branches of Government, Industry, the communications media and of course, most notably, within the educational bureaucracy itself. The great universities, in short, appear to set the tone for the whole structure of society. However, this is only partially true. The prime responsibility for structuring society lies with the political bureaucracies.

In a democracy the political bureaucracy reflects the needs and prejudices of the society as a whole. The failing of the educational system is its failure to perform its main mission. It has not made people broadly aware. It has not inculcated a desire for total awareness in its students. In order to understand this failure, it is necessary to understand the structure of the great universities and how they are becoming ever more corrupt. They bear the ultimate responsibility for the decline of democratic society.

 

The Universities

The university system of the democracies and most Communist countries is patterned after and evolved from the medieval European universities. The medieval universities were concerned primarily with weaving a "rational" pattern around the ideology of Catholicism. They were not concerned with science at all. They were, in short, an instrument of the Immoral Community for supporting itself. The Renaissance brought about a remarkable change in the structure of the university. At this time scientific method was introduced into the curriculum. An embryonic science in the form of mathematics and to a lesser degree astronomy had always been present in the universities. For many centuries these disciplines did not challenge Catholic dogma. When the Catholic totalitarian state became totally and obviously corrupt, the evolutionary force driving man toward greater awareness made him question many of the basic tenets of Catholic dogma and the authority of the Church. He became aware of his illusions of awareness. In so doing, the men of Europe planted the seed of science which is the will to doubt. This brought about the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the scientific revolution.

Until this time the universities stressed the unity of knowledge as being a reflection of the perfection of God. When physical science began to be introduced into the universities during the Renaissance, science was seen as one more facet in the unity of knowledge. The scientists of this period studied all there was to know. This included science, theology, law, history, Latin, plus anything else that was considered knowledge. Soon there arose irreconcilable differences. The pieces of what was rightfully considered the total unity of knowledge did not fit together. This inherent incompatibility lay not in the inherent nature of knowledge, for all knowledge is one. It lay in the differences in the methods for allegedly expanding knowledge. Science has its basis in experimental verification. Law has its basis in political expediency. Theology has its basis in ideological dogma. It soon became impossible for most people to perform the "double think" and mental juggling necessary to entertain jointly the different methods for allegedly expanding knowledge. All the branches of human knowledge, which for a brief period had been one, went their separate ways. The modern university grew out of the disintegration of the Renaissance university along the lines of method.

At first this disintegration gave even greater vitality to the expansion of science. When theology became completely separated from science (eighteenth century), it was analogous to having a cancer removed from an otherwise healthy baby. Science grew and flourished. Theology became increasingly irrelevant to the world order. The same was true for the other "disciplines" of the Immoral Community when they also became separated from the sciences. They lost their vitality and withered. Eventually, however, the process began to go too far.

Science was relegated to "natural philosophy," which was at first limited mainly to the study of the physical sciences, but which later was to include biology. Physical and biological science together were to be called "natural science." "Moral philosophy," which studies the much more important psychosocial environment and the field of ethics, was left without scientific feedback. As such it remained what it had formerly been — a captive of the Immoral Community. The greatest damage that had been done was to destroy the notion of the unity of knowledge. This disintegration of the totality of knowledge is still proceeding today. In part, this was done deliberately by the Immoral Community wishing to insulate itself from scientific feedback; however, the major blame is due to the scientists for allowing themselves to become bureaucratized.

Part of the process of bureaucratization is to compartmentalize authority in such a way that there is no overlapping of responsibility. This minimizes the internal competition and feedback from comparative evaluation. In the university, compartmentalization began with the artificial separation between natural and moral philosophy. Biology was for a time in a no-man's land between the two. It eventually became a part of natural science, but by then the natural sciences themselves had begun to become compartmentalized into individual disciplines. Soon (nineteenth century) there were academic departments of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, astronomy, geology, engineering, and so on. Eventually these became even more compartmentalized. Today mathematics is further divided into departments of applied mathematics, pure mathematics, and statistics. Biology is divided into, among others, departments of zoology, botany, physiology, genetics, bacteriology, physiological chemistry, and lately molecular biology. Engineering is fragmented into civil, mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, chemical, etc. In each field the experimental branches separate from the theoretical. Applied research is separated from pure research.

Each time there is a departmental cleavage and sometimes before, the individual scientist and teacher is addressing himself to an ever narrower audience which eventually begins to decrease in total awareness by becoming highly ellipsoidal and one-dimensional. The overwhelming emphasis is on the methods of the discipline and not on the relevance of the results for increasing man's total awareness (i.e., awareness of the total environment—physical, biological, and psychosocial). Each narrow specialist becomes incapable of even reading abstracts of the work being done in areas directly related to his own, let alone being able to understand other disciplines.

As a bureaucrat, the overwhelming concern of the university scientist is with security. In the academic community, security comes from understanding something academically acceptable far better than others and/or convincing the "experts" that this is the case. This forces the specialist to become ever more specialized in order to meet the standards of acceptability. What is acceptable is what is popular with the majority of persons who make up the specialty. They get no feedback from other disciplines. Each specialty leads to ever-new, ever-narrower specialties. The scientist is trapped in the classical dilemma of knowing more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing. In the process, science becomes irrelevant. The "good" scientists become "brilliant" in their specialty, but ignorant of everything else. They are incapable of predicting and controlling their total environment. They are narrowly, irrelevantly aware as opposed to being broadly aware. It becomes increasingly difficult to produce the generalists who can become moral men.

The scientists themselves recognize the dilemma. A new field develops called "systems science"; its alleged purpose is to put science together again by being a metascience encompassing and uniting all fields of scientific and technological knowledge. Departments of systems science are formed in all the major universities. The systems approach is acclaimed everywhere. However, systems science becomes bureaucratized before it is fully established. The new academic departments of systems science (sometimes called operations research) become specialized in the more obvious techniques of the field — mathematical optimization and decision theory — and neglect the foundations of the field which consist in a broad understanding of all the essentials of science and technology. It is much easier, safer, and academically more acceptable (i.e., bureaucratic) to show expertise in optimization theory and cookbook mathematics rather than in multidisciplinary problem solving. At its birth, systems science falls victim to the process it was created to circumvent. Science keeps becoming more fragmented and irrelevant. Awareness becomes narrow instead of total. As a consequence, the entire society keeps getting ever more bureaucratized and immoral. The Immoral Community, which controls the university through its political influence and its claim to the majority of the faculty members, further augments the bureaucratization of Education. The university becomes an ivory dungeon with an ever-dimming light.

The university departments which are an integral part of the Immoral Community are those which resulted from the bureaucratization of "moral philosophy." This occurred in a manner completely analogous to that of the sciences. However, for the Immoral Community it was merely a case of the blind becoming ever more blind. In the "disciplines" of the Immoral Community, points are made not by appealing to scientific evidence but through rhetoric and the "documentation" of the related ideological beliefs of other members of the Immoral Community. Writing style and the clever — not necessarily clear or honest — use of words become all important. A point becomes documented and proved by showing that other members of the Immoral Community had similar opinions or that the conclusion is implied by the currently accepted ideology. This was the technique used by the medieval theologians and scholastic philosophers before the Renaissance. After the Renaissance, it was the technique used by Hegel, Marx, Lenin and Hitler. It is the technique still being used by ideologues, all successful politicians and most so-called "social scientists."

 

Social "Science"

Social "science" became formalized in the late nineteenth century when the natural sciences had achieved tremendous success and prestige in the academic community. It was an effort by the Immoral Community to cloak its ideology with scientific respectability. Social science would have been a natural outgrowth of the physical and biological sciences. However, by the time that the Zeitgeist for social science was at hand, the already-bureaucratized natural scientists, by default, lost the initiative in creating the social sciences to the Immoral Community. Some persons with inclinations toward and knowledge of the natural sciences went into the social sciences (e.g., Hermann von Helmholtz, Francis Gallon and William James), but the majority of its founders were members of the Immoral Community. The ideological roots of the Immoral Community, which had been dying in the sterile fields of moral philosophy, found new strength when they were transplanted to the fertile fields of social science. Like weeds, they inhibited and are still inhibiting the development of science within the "social sciences." However, in spite of the bureaucratization of the Moral Community and the strength of the Immoral Community, natural science has established itself in the social sciences and has managed to make some headway against tremendous odds. In this lies great hope for the human race.

The social sciences have the alleged purpose of applying scientific method to the psychosocial environment. If this is the case, then predictive models of human behavior can be developed, which predict a future psychosocial state on the basis of a description of the current physical, biological, and/or psychosocial state. The scientific method demands that controlled experiments be used to test the efficacy of the predictions. This process is almost never used in the social sciences. Instead, another method, which might be called the "clinical approach," is the dominant technique used in social science. It gives the appearance of science to blatant ideology. Sometimes, of course, even the clinical approach is eschewed in favor of ideological rhetoric.

The clinical approach has a superficial resemblance to science. Measurements are taken of the environmental phenomena. An attempt is made to develop logically consistent models to explain past cause and effect relationships. The models are then extrapolated to predict future events. The only missing ingredient is the notion of controlled experiments to check the predictions rigorously. In short, the clinical approach is science with extremely limited feedback and as such is no science at all. Because so little feedback is present, the measurements themselves tend to be arbitrary, lacking in internal consistency, and devoid of a relative scale let alone an absolute scale. The models themselves are primarily non-quantitative. The defensive arguments of the social "scientists" are that it is physically, economically and/or politically not possible to do controlled experiments in the psychosocial environment. This is not true. The field of formal education is a case in point.

One of the fundamental ideological beliefs of most of the Immoral Community and consequently of the majority of the social scientists is that the extreme leftist hypothesis is correct. Therefore, the differences in educational attainment between people must be due primarily to environment. With the proper environment we should be able to mold pupils to be anything we want. That this does not happen is assumed to be due to improper environmental techniques, but never to the possibility that the fundamental hypothesis is wrong. As a result, millions of dollars are wasted in the United States in clinically-based education "research." First one fad then another is tried to enhance the learning process.

The differences in educational achievement between distinct groups of people are assumed to be due to differences in the schools. Enormous efforts are made to equalize the educational environment for all groups. In some cases (e.g., higher education) the system is biased in favor of the "disadvantaged" group. The group differences in performance still persist. A new assumption is then made that the major differences between the groups are due to the pre-school environment. A new preschool program of environmental enrichment, called "Headstart," is begun. The group differences still persist. The fact that different persons of the same "disadvantaged" group with apparently identical environments perform quite differently is ignored. It is now alleged by the leading social science ideologues that the major differences between the groups are due to the environmental differences between the groups during the first two years of life. They cling to the leftist ideological hypothesis in the face of all contrary evidence. The leftist hypothesis may still be correct, but no controlled experiments are seriously suggested to test it rigorously. (William Shockley, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, has suggested such an experiment, but he has been almost unanimously denounced by the social scientists and the American Academy of Sciences for the suggestion. Part of the fault here seems to lie with Shockley's lack of finesse and his obvious rightist bias. However, the response of the Moral Community was still unscientific.)

Finally, a social scientist with an apparently open mind and more courage than his colleagues, Arthur Jensen, challenges the basic ideological hypothesis of the Left. He puts together a cogent, logical argument with a mathematical foundation, supported by experimental evidence from identical twin studies and matched group studies. He comes to the conclusion that the rightist hypothesis is much closer to the truth. A scientific approach to the controversy would be to propose a carefullycontrolled experiment to resolve the differences. Instead, Jensen is pilloried by his colleagues as a racist. They distort his position and then attack the distortions. He has some support from the geneticists and a few social scientists but the leftist communications media report only the distortions. The rightist ideologues distort the conclusions to support their own racist ideology. The response is unscientific. No attempt is made to arrive at the truth scientifically.

The ironic consequence of the unscientific response to Jensen's work is that the very problem with which the leftist ideologues profess concern is compounded by ideological blindness. It is clear from a thorough reading of Jensen that he shares the concern of all decent men for the racial inequities in the United States. He apparently did his research in an ethical attempt to find a scientific method for correcting those inequities. However mistaken Jensen's work may be, it is highly unethical to condemn his work by imputing his motives and distorting his analyses. In so doing, the leftist ideologues are blinding themselves to genetic reality and are contributing to the continued genetic decay of the very people whose welfare they claim to desire.

The crux of the problem seems to be with the leftist ideologues' perversion of the concept of "welfare" to mean only "happiness." In so doing, they destroy negative feedback for themselves and others. If they were concerned with the true welfare of people, they would explore all scientific possibilities for increasing the awareness potential of all men — White or Black — living or yet unborn. Their present response is an example of how basically decent men, blinded by ideology, can cause untold evil to the human race. This evil manifests itself not only in dysgenic policies but in the wastages of the educational bureaucracy.

With a fraction of the funds spent on ideologically-based, mass education "experiments," it would be possible to determine a priori the effectiveness of any proposed program. This is never done. When two or more logically-consistent models about educational effectiveness exist with some supporting evidence, the scientific thing to do is 1) to divide a small part of the population chosen at random (a few thousand subjects total) into statistically-matched groups; 2) try each educational technique under controlled conditions on one and only one of the experimental groups; 3) at the end of the experiment to measure the total awareness of the experimental and control groups by standardized achievement tests; and 4) based on the group differences, to use statistical techniques to determine which, if any, of the educational techniques was superior and in which ways to any of the other techniques. This simple, inexpensive and straightforward approach to educational development would lead to an optimal system of education in a few years, but it is not used. It is the same with the other social sciences, such as sociology, political science, and economics.

The reason that the scientific method has such difficulties getting established in the social sciences is that 1) most, not all, social scientists (like their mentors in the rest of the Immoral Community) are scientific illiterates; and 2) the social sciences are bureaucratized to the point where any feedback is a threat to the whole structure of the Immoral Community.

 

Feedback

The studies by J. S. Coleman et al. and A. W. Astin indicate, but do not prove, that there is no significant educational effect due to differences in the school environment as it currently exists in the United States. In other words, the differences in educational achievement are due primarily to the quality of the individual students as opposed to the quality of the total environment in the schools. For example, when the quality of the university level students is matched on the basis of their performance on the College Board Entrance Examination, their educational achievement at the end of four years as measured by the Graduate Record Examination is independent of any of the accepted measures of institutional excellence. In effect, it makes no significant difference whether they went to Harvard or a small obscure local college.

This implies two hypotheses: 1) if a good student is put into a group learning context where he can learn, he will learn; 2) the much touted "superiority" of some schools has little to do with the school itself, including the composition of the faculty or the student body; it is merely a reflection of the fact that a large number of superior students attend the school. If these two hypotheses are rigorously proven to be correct then the whole bureaucratic hierarchical structure of the educational system is threatened and as a result so is the commanding position of the Immoral Community. It means that Education can be decentralized, i.e., de-bureaucratized. The possibility still exists, of course, that some changes in the educational environment can produce significant improvements in educational achievement. Bureaucracies have shown themselves incapable of making these changes.

The bureaucratic system of administering Education appears to be totally ineffective in producing differential effects. The only thing that seems to matter under the existing system is the quality of student and feedback in terms of student performance. If the student is in a group learning context and knows how much his total awareness is increasing relative to others, and he has a minimum level of educational resources at his disposal, he can use this feedback to modify the educational process itself and adjust it to fit his individual needs.

The elimination of this last bit of feedback is the ultimate goal of the leftist ideologues of the Immoral Community. In trying to eliminate comparative evaluation of students by standardized tests, they are eliminating the last vestiges of feedback in the education bureaucracy in order that it might become totally bureaucratized and, as a consequence, no longer merely ineffective but an absolute impediment to the expansion of awareness. Their goal is to make the educational resources available to the students not on the basis of how well they can use them, but on the basis of what political bureaucratic advantage may be gained by allowing one student group versus another to delude itself into believing that it is being educated. The illusion of education in the absence of education is central to the bureaucratization process in Education. This brings us back to the first point.

 

Scientific Illiterates

The reason so many social scientists are scientific illiterates is a consequence of the long-established illusion held in the Immoral Community that one can be an educated, i.e., aware, person without knowing any science whatsoever. This is completely analogous to the illusions perpetrated by religion. Its consequences are to stop the expansion of awareness. The illusion has enabled the less capable students who cannot readily master the more rigorous fields of mathematics and physical science to delude themselves into thinking that they are learning science by studying the ideology of social science. More importantly, it has diverted millions of potential scientists into a state of relative ignorance.

For many years a similar situation existed in biology. Scientifically inclined persons incapable of readily mastering mathematics or physical science studied biology. However, biology was not quite as central to the ideology of the Immoral Community as are the social sciences. Therefore, scientific method, although confined mainly to description, made steady progress in the biological sciences. In the 1930'S persons trained in the methods of mathematics and physical science began to address themselves to biological problems. They and not the classically-trained biologists have brought about the revolution called "molecular biology. Molecular biology and biophysics in general portend total awareness of the biological environment. There is an ever-increasing demand that biologists be thoroughly trained in mathematics and physical science. The same is possible in the psychosocial environment if the bureaucratic grip of the ideologues can be broken and a reformation in the teaching of the natural sciences is brought about.

 

Psychosocial Science

In order to understand the psychosocial environment, it is as a minimum essential 1) to have a thorough understanding of mathematics in order to describe psychosocial processes precisely and rigorously formulate predictive models and experiments of the most complex phenomena known to man; 2) to understand physical science and technology in order (a) to construct physical science analogues of psychosocial processes, (b) to devise measuring instruments and (c) to control the experimental environment; 3) to have a thorough understanding of biology, particularly neurophysiology, in order to understand the biophysical causes and effects of behavior — this in turn is dependent on a thorough understanding of mathematics and physical science.

Very few social scientists have this type of background. The social science bureaucracy perpetuates its own kind The scientifically-based psychosocial scientists will have to be trained outside the establishment.

The teaching of natural sciences, however, is so thoroughly bureaucratized and fragmented that the broad scientific perspective needed for the social sciences is very difficult to obtain. A person wishing to acquire the proper background for working in the social sciences must learn tremendous amounts of largely irrelevant techniques and facts in order to obtain the necessary knowledge for becoming totally aware of the psychosocial environment. The training of molecular biologists and biophysicists is a step in the right direction, but they usually do not learn what little is actually known in the social sciences, sufficient neurophysiology or the mathematical techniques appropriate to the social sciences which are primarily probabilistic in nature. Furthermore, the bureaucratization and fragmentation of the natural sciences is continuing at an accelerating rate.

Hope lies in the union of the fields of biophysical neurophysiology with mathematical and physiological psychology. Much of the theoretical work in the latter areas has been crude and basically trivial, but there is the possibility that it will improve. This may create pressure for the reunification of natural science within the context of scientific psychology. From here the scientific method may spread to the other psychosocial sciences.

Economics is a social science in which rigorous quantitative methods have recently been introduced. However, the econometricians as a group have fallen into the classical trap of the academic bureaucracies and have become obsessed with method as opposed to scientific relevance. They tend to construct mathematical models as ends in themselves as opposed to means of predicting and controlling the environment. Econometric models are almost never tested scientifically.

The only hope for man to save himself from the entropic process of bureaucratization is to perceive directly that the unity of man and the unity of knowledge are different facets of the same evolutionary process. Each is a precondition to the other. There is neither the time nor the means to gather the orderly scientific proof to convince a bureaucratized and increasingly unscientific humanity. Only by direct perception can man master the evolutionary force that is threatening to destroy him even as it drives him toward the Moral Society. Only by direct perception can man realize that all men must become generalists.

 

Generalists

Being a total generalist implies knowing all the arts and sciences. The first reaction of most people to this proposal is that while it may be possible to know all the arts, it is impossible to train men who know all science. However, to grasp all of science does not mean to know every single fact and detail. It means knowing all the most relevant facts and the foundations of all the sciences sufficiently well to be able to understand any new relevant finding in any science. It also implies the capacity for being able to contribute original new relevant findings in any science.

Science is "relevant" only when it contributes to the expansion of total awareness. Those scientific findings and methods which serve to unify the totality of science are the more relevant. Today the most relevant science of all is that which contributes most to man's capability for prediction and control of the psychosocial environment. A few men in the past and a few men today have this totality of scientific knowledge. Leibniz was an example of such a man. John von Neumann is a more recent example. The life of Leibniz has much to teach us about the value of broad awareness as opposed to narrow awareness.

The accomplishments of Leibniz were described in Chapter 2. The human race has not yet produced another Leibniz. It is unlikely that this is due to there not being any persons among the billions born since his time who equal his innate intellectual capacity, rather it is due to Leibniz being among the last men having the unified education of the Renaissance university. He wasted most of his life in theological arguments, court intrigue, and writing a history of the House of Brunswick. Yet the totality of synergistic perception resulting from a broad awareness and a brilliant mind enabled him to play a crucial role in implementing the scientific revolution. If he lived today, it is not unlikely that the bureaucratization process would force him into the niche of the professional mathematician or theoretical physicist where he would have great success, win international acclaim and remain largely irrelevant to the evolution of man toward total awareness. We know that this is the case because Leibniz was not a moral man. A moral man cannot be forced into the role of the specialist, he is always a generalist.

The loss of depth in training a generalist is only temporary. The synergistic effect of a broad awareness with limited depth will enable the generalist eventually to develop greater depth in any given area than if he had concentrated on it exclusively from the beginning. Furthermore, he will be able to distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant which the specialist can never do. That this is the case is illustrated most notably by the accomplishments of Renaissance men such as Leibniz and Spinoza. It is shown even today in a more limited fashion by men such as John von Neumann, Norbert Wiener, Lev Landau, Erwin Schroedinger, Albert Schweitzer, and others. Except for the latter, these men are responsible for the newly-developing schools of biophysical neurophysiology and molecular biology Albert Schweitzer is a lesser version of a modern day Spinoza. Schweitzer was a complete artistic and scientific generalist who in his own way lived and expanded the Ethics of Life.

The unethical quality of modern bureaucratized science traps brilliant minds in a vicious cycle of thought-for-thought's sake where the cleverness of accomplishment far outweighs its relevance. Scientists are becoming chess players in the Game of Pleasure. There is no place left for the free pursuit of total knowledge. There is no longer a system for producing another Leibniz. A generalist can be produced in any modern university in about eight years, as shown in Chapter 6, yet universities fail to do so because total awareness is not a goal. The overwhelming goal for all persons is to find a bureaucratic niche in which to specialize and be secure. The search for security through specialization has destroyed thousands of species before. It is destroying man today by making him unethical.

Specialization does not mean learning a particular subject in depth. Specialization means learning one subject to the almost total exclusion of everything else. Men need depth to accomplish in any field. However, true depth comes only from the synergistic perception of a broad awareness. Such was the case with Leibniz, such was the case with von Neumann. The highly specialized scientist destroys his imagination by focusing his attention on ever-narrower irrelevancies until he has almost nothing in common with other men. Eventually he is frustrated by the "surface tension" of knowledge and he becomes a source of entropy in his specialty, impeding the learning of those less specialized than he.

Imagination can only be sustained and amplified when it is possible to interact in depth with other persons. The more general and deep our knowledge, the greater will be the number of persons with whom we can interact—the greater will be our imagination. That this is the case is evidenced by the great inventors, almost all of whom were generalists although not all had equal depth (i.e., they all tended toward sphericity but some had much greater volume than others). Such was the case with Leibniz, Edison, and more recently Shockley, the inventor of the transistor.

The greatest breakthrough in computer technology since the time of Leibniz is not being produced by a highly specialized electrical engineer. It is being produced by Humberto Fernandez-Moran, a generalist with training in medicine, neurology, biology, and physics. It is this way with all the great inventions, which are the prime events upon which all human progress depends. The much-touted specialists who by their highly specialized training are assumed to be the experts in a particular field almost never produce significant innovations unless they have also acquired some depth in other fields. The persons responsible for human progress are always ethical. Persons remain ethical if and only if they attempt to maintain sphericity. Only generalists with depth in all fields can be great innovators. A generalist of low intellectual capacity will not acquire great depth and innovate significantly, but he can remain ethical, become moral, and contribute to human progress.

It is not so much a man's innate intellectual capacity that distinguishes him from his fellow men, but rather his ethics. When men make an ethical choice to become full players of the Game of Life and attempt to learn everything instead of seeking security in specialization, these men become the creators of good prime events. Only ethical persons can become generalists and only generalists can become moral men. Immoral men are almost always either scientific illiterates or highly specialized scientists; they never create. Ethical children may be either generalists or specialists.

A brilliant specialist may appear to have more knowledge in every dimension of noospace than a less brilliant generalist; however, he will lack the propensity for ethical judgment which characterizes the generalist. He will, therefore, be less aware. This is most clearly demonstrated by the relative awareness of Newton, Spinoza, and Leibniz who were all contemporaries.

Newton was a supreme intellect; he was a generalist in the sense that he had in-depth knowledge in all dimensions of noospace. However, he was a specialist in the sense that he had overdeveloped his physical knowledge. Newton's awareness was an ellipsoid of great volume. His total knowledge was almost certainly greater than Spinoza's, but probably not greater than Leibniz who tended more toward sphericity.

As a consequence of Newton's greater knowledge of the physical environment, he produced the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica and the Optiks. The former is the supreme achievement in the history of science because it was the first coherent scientific model in history. The latter, though less earth-shaking, was also a highly significant achievement which in its own right would have made him famous. However, Newton spent most of his life studying Black Magic and writing the most absurd nonsense concerning the psychosocial environment. He had imaginary psychosocial knowledge.

Leibniz, who was less specialized than Newton, wrote much more lucidly on the psychosocial environment. Although he was not as great a mathematician as Newton, he synthesized the calculus in a more understandable and general way than had Newton. This made it possible for the European countries which adopted Leibniz's mathematical notation in lieu of Newton's to make greater progress in mathematics than did England, which out of chauvinism kept Newton's notation for one hundred years. England was never again to catch up to the rest of Europe in mathematical creativity. Indeed, Newton was the last great mathematician produced by England. Furthermore, Leibniz had foreseen the development of relativity and thought in relativistic terms. Newton was a firm believer in absolute space. Finally it was Leibniz, not Newton, who designed the first true computer.

Spinoza, who had less knowledge than either Leibniz or Newton, was by far the most profoundly aware of the three in his analysis of the psychosocial environment, because he was the most generalized. Spinoza made no significant contributions to physical science, although he made minor contributions to optics (The Theory of the Rainbow). However, Spinoza's system of philosophy foreshadowed both relativity and the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The works of these three men illustrate the importance of generalizing over specializing. Knowledge can be specialized but awareness is total. Only the generalist can be moral. Only moral men can creatively understand the psychosocial environment. Generalization is a necessary but not sufficient condition to morality. Morality is a necessary and sufficient condition for the evolution of the Moral Society.

Today the persons who become generalists do so by accident. They are persons who for some reason have had a prolonged childhood and remained ethical. They are rarely the most brilliant students. They become generalists because of certain personality or environmental factors which make them eschew security for awareness. All the brilliant minds lost to specialization and scientific illiteracy represent a tragedy which the human race must no longer abide.

 

The Default of Education

The bureaucratization of society has led to the paradoxical situation where science is seen as narrow and ignorance as broad. In the popular mind, the generalist is someone who is, in effect, generally ignorant (i.e., a sphere of small diameter). He is typified by the graduate of the liberal arts college with an A.B. in humanities. It is assumed that since he knows no one thing well, he must know everything equally well. This is, in fact, true — he knows nothing about everything. In the armies of the night, the generally ignorant liberal arts graduates are the troops of the Immoral Community. They make up the bulk of the parasitical bureaucracy. The legal minded lawyers are the officers and leaders. The scientifically illiterate social "scientists" are the militant chaplains and priests.

The scientifically illiterate generalists are usually ethical if not moral. They increase the entropy of humanity by their vulnerability to the machinations of immoral psychosocial specialists. They are too weak to resist the pressures of immoral men.

Immoral men are always specialists in the psychosocial environment. They specialize in manipulating children and other immoral men. They are specialists without depth. They specialize in the psychosocial environment in the same way that an efficient killer specializes in the biological environment. They can only destroy and never create. They use the scientific illiterates and the specialized scientists to enhance their ability to destroy.

The narrow specialized scientists, by concentrating on irrelevancies, have made science and technology so boring that even before the students enter the colleges and the universities, most are totally repelled by science and technology. Science is not only made boring, it is difficult. The humanities and the social sciences are easy and fun; they are strategies in the Game of Pleasure. By bureaucratic decree a liberal arts degree makes one as educated, maybe more so, than a science degree. Worst of all, the scientists have become completely identified in the public mind with the by now obviously corrupt, immoral bureaucracies of Goverment, Industry, and the Military. The specialized scientists have brought it upon themselves through their own bureaucratization, corruption, and subservience to the Immoral Community. They have created the Revolt Against Reason.

 

The Revolt Against Reason

The Revolt Against Reason is a movement sweeping all the democracies. It is a reflection of man's innate desire to be totally aware. It is a reaction against the immoral forces of bureaucratization and specialization. Man's desire to be totally aware has been perverted in the past by ideological delusions which gave him the illusion of awareness when he was not and led to the extinction of awareness. The Revolt Against Reason is typified by the "New Left."

The New Left ideology is based on a rejection of science and complete naive acceptance of the extreme leftist hypothesis. As such, it can have no better results than the ideologies of Islam and the Catholic Church. However, the grievances which led to the revolt are real.

The grievances of the revolutionaries are grievances against the immoral bureaucratic corruption that has been described in this chapter. The precise nature of the corruption is not always understood but its results are obvious — the immorality of the political leaders; the seeming impossibility of significant change through "legitimate" channels in either democratic or totalitarian states; the lack of meaningful goals for society as a whole; war and the threat of greater war; the systematic poisoning of the biosphere; racism; sexism, and so on. In other words, the Revolt Against Reason is a reaction, usually unconscious but sometimes conscious, against all the immorality that results from bureaucratization and ideology. The tragedy of the Revolt Against Reason is that in attempting to destroy the immorality in the world it is itself becoming immoral by using unethical means.

The Revolt Against Reason is primarily a revolt of the ethical children of the world against the immoral death-seeking adults who control our society. A child looks at the world about him and it appears totally evil. The immediate source of evil seems to come from science and technology. Science and technology are a product of reason, therefore reason must be evil. The children reject reason and accept any ideology that can give even a semblance of meaning to their lives and a hope for destroying the immorality in the world. The ideology in turn makes the children unethical until they become as immoral as the men they are trying to destroy. The children suppress personal freedom and refuse to correct their mistakes.

The children of the Revolt must realize, while they are still ethical, that the immorality of our society is not due to reason but the immorality of our leaders who are virtually all scientific illiterates. It is the leaders who pervert a science they cannot understand to serve their entropic needs. It is the leaders who long for death and are destroying all of mankind along with themselves. The children must not forsake reason for ideology. They must have hope. The New Left must correct its mistakes while there is still time or it will accelerate the process it is desperately trying to prevent.

The New Left believes that an unscientific, leftist, ideological government can somehow make men free when it has only succeeded in enslaving them everywhere else. The New Leftists, disillusioned by the bureaucratization of Communist Russia, take as their model Communist Cuba and to a lesser extent Communist China.

Cuba is an entropic remnant of the Spanish Empire. By the time Cuba was able to cut herself off from Spain, the decay of Spain amidst a large population of former slaves had so sapped the vitality of the nation that she fell easy prey to one forceful dictator after another. The predatory, capitalistic, industrial systems of the United States and other countries exploited the situation only through the connivance and support of the dictators and the occasional democratic leaders. The dictators themselves had no goals other than personal power. Into this ideological vacuum stepped Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and their followers, a presumably well-intentioned group of leftist ideologues and ethical children who were not bureaucrats. Cuba is, therefore, in a situation analogous to Soviet Russia immediately after the Revolution. Castro is an attenuated version of Lenin and Guevara of Trotsky.

Castro is a lawyer as was Lenin. Guevara was a generalist as was Trotsky. Like Lenin, Castro is becoming unethical by using unethical means to accomplish ethical ends. He has killed thousands of his former opponents, restricted personal freedom, and made alliances with the immoral leadership of the Soviet Union. All this has been done for political expediency and it is corrupting a basically ethical and courageous man.

Che Guevara was almost certainly a moral man. He was trained in medicine, but chose instead to heal the social sickness that is destroying the people of Latin America. He did not understand the true causes of Latin American entropy; but he risked, and eventually sacrificed, his life to do the best he could to engender ethics in the people. He deliberately sacrificed his security and his power in Cuba to continue his ethical attempt to liberate the people of Latin America from what he thought was American imperialism. The tragedy of Che Guevara's life is the tragedy of the Revolt Against Reason. He never saw that it was hedonism, bureaucracy and ideology that were destroying Latin America — not American imperialism. The predatory capitalism of the United States merely took advantage of the basically unethical society which exists in Latin America; it did not cause it. Soviet Russia is a counter-example to the leftist dogma that it is capitalism that causes a nation to become unethical.

Soviet Russia filled the leftists of the world with hope for many years after its revolution. The revolutionary leaders were mostly ethical children. Yet they used unethical means and eventually immoral men controlled the country. It is only today after fifty years of ideological bureaucratization that anyone except the most ideologically blind can see the inherent rottenness in the Soviet system. There is no reason why the same thing that happened to Russia should not happen to Cuba and China. The same process of bureaucratic ideological corruption which is destroying the Soviet Union will surely affect them. It is inherent in any ideological, non-scientific form of government. This type of government invariably becomes the captive of immoral leaders. The decay merely happens faster when there is no democratic feedback.

Castro and Mao Tse-tung, like the founders of any enterprise, are ethical persons of ability and courage with anti-bureaucratic tendencies. Ideology and unethical means are already corrupting them. Their successors will become increasingly bureaucratic until complete corruption sets in and all the leaders are immoral. This should occur in one generation in Cuba and no more than two generations in China.

The factional competition in China will give their system more vitality until one faction completely destroys the other, just as Stalin completely destroyed his rivals. Mao Tse-tung lived long enough to see the creeping bureaucracy that was threatening to make China into another Russia. He tried to destroy the bureaucracy with the "Cultural Revolution." However, he remained ideological. China will almost certainly become bureaucratized in the near future. The best hope for China lies in the anti-ideological nature of Confucianism which may somehow inhibit the implantation of Communist ideology in the Chinese people. However, the current propaganda issued by the Chinese Communist ideologues is among the most irrational, anti-scientific writing in history. Even the skepticism of Confucianism may not be able to save the Chinese from ideological blindness. The Chinese Communists are doing everything in their power to destroy Confucianism.

The ideology and hopes of the New Left are, therefore, based on unrealistic assumptions. Their "intellectual" mentors, typified by Herbert Marcuse, speak of freedom but they do not define it. They make no attempt to be practical. Their arguments are based on archaic Marxist-Leninist ideology which has already been repudiated by the bureaucratic corruption in the Soviet Union. The New Left ignores the growing decay in Sweden which is the freest, most advanced socialist country in the world. They use no logic, let alone scientific evidence, to support their arguments. Pointing out the obvious corruption and immorality of the system they wish to overthrow seems to be sufficient justification for whatever they do. They attack the symptoms of moral decay such as the Indochina War and racism but fail to see the true causes, which are bureaucracy and ideology.

The New Left, in becoming unethical through ideology, is becoming incapable of distinguishing what is good in our society, of which there is much, from what is evil. They fail to make a moral distinction between Soviet Russia which is becoming an immoral society by suppressing personal freedom, and the United States which is becoming an unethical society through hedonism and bureaucracy. There is, however, a certain logic to their position. This is typified by the following paraphrase of extreme New Left ideology in the United States:

"The American system is utterly rotten. It is an imperialistic, exploitive, racist system. It has no redemption whatsoever. The only thing to do is to destroy it completely. Then from the pieces we will build a new society of free men. We will not say at this time what form the society will take — that would be bureaucratic. The new society will reflect the will of the people. One thing is certain, there will be no exploitive capitalism. Public ownership of the means of production will be central. It will be a sensual, happy society.

The foundations of our rotten, racist society are the universities. We will destroy the society by disrupting the universities and making it impossible for middle-class reaming of any kind to take place. We will do this by whatever means are necessary, including violence and coercion. We will urge the youth to turn-on and drop-out. We will not allow rational discussion of any kind to take place if it is contrary to our objectives — facts are the enemy of truth! This will force the reactionary, racist pigs who run the country to suppress all civil liberties in order to suppress us. The people will then rise and overthrow the oppressor. All power to the people!"

The above prescription for revolution is in effect a prescription for Nazi-style fascism in the United States. The New Left will have exactly the opposite effect of what it intends. Militant irrationality by a small minority on the Left (particularly the Blacks) will bring a rightist, irrational response from the affluent majority of voters. Instead of overthrowing the police state that results, the voters will applaud it and give it their full support as long as there is an ever-increasing supply of consumer goods and entertainment. The ideologues of the Right, who have had very little power within the Immoral Community since the time of Hitler, are even less decent, though not less immoral than the ideologues of the Left. The probability of an accidental or even intentional nuclear war resulting from their leadership is higher than if leftist ideologues are in power. The same applies to annihilation by environmental pollution. The Revolt Against Reason has apparently already produced in the United States an indecent leadership. These men are using a clever manipulation of truth combined with the irrationality of the New Left to

suppress freedom and impose a police state with majority consent. They tap the discontent of the overwhelming rightist sentiment in the United States and twist it to their own entropic means. They are paving the way for an American Hitler.

The tragedy of the Revolt Against Reason is compounded by the dilemma of the vast majority of citizens who are left without any ethical political alternatives. The two political parties are already immoral. The Revolt is becoming unethical. The administration in power is doing its best to polarize the country so that in the end everyone will become unethical.

The New Left philosophy is so crude and irrational that it is not likely to lead directly anywhere. The forces of hedonism will in time outweigh the desire for commitment to a cause for commitment's sake. As a cause, the New Left has neither the vigor, the realism, the discipline, nor the justification of the old Communist revolutionaries. The revolutionaries will become increasingly unethical until they themselves are immoral. The important direct effects of the Revolt Against Reason are: 1) the entrenchment of an indecent leadership in the government; 2) the temporary strengthening of the Right; 3) the further weakening of the educational system; 4) the growth of anti-scientific thinking (on both the Left and the Right); and finally, 5) the polarization of society along the Left-Right continuum, (i.e., there will be fewer people near the center) — in a rich, democratic country such as the United States polarization will cause the leftist ideologues to lose ground.

However, the evil effects of the Revolt Against Reason are nil compared to the much more destructive process of bureaucratization. The entire Revolt Against Reason is merely a side effect of bureaucratization in an affluent democratic society. Its greatest tragedy is the wasteful, useless commitment to an unethical course of behavior by thousands of sincere, ethical children who should instead be working to become moral men by increasing man's total awareness. The Revolt Against Reason is the dying convulsion of democratic society trying unconsciously to save itself from the death-wish of the Immoral Community. It is made possible only by the freedom and affluence of the democracies. If it could succeed, it would at best produce another unethical society such as already exists in the Soviet Union and some other Communist countries.

 

Communism

Communism is socialism tied to an unscientific, ideological, rigid, totalitarian pattern of development. Communism is among the most complex ideologies that have ever existed. It is also the only ideology which at its inception made an attempt to be scientifically consistent. The ideology presented a rational coherent model of historical development. However, it was still an ideology; it was not science; the theory was not subjected to experimental validation; the ideologues avoided feedback. The men who formulated it and the ones who implemented it were, with the notable exception of Trotsky and a few others, and still are predominantly scientific illiterates. Today all Communist leaders are or are becoming full-fledged members of the Immoral Community.

Communism was from its inception structured as a secular "religion," i.e., it attempted to explain everything in the universe in terms of materialistic as opposed to supernatural ideology. Their materialistic view of the world made them treat men as matter. In so doing, they ignored man's ethical need for total awareness and increased his entropy. They did not distinguish between the entropic and the evolutionary force. They did not comprehend the spiritual force of morality. However, Communism had many of the virtues which Catholicism, Islam and other religions lacked.

Communism had the notion that the world was whatever men made of it. There was no higher authority than man. It was concerned with making the world better now as opposed to waiting for a better after-life. Communism eagerly embraced technology and to a lesser extent science. Indeed, its overwhelming failure lay in the fact that it did not fully accept the scientific method. If it had, it might have had the necessary feedback for correcting its ideological errors and avoiding the allpervasive bureaucracy that is destroying it.

Bureaucratization is more pervasive and all-consuming in the Communist states than it has been in any country in history — far worse than in the most bureaucratized democracy. Underlying the inherent corrupting influence of bureaucratization is a rigid, all-encompassing ideology which in its final effects will be as destructive as that of Islam and for the same reasons. It will stop the expansion of awareness and sap the vitality of the people, until the society is totally immoral. Indeed, the Soviet Union already seems to have reached irreversible entropy. There is evidence that the Soviet Union has begun to die, and its population may be decreasing. Only two features have enabled the Communist states to compete against the still much more vital and aware western democracies. These are science and feedback through international competition.

 

Science and Communism

Communism's greatest strength is captive science. The Russian Academy of Sciences founded by Peter the Great and Leibniz was at the time of the Communist Revolution a center of scientific excellence second to none. The early Communists believed that there would be no conflict between science and their ideology. Lenin, a scientific illiterate, had indeed proclaimed Marxism to be a science and as such "incontrovertibly true," even after Marx's associates were modifying Marx's theories in the light of new feedback." Lenin was a decent but unethical man because he 1) used unethical means, 2) did not correct his mistakes, and 3) deliberately avoided negative feedback. This was not the case with Trotsky who was probably a moral man.

The new Communist regime gave tremendous support to the now Soviet Academy of Science. The scientific momentum that had been generated by over two centuries of scientific freedom and progress, together with the new and much greater financial and educational support, enabled Soviet science and technology to grow at an unprecedented scale. Eventually it equaled and in some ways (e.g., applied mathematics and Pavlovian conditioning) surpassed that of the Western democracies, which were becoming increasingly concerned with hedonistic pursuits.

This phenomenon was completely analogous to the new and vigorous expansion of the Iberian Empire in the sixteenth century simultaneously with the entrenchment of the ideological bureaucracy that was going to destroy it. A captive science and technology which in all its creative aspects is deliberately limited to the physical and biological environment is the principal source of Communist strength. However, the inevitable bureaucratic destruction of the science which has given it strength was begun at the inception of the Soviet state. The jailing and persecution of the outspoken generalists who are the natural critics of the Soviet system or any system, has always been a feature of Soviet society. Outstanding generalists such as Landau, Kapitza and Gamow were subjected to persecution. The latter left Russia and is indirectly responsible for the early development of the hydrogen bomb in the United States. Kapitza was under house arrest for many years on Stalin's orders. Landau, the most brilliant theoretical physicist that Russia has produced, was severely harassed and imprisoned because of Communist ideological and bureaucratic trivia. The eminent geneticist Dobzshansky left Russia because of ideological interference with his work. Recently scientists who spoke out in defense of persecuted Soviet writers were jailed. Even the eminent and politically powerful Soviet physicist Sakharov was threatened when he criticized the system. The pattern is continuing.

No criticism of the Communist bureaucracy is tolerated. In the past, critics of the system were shot or jailed. Today they are put in insane asylums where perverted science is used to drive them literally insane. Feedback is deliberately destroyed. Russia may already be an immoral society. It is just as evil as Nazi Germany. The Nazis were crude and destroyed men's bodies. The Soviet Communists are more sophisticated; they keep the body alive and destroy the mind. In time, only the highly specialized and docile will be scientists in Russia. Domestication of science is a characteristic of both the democratic and Communist Immoral Communities. When the domestication is complete, science will end. The Soviet ideological totalitarian state, unless basically changed, will have the same fate as Iberia and Islam. The expansion of awareness will cease. The society will die.

 

Communist Feedback

Until 1940 Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and until 1963 scientific genetics, were considered heresy in the Soviet Union, because of ideological bias. The former impeded somewhat the development of physics; the latter had disastrous effects on agriculture and Soviet biology. It led to the rise of the completely unscientific genetic ideology of Lysenko.

The Soviet competition with the United States and other democracies has been the only real source of feedback to the Communist bureaucracy. It is the second source of Soviet strength. It led in time to the acceptance of relativity, the downfall of Lysenko and his school, and lately it has led to an attempt to instill "capitalistic" style feedback into the Soviet economy through a system called "Liebermanism." This is simply a device for setting up competitive bureaucracies to do the same task. Liebermanism imitated capitalism in another way in that it was limited to the trivial decisions of the society. However, it appears that the all-pervasive bureaucracy of the Soviet Union is too corrupt even for such a mild measure as Liebermanism to take hold.

The greatest danger to the Soviet Union is the decline of the democracies in general and the United States in particular. In declining, they are imitating the Soviet Union in the bureaucratization of all important decision making. Soon there will be no important difference between the Soviet Union and the United States. Only the capitalist vigor in the field of trivia will distinguish them. From this point on, the Soviet Union will have less and less meaningful competition from the United States and its feedback will decrease accordingly. It will begin to decline more rapidly than before, but not as fast as the United States. Competition from China and Japan is not likely to be significant. In the near future, when and if the United States turns inward and becomes isolationist in its, hedonistic spiral of decline, the Soviet Union will probably not allow Japan, China, or any other country to become a threat to itself. At this point, the whole world will be in an irreversible grip of increasing bureaucratization and entropy from which there will be no escape until man destroys himself. There no longer exist vital, primitive societies to come and pick up the pieces of the great decaying civilizations. The Ethical State must be started now.

The ideologues of the left who despise both the Soviet Union and the United States may ask, "But what of Socialism?"

 

Socialism

"Socialism" was defined earlier as a political and economic system such that each person is responsible for the welfare of every other. Socialism per se is, therefore, not an ideology but a goal. The classical socialists, Marx being the foremost, considered public ownership of the means of production so basic to this system that they confused this notion with socialism. In so doing they turned socialism into an ideology. It is clear from their writings that what they really wanted was socialism as defined above. In their definition they confused a tactic with the goal. The classical notions include the slogans: "Socialism is from each according to his ability and to each according to his work;" "Communism is from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." Both slogans are nonsense.

No socialist would advocate allowing a person who is disabled and cannot work to starve. In that case the democracies are already beyond socialism and approaching Communism since there no one is deliberately allowed to starve and they support a large parasitical population that produces nothing. The parasitical population is divided into 1) a small indigent segment that subsists on welfare and 2) a much larger segment that makes up the bureaucracy and lives more lavishly. Bureaucracy is the welfare system of the middle class.

The slogan about Communism is a logical impossibility since the needs of men are infinite and know no bounds. Only availability of resources restrains man in the satiation of his appetite for happiness, power, or knowledge.

In the final analysis, socialism is not the answer because socialism is already here. It exists in every conceivable form with all possible types of feedback from the capitalist socialism of the United States to the oppressive, totally bureaucratized socialism of the Soviet Union. In Yugoslavia there already exist competitive bureaucracies and many of the trivial decisions are left to individual citizens. In Sweden a basically capitalistic system of production combined with a total welfare state has given persons complete security with abundance plus a considerable amount of personal freedom. In theory, everything that anyone needs to expand his total awareness.

No scheme of socialization promises more than the Swedes already have, unless it be more of the same. Yet in Sweden the vigor of a remarkably vital people is being lost. The suicide rate is high, the alcoholism rate is high, and recently the use of drugs was, according to the Swedes, reaching alarming proportions. More importantly, the quality of Swedish contributions to art, mathematics, science and technology, which has always been very high, is declining. The socialistic political bureaucracy which runs Sweden is giving the people what it believes, and what it has conditioned the Swedish people to believe, is all they need — security and "happiness." Because they are a democracy, the people have obtained security while still possessing freedom. In their "free" pursuit of happiness the people are becoming miserable and destroying themselves. This is the fate of all who play the Game of Pleasure. The socialist-political bureaucracy has given them everything except what every person needs most, a sense of purpose. Sweden is dying from affluence without purpose, and security without awareness. The same problem exists in every socialistic democracy in the world, including the United States.

This then is the central weakness of both socialism and Communism. There is no vision beyond security and happiness. This is true even when what may be an optimal combination of security and freedom is achieved as in Sweden. The scientifically illiterate political ideologues of the Left who make up the world socialist parties are more concerned with maintaining personal power than with expanding their own awareness, let alone the awareness of their people.

Scientific illiterates cannot be trusted to guide the destiny of the human race. They are never moral men. When they are decent, they can at best cause humanity to destroy itself slowly in the direct pursuit of happiness. When they are indecent, they can trigger a nuclear war or allow environmental pollution to destroy the biosphere, all within a few years. This will occur not because of evil intentions, but because scientific illiterates can neither understand nor control the evolutionary force. They cannot replace ideology by science or bureaucratization by feedback. When they are immoral, they are players in the Game of Pleasure and they long for death.

Some of the methods of democratic socialism, not Communism, may be applicable to an Ethical State. The ideology of socialism and Communism like any other ideology can only hinder man's progress. The basic socialistic goal that each man is responsible for the welfare of every other man is compatible with the evolutionary force. What is not compatible is the interpretation of "welfare" as being synonymous with happiness and security. In an Ethical State welfare is interpreted solely in terms of total awareness with freedom and security as effects and causes. A necessary and sufficient condition for good leadership in an Ethical State or any other society is morality. Only generalists are moral men.

Socialism in all its forms, including Communism, represents a groping evolutionary step toward the Moral Society. It is an improvement over both predatory capitalism and feudalistic monarchy. Its great weakness is in having no vision beyond happiness. This causes all socialistic countries to become completely bureaucratized. Now that the true nature of the weaknesses of traditional socialistic systems can be perceived, it is possible to reach beyond the ethical goals of socialism and create the Ethical State. Before discussing the Ethical State, it is essential that the imminent peril to the human race be fully understood.