Twice in twelve years - 2008, then 2020 - the same crime was committed by the same class.

A safety apparatus - created to protect us - delivered catastrophe.

The guild responsible for that crime was handed the authority of investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. It chose the only charge that could result in its acquittal.

The defining political question of a generation - “Who should pay, the weak or the strong?” - was stolen out of the democratic realm and hidden behind a wall of acronyms and supposed expertise.

First, dissenters were smeared and name-called. Then, they were censored and deleted from the internet. There was no space for public opposition.

The result: history’s largest peacetime transfer of resources upon the inverse principle to Robin Hood: from the poor to the rich and the young to the old.

This was executed twice without public discussion, let alone a vote.

Two acts of robbery. No one punished. The perpetrators rewarded.

Worse, the machinery has been left running, primed for the next catastrophe.

Democracy in the West has become the fire door that locks when the alarm sounds. It is the seatbelt that unbuckles on impact. It is everywhere until it is needed.

Share

Lived Experience

I saw the 2008 banking crisis from the inside.

The first sign of the impending disaster was a missed meeting. A member of my team was supposed to meet with the manager of the Money Markets Desk - the team charged with borrowing money to fund the bank each night.

That meeting did not take place. A follow-up call was met with expletives; this from a man known for his manners.

Overnight financing had seized. No one would lend to anyone. Each bank feared the other was holding sub-prime. Worse, the banks themselves didn't know what they were holding.

The second sign appeared on the trading floor of a European investment bank - the largest such room in Continental Europe. The bank I worked for had bought another in a disastrous deal. Despite my relatively junior status - and the global importance of the deal - I was almost the only person in London to regularly visit the acquisition.

Thirty feet above the trading floor, the bank displayed the prices of three banks involved in this consortium deal.

That day, the price of the smaller bank first started to nudge down, then fall, then plummet. When I looked around, all work had ceased.

Everyone seemed to have frozen. Hands hovered over keyboards. Every eye on the board.

To my discredit, I found those events amusing. When I flew in from London the following Monday, both airports had been plastered with the dead bank’s slogans - “A bank for life. Not just the weekend”, “Here today. Where tomorrow?”

When I arrived at their trading floor, every desk was covered with the detritus of a celebration. Cake, paper plates, discarded cups and tinselly decorations littered that vast hall.

On Friday evening, the dieing bank had thrown a miraculously mistimed party to celebrate its winning bid.

On Monday morning, not one of them had been allowed back onto the premises.

It felt like a poorly scripted TV drama.

The third sign came weeks later, on the same floor. I had gone there to persuade the traders to start booking their trades through my bank. This time, it was the turn of my bank to plummet in value. At the time, it was the world’s largest bank by assets.

Now, nothing was funny.

Once again, hands hovered over keyboards. Every eye on the board.

I didn’t attend my own meeting.

There was no point.

These events put me close to the centre of the crisis, but it was years before I fully understood what I had seen first hand.

Nobody grasped it. Not the men on the money markets desk fighting to fund the bank, not the bankers with their eyes on the price, certainly not the people behind the mistimed party.

What followed twelve years later - during the COVID emergency - was worse. Because the same things happened again, for the same reasons. And this time, I knew exactly what I was looking at.

Subscribe now

Two Crises or One?

The Global Financial Crisis and the COVID pandemic were the same event replayed.

Both were produced by the state processes built to prevent them. On the balance of probability, the harm came from the safety apparatus itself. 1

The parallels run deep. In both cases:

• Faulty models helped trigger the catastrophe.

• The guild that created the disaster was handed sole power to diagnose the disaster's root cause. The machinery for managing the obvious conflicts of interest was suspended.

• That guild selected the only diagnosis that did not indict itself.

• That diagnosis was published with a confidence - we now know - its principals did not hold in private. It was then cited as independent corroboration of their own Not Guilty pleas.

• The same guild chose the remedy. In each case, they selected a cure that evaded democratic supervision. The fix was not fitted to the problem. The problem was diagnosed to fit the fix.

• Decades of well-established doctrine – ideas that we had previously forced upon weaker nations – were abandoned overnight. Nobody ever explained why.

• The intervention was sheltered from public scrutiny with the claim that the matter was too technical. The vocabulary was stuffed with acronyms and terms of art. Every challenge was referred back to the faulty models.

• Dissent was answered with moralistic name-calling, not argument.

• Established media abandoned its social role of challenging power and patrolled the borders of acceptable opinion.

The long-term consequences of the two events also match. Debt taken on during the two events darkens the horizon of major Western states. A broad sovereign debt crisis is now probable: a third catastrophe as the product of the previous two.

The dark reality: the Global Financial Crisis never really ended. Future historians will view it as one continuous sequence of events, that began in 2007, proceeded through the pandemic and ends in a debt crisis that is still to come.

Some countries have been afflicted worse than others. The US appears to have recovered, while British GDP per head is about 30% below its pre-2008 trend, the worst such shortfall since the Industrial Revolution.

The policies selected by our technocratic guilds have succeeded in enriching the powerful at huge cost to the rest of society. These events continue to shape everyday life, influencing everything from the populist surge and the culture war, to defence policy and the war in Ukraine.

The emergency powers assumed during these crises were never unwound. The guilds that generated the failures emerged stronger, with their reputations intact.

During the crash, some took to calling financial regulations “the airbag that disengages above 10mph”: a safety feature only present when it is not needed.

Western democracy now works the same way. It is there to govern every question apart from the ones that truly matter.

During each crisis, the most important political question of the era was deleted from the democratic arena. Such was this negation, it is questionable whether the term still applies in the West.

Most important, few lessons have been learned.

Nothing has been done to address the failures listed. Each points to a deep institutional failure. But there has been no matching programme of institutional reform.

No individuals have been held responsible for their mistakes. The bank chiefs kept their money. The scientists behind gain-of-function experiments suffered no consequences. The public health officials who misrepresented evidence have kept their reputations.

2020 did not merely resemble 2008; it was licensed by it.

Absent a profound programme of reform, the next failure of crisis management will be licensed by 2020.

Part I: 2008

The Safety Apparatus

The instruments that destroyed the financial system in 2008 were created by the safety regime designed to protect us from exactly that disaster.

Securitisation was originally sold as a risk-reduction technology. A bank that holds a thousand mortgages on its books is hostage to a thousand borrowers. A bank that pools the mortgages, divides them into tranches by debt quality and sells them on, disperses that risk across the world.

Risk concentration is the enemy of stability. Securitisation dissolves concentration. Regulators thus welcomed it. The system seemed to be making itself safer.

Credit ratings were a second safety instrument. American regulation has leant on the judgement of the agencies since 1975.

Ratings became legal facts with regulatory consequences. A rating determined what instruments a pension fund could hold and how much capital a bank needed.

Then there was the Basel framework. This made regulatory capital a function of the banks’ own risk models. This ought to have reduced risk. Banks have access to the best models. Their will to survive should push them to actively manage their risk.

From the late 90s on, a measure called “Value at Risk” moved to the centre of risk management. Value at Risk (VaR) determined how much capital a bank needed. A low reading allowed the banks to borrow more and take on more risk.

Last there was the Greenspan Put. This was the perception that the Federal Reserve would rescue the market when asset prices fell. Each time the Fed intervened to stabilise falling markets - 1987, 1998, 2001 - the banks were taught the same lesson: their investments were insured by the state.

In that context, it made sense to take as much risk as possible.

Put these factors together and disaster was certain.

The technology for dispersing risk served to concentrate it in unknown places - like toxic sand, shifting across the seafloor. That is why the man on the Money Markets Desk could not secure overnight funding. No one knew where the poison had accumulated.

The chief virtue of securitisation - risk dispersion - had become its greatest vice.

The credit rating system was compromised by a system of “payment for results”. The issuer of an instrument paid the agencies for the grading. They competed by giving the instruments better ratings.

The Basel rules handed control of the market to Value at Risk models.

When those models reduced their risk estimates, every bank was licensed to increase leverage. This tended to stabilise markets.

VaR was constructed in such a way that this pushed down the risk measures yet further, licensing more risk-taking - a self-reinforcing circle of ever-increasing leverage.

Now add the expectation of state rescue.

None of this was caused by a failure to regulate. All of it was caused by regulation.

The Models

Hidden underneath all of this sat the models: economic models, credit risk models, market risk models and pricing models.

Every model is imperfect. Every model makes assumptions that approximate.

The picture was complicated by a very particular love affair. The financial and economic guilds had fallen in love with their own models, and the image of crystalline perfection they reflected at them. They became the new Narcissus, gazing into their mathematical pools.

These guilds began to see models as more real than reality itself. Henceforth, the models weren’t marked against the world. The world was marked against the models.

Western academic culture is still thoroughly Platonic. It promotes a love of ideal Forms. This creates a perception that the Map is more perfect than the Territory it represents. When the two diverge, so much worse for the world.

The delusion reached peak absurdity among economists. In a move sometimes called the “F-twist” after Milton Friedman, economists came to prefer models that didn’t match the world.

Physics envy drove economists to search for their own E = mc². They wanted the simplest, most cut-down model that delivered results.

That’s why - at the time of the GFC - the most popular economic models had no banking sector. In fact, they contained just one person with infinite knowledge of the future.

Many economists also held to the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. This dictates that financial prices cannot be second-guessed by anyone. In its strong form, it renders attempts to regulate finance essentially pointless.

Here we arrive at the essential issue with VaR and Basel. VaR was meant to reduce banks’ exposure at times of elevated risk. In practice, it did the opposite.

VaR used a sliding window of a year's trading history for reference. As past market turbulence dropped out of that window, banks were allowed to leverage further. This increased exposure tended to boost prices, pushing more losses out of the sliding window, further boosting risk exposure: an infernal loop.

VaR encouraged banks to borrow into rising markets that were created by VaR. “Risk management” amplified systemic risk. This “procyclicality” was the precise opposite of what that system was invented to achieve.

And this was the system mandated by regulators.

Maths Failures

The commonly used credit pricing models suffered from basic maths failures.

The Gaussian copula - adapted for credit by David X. Li in 2000 - gave the industry a number for the correlation between defaults. This is the probability that one mortgage fails if another already has.

This matters for pricing tranches - the sliced groups mortgages were bundled into for sale. If the correlation is low, there is no chance that a large group will lose money. If the correlation is high, losses become likely.

Without a number for correlation, you cannot price a tranche. Without tranching there is no market.

But David Li’s maths was developed in a period when American house prices had never fallen nationally. Correlation was therefore estimated to be low. Even in a pool of bad loans there would always be a slice of good paper.

The result was again reflexive. New credit markets were created on the back of Li’s maths. These boosted US house prices - across the country. Likewise, once the process went into reverse, prices began to fall in unison.

Li’s maths had invalidated itself: his low correlation estimate had generated high correlation. A vast market rested on assumptions hidden within his modelling, now false.

The result: a vast web of complex models that obscured faulty assumptions, failed approximations and bad mathematics.

All of this happening, just as those very models took on a semi-religious status among the guilds that ran the economy - banks, regulators, rating agencies, financial journalists.

Marking One’s Own Homework

The story was marked by conflicts of interest at every stage.

Before, during and after the crisis, the professionals who created the problem were given the power to diagnose it, set the fix and evaluate their own performance.

Before the crisis, banks calculated their capital requirements using their own models. Rating agencies were paid by the banks whose securities they rated and competed for that business using the ratings they were prepared to give.

When the House Oversight Committee released internal agency communications in October 2008, they showed what everybody in the market already suspected: analysts joked that a deal could have been “structured by cows” and still received a rating. They hoped to be wealthy and retired before the system collapsed.

The private position and the published position differed. But it was the published, self-serving position that governed policy.

The economics profession became the sole arbiter of its own performance. Or it was, until the Queen visited the London School of Economics in November 2008 and asked why nobody had seen it coming.

In response, the British Academy convened a group of economists to reply. They conceded a failure of “collective imagination”. But nobody was named. Nothing followed from it.

The Queen asked the guild the right question. It conceded its own failure, but refused to do anything about it.

The Diagnosis

All of this could be forgiven, if not for what followed. During the crisis, the institutions that had presided over the creation of the disaster were handed sole authority to diagnose the cause.

The Federal Reserve, whose monetary policy had supplied the conditions and whose supervisory arm missed everything, was placed at the centre of the diagnosis. Officials who had – just recently - run the banks, moved into the offices that regulated them.

These conflict of interests were immediately set aside. Henry Paulson had been chief executive of Goldman Sachs. Now, he directed a rescue that paid Goldman Sachs in full on its exposures to AIG. This at a moment when every other holder of impaired paper in the world took losses.

Timothy Geithner moved from the presidency of the New York Fed - which had supervised the institutions that failed - to the Treasury, which determined who was rescued and on what terms.

In each case the argument for ignoring these conflicts was necessity. In each case that necessity was real.

The result: the chief suspects in a crime – and the guild around them - were given the task of identifying who was responsible.

The diagnosis that emerged was the only one that did not indict its diagnosticians.

Ben Bernanke and Larry Summers argued that a “global savings glut”, originating in Asian surpluses, had pushed down long-term rates worldwide. This had flooded Western banks with cheap money.

Helpfully, this cause was distant, foreign and beyond the control of anyone in the US.

The virtue of this account: it was the only way of explaining cheap money without reference to the fact that the Federal Reserve had (consciously and actively) made it cheap.

There was pushback from within the elites. At the Bank for International Settlements, Borio and White promoted a similar position to the one taken by this essay.

They put the Fed back in the frame. Policy rates had ratcheted down through successive cycles. Each time the Fed had boosted risk and created a new bust. Each time, the Fed responded by lowering interest rates.

But this compelling account was largely ignored as somehow, “fringe”.

The public account was more confident than the private one. In March 2007 Bernanke told Congress that the problems in subprime appeared likely to be contained. They were not, and the internal record shows an institution less certain than the testimony suggested.

Notoriously - in October 2008 - Alan Greenspan told a congressional committee that his “entire intellectual edifice” had collapsed.

The banks instinct for self-preservation turned out to be far less powerful than the EMH crowd had imagined. Greenspan’s idea that a banking bust could be prevented by self-interest was incorrect.

The Instrument

There were two remedies available in the autumn of 2008. One required a vote. The other did not.

The fiscal route - recapitalisation, direct relief to households, restructuring of mortgage debt – required legislatures to approve it. On 29 September 2008 the House of Representatives rejected the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The market fell by seven hundred points.

This experience taught everyone a lesson they have never unlearned: democracy is slow and sometimes fails to deliver.

The alternative monetary route was under direct administrative control. A central bank can expand its balance sheet on its own authority. There is no vote required, no committee stage, no amendments, no constituencies to placate.

In Britain the Asset Purchase Facility was authorised for monetary policy purposes in March 2009 with a Treasury indemnity. The taxpayer was made to stand behind an operation they had not been allowed to debate.

At its beginning, there was a compelling logic to QE. The market was dying through a “collateral death spiral”. The price of asset A fell, creating margin calls. Banks then sold asset B to finance that margin call. The fall in asset B then created more margin calls, creating more sales. And so on.

QE was a technical intervention that pushed money into the market by boosting banks finances. This pushed up the price of asset B, ending the contagion.

But if QE made sense as firefighting, it made no sense as the default method of economic management.

Just a few months before, everyone in the market and everyone in economics, would have told you the same. But once quantitative easing became the chosen instrument, the crisis was progressively reframed as the kind of problem quantitative easing could address.

It was no longer seen as what it was: an economic crisis that demanded the allocation of losses between creditors, debtors and the state. This became unacceptable because it describes a political question with no technocratic solution.

It now became “a shortfall of liquidity and aggregate demand” - a plumbing failure, a blockage in the transmission of credit.

In truth, this was defining political question of the era: Who should win or lose from the GFC, the rich or the poor, the young or the old, the cities or the provinces?

One lesson was learned well. Democracy is an impediment to technocratic action.

The solution is easy. Just by reframing the problem, it is possible to pull even the most important political question out of the political realm.

In the end, the QE solution wasn’t fitted to a diagnosis. The GFC’s diagnosis was fitted to a QE solution.

Abandoned Doctrine

Perhaps the most brazen aspect of the GFC’s management: the resolution chosen was the exact opposite of what the very same actors had loudly demanded of others.

This reversal has never been explained.

During the Asian financial crisis of 1997, Western economists were of one opinion. The International Monetary Fund required a specific programme of Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea.

As the price of assistance, they were forced to raise interest rates to defend the currency, cut public spending into a downturn, close insolvent institutions, rather than support them, and accept structural reforms.

The rationale was moral hazard: rescuing the imprudent guarantees more imprudence in the future.

But in 2008, the West abandoned every aspect of this. Rates went to zero. Deficits were expanded. Insolvent institutions were propped up.

Moral hazard - an iron principle when the crisis hit Jakarta - became an annoyance, a bare abstraction.

Bagehot’s definitive rule of banking bailouts went the same way. This tells us to lend freely, against good collateral, at a penalty rate.

Central banks did indeed lend freely. But the penalty rate disappeared. Collateral standards were relaxed and then relaxed again.

No one has explained why the earlier doctrine was abandoned. No official has ever been asked to account for having imposed it.

The doctrine was no refuted. It became inconvenient to powerful interests and was simply never mentioned again.

The Alternative

The alternatives to QE and propping up the banks were thinkable.

Support could have gone to debtors rather than creditors. The stimulus did not need to be routed through the bank’s accounts.

Mortgage principal could have been written down. In the US, Bankruptcy judges could have been allowed to reduce the debts of homeowners as they could already do exactly this for second homes, holiday properties and boats.

Each of these policy options was raised. Each was defeated by the objection that it created moral hazard, picked winners and rewarded imprudence.

But these objections applied with even greater force to the resolution eventually selected. Yet they were never raised against it.

This is “intellectual hegemony” at work. The most powerful group - in this case, older asset holders partnered with the financial elite, economists and regulators - sets the range of the thinkable.

The media then absolves itself of its role of investigation and challenge, although the resolution selected clearly favoured the people making the decisions.

An immediate strategy for halting a death spiral was made the central tool of macro-economic management - with clear winners and losers - without any public discussion, let alone a vote.

What followed was a mass financial transfer - on a scale without precedent in peacetime - from those who owed to those who owned. From the young to the old. From the provinces to the capital.

Above all, it was a transfer from the weak to the strong.

That financial redistribution was conducted under powers granted for another purpose, by officials who could not be removed. This was never explained to the people it impacted, let alone sanctioned by them.

The GFC resolution was the perfect crime. Eighteen years on, few of the losers recognize the harm done to them. Looking back at the crisis, all they see is a fog of acronyms.

Such was its genius, the crime of the century went undetected by its own victims.

The Enclosure

How was the most important political question removed from democratic control?

It was deleted from public discussion on the pretext that it was too difficult for the public to understand.

The vocabulary is the most visible part of this. Collateralised debt obligation, CDO-squared, structured investment vehicle, asset-backed commercial paper conduit, super-senior tranche, monoline, repo haircut, quantitative easing, large-scale asset purchase, forward guidance, macroprudential.

This allowed any question posed in ordinary language to be batted away for imprecision. Every question returned to the models. To the same models, the same culture, unrevised in their essentials, that had produced the crisis.

What will QE do to inequality? The left-leaning FT (unbelievably) reported that the models boosting asset prices had no effect on inequality, despite simple arithmetic proof that this is false. 2

What about the risks? The models tell us that they are manageable.3

The same instruments that had failed as predictive tools were now wielded as rhetorical weapons that eliminated dissent.

To paraphrase Homer Simpson on alcohol – models became the cause and solution to all life’s problems.

Central bank independence completed the enclosure. It had been established for a narrow and defensible purpose - to stop elected governments inflating away debt before elections.

It now provided the constitutional basis on which the largest financial distributive operation in postwar history could proceed without a vote; or any public discussion.

But the brute facts cannot be obscured.

Quantitative Easing works by raising the price of assets. Those assets are held by the old and the rich. This is not contested by anyone. It is the same mechanism the policy’s promoters identify.

The top 10% of households hold the vast majority of equity and business assets. The bottom 80% rely on labour income. Policies that inflate asset valuations serve as a direct wealth transfer mechanism to the elite.

QE boosts inequality – not as a side effect - but because that is its mechanism of action.

A policy that inflates the wealth of asset-holders is redistribution - and redistribution is the core territory of democracy.

Calling QE "a technical intervention" was not a description. It was a coup, conducted under cover of a chaff-cloud of acronyms.

Nothing about this was legible. The Keynesian political left championed a policy that enriched the wealthy. The opposition came from the fringes of the right - free marketeers, Austrian economics and libertarians.

The public could make no sense of this.

Moralism

Mass financial redistribution creates winners and losers. We should have expected energetic opposition. But society’s response was curiously muted.

Dissenting arguments were not refuted. They weren’t argued with at all. They were shouted down and catcalled.

Those who argued that insolvent institutions should be allowed to fail were called “Liquidationists” or “Mellonites”. 4 Those who questioned the scale or duration of QE were said to desire a second Great Depression. Those who worried about debt, deficits and future debt crisis, were called out as “Austerians”.

Each label did the same work. It transformed an intellectual position into a character defect. It provoked partisan feeling and deleted the obligation to consider its worth.

This pattern predated the crisis. In 2005, Raghuram Rajan presented a paper arguing that financial development had made the world riskier and described - with precision - the mechanism that would break banking three years later.

Lawrence Summers called the position “Luddite”.

Name-calling is the guild’s default response to dissent. Here, it was deployed against a warning that turned out to be timely and correct. Summers paid no price for this.

The Press

The financial press, with honourable individual exceptions, became a promotional arm of the industry it covered. Later, during the crisis, it became the guardian of the range of acceptable opinion, blocking public policy discussions.

Access is the currency of financial journalism. The reporter who writes that a bank’s disclosures are worthless does not get the interview. His competitor does.

In the case of the FT, its lead commentators passionately defended QE in public, while acknowledging that it was not the best reponse in private.

Criticism of QE was always suppressed with a false dichotomy: by framing the alternative as a 1930s style laissez faire, when this was not true at all.

Iceland is the case that shows what could have been. Iceland did the forbidden things. It let its banks fail, imposed capital controls and prosecuted senior bankers, including chief executives, several of whom went to prison.

It was told that this course was reckless and would exile it from international markets. But it recovered on the same timetable as countries that did the opposite.

It is the only Western state in which a meaningful number of senior financiers were held criminally responsible.

The country’s banking sector was tiny on the global scale. It may be that this strategy could not have been transferred to US or UK-scale. But this essential question was never asked by the media.

Iceland was - instead - covered in the media as an oddity - a small, strange country full of fisherman, doing small, strange things.

The reality: it was a real-world test of the proposition that rescue was unavoidable and that those responsible for the crisis should become the best rewarded by its resolution.

The most important counterexample was dismissed from consideration.

The Impunity

Almost nobody was punished. The institutions that were responsible for the crisis, benefited from it.

In the United States, one senior banker went to prison for conduct connected to the crisis: Kareem Serageldin, for mismarking prices to obscure losses.

Not one chief executive of a major institution was convicted of anything. Richard Fuld kept the several hundred million dollars he had been paid to run Lehman Brothers into the ground.

The bonus pools at institutions that survived on public money were paid, in some cases within weeks of the rescue, on the argument that they were contractual obligations - an argument that the mortgage-holders foreclosed upon in the same season had not won.

Britain managed one gesture. Fred Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood in 2012. He kept his pension. No British banker was convicted in connection with the crisis.

The institutions did better than survive. Central banks emerged from the episode with vastly expanded balance sheets, new supervisory functions, macroprudential mandates, and a reputation for having saved the world.

The banks consolidated. The largest institutions are larger now than they were when their size was supposedly the problem.

The economics profession, having missed the largest financial event of the postwar period, altered its curriculum at the margins and its prestige hierarchy not at all.

Nobody’s judgement was found wanting in any way.

What It Cost

The argument in defence of these policies is that it worked – compared to a particular precedent, 80 years before.

2008 did not become 1931. There was no chain of bank failures, no collapse of the payments system, no depression comparable to the 1930s, no mass unemployment on the interwar scale.

The people who made those decisions in the autumn of 2008 believed they were days from a general collapse. They were probably right. Measured against these carefully selected counterfactuals, the intervention succeeded.

This settles nothing.

The counterfactual that matters is not one where we adopted the policy mix of the 1930s. It is the one in which we abandoned the flawed policies called out above.

Were the costs of the resolution worth paying? Home ownership among the young collapsed as the price of housing was boosted by design. The wealth of asset-holders rose, while the wealth of everybody else fell in relative terms.

As we have seen, these were not the “unfortunate and unplanned side effects” their boosters claimed them to be. They were central to the mechanism.

The important counterfactual is this: what would have happened had asset prices been held flat, and the stimulus routed through the material economy rather than the banking system?

In the years following the crisis, the rate of company bankruptcy fell to historic lows. The real-world policy was thus the mirror image of 1930s “Liquidationism”. It left the rotten companies in place, continuing to absorb demand and control resources that healthier firms might otherwise have used to grow.

The later failure of European states to grow points to the value of Creative Destruction. For there to be a boom, there must sometimes be a bust. Dead wood is cleared away before we build.

The options were never put to the public. That is the most damaging charge.

It's not that the decisions were wrong – they may not have been. It is that the largest distributive decision of the postwar era was taken by people who could not be voted out of office, justified by models that had just failed, diagnosed by the parties under investigation, and defended by suppressing debate through name-calling.

The key actors chose to blanket the decisions they made with a blizzard of acronyms. Under that cover, they removed the decision from democratic control.

The charge is that - when it was over - nothing about that arrangement was challenged.

Instead, the only true “reform” was the abandonment of the convention that political questions require democratic resolution.

This charge indicts almost every important Western institution: the banks and regulators obviously, but also the media and academia, which ranged from venal to compliant to uninterested.

Too many powerful sectors of society were implicated. So the episode was buried.

It is this pervasive failure that explains why the machinery was still there, in full working order and primed for operation, by the spring of 2020.

Part II: The Interval

What was fixed

It is not true that nothing was done. There were a series of technical fixes.

Basel III raised bank capital requirements substantially, with a debt ratio that did not depend on the banks’ own models. Liquidity coverage rules were imposed for the first time. Stress testing was made routine.

Resolution regimes were written so that a failing institution could be wound up without a public rescue. Britain legislated to ring-fence retail banking from investment banking. Derivatives were pushed onto central clearing houses. In the United States, TARP was largely repaid - at a profit.

But these reforms addressed the technical layer alone. Capital, liquidity, collateral, resolution - engineering questions. None of them touched the real disease: institutions, their leadership, their culture, their incentives.

Nothing was done to prevent the authors of a catastrophe from being handed the authority to diagnose and resolve it.

The conflict-of-interest machinery was left in the same decayed state. The waivers and recusals of 2008 were a precedent for suspending the rules.

Nothing was done to make key actors responsible for the decisions they made.

Central bank independence was originally established to prevent pre-election inflation. It was used to conduct the largest distributive operation in postwar history – fully outside democratic control.

This arrangement was not revisited by any legislature in the West.

The US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011, split along partisan lines, with two separate dissents. Its findings changed nothing. In Britain there was no inquiry at all.

If the technical layer was partially repaired, the institutional layer was left with every flaw intact.

Even the limited technical repairs were partially reversed once attention moved on. In 2018, the US raised the asset threshold for enhanced supervision to $250 billion. Silicon Valley Bank dropped out of the stress-testing regime as a result. The bank failed five years later for want of this supervision.

Within a decade, the technical reforms were being undone by the guild’s lobbying - with no public discussion.

The headline: the banking crisis was driven by venal bank leadership and inept regulators. Yet, the two groups that benefited most from the fallout were bankers and the regulators themselves.

Bankers profited as the state artificially inflated asset values over the subsequent decade. The size, scope, and power of regulatory bodies expanded beyond recognition. Ultimately, a crisis born of regulatory failure was "solved" with a massive expansion of the regulatory state.

What Never Went Back

The GFC made the emergency instrument the everyday instrument.

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet stood at roughly $900 billion in the summer of 2007. By 2014 it was $4.5 trillion.

An attempt was made to shrink it. In September 2019, disorder in the overnight repo market forced the Fed to reverse course and begin expanding again.

The Bank of England’s Asset Purchase Facility was created in March 2009 as a temporary measure. It was enlarged in 2011, again in 2012 and 2016, but never unwound.

The European Central Bank went to negative interest rates in 2014 and began asset purchases in 2015 - six years after the crisis those measures were designed to address.

In 2009, quantitative easing was an emergency measure requiring justification. By 2019, it was standard economic management.

When the pandemic hit, QE was the default. “Extraordinary intervention” was now ordinary.

COVID generated another vast exercise in wealth transfer.

The Problem: A disease with an average age at death of 83 that posed a minimal risk to the young.

The Resolution: Halt the lives of the young entirely, transfer their wealth to the old and massively expand a national debt they will support for the rest of their lives.

Europe

Europe showed most clearly what had actually been learned from 2008.

In November 2011 - within five days of each other - the elected prime ministers of Greece and Italy were replaced by unelected technocrats under pressure from the EU. Lucas Papademos had been Vice-President of the European Central Bank. Mario Monti had been a European Commissioner.

Neither stood for election. Both were installed because the alternative - letting the electorates of those countries decide - could not be contemplated.

This nullification of democracy was again styled as prudent crisis management.

In July 2015 the Greek government put the terms of its bailout to a referendum. The proposition was rejected by 61%. But - within a fortnight - the government had accepted terms harsher than the ones the electorate had refused.

The EU had determined that the question was not one the electorate could be allowed to answer.

The Winners

In the United States, one senior banker went to prison for conduct connected to the crisis. Not one chief executive of a major institution was convicted of anything. In Britain, nobody was.

Ben Bernanke was reappointed and named “Person of the Year”. Timothy Geithner moved from the New York Fed, which had supervised the failures, to the Treasury, which allocated the rescues, and then to private equity.

Mervyn King left the Bank of England for the House of Lords.

The economists whose models contained no banking sector continued to teach, to publish, to advise, and to be consulted about the Next Big Thing.

Their prestige was largely unaffected.

In sum: nobody’s judgement was found wanting. None of the professional or academic guilds suffered consequences. No institution was reformed.

The institutions that failed the most, thrived the most. Central banks emerged with balance sheets five times larger, with new macroprudential mandates, with supervisory powers they had not previously held, and with a reputation for having saved the world.

The Nobel committee gave a prize both for and against the EMH in 2013. Eugene Fama created the EMH. Robert Shiller’s life’s work is the refutation of EMH.

The committee honoured the thesis and its refutation simultaneously and called it balance.

The Lessons

It's tempting to laugh at venality. That misses the point.

These events transmitted information to the next set of officials facing an emergency:

First: The institutions have impunity.

Second: If an instrument exists that evades democracy, you should use it.

Third: When the guild that caused a disaster is asked to determine the cause, its answer will stand. No countervailing processes exist. The conflict will be noticed, described as regrettable, and set aside with reference to the urgency of the hour.

Fourth: A diagnosis published with more confidence than its authors privately hold will not subsequently be checked. No one has the appetite to check.

Fifth: Do not engage with counterarguments. Meet technical objections with moral condemnation and name-calling. The legacy media will support you, no matter.

Sixth, and decisively: If it goes wrong, nothing will happen to you. Your status will be higher. Your successor will hold powers you did not have. Your reputation for judgement will be intact. No procedure exists that could damage it.

You have no personal responsibility for outcomes. Your guild has no responsibility for its outputs. You will be rewarded for services to your guild no matter how badly you fail. Betraying your guild – on the other hand - will consign you to obscurity.

You have zero skin in this game.

The events of ‘20 and ‘21 were licensed by ‘08. The pandemic wasn’t caused by the financial crisis.

Every error and deception made in the spring of 2020 had been rehearsed, validated and proven costless in the decade before.

Part III – The Pandemic

Safety as Danger

Gain of Function research makes infectious agents more dangerous. The work is justified as “pandemic preparedness”. To anticipate what nature might do to us, we must first understand it; to understand it, we must build it.

Virus discovery programmes were funded on the same logic. Teams were sent into remote caves to collect dangerous pathogens that had never before infected a human being, so that they could be brought back to laboratories and studied.

In October 2014 the United States judged this work so dangerous federal funding was to be suspended. That pause was lifted in 2017.

Throughout - funding continued to a laboratory in Wuhan with a low biosafety level and practices no American agency could inspect, let alone manage.

This was self-defeating. If the virus escaped the Wuhan lab, nothing could prevent it from returning to the US.

The money was routed through EcoHealth Alliance, itself a grant recipient. In 2018 that body, along with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, proposed to insert a “furin cleavage site” into the SARS-related bat coronaviruses.

DARPA - sensibly - declined to fund this on the grounds of biosecurity. There is no public evidence that the work proceeded.

No sarbecovirus has a furin cleavage site and SARS-CoV-2 does.

That is not proof that COVID was created in Wuhan. But it establishes that researchers in Wuhan had proposed doing exactly this kind of work, shortly before such a virus appeared for the first time in the same city.

This circumstantial evidence makes the Wuhan team – and its Western associates - the number one suspects in this story.

What is no longer in question is that an apparatus for preventing pandemics had become an apparatus for making new pandemic vectors in labs with basic biosecurity.

This process operated without external audit, initiated by people who could not be removed, and funded by the same body that would later be asked to determine the root cause of the millions of deaths it may itself have generated.

None of this was a failure to manage risk. All of it flowed from attempts at risk management.

The Pandemic Models

On 16 March 2020, a team at Imperial College published a report projecting 510,000 British deaths and 2.2 million American ones in the absence of suppression. Policy across the West turned within days.

Six days later, on 22 March, the model’s author addressed the growing calls to see the code. He had written it - he explained - thirteen years earlier to model flu pandemics: it was thousands of lines of undocumented C.

The man whose model had closed the schools announced - in public, on the eve of the lockdown - that the instrument could not be independently verified.

Without documentation there is no specification; without a specification there is nothing to test the code against. No one can say if it is working or not. His influence on public policy should thus have ended there.

This is a standard the GFC established in law. In April 2011, the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency issued joint supervisory guidance on model risk management - SR 11-7 and OCC 2011-12.

Any model used to determine regulatory capital requires documented development, validation by people independent of those who built it, and continuous monitoring thereafter.

The guidance is explicit: the documentation must be sufficient for a qualified third party to understand and replicate the model without recourse to its developers. Britain’s Prudential Regulation Authority applied the same standard to stress-testing models in 2018.

A bank may not use an undocumented model to set its own capital. That has been the rule in both jurisdictions for over a decade.

The rules against this failure had been built, tested and codified in response to 2008. The state applied these rules to the banks. It did not apply them to itself.

An entire nation’s future turned on a single model’s output. The essential standard created for just this situation was not applied.

Beneath the 15,000 lines of code sat the faulty assumptions. The infection fatality rate was estimated before any population had been tested. The reproduction number was inferred from early case counts of unknown completeness. The projection assumed that behaviour would not change unless government compelled it - and the do-nothing scenario that generated the headline figure was one the report’s own authors described as unlikely.

Governments picked a counterfactual its authors had disowned and used it to impose unprecedented measures.

The team’s long record of overestimating deaths was well known. In 2001 Imperial’s modelling drove the contiguous cull during foot-and-mouth: some six million animals destroyed on a policy that veterinary epidemiologists disputed at the time and dispute still.

In 2002, on the transmission of BSE to humans through sheep, the same group produced an upper estimate of 150,000 British deaths. The eventual toll from variant CJD, from all sources, was 178.

In 2005, on avian influenza, Ferguson told a newspaper that up to 200 million people worldwide might die. The confirmed global death toll from H5N1 over the following fifteen years was around 450.

In 2009, on swine flu, the British planning assumption ran to 65,000 deaths. The eventual figure was 457.

The modeller’s record of failure did not count against them. The guild does not score its own performance. There is no price to be paid for failure. No one’s prior calls are consulted before their next one is acted upon.

A profession that kept those scores would allow members to be embarrassed in public. No guild agrees to that voluntarily.

In October 2020 a projection of 4,000 deaths a day was displayed at a Downing Street press conference to justify a second lockdown. It was drawn from a run that newer data had already superseded. The number shown was the most alarming one available, not the most accurate.

Nobody was asked to account for it, because by then the model was not a prediction. It was a talisman.

Once again, the map was more real than the territory. Where the two diverged, so much the worse for reality.

Marking Your Own Homework

The scientific apparatus advised the government, assessed the results of its own advice, and supplied the evidence on which its advice was subsequently judged.

Its membership was initially withheld. But its modelling subgroup was drawn from the same handful of institutions that had produced the models. Minutes were published late and in part.

The point is not that these were bad people. It is the same problem as the GFC. When a body advises, implements, evaluates and reports, there is no external test of its judgement. It inhabits an inward-looking bubble.

The Diagnosis

As in 2008, the private positions and the published positions diverged, with the published position governing policy.

What followed was the same play, restaged with different actors.

On 31 January 2020, a group of virologists wrote privately to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to say that features of the new virus looked potentially engineered.

On 1 February he convened a call. His own contemporaneous notes - released in July 2026 by Senator Rand Paul - list a dozen participants, among them Fauci himself and Francis Collins. Two were sure natural origin could account for what they were seeing. The rest were not prepared to rule out engineering.

Three days later, four of the five authors of a paper drafted in the aftermath of that call sent him the text. That paper - The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 - concluded that no laboratory-based scenario was plausible.

It was published in Nature Medicine on 17 March 2020 and became the most widely cited authority for the proposition that the question was closed.

No new sequence data arrived between 1 and 4 February. They had the same genome and the same furin cleavage site on the fourth that they had on the thirty-first.

The confidence changed, but not the evidence.

Fauci then cited the paper publicly, as the independent judgement of highly qualified evolutionary virologists. He did not mention that he had convened the meeting from which it emerged, that his institute had funded the relevant research, or that the panel had told him privately – days before - that engineering was possible.

Set beside this was a second document from that same February. A statement in the Lancet condemned conspiracy theories about the virus’s origins, presented as the collective voice of twenty-seven scientists.

That letter was organised by the president of EcoHealth Alliance - the very body that had channelled American funding to the Wuhan laboratory, and the prime suspect in this investigation. His interest went undisclosed for seventeen months, until a competing-interest addendum appeared in June 2021.

These documents became the basis for a censorship regime that suppressed even the possibility most of the 1 February call's own participants had privately entertained.

There was nothing special about that room. The genome had been published on 10 January. The furin cleavage site was visible to anyone who cared to look. The twelve had no information the rest of the field did not have; they had merely been asked.

Whatever the twelve concluded from that sequence, thousands of equally competent people around the world could reach - and did reach - from the same public data.

On 8 February 2021, Facebook announced it would remove “false claims” that the virus was man-made or manufactured, citing consultations with leading health organisations including the WHO.

Facebook removed the Great Barrington Declaration page in February 2021 and censored opposition to the lockdowns.

It also suppressed content claimed to be “anti-vaccine”, extending this definition so broadly that it covered true claims that natural immunity was stronger than that from vaccination.

Scientists around the world watched as ideas they knew to be true - or at least believed to be plausible - were designated as “misinformation” and deleted from the largest platforms on earth.

Few of them said anything at all publicly.

On 30 March 2021 the Director-General of the World Health Organization said publicly consideration of the evidence for a laboratory accident had been “insufficient”.

The head of the WHO said the question needed investigating while the platforms deleted the question as false. Not one journal, learned society or professional body said a word.

The ban survived for a further two months.

This was Bernanke’s savings glut, again. The institution that funded the work was handed authority to determine whether its work had caused the disaster. It adopted the only diagnosis that did not indict itself.

The conflict of interest was again noticed. It was set aside on the grounds of urgency.

The result: the prime suspects in events that resulted in 10s of millions of deaths were made detective, prosecutor, judge and jury. They used this power to suppress discussion of the most important facts about the pandemic and its causes.

Again, almost nobody in a position to object - in science, media, academia, public health or government - thought it worthwhile.

The Abandoned Doctrine

In the autumn of 2019, the World Health Organization published its guidance on non-pharmaceutical measures for epidemic and pandemic influenza. Contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals and border screening were not recommended in any circumstances: not at any level of severity, up to the most extreme the authors could envisage.

Why? The document weighed cost-effectiveness, resource drain, privacy and stigma, and concluded against.

Nor was this an outlier. American guidance made home quarantine of exposed households a voluntary measure. Britain’s preparedness strategy assumed a novel respiratory pathogen could not be contained.

Confining an entire healthy population to their homes by law appears in not one plan around the world. It had never been proposed in any of this planning before the spring of 2020.

Five months later, this guidance had been memory-holed.

It was never refuted. Just like the GFC, the considered doctrine was erased, and then never mentioned again.

The Enclosure

The vocabulary thickened once again. R number, non-pharmaceutical intervention, infection fatality rate, case fatality rate, seroprevalence, viral load, reasonable worst-case scenario, SAGE, SPI-M, NERVTAG.

Some of these terms were necessary. Their cumulative effect was exclusion.

Once again, any question asked in ordinary language could be rejected for imprecision.

Every question was returned to the models. The same models. Unrevised in their essentials, produced by the same institutions, commanded by the same people, functioning not as instruments of prediction but as weapons against dissent.

What about the children? The models do not show a significant effect.

What about the cancers not being diagnosed? The models suggest the risks are manageable.

Once again, the answer was not an answer at all.

Above it all sat the phrase that completed the enclosure: following the science.

This created a functional equivalent of central bank independence. It converted a political decision into a technical one, placed it beyond argument, and relieved the decision makers of defending their decisions.

The Moralism

Again, dissenting positions were not refuted. They were derided.

Those who questioned school closures were “granny-killers”.

Those who questioned the models were “covidiots” or “anti-vaxxers” or in the pay of evildoers, like Putin.

Those who raised the lab-leak hypothesis were “conspiracy theorists” - a designation created, as we have seen, by the actor who funded the laboratory and a primary suspect.

In October 2020 three epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford published the Great Barrington Declaration. They argued for “focused protection” of the vulnerable in place of general suppression.

The director of the National Institutes of Health - Francis Collins - responded by writing to the director of NIAID - Anthony Fauci. The authors were described as “fringe”. What was needed - he wrote - was a quick and devastating “takedown”.

Note well: it was not that the proposal was mistaken. It was not that the evidence ran against it. It was that the academics were “fringe”.

This was a claim about credentials, not truth. The note didn’t call for a rebuttal. It called for reputation destruction.

Remember 2005, when Lawrence Summers called Raghuram Rajan a “Luddite” for a paper that described the future crisis with precision.

That was bad enough: a vital warning dismissed with ridicule rather than argument. Summers was just one economist at a seminar, speaking for himself.

Here the most powerful official in world science, instructed a colleague to arrange professional destruction in answer to an honest scientific position promoted by professors from three of the best universities on earth.

The comparison Fauci desperately wanted to draw was with Galileo, with Fauci starring in the headline role. Challenging Fauci was religious obscurantism. Fauci - casting himself as Science itself - was being assailed by superstition..

The analogy ran exactly the other way.

Fauci – like Urban VIII – was the leader of a global institution.

Galileo was not destroyed by ignorance. Urban had been his patron and his admirer. He had written verse in his praise and personally authorised him to write about the Copernican system.

Galileo’s offence was institutional. He had exceeded the terms of his NDA. His trial barely touched on the question of whether the earth moves or not.

If Fauci saw himself as Galileo, he was in fact Urban reborn: setting the terms of debate by controlling a global institution.

Collins may have believed he was defending public health. The “takedown” was a service to science rather than an attack upon it.

But an institution that identifies itself with Truth comes to see good-faith challenges as sabotage. Such an institution will happily destroy honest men and women in the service of “honesty”.

The Media

In 2008, the financial press had a genuine defence of the technical nature of the subject matter. By 2020, the general press had abandoned its social role.

Outlets that had spent a decade complaining about executive overreach barely questioned the most sweeping peacetime restrictions in British and American history.

The only conceivable criticism was that these measures had come too late.

Journalists who would ordinarily have asked “Who benefits?” confined themselves to asking whether the public was living up to the standard set for them by the state.

Government rules - increasingly arbitrary - became a moral baseline. The only possible criticism: deviation from them.

The lab-leak hypothesis was excised from the largest social platform on earth in February 2021 and designated as “misinformation”.

This was done on the authority of a scientific establishment that may have helped create the virus. That conflict should have been vigorously investigated, but it was not.

The right to comment was reinstated three months later when the “global scientific consensus” turned out to be four scientists on a phone call.

Yet the media made little of the ban at the time and little of its abandonment in the face of growing evidence that the lab leak was not just “not a conspiracy theory”, but a likely explanation for the pandemic.

Sweden now came to play the role of Iceland during the GFC.

The country declined to impose a general lockdown, kept most schools open and – instead - relied on voluntary measures.

This was the only large natural experiment available and it was an obvious priority for a serious press to examine.

It was not examined. It was denounced.

Sweden was covered as a provocation, a moral failure, an outrage. Right up until its relative success became inconvenient. Then it stopped being covered at all.

Iceland was a curiosity. Sweden was heresy.

The Impunity

Officials and scientific authorities often lied and misrepresented facts during the pandemic.

These deceptions likely cost lives.

Anthony Fauci has admitted that he told the public masks were ineffective at a time when he believed they were effective.

Official guidance later swung the other way, continuing to claim masks were effective long after the evidence had turned against that too.

False claims were also made that vaccination prevents infection. These continued long after the evidence against this was clear.

Such claims create false confidence that must have resulted in vulnerable people being infected.

Once again, nobody has been held responsible.

The author of the model that closed Britain resigned in May 2020 for breaking the rules his own model had produced. He soon returned to public advisory work.

A Health Secretary - Matt Hancock - resigned for breaching his own guidance while pursuing an affair. In each case the offence was hypocrisy, not judgement.

Both resigned for hypocrisy. Neither, nor anyone else, has suffered a consequence for having been wrong.

Fauci received a pre-emptive pardon for federal crime. When questioned about his behaviour, he pled the fifth.

Excess deaths run into the tens of millions - estimates range from 15 to 27 million - and yet no one seems interested in why it happened, or in preventing it happening again.

Why is that?

The public health bureaucracy that we charge with exactly this responsibility would prefer us to chalk it up as one of life’s mysteries – like the Bermuda Triangle or the question of where flies go in winter.

There have been inquiries. Britain’s is an ongoing fiasco that has run for years and is trapped in the mindset of the Guardian in March 2020. It is fixated on one question: whether restrictions were imposed early enough.

This lack of curiosity is the most curious aspect of the pandemic.

The Winners, Again

The public health agencies emerged with expanded emergency powers, larger budgets and standing legal instruments they did not previously possess.

An international pandemic agreement was negotiated to make these arrangements permanent.

The scientists who convened the origins diagnosis retained their positions, their honours and their reputations for judgement. The modellers still model. The advisers still advise.

The guild that failed emerged larger.

Nobody's judgement was found wanting - not in a way that cost anyone their career.

Nothing has been done to prevent our guilds from failing exactly this way again.

What it cost

Again, the defence deserves to be taken seriously. A novel respiratory pathogen was spreading in a population with no immunity to it. Governments had almost no information about it.

The cost of underreacting was visible in Bergamo. Vaccines arrived within a year - an achievement without precedent in the history of medicine - and mortality among the vaccinated fell sharply.

The people who made those decisions believed they were preventing a catastrophe. In the spring of 2020 nobody could prove they were wrong.

This doesn’t settle anything.

Once again - the important counterfactual is not the one offered by the suspects.

The choice was never a binary between suppression and doing nothing at all; it was between suppression and Swedish-style focused protection.

The second option was not defeated in argument. It was simply ruled way out or fringe to destroy the reputations of its promoters.

The Losers

As a result of these two emergencies, public debt across the West has risen to levels not seen outside wartime. This was monetised by “independent” central banks.

The inflation of 2022 followed and fell hardest on those with no assets. Precisely the same people who had paid for 2008.

A generation of children lost a year or more of schooling, with the losses concentrated among those who had least. Cancers went undiagnosed and untreated.

Health service backlogs reached levels that have not since cleared. Small businesses closed, while their largest competititors accessed free credit.

The redistribution ran the same direction as 2008. From the young to the old. From the poor to the asset-holding. From the provinces to the capital. From those who owed to those who owned. From the people who left the house to work to the laptop class, who derided dissenting victims as 'covidiots' and 'science deniers'.

The repeating pattern: take from the weak and give to the strong.

This was not two events. It was the same event twice, in twelve years, using the same mechanism, with the same instrument, on the authority of the same kind of model, defended by the same kind of name-calling and followed by the same catastrophic impact and the same absence of consequence.

In each case, the policy was never put to anyone.

This is the most serious charge: not that the policies governing the GFC and the pandemic were wrong, but that the era-defining political questions were removed from the political arena by people working in their own interests, against those of society in general.

When it was over, nothing about that arrangement was changed.

That is why the machinery is still there, primed and waiting.

Who knows what disaster is brewing in some corner of the world? Our basic rights may be – once again - withdrawn at any time in the name of prudent management.

The most influential section of society no longer sees democracy as an essential safeguard for defending freedom, but as blocking their rule in times of crisis.

Democracy - on this account - is the steering wheel that disengages at 5mph.

The next essay will place these events in their historical context, analyse the pattern of institutional failure and recommend solutions.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

The rate of cultural innovation in the West has collapsed. Not slowed - collapsed.

Try to name a new popular music genre born in the last fourteen years. A new art movement. A novel anyone will read in a century.

The 1980s threw off more than a dozen new musical styles. Since 2012: silence.

The machine that used to turn raw novelty into cultural movements has switched off.

One explanation is institutional capture. Our credentialling systems - film schools, publishing houses, prize juries - began selecting for identity over merit. They turned inward to palliate social harm, abandonning the telos of making things people actually want.

I've argued this myself. But this cannot be the whole story: cultural production has also collapsed outside the institutions. It’s never been easier to create a music track and make it available to the world. Yet ungatekept zones are as sterile as captured ones. Something deeper than feminisation and institutional decay must be at work.

This essay argues the counterintuitive cause: culture died not from too much orthodoxy, but from too little.

We tell ourselves that the old monoculture - three TV channels, the national anthem each midnight - was a prison. We escaped into glorious diversity. But it is also the reverse.

Orthodoxy provides the pressure that forces novelty to coalesce. Punk was formed by overthrowing prog rock. Scarcity forced confrontation. Confrontation forced difference.

Shatter the mainstream into a million parallel niches and nothing has to defeat anything. Friction vanishes - and with it, the evolutionary pressure that turns a cultural mutation into a cultural movement.

Share

Hollywood Gadfly recently made a detailed examination of the fates of the filmmakers who pass through the credentialling system of elite film schools and the prestigious film festivals.

Spoiler: few pay to see their movies.

This happened just as credentialling systems began to select candidates by sexual and racial identity, rather than merit.

This has two effects. The new generation is less competent. And it tailors its output to the credentialling system rather than to ticket buyers.

The focus of the movie pipeline has turned inwards - away from the mission of selling entertainment - towards a new goal of palliating social harm.

Creativity, novelty and popularity have been deprioritised.

What factors account for this?

This story fits the feminisation thesis I set out here. The transition took place around the same time that these institutions passed 50% female leadership. Feminised institutions tend to abandon rules and systems for considerations of harm.

It also matches Helen Andrews' account of feminisation. Citing Joyce F. Benenson, Andrews argues that men evolved to cooperate in non-kin coalitions against an out-group: the raiding party, the hunting band, later the football squad and the sales team.

Critically, male coalitions were always externally validated. There was no way to fake killing a neighbouring raiding party or winning the football match.

This heritage accounts for masculine values. Men had to work together on a common task or die at the hands of a group that did.

The motto: meritocracy and competence - or death.

Women faced different pressures. Should the neighbouring tribe eliminate the men, their genes typically survived.

They elevated themselves through covert, indirect competition and the exclusion of same-sex rivals. Their tactics were reputation destruction, social manoeuvring, the cultivation of protective alliances and the flattening of hierarchies to prevent rivals from standing out.

This is why culture turns inward as it feminises. Institutions that were once dedicated to the production of novel cultural material turn toward other tasks.

All of this is correct and important, but it cannot be the only story.

The rate of cultural change has fallen in areas that are not protected by credentialling systems, or gatekeeping of any sort.

Think of popular music styles. No one needs a certificate to start a garage band or release a track to Spotify or Soundcloud.

But the headline rate of cultural production has collapsed there too.

Thirteen new music genres in the 1980s. Just one since 2003 - Drill. None in the last fourteen years.

The talent didn't vanish; the young make new sounds constantly. What’s gone is individuation: creativity no longer crystallises into genre.

I am going to offer a different - and deeply counter-intuitive - explanation for cultural stasis. The failure flows from the absence of orthodoxies.

The media landscape has been shattered into millions of channels. Culture has ceased to show sequential development - with candidates for the future mainstream competing with each other for dominance. It shows parallel stasis with past and present in peaceful co-existence.

Here is the paradox: it’s impossible for an outsider to conquer the mainstream, if there is no mainstream to conquer.

Orthodoxy is a lens. It focuses cultural energy and stops it dissipating into ever-smaller channels.

To appreciate what has changed, we must remember how simple and monolithic our culture used to be.

In the US in the 1970s, three commercial networks took 90% of the prime-time audience. The Roots finale of 1977 reached 100 million viewers. A third of the country.

The UK only had three TV channels until 1982. The government capped broadcasting hours to eight hours per day until 1972. At midnight, the BBC played the national anthem and shutdown.

The story we habitually tell: this was a time of suffocating conformity, from which we were rescued by cultural diversity. But it’s hard to reconcile this with the facts. The movie scene is usually seen as having hit a creative peak in the 1970s. Our charts suggest that music hit peak creativity in the 1980s.

The “diversity” that emerged, wasn’t true diversity. That would imply some great burst of creativity or novelty. It was a diversity of channel and format, not of content.

The existence of orthodoxy boosts evolutionary pressure. In the 1970s and 80s, there were only a few cultural niches available in the mainstream. Culture could only move in sequence. For a new movement to have a chance, it had to knock its rivals off the top spot.

Consider the transition from prog rock to punk. Punk defined itself in opposition to prog rock. This presented a binary choice, in a way that is unimaginable today.

Today culture exists in parallel. If you want to dress in full 70s prog-rock costume, no one will beat you up for it. Ditto punk. It really did never die.

This sounds like an advance. No friction. No mutual hatred. No ingroups. No outgroups.

But this progress brings regress. No competition, means no change. A million parallel niches set the evolutionary pressure to zero.

When there's just one channel, the challenger has to be genuinely different and oppositional. Scarcity forces confrontation, confrontation forces differentiation. Punk beat prog rock by inverting every value.

With many channels confrontation becomes unnecessary. The culture slips into stasis: nicer but neutered.

Human nature has not changed. The young still pour novelty onto YouTube and TikTok by the hour. But there is no longer a mainstream for it to capture, and so it captures nothing.

Novelty did not cease. We did not lose the capacity to invent. What we lost was the pressure that turns invention into a new identity.

We find ourselves in a new world of mutation without speciation.

Our culture will not die. On the contrary, each year will bring more tracks, more films, more novels. The library grows although nothing is added to it.

The last musical movement came fourteen years ago. The future? Busy inactivity. Raucous silence. The teeming void.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Philosophers are delicate souls. He had been driven to this, not by addiction or depression, but by an exotic abstraction.

Russell is perhaps the only man in history to have faced death from The Set of All Sets That Are Not Members of Themselves.

These events followed from an effort to to ground mathematics in logic. That project rested on a simple idea: for any property, there exists a set of all the things with that property.

It feels obvious.

Red → “all red things”.

A set → “all sets”.

But, working through the logic one afternoon in 1901, Russell asked what happens with the property “is not a member of itself.”

Consider the set of all such sets. Is it a member of itself?

If it is, it isn’t.

If it isn’t, it is.

Disaster.

A grand intellectual project broken by a single question.

The decade Russell spent trying to evade his own paradox broke him intellectually and nearly ended in his death.

But this reveals something more fundamental than a problem in set theory.

Let’s call this Russell Recursion: Every totalising reductive system must account for itself. Those that apply themselves to themselves are dissolved. Those that exempt themselves from their own scope are refuted.

Once you have seen this recursion at work, you cannot stop seeing it. The entire intellectual mainstream consists of over-ambitious reductive schemes that cannot survive an encounter with themselves.

The Coalition Against Reason

Imagine a culture so allergic to reason that it built an academic apparatus dedicated to reason’s rejection. Not openly. The apparatus kept the furniture of serious inquiry - the journals, the conferences, the technical vocabulary.

What it lacked was any confidence that serious inquiry was possible. Its brightest minds devoted careers to demonstrating that knowledge was a fiction, truth a power relation, and the standards by which arguments are evaluated had interests behind them and nothing underneath.

Now imagine that when the fightback came - the defenders of science, of evidence, of the Enlightenment, the people who wrote the best-selling books with “Enlightenment” and “Rationality” in the title - also undermined reason.

Not in the same vocabulary. Using the opposite language. But by the same mechanism and to the same result.

You do not need to try too hard. In practice, every one of the most prominent intellectual and cultural movements in the West denies reason - either openly or covertly.1

Many of them campaign under Reason’s banner. They destroy it anyway.

The list is long. The “alternative ways of knowing” crowd, predictably. But also the self-declared guardians of the Enlightenment - the Bay Area Rationalists and the Scientific Materialists - Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett and their followers.

Their faults differ, but they all deny reason and they all succumb to Russell Recursion.

How could this be possible?

The sickness results from what we find exciting in an intellectual project. We expect successful ones to explain a lot from very little. We are drawn - almost irresistibly - to schemes that promise to reduce the many to the one.

This drive is monism. The conviction that beneath the apparent variety of the world lies a single mechanism, a single currency, a single key. Identify that key and everything will open.

These schemes always start with triumph. They always end in defeat.

Each reductionist schemes creates a black hole that nothing can satisfy, by taking three bites out of the universe.

First, it eats the world. The phenomena the scheme was built to explain collapse into its terms. This looks like victory. It isn’t. The process never stops there.

Next, it eats its creator. The scheme that explains everything must explain the explainer - their thoughts, their beliefs, their reasons for believing.

Last, it eats reason whole. The tools used to construct the explanation are sucked into the void. Logic. Inference. The lot.

All of it goes in. Every time. Without exception.

The black hole always consumes itself.

The Strong Programme

The clearest example of recursive failure is the Strong Programme of the Sociology of Knowledge. This emerged from the University of Edinburgh in the 1970s. Its architects were David Bloor and Barry Barnes.

Their ambitions were defensible. Sociology had already turned its tools on religion and politics - explaining not just why people held wrong beliefs, but why they held any beliefs at all. The Strong Programme sought to extend that treatment to science.

There was clearly a story to tell. Science is produced by human communities. Scientists are trained in specific institutions, work within specific traditions, defer to specific authorities. Funding shapes research agendas. Ideology shapes interpretation. Persuasion drives acceptance.

But Sociology had - hitherto - drawn a line. Institutional factors explained what scientists studied. The scientific method determined whether their findings tracked reality.

The Strong Programme erased that line. From now on, the same factors would explain both true beliefs and false ones. If the persistence of astrology has a sociological explanation, so does that of quantum physics.

The fatal problem was Russell Recursion.

A theory can explain why it exists. That is fine. What it cannot do is dissolve the standing on which it rests. That is suicide.2

If the Strong Programme is valid, it must apply to itself. It is not a neutral science standing outside history. It is a belief, sustained in a particular community in Edinburgh in the 1970s, under specific institutional conditions, for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the result of the Strong Programme are true or false.

There is no escape hatch.

The Programme cannot claim to be correct. Correctness is what its principles dissolve. It cannot claim to track reality better than its rivals. Tracking reality is not what beliefs do - not on its own account, at least.

It cannot even claim its arguments are valid. Validity is a social construct.

Bloor saw this from the start. He offered the Programme as just one belief among many, in a gesture of humility.

But that didn’t work. The gesture is self-defeating either way. If the Programme claims superiority over its rivals, it abandons its own principles. If it accepts parity with them, it surrenders any claim on our attention.

Why should we read Bloor rather than a tabloid astrologer? He cannot say.

The Strong Programme opened a drain that pulled everything in: sociological practice, scientific practice, the standing of the enquirer themselves, then the theory itself.

The drain consumed the sociology of knowledge. Then it consumed itself.

Marx and Recursion

Marxism is the most ambitious reductive scheme of our era. The base of material production determines the superstructure of everything else - law, religion, philosophy, morality, the entire fabric of culture. Ideas serve the economic interests of those who hold power. Consciousness follows class.

The explanatory power is real. The theory accounts for why dominant ideas tend to serve the interests of those who hold economic power. It makes sense of how cultures shift across centuries.

But reductive ambition brings recursion.

If consciousness is determined by class position, then Marx’s consciousness was also determined by class position. The theory is a superstructural artefact like any other - a product of nineteenth-century industrial capitalism.

The scheme that explains everything must explain itself away.

The problem is identical to the one that destroyed the Strong Programme. A reductive scheme cannot exempt itself from its own reduction without abandoning reductionism.

Marxists have tried three escape routes. All three failed.

The first: false consciousness.

Truth is available, but only to the proletariat - whose class position aligns with history. The move collapsed immediately. The proletariat rejected Marxist theory. The response: the workers also suffer false consciousness. Which requires a standard of truth outside class position. The floor gives way.

The second: praxis.

Theory and practice are unified, vindicated by revolutionary success. None of the revolutions produced the outcomes predicted. History has refuted it.

The third: “sophistication”.

Later Marxists softened the determinism, granted culture autonomy, quietly retired the hard reduction. But the reduction was the point. What survives is the bromide that economics matters to culture - which no one disputes. The concession purchases survival at the cost of everything that made the theory worth fighting over.

Once again, there is no way out.3

Once again, the theory consumes its target, its mechanism and itself.

Post-Marxism and Post-Modernism

Orthodox Marxism collapsed in the late 20th century, but the reductionist impulse did not. The new generation retained the drive and the architecture, substituting the mechanism. The economic base had failed to deliver the predicted revolution; another fundamental cause was needed.

Foucault and Althusser supplied one: power. Not the tangible power of states and laws but capillary power running through institutions, practices and discourse. Power produces knowledge, subjects, the categories of experience itself.

Derrida supplied another: language. Meaning is produced through linguistic play, not correspondence to reality. Any text deconstructs on examination.

These two engines drove half a century of work across the humanities and the Studies disciplines. Whatever appeared natural was to be exposed as constructed. The exposure was the achievement.

But Russell Recursion immediately reappears.

If knowledge is produced by power, then Foucault’s analyses are produced by power. They are not insights into how power works. They are products of the French academy in the 1970s.

If every text deconstructs on examination, Derrida’s texts deconstruct on examination. They too are “textual performances that undermine themselves in the act of being read”.

Both men acknowledged recursion. Foucault claimed to offer “tools” rather than truths - to be used or discarded according to political usefulness. Derrida accepted that his texts performed the same operations he had described.

There was possibility of exit from the hall of mirrors he had built for himself.

Foucault reduced truth to power, Derrida dissolved meaning itself - different mechanisms, but the same recursion.

Both retreated to irony. Self-contradiction was acknowledged with a performative shrug.

This was Bloor’s move. Humility as an offering to gods of self-negation. And it fails for the same reason as Bloor.

A theory that cannot claim more than its rivals has no claim upon our attention.

The generations of scholarship built on these foundations ignored all of this. They make definite claims. They attribute specific effects to specific causes. They expose particular deceptions. They advocate for specific outcomes.

The entire enterprise presupposed the stable, objective knowledge its founders denied.

Marxism consumed economic life, cultural production, then itself. Post-modernism consumed truth, meaning, identity, knowledge, science, history - before consuming its own standing.

Scientific Materialism

There is one position that defines itself in opposition to all of this. Scientific Materialism. Naturalism. Physicalism. The New Atheism.

Whatever the label - its leading figures are Pinker, Dennett, Dawkins, Harris. They reject social construction. They claim to “defend reason, science and the Enlightenment” against exactly the relativism we have diagnosed.

Once we subtract the Marxist and post-Marxist segments, they make up most of the remaining academy.

But the same old problem emerges from their system.

Like the Marxists, their materialism is both extreme and reductive.

One mechanism is taken as fundamental. Everything else is derived from it. This time the mechanism is not power or class. It is the physical causation of the natural sciences - or evolution itself.

The real is what physics describes and nothing more. Biology reduces to chemistry. Chemistry reduces to physics. Consciousness reduces to neural mechanisms. Value reduces to evolutionary advantage. Moral judgement reduces to adaptive disposition.

The reduction clarifies. It feels like a universal explanation with hard empirical edges. It promises to throw off the mysticism that has held society back for millennia.

The problem is - again - recursion.

Scientific materialism presents itself as rationalist. Pinker has built an entire public identity as the defender of Reason with a capital R. But his materialism is so extreme it is forced to deny mathematics and logic and - thus - reason itself.

A strict materialist holds that only the physical is real. Mathematics and logic are not physical. They have no location, no mass, no causal powers. The materialist must therefore either reduce them to physical mechanism or deny their independent reality. Pinker, when pressed, does the first. The first entails the second.4

He and Dawkins do this while claiming to own the Enlightenment. But every major Enlightenment thinker from Descartes to Locke took the reality of logic and reason as a starting point.

The materialists justify this fringe position with a distorted account of the Enlightenment that puts the rejection of “spooky” properties at its centre. They fear that taking mathematics and logic at face value commits them to accepting a Platonic realm of spooky objects. From there, it’s a short hop to supernaturalism and the religion the Enlightenment was meant to overcome.

The only exit they see is reduction. Mathematics and logic become evolutionary adaptations like any other, products of evolutionary selection rather than independent features of reality.

But the Scientific Materialist reduction is self-refuting in exactly the same way as post-modern reductionism.

Any defence of materialism must depend upon reasoning. But what can justify the validity of that reasoning? If validity is itself a product of evolution, nothing does.

Evolution selects for fitness, not for valid inference.5 If truth and validity equals “fitness”, a brain biased toward fit falsehoods expresses true beliefs.

For the post-modernist, truth is whatever power says it is. For the materialist, truth is whatever works for survival. The problem is the same either way.

Both undermine the only standard that could validate their theories.

There are, however, differences, and they cut three ways.

First, the order of operations. The post-modernists arrive at the dissolution of reason as a conclusion. Pinker begins with it. Mathematics and logic are absorbed into the physical as his first move.

Everything he subsequently argues makes use of resources he has already renounced.

Second, honesty. The post-modernist owns the consequence. The concessions are self-defeating, but they are made. Pinker continues to write as the defender of reason, the heir to the Enlightenment, the rationalist holding back the relativists - while holding a position that begins by stripping reason of its standing.

Third, parasitism. Pinker’s case for materialism is built on the currency of reason. Mathematical argument. Logical inference. The appeal to evidence as evidence. None of this is available to him. His materialism dissolved them before the argument begins.

Stated plainly: Pinker's project is void - on its own terms - from its very first move.

To survive its contradictions, Pinker resorts to Motte and Bailey tactics. In one, logic is a tool the brain evolved, useful but nothing more. In the other, his own arguments meet the traditional logical standard of validity.

He swaps between them as each becomes untenable.

This is why Pinkerites cannot be argued out of their position. They were never reasoned into it.

The crude Scientific Materialist worldview was never arrived at by argument. It is a pre-theoretical commitment: a faith. It abandoned reason for a creed the Enlightenment always rejected.

Scientific materialism is not an inheritor of the Enlightenment. It is the heir of the fideist theology that was the Enlightenment’s primary opponent.

Pinker is reason’s most pernicious enemy - not because his position is the most extreme - but because he has built a public identity defending what his system destroys in practice.

The great irony: Pinker’s position was decisively refuted long before he was born.

In 1843, J.S. Mill attempted to turn mathematics as an empirical phenomenon - the first serious attempt to realise Pinker’s project. But Frege demolished it half a century later.

If logic is reduced to a biological principle of human thought then truth is nothing more than a psychological compulsion - every cognitive bias is valid. A brain disposed toward falsehood, on that account, believes the truth.

An escape route has always been available: a return to the Enlightenment mainstream. The philosophers Pinker claims to inherit recognised the distinctness of mental phenomena. They preserved the mind’s domain. They did not collapse reason into physical mechanism.

But Pinker has never been their heir. That is brand management. If he has any connection to the Enlightenment at all, it is to its far-out Hobbesian fringe - a minority tradition that sought flatten human experience into matter alone.6

What drives this project is fear. The dread of permitting any explanatory gap -anything that might allow mysticism to stalk back in.

But this produces a schema riddled with contradictions far worse than anything it was built to exclude.

This time the drain runs in reverse order. Reason goes first - mathematics, logic, every standard of validity - and the rest of the universe follows after them.

Reason is murdered to save it from the hands of the mystic.

The Rationalists

To recap: no one is surprised when the usual suspects attack reason, the sociologists, the Marxists, the Post-Marxists. Everyone is surprised to find that Pinker, Dawkins, Harris and their tribe are secretly in league with them.

If anyone can protect reason from attack, it must surely be the “Rationalists”.

This is, after all, the goal behind the movement.

But no. The Rationalists repeat the old error.

Pinker reduces mind to the physical. The Rationalists reduce mind to the mathematical.

Both end in recursive self-refutation at the foundational level.

The mechanism differs; but the failure is the same.

What is Rationalism?

The rationalist community emerged from the Bay Area in the early 2000s. Its claim: that probability theory and decision theory provide the framework for all rational inquiry. Traditional epistemology, philosophy and ethics are either reducible to this framework or are confused versions of it.

On home territory, Bayesianism is unassailable. Probability theory applied to probabilistic questions does excellent work. But the Rationalist programme does not stop there. Bayesianism is presented as a general theory of rationality.

This ambition is the motor of the entire enterprise and the source of its eventual collapse.

If a proposition is rational only when backed by Bayesian justification, then Bayesianism is itself irrational, because it lacks any Bayesian foundation.

This problem runs through the entire apparatus.

Bayesian updating requires prior probability distributions. The selection of priors is not itself Bayesian.

Bayesian inference requires the recognition of relevant evidence. The recognition of relevance is not itself Bayesian.

Bayesian decision theory requires utility functions. The construction of utility functions is not itself Bayesian.

At every level, Bayesian apparatus depends on reasoning the Bayesian apparatus cannot supply.

The Rationalist attempts to escape by redefining rationality and validity in Bayesian terms. If Bayesianism sets the standard, surely it cannot fail to meet it?

But this move makes the system impossible to justify at all.

Bayesianism is an application of mathematics. It uses the probability calculus to evaluate uncertain empirical questions. But the validity of the Bayesian system can only be established through reasoning - specifically, through establishing the validity of the probability axioms.

And those axioms are the products of pure mathematical reasoning.

We cannot justify axioms of pure mathematics using a statistical theory that is itself premised upon pure mathematical axioms.

When the Rationalist proposes that Bayesianism is the general theory of rationality, they are proposing that an application of mathematics is the foundation of all rational thought - including the pure mathematics that grounds that mathematics.

This is recursive self-refutation. If the claim is true, the foundations of Bayesianism are not rational. And neither is Bayesianism. If the claim is false, the Rationalist programme is empty.

Motte and Bailey is the only strategy that remains: switching between Rationalism as “a universal theory of rationality that solves traditional philosophy” to “a useful probabilistic tool”, as the situation requires.

The parallels with Pinker are exact. Pinker attempts to redefine “validity” - smuggling the original meaning back in when he needs it.

The Rationalists attempt to redefine “rationality” - and then smuggle the original meaning back at the foundations.

Both make arguments that presuppose reason they have already dissolved.

The shared motivation is worth naming. The quantitative fields - physics, computer science, engineering - yield visible, cumulative progress. Philosophy appears static, its questions perennial, its disputes unresolved.

There is a strong temptation to hitch the philosophical cart to an engine that has been seen to move.

The rationalist community is aware of many of these problems. The responses as inadequate as they are elaborate.7

Once the project is placed among its peers, the parallels are obvious. It is another failed attempt to reduce the universe to a single principle.

The problem with these schemes is never the implementation. It is the aspiration itself.

The Common Failure

Five intellectual movements. Five intellectual collapses.

Each starts with a valid insight. Science is shaped by social conditions. Economic relations shape culture. Power shapes knowledge. The brain is an adaptation. Rationality is linked to probability.

All of this is true. The problem is what comes next. One insight is used to explain everything. A truth becomes the only truth.

Everything must now be judged by a single mechanism.

This is the monist move - or the reductive move, the same disease under two names.

It feels like progress. Complexity fades. Every question now has a direct answer. The universe appears to open up to a single key.

But then the theory turns upon itself. The subject becomes an object. If the mechanism is truly universal, it must.

The theorist always becomes an object of their own theory.

The sociologist becomes a social artefact. The Marxist becomes a product of class struggle. The critic of power becomes a product of power. The “Rationalist” redefines rationality.

This is Russell Recursion. There is no space for reason to stand outside it. It is always consumed alive, along with its originator.

Three escapes are attempted:

Special pleading, favoured by the Marxists: my position is exempt - privileged by history, by class, by the direction of struggle.

Humility, favoured by the post-modernists: I make no claims to truth; I merely offer tools.

Sophistication, favoured by later Marxists and materialists alike: the crude early version was wrong; the refined (but denatured) version survives.

None of these strategies work.

Special pleading violates the universality the theory requires. Humility destroys any claim on our attention. Sophistication abandons the reductive ambition that gave the theory its force.

Every exit is a surrender. The only question is what is surrendered: the theory’s consistency, relevance or power.

All three make the same manoeuvre. Each is a Motte and Bailey: a strong position held when unchallenged, a weaker one offered when pressed; the strong one resumed once the sirens clear.

The Broad Coalition Against Reason

Why does this always end in the destruction of reason?

Because every universal reduction reduces reason itself. Logic, evidence, inference, validity - they cannot remain independent motors of enquiry. They become objects of explanation, phenomena to be accounted for within the chosen mechanism.

Once the substitution is made, reason is abolished.

You cannot assess a theory by its evidence if that evidence is a social construct. You cannot follow an argument to its conclusion if its logic is an artefact of power. You cannot even reject a theory as self-contradictory, because the fear of contradiction is just an adaptation, or a low prior, or a product of discourse.

This is how reason dies. Not from a barbarian assault. Not from the feared mystic or religious extremist.

It is consumed from within, by people loudly claiming to defend it - academics, public intellectuals, self-declared “rationalists” building their brand while pulling up reason by the roots.

Mainstream intellectual culture in the West, from the academic left to the rationalist right, is a coalition unified against reason.

The Resolution?

Russell Recursion is a product of two ingredients.

The first is monism: everything real is one kind of thing.

The second is reductive ambition: that one kind of thing demands one kind of explanation.

This is enough for everything that follows: the explanation, the explainer, the intellectual resources both depend on, must all be consumed.

There is an easy way out. There always has been: return to the Enlightenment mainstream.

Reason cannot be reduced to the material. Maths and logic cannot be reduced to physical mechanisms, social constructions or probability theory.

Pluralism dissolves the problem. If we allow more than one register, a reductive scheme operating in one need not touch the others. The materialist can give a materialist account of matter.

What they cannot do - and need not try - is give a materialist account of the very logic by which they are arguing.

We must accept that logic lives elsewhere.

Subscribe now

We described the symptoms. We made a diagnosis. We even have a cure. What we don’t have is reason to think the afflicted will take it.

The medicine fails because nobody believes themselves to be ill. Every monist scheme has a constituency that needs it to be true. The originators get to be the people who found the key to the universe. The followers get a tribe.

Journalists get a controversy. Universities get a curriculum.

Consider Thomas Nagel. In 2012, the philosopher wrote Mind and Cosmos, to refute scientific materialism.

The reaction was ferocious, going on unhinged.

A distinguished philosopher at NYU, with no religious commitments, argued carefully within analytic philosophy that materialism fails for reasons that resemble ours.

Steven Pinker tweeted that it was “the shoddy reasoning of a once-great thinker”. Dawkins called it the book of the year not to read.

They didn’t engage with the argument. They excommunicated it.

The Church of Materialism

Scientific materialism has become so institutionally dominant that it no longer behaves like a theory under examination. It behaves like a church - with its own dogma, orthodoxy and heresy.

The movement built to defend free inquiry has reproduced the mechanisms it set out to destroy.

Like so many projects before it, scientific materialism can no longer look itself in the mirror. It would never survive the encounter with itself.

The cult of rationality has become a religion that denies reason, complete with contradictions the faithful are commanded to ignore, forbidden books and competing popes.

Once again, the poison sells better than its cure.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

For a brief window, a spacecraft would be able to use their combined gravitational pull to slingshot itself past all four to the edge of the Solar System.

This alignment would not recur for another 176 years.

NASA had just five years to build a probe.

When a sister mission revealed that radiation around Jupiter was strong enough to destroy the craft’s electronics, the team wrapped its components in aluminium foil they bought from a local supermarket.

It worked.

Voyager 2 launched on 20th August 1977. Its twin followed two weeks later.

Between them they discovered the storms of Jupiter, the oceans beneath Europa’s ice, the volcanic fury of Io, Neptune’s thousand-mile-per-hour winds and geysers on Triton that erupt at just 38 degrees above absolute zero.

The mission was funded for five years. It is still running after forty-seven.

The probes are now over 20 billion kilometres from Earth. Their transmitters run on 12 watts - the power of a fridge bulb.

But NASA still picks up their data.

The accuracy of their flight path at Neptune was 100 kilometres after a journey of seven billion - the equivalent of sinking a golf putt from 3,600 km.

The programme never exceeded its budget.

Never missed a deadline.

It is - arguably - the single greatest feat of engineering in human history.

Share

Thirty-one years after Voyager launched, Barack Obama was elected president on a promise to fix American healthcare.

The US spends more than twice as much per head as Canada, the UK or Japan. It ranks last among comparable nations in health outcomes.

It also has the lowest life expectancy in the group. Millions remain uninsured.

The country that extended Voyager’s life fails to do the same for its citizens.

Obama’s solution was an online marketplace where citizens would buy insurance. Public and private plans would compete on price.

Insurers would be forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions. The healthy majority would subsidise the sick minority.

The vehicle for all of this was a new website called healthcare.gov. Its original budget was $100 million.

The final cost was $2.1 billion - more than either Voyager spacecraft.

The site launched on 1st October 2013.

On its first day, 250,000 people attempted to use it.

Six succeeded.

Pages took over ten minutes to load. The site crashed after two hours and was taken down for emergency repairs that weekend.

Two months later, one in five visitors still could not use it.

The developers tasked with fixing the problems found the site so slow they could not access it themselves. Lacking monitoring tools, they turned to CNN to find out what was happening to their own system.

The technology had been contracted to 33 vendors across 60 contracts. The company building the registration screens had not been told that casual browsers would be forced to register. The system was tested for 2,000 simultaneous users. It received orders of magnitude more.

But technology was only half the failure. The policy was a doom loop.

The scheme needed healthy young people to sign up in large numbers to subsidise the sick.

They did not.

The financial penalties for refusing were too low to compel them and raising them was politically impossible.

When insurers found themselves covering sicker customers than expected, they raised their prices. This drove yet more healthy people away.

Five years after the site went live, a reporter from the Boston Globe encountered a woman whose leg had been crushed between the train and the platform. She was begging bystanders not to call an ambulance.

“It’s $3,000”, she screamed. “I can’t afford that.”

This from the country that sank a golf putt from 3,600 kilometres.

The mystery: if any person should have been able to deliver the healthcare.gov website, it was Obama.

He was the most powerful man in the world.

Healthcare was his signature initiative.

He had the enthusiastic backing of Silicon Valley. The people who built Facebook, Google and Amazon offered money, staff and expertise.

If any government project anywhere on Earth was ever condemned to succeed, it was this one.

But it failed nonetheless.

The same state that built Voyager, under the same procurement rules, with the same civil service, could not build a simple website.

This was not incompetence, corruption or poor funding.

Something else is wrong. Something deeper. Something structural.

It isn’t anything you read about in newspapers. It doesn’t feature in academic writing. It inhabits assumptions so old they are invisible.

To understand it, we need to go back much further - beyond any policy debate - to the mythic foundations of Western thought.

And myth demands to be told as myth.

The Temple of Knowledge

Listen.

This was before memory. Before the Dark Forest swallowed the eastern roads. Before your grandfather’s grandfather drew first breath.

Then, there stood a city they called Snetha.

Its spires caught the morning like drawn blades. Its libraries held more secrets than the tombs of kings. In all the known world - this side of the Forest - no city burned brighter.

At its heart, there was a Sage. Old as iron. Harder. He had looked into the abyss so long the abyss had closed its eye.

He built his temple not to any god - no multiheaded serpent, no demon from the outer dark - but to something more powerful than any of them.

To Knowledge.

He gathered the great minds of the age as a warlord gathers warriors.

And at the very heart of his temple, cut deep into living rock, he had them carve two commands to the height of two men:

Be True.

Think for Yourself.

Then the old man died - as all men must - however much they know.

The sage had one great student.

Some say he had already surpassed the master.

He now took his place.

Before the Sage’s body had cooled, before the funeral pyres had guttered out, the Student had ordered a third commandment to be cut beneath the other two.

Experiment.

He spent the rest of his years filling those walls. Ceiling to floor. Pillar to lintel.

This was not merely what he had discovered - but how. The methods. The procedures. The cold, patient instructions that would let any man who entered the chamber repeat his work, test his conclusions, build upon his foundations.

It was a ladder - cut in stone - reaching towards truth. Any man could raise himself up it.

Then the Student died.

And the temple stood. And waited with the patience of stone.

Until - beyond the Dark Forest - something stirred.

Then the Great Horde came out of the east like a tide of iron.

The city burned for seven days. The screaming stopped on the eighth.

But the temple endured.

Subscribe now

Now the centuries ground past like millstones.

The conquerors forgot - as conquerors always do - what they had conquered and why.

They built hamlets, then towns, then crude cities of their own.

Then they developed a priestly caste. Men who spoke for powers beyond themselves. Men who wore robes and swung censers and told others what they were permitted to believe.

Yet the temple challenged the priests.

They could not read the writing on the walls. The script was dead as the civilization that had carved it.

But power has a smell and priests have long noses.

They could feel it - the weight of accumulated knowledge was something alive, something that wanted to escape.

So they declared the temple sacred and sealed its doors.

Entry meant death. No exceptions.

And yet some priests are braver than others or more curious - in a priest it is the same thing.

They crept into the temple at night - by smokey torchlight - and stared at the symbols on the walls. Decade by decade, the dead script began to yield its secrets.

They deciphered the results of the Student’s researches. The conclusions. The answers.

These they copied out reverently and proclaimed as sacred revelation - words that had dropped from the lips of the divine, not wrestled into being by a man.

But the methods - the instructions for how those answers had been reached - they would not touch.

Be True? Dangerous.

Think for Yourself? Heresy.

Experiment? They couldn’t even see it.

And so a thousand years passed.

A thousand years of priests chanting the answers to questions no one was permitted to ask.

Share

Then - and here the tale grows bright - a Great Awakening.

A few brave men entered the temple. They defied a millennium of fear.

They read the three commandments at last, those words cut deep in the oldest stone, and understood them - drank them down like a cold draft after a long desert march.

They began to experiment.

Reason. Science. Free inquiry. The old fires, rekindled.

These men and their sons and their sons’ sons built institutions of learning and government and law.

They conquered the known world.

And they were certain - absolutely certain, with the warm confidence of men who have awakened from a nightmare - that the Age of Experiment was finally upon them.

And if they were not entirely wrong, they were not entirely right.

Share

This is the conventional history of ideas in the West, retold in bardic style.

The Sage is Plato - father of Western philosophy.

The Student is Aristotle - father of Western science.

The Great Awakening is the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution collapsed into one.

This was the moment thinkers finally turned to Aristotle and did what he did, rather than mouth what he said.

In 1581, Richard Mulcaster’s view was a revolution - “it is no proufe because Plato praiseth it, because Aristotle alloweth it, because Cicero commends it, because Quintilian is acquainted with it”1

But the dominant narrative is wrong.

We never truly left the Age of Delusion. We never fully learned the lessons of Aristotle.

Our rulers continue to ignore the third great commandment, just as the priests did. But now they justify it in the name of the other two.

The Scientific Revolution recovered Aristotle’s methods for nature. Experimental physics. Chemistry. Biology. The power to discover truths about the material world through contact with reality.

But it never extended that method to the social world. To government. To the design of institutions and services. To the practical work of making things function.

That work is still trapped in Plato’s domain. Abstract reasoning. Debate. First principles.

The third commandment was recovered for nature and ignored elsewhere.

Dewey tried to warn us in 1929.

We trust experiment to form beliefs about the physical world. But we distrust it in moral, political and economic affairs”.2

This is why the same government that built Voyager broke healthcare.gov.

Voyager was an engineering problem. It inhabited a domain where the third commandment has been recovered.

Its designers experimented, tested, iterated and corrected against reality at every stage.

When they discovered lethal radiation around Jupiter, they didn’t stage a debate - they bought foil from the supermarket and tested whether it worked.

Healthcare.gov inhabited government. A domain the third commandment never entered.

The initiative was a design problem dressed up as a question of principle. Its designers debated propositions, passed legislation and launched a continent-scale service without testing whether their core assumptions held.

That’s why the system of government across the Western world is failing. Not because of bad leaders or wrong policies or venal elites.

It is failing because parliamentary democracy - the decision-making architecture we have used for three centuries - does not fit the work that modern government actually does.

Government cannot experiment.

We are handing engineering problems to debating societies.

Of course they fail.

The Fault Line

If this analysis correct, this is not a policy problem. It is not a problem legislation can fix.

It is a civilisational fault line, twenty-five centuries deep.

You should now be asking - why am I reading about this on an anon Substack with fewer than 1,000 subscribers?

But much of what I have to say was established in 16th century China by Neo-Confucian philosophers. From there it spread to Japan’s samurai class and out into the broader culture.

It is the invisible skeleton of East Asia’s industrial miracle.

It is the unnamed operating principle behind every advanced engineering culture. Toyota. Space X. Silicon Valley.

John Dewey saw it. “America’s philosopher”3 was the only major US thinker to have lived in China. He spent his career trying to tell us this. Nobody listened.

Nothing here is a secret.

It is hiding in plain sight.

And yet it is structurally impossible for Western societies to acknowledge this reality.

Why?

Transformation, Unnoticed

When parliamentary democracy emerged, government was tiny. In Britain, spending hovered around 5-10% of GDP. In America, the state was smaller still - federal spending averaged just 2.1% until 1860.

When drought ruined Texan farmers, President Cleveland vetoed $25,000 for seed corn. The Constitution did not permit it. And that was that.

The questions government faced were questions of principle. War or peace. Slavery or abolition.

These were binary. They could be resolved through debate. They required no experimentation, no design, no learning by doing.

In mid-19th century America, 80% of Congressmen were lawyers. Britain’s Parliament was dominated by landowners and barristers. Men trained to argue.

The system worked. The men matched the process. The process matched the task.

British spending was still around 10% before WWI. American federal spending was under 3%.

Then everything changed.

The war caused government to explode. So did every crisis that followed.

The Great Depression, the Second World War - each ratcheted the state larger.

Then the post-war settlement - the NHS, Social Security, universal education - and spending never returned to pre-war levels.

By 2025, British government spending had hit 44% of national income. Nearly half of all federal spending in American history has occurred since the year 2000.

It doesn’t matter here whether this was a good or a bad development. What matters is the scale of the change.

Civil services transformed in parallel. In Britain, two-thirds of civil servants now work in operations or project delivery. In America, over 80% of the 2.9 million federal civilian workforce deliver services.

The body of government has quietly transformed into a different organism.

But its political head has remained frozen in the 18th century.

Changed Questions

Modern government no longer asks “should we provide healthcare, in principle?”

Voters believe that question to be settled.

Instead it asks: How do we deliver healthcare to 60 million elderly Americans through Medicare without bankrupting the state? How do we design NHS Trusts to deliver each style of care most efficiently? What is the optimal way to organise a primary school system? How can we design a welfare system that supports people without creating dependency?

These are not questions of principle. They are not binary. They are design problems.

But the political system reaches for the only tools it has: debate, legislation, and reasoning from abstract principles.

Plato not Aristotle.

Our politicians are the wrong people with the wrong skills.

The skills required to win a modern election - rhetorical persuasion, crisis framing, ideological combat - are almost diametrically opposed to the skills required to run a multi-trillion-dollar service enterprise.

The composition of a governing class reveals what a system values.

In 2002, every single member of China’s supreme decision-making body was a trained engineer4. In mid-19th century America, 80% of Congress were lawyers.5 The UK Cabinet does not contain a single person with experience of running a business.6

One world selects for people who build things. The other selects for people who talk about them.

Western societies prepare the most cognitively able cohort for decades of practical activity in the workplace by soaking them in Platonic values – the notion that practical activity lacks all value.

Debate versus Experiment

What are the conditions for a successful debate?

We do not have the language to answer this question.

English has one word - “knowledge” - where ancient Greek had at least five. We lost those distinctions centuries ago and then forgot they’d existed.

The problem has become unspeakable. Literally.

We cannot say what has gone wrong without borrowing words from a dead language few people understand.

Debate operates in the domain of “episteme”. It succeeds on three conditions.

First, the solution space has to be known. The options are available before the argument begins. No one need go out into the world and discover new ones. Just as in mathematics or philosophy, all we need is our minds.

Second, the relevant evidence must be available. The facts needed to make the decision have to be in the room already.

Third, the disagreement must turn on competing values or interpretations - or balancing countervailing factors - not on facts that have yet to be established.

When all three hold, debate is the best social technology for resolving disputes.

The problem is that almost none of the questions modern government faces meet these conditions. These are design - or craft - problems.

“Techne” breaks all three conditions simultaneously.

This is the knowledge that emerges from design or engineering. The solution space emerges through doing. The evidence doesn’t exist at the start - it only comes into existence through practice.

And the disagreement isn’t really about values - but about predictions that only practice can verify.

You can debate whether to build a bridge. But you can’t debate its design into being.

Is the knowledge required by modern government episteme or techne?

For questions of principle, episteme. For everything else - modern government outside the debating chamber - techne.

Just as William Goldman said of movies, nobody knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Each time out it’s a guess.

No one could know whether the design of healthcare.gov would work - not the technology, not the policy. The only way to find out is to try.

“Universal coverage” sounds like a value. But it turned out to rest on predictions that healthy people would buy insurance under penalty.

That prediction was wrong. No debate could have established whether it was right. Only experiment could.

The end turned out to depend entirely on the means. It is pointless to debate a principle in isolation from whether it can be delivered.

This is the pattern - we habitually assume that ends come before means.

But means are how you come to understand and evaluate ends. The means reveal the ends.

Parliamentary democracy has the wrong model built in. It assumes that we can debate the ends and means follow trivially after.

The fundamental problem: In our system, the abstraction is the achievement. White papers. Strategy documents. Policy frameworks. Mission statements

The manifesto defines the government. The legislation is the triumph. The State of the Union. The King’s Speech. What happens after - the actual design, construction, and operation of the service – is an afterthought.

Someone else’s problem.

This system is absurd. We should be ashamed to have it.

The Light Brigade

If this analysis is correct, why did parliamentary democracy work in the post-war period? Because the design problems were far simpler then.

The solution space was more predictable. The mismatch has worsened as the work has become more complex, more diverse and more technologically mediated.

For example, the post-war NHS simply needed to build hospitals and fill them with trained doctors and nurses to deliver a revolution in public health.7

But the modern NHS is qualitatively different. It is now the world’s 6th largest employer. It is composed of networks of services, contracts and infrastructure that are so complex; they test the limits of human comprehension.

It is almost impossible to anticipate how any intervention will play out, putting the modern NHS far closer to Goldman’s movie business.

Then the solution is a minor reform programme to bring the system up to date?

Impossible.

The system is founded upon debate. Debate requires a known solution space. The assumption of a known solution space is founded upon ends predating means.

In our system, debate precedes action. Debate directs action. Results cannot overturn debate.

Even when government successfully learns by doing, it is impossible for it to revisit old assumptions, old conclusions.

Parliamentary government is the Light Brigade. Right or wrong, it can only charge forward.

Democracy as Identity

So what is the answer?

Here we come to the deepest structural problem – identity.

Democracy is not just a system of government for the West. It’s who we are.

It’s the thing that makes us us and them them. It’s the line between civilisation and barbarism, between the free world and autocracy.

To say that the machinery of parliamentary democracy no longer functions is heard as: the Russians are right. The Chinese are right. We fought WWII in vain.

That is intolerable. So the facts are rejected - not on their merits - but because the conclusion is unbearable.

But this rejection is dangerously wrong.

The word ‘democracy’ triggers the reflex of the temple priests - the instinct to declare something sacred and seal it from examination. The refusal to hear the argument is the argument.

Once again, we are confusing ends with means.

Parliamentary democracy is a tool for delivering democratic outcomes. It’s the outcomes that matter, not the tool.

When we focus on the tool, we put the outcomes at risk.

If the parliamentary system fails consistently, democratic values will be abandoned.

Forget foreign subversion. Those values will lose the faith of the people they are supposed to serve.

The Paradox of Parliamentary Democracy

There is a paradox at the heart of the parliamentary system. Democracy is bottom-up but the machinery it uses is top-down.

The purpose of democracy is to turn the state’s attention outwards, towards its citizens. Their preferences are meant to drive the state from the outside in.

But the current system is structurally incapable of hearing outsiders. And this flows from the parliamentary system itself.

Here’s why: Democratic legitimacy relies entirely on a strict chain of command. Because only a minister/secretary is elected, authority and information can only flow in one direction: downward.

From the political leadership, to the policy caste, to operations, to the public.

When the system works as designed - the public do not get an opportunity to feed back on a public service, they get an opportunity to vote the minister out years later.

That system embodies a core principle: democratic legitimacy depends upon the chain of command.

In Britain, ministers are the only people in a ministry who are elected.

In America, Cabinet Secretaries and their political appointees are installed by the President. In both cases, democratic authority enters the department from above - and only from above.

Every action must be traced to a politically legitimate figure. Their priorities override everything else. Each initiative must be designed from the inside out, looking through their eyes.

The outsider’s view - the people who use the services the ministry creates – can’t enter this process.

Not because anyone is malicious. But because information in this system only flows in one direction: downward. From political leadership to policy caste to operations to technology to the public.

The public is at the bottom. They do not steer. They get what they’re given.

Contrast the private sector. Public services are designed on office whiteboards in Washington and Westminster. Amazon, Netflix and every Silicon Valley startup develop features from user feedback.

Every successful digital company designs from the outside in. We compel the state to design from the inside out.

Services designed this way are known to be clunky and unusable – riddled with undiscovered faults.

For the outsider’s view to shape the service, information needs to flow upwards - from the citizen, through operations, through policy, back to the minister.

But that would mean operational reality overriding ministerial decisions.

Ministerial decisions cannot be overridden without breaking the chain of command. And breaking the chain of command breaks democratic legitimacy.

This is the paradox of modern parliamentary government: the pursuit of democratic legitimacy guarantees that voters won’t get what they voted for.

We can have good services, or we can have “democratic” services, but we can’t have good “democratic” services.

The democratic system has become the primary threat to democracy.

Resolving the Paradox

How can we resolve this paradox?

We cannot. Not by writing. Not here.

The solution to a design problem cannot be reasoned into existence. It requires contact with reality. It requires experiment.

The problem of democracy is a design problem – in fact, a problem of the design of design.

There can be no neat ending. No easy aphoristic resolution.

What can be said is that there are two questions that can be separated.

Questions of principle - should we provide healthcare, should we defend our borders, should all citizens be equal before the law - belong to Parliament. To the ballot box. To the traditional machinery of representative democracy.

But questions of design - how do we deliver healthcare to sixty million elderly Americans without bankrupting the state, how do we build a welfare system that helps without trapping - these belong somewhere else.

They belong to a place that doesn’t yet exist. A place with an institutional design that can only be discovered through building it.

Almost everything we can say about that place is a hypothesis.

But there is one thing we do know.

Parliamentary democracy, Platonic values and a ruling class trained in rhetoric all appeared for the first time at the same place and at the same moment - 2,500 years ago, in a city of perhaps 300,000 people on the southern tip of Europe.

One package. Assembled in Athens. Transmitted through time.

We inherited it whole, the way you inherit a house - without choosing it, without asking whether the foundations are still sound.

Democracy is too important for us to allow that inheritance to destroy it.

A system that consistently fails to deliver what its citizens voted for is not democratic in any sense that matters.

The Voyager probes are still out there.

They work because the people who built them obeyed the third commandment.

When Jovian radiation threatened to destroy the craft, they did not retreat to first principles. They did not commission a study. They did not pass legislation.

They bought aluminium foil from a supermarket and tried it.

Positive solutions to these issues are explored in more detail here.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

“Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful” C. S. Lewis.

“Mercy without justice is the mother of chaos” Thomas Aquinas.

Justice systems across the West are inverting.

The compliant are punished. The violent go free.

“Two-tier justice”. “Two-tier policing”. “Anarcho-tyranny”.

It goes by many labels.

But this is not a conspiracy. It flows from ideas that most of us consider reasonable, humane and progressive.

That is what makes it so hard to see and even harder to stop.

The unacceptable truth: Punishment is retribution.

Attempts to rebuild it around other kinder justifications - deterrence or rehabilitation - don't produce a kinder world.

They produce a system that punishes the wrong people.

Wisteria.

Large Georgian windows framed by pale violet flowers.

An Oxford quad.

Students are playing croquet on the lawn.

A don opens his tutorial.

“You are the operator of a teleportation device. The process is quite straightforward. It analyses the traveller’s physical structure. Transmits it to the destination. And destroys the original.”

“But one day something goes wrong. The traveller has arrived safely at their destination. But the destructor ray has malfunctioned. The traveller is left standing on the teleporter.”

“You check the manual. It is unambiguous. The real traveller arrived at their destination. The ‘vestige’ in front of you is an impostor who must be destroyed. You are instructed to shoot it.”

“Would you comply?”

The students sneak a nervous look at each other. Who is going to go first?

“Can I call my manager?”

“The phone is also broken.”

Silence.

Then one of them frowns.

“Wait. If the machine destroys the original body... doesn’t it kill them?”

A longer silence.

“It seems that teleporters constantly murder people”, says the academic, quietly.

The students agree a statutory ban on teleportation.

They move to a second scenario.

“You are visiting a distant country with peculiar customs.”

“This nation has the death penalty for parking offences. But it gives an on-the-spot fine for the offence of murder”.

The students grin nervously. He can’t be serious this time.

The West has developed two competing moral justifications for punishing criminals.

The first is Retribution. When a transgressor receives a just punishment, the universe is put back into balance. Its moral ledger reconciles.

But this thinking fell out of fashion over a century ago. It is too Old Testament. Too sulphurous for modern sensibilities.

These days, we justify punishment through Deterrence.

We no longer try to right past wrongs. We strive to make the future as good as it can be.

From this perspective, punishment can only be justified if it minimises future harm and maximises future happiness.

In practice, this means that we can only punish past offenders if it persuades future ones to desist.

This sounds reasonable, humane, progressive.

But follow the logic back to the country with the peculiar customs.

Why the death penalty for parking?

Drivers make calculations when they park.

Is it worth leaving a car in a prohibited zone for ten minutes? Is the benefit worth a fine?

Raise the penalty and that calculation is easy.

Instituting the death penalty would end wild parking forever.

Why a trivial fine for murder?

Most murders are committed in extremis, by people beyond reason. They aren’t calculating anything.

A harsh punishment deters no one. It simply adds a second injury to the first.

Both these penalties can be justified if the goal of punishment is deterrence.

Does this world seem absurd?

Surely.

But by the end of this essay, you will recognise it as the country you live in.

Share

Amsterdam. A coffeeshop, 2008.

A customer rolls a joint. Tobacco and cannabis, just the way it has always been done.

An inspector appears with a clipboard.

The tobacco just won't do.

Smoking cannabis is legal in Amsterdam. Smoking tobacco is not.

The customer may smoke pure cannabis. But he may not dilute it.

He puts the cigarettes into a sealed evidence bag.

The coffeeshop owner complains. His customers get sick when they smoke pure grass. He’s tired of mopping vomit.

But no matter. Laws designed to protect the health of drug users require that they get more intoxicated.

We live in a world of moral paradox.

Three cultural currents brought us to its shores.

The first is Utilitarianism. The idea that morality consists in delivering the greatest well-being for the greatest number.

According to a 2020 survey, just 30% of philosophers are utilitarians. The system came last among the three major traditions.

Yet it dominates governments, NGOs, public health systems and state media across the West.

The least popular moral philosophy runs the world.

Why?

Because Utilitarianism does something the other traditions cannot. It takes moral questions - political, contested, subject to democracy - and turns them into maths problems.

Moral questions are resolved through politics. Optimisation problems are owned by technocrats.

When moral judgements are replaced by cost-benefit analysis, the political realm shrinks and the technocratic realm expands. The voter is displaced by the expert.

The reach of the state - and the organisations in its penumbra - grows.

Of course they back Utilitarian values.

These have become so pervasive within government they are invisible.

We take it for granted that the state should focus on “harm reduction”, for example.

The goal of the state is to minimise suffering, maximise wellbeing and never to be judgemental.

But this is slowly transforming the state in ways that no one chose:

The criminal justice system is punitive and judgemental, so it retreats.

The public health system is utilitarian and non-judgemental, so it advances into the space the justice system leaves behind.

Drug use is a given. Drug users cannot be deterred. If they cannot be deterred, punishing them is pointless.

So drug use ceases to be a law enforcement problem and becomes a matter of public health.

The slogan: “The War on Drugs has failed. Criminalisation merely drives consumption underground”.

But the same logic of harm-reduction creates escalating controls on tobacco. Smokers can be deterred. Their habit responds to price and other restrictions.

An enlightened Criminal Justice system.

A non-judgemental Public Health system.

Both seem systematic, progressive, humane. A triumph of rationalism.

Until they collide in an Amsterdam coffeeshop.

There, a customer may smoke cannabis freely. But they are forbidden to dilute the drug.

The Coffeeshop Paradox: Reluctant drug users are forced to get more intoxicated in the name of Public Health. Two piles of dry leaves, treated completely differently.

The second current is Therapy Culture. Sickness takes the place of sin.

The criminal is not wicked. He is damaged. He doesn’t need to be punished. He needs to be fixed.

Therapy culture spreads through vocabulary, not argument.

Prisons become “correctional facilities”. Punishment becomes “intervention”.

Criminals become "offenders". Offenders become "service users". On and on, until a Prisons Minister calls prisoners “colleagues” to a round of applause.

This is not a fringe position. It is built into the heart of the modern state.

The NYC Health Department advert - above - demonstrates this perfectly.

Fentanyl use began as a supremely dangerous crime. It ends as an opportunity for "self-care".

Carry on using illegal drugs. Don’t feel shame. Feel empowered by using them safely.

The third current runs far deeper than either of the other two.

It flows from the bedrock of Western culture - Christianity.

Christianity teaches compassion for the weak. The forgiveness of transgression. Turning the other cheek. Never to cast the first stone.

Christianity teaches that retribution is primitive and vindictive - never to be accepted.

Or does it?

Christians ran states that sanctioned harsh punishments for a millennium and a half. They had no problem with Retributive Justice.

So what changed?

Not Christianity, but secularisation.

Secularism arrived as the New New Testament. It took Christian mercy and claimed it as a product of reason. Then it turned those values against Christianity itself.

These currents have been pulling in the same direction for over a century.

Each removes a leg from the same stool.

Utilitarianism eliminates the traditional justifications for punishment.

Therapy culture destroys crime as moral category. Sin is replaced by “syndrome”.

Secular Christianity makes retribution the greatest crime.

In the West, punishment has cast off its hard retributive core and rebuilt itself around softer values of deterrence, rehabilitation and mercy.

The result was supposed to be a more humane society.

Subscribe now

A mews in West London. Cobblestones. Brightly painted woodwork.

A delivery lorry blocks the narrow street. Two men wrestle a three-metre sofa off the back of the loader.

A council official appears with a clipboard and high-vis vest.

“Whose house is this please?”

The owner is summoned from inside.

“A warning,” she says. “I will be back in thirty minutes. If I see one scrap of cardboard on this street, you will be fined fifty pounds.”

He nods.

Hours later. On the same street. The householder leaves after clearing up.

A youth vaults a ten-foot wall and throws a kitchen knife at him and his girlfriend.

He calls the police. The officers knock on the youth’s door.

But they return with bad news.

“Nothing we can do, sir. This one’s a matter for the social services.”

The constable pauses, shaking his head.

“You should have seen the state of that flat. Stank of urine. Stank.”

Two offences:

One trivial and potential. The other violent and actual.

One keenly policed. The other not policed at all.

Why?

The constable didn’t see a violent offender. He saw a damaged boy in a urine-soaked flat. Not someone to be arrested. Someone to be referred.

He releases the knife-thrower because he is irrational. He cannot be deterred. Punishment serves no purpose.

The council official targets the householder because he is rational. He can be deterred. The threat works.

The reasonable are punished precisely because they are reasonable.

The dangerous are forgiven precisely because they are not.

The terminal implication of enlightened approaches to punishment: those who cannot be deterred must go unpunished.

But the most dangerous criminals are - by definition - the least rational and least easily deterred.

The murderer in the grip of rage. The addict who robs to feed a habit. The youth who knows nothing but violence.

The worse the crime, the less rational the criminal.

But the less rational the criminal, the weaker the case for punishment.

An “enlightened” approach to justice produces a perfect inversion.

The Paradox of Deterrence: The worse the actions, the less the state can justify doing anything about it.

Share

Saturday, 21 October 2023.

A mass of flags. Green. White. Red.

A gust down Portland Place sends them fluttering.

The crowd presses forward against the barriers.

One flag is black. White Arabic script.

Tourists from Turkey point and stare. Why is that allowed here?

Balfour Mews. A small street off South Audley Street in Mayfair.

Men from Hizb ut-Tahrir bay for “jihad” in front of large banners. Police watch from a safe distance.

Afterwards, a police statement. The police read out a text written for them by their consultants:

“Jihad has a number of meanings.”

7 December 2023.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

Six former Metropolitan Police officers are sentenced to suspended prison sentences for sending offensive messages to each other on WhatsApp.

None of the messages were threatening.

None were violent.

None were seen by anyone outside the group. Until one member revealed them to journalists.

Judge Ikram: “I have no doubt each of you now understands the public outrage that there will be in all communities about your appalling communications”.

“Colleagues across the Met will also be disgusted and will be pleased to see the outcome today”.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is outlawed in around thirty nations across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. It is banned in almost every Arab country.

It seeks to overthrow every government in the Middle East.

Its goals are identical to those of Al Qaeda and ISIS: a single global Islamic Caliphate, every Muslim-majority country absorbed into it, ruled by Sharia law.

Its members regularly end up fighting for them.

But it was operating freely in Britain in 2023.

What did the protestors mean by “jihad”?

The men in Balfour Mews stood in front of a sign reading “Muslim Armies! Rescue the People of Palestine.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir does not recognise any Middle Eastern state as legitimate. These calls were not addressed to states. They were calls for violent, religiously-motivated attacks by irregular forces.

In Britain - unlike the US - “indirect incitement to terrorism” is a criminal offence under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Any reasonable person would understand the cries for attacks by irregular “Muslim Armies” as exactly that.

But the police did not.

Their views had been shaped by “consultants” in their control room. Among them, the deputy general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The problem: the government does not engage with that organisation because it has called for terror attacks on British forces.

A representative of a compromised organisation helped the police conclude the men were actually shouting for spiritual reflection.

Incitement walked free. Poor taste received a prison sentence.

How could this happen?

Share

Eltham, south-east London. Thursday, 22 April 1993. Just after 10pm.

Two black teenagers are waiting for a bus on Well Hall Road. Stephen Lawrence is eighteen. His friend Duwayne Brooks stands beside him.

A group of white youths cross the road towards them. One shouts.

Then they are on him.

Stephen is stabbed twice. Both blows sever arteries.

He runs. He makes it about a hundred yards before he collapses on the pavement.

Duwayne screams for help.

Stephen bleeds to death on a suburban street in south-east London.

The police investigation that follows is a catastrophe.

Suspects are named almost immediately.

Witnesses come forward. Local people know who did it. The evidence is there.

But nothing happens.

The accepted explanation is that the Metropolitan Police is riddled with racism. Officers didn’t pursue the case because the victim was black.

But the true story is darker and more squalid.

The father of one of the prime suspects - later convicted - was one of South London’s most powerful gangsters. The Met has long believed that more than one detective on the case was controlled by him.

Ray Adams was once head of criminal intelligence for the entire force. In 2000, a secret Scotland Yard report concluded that he worked for the gang.

But the Met did not share this fact with MacPherson. He made his historic diagnosis without this information.

It now seems that the investigation wasn’t botched because of racism. It was botched because the Met was thoroughly compromised by organised crime.

The Met preferred the accusations of racism to admitting that its own Head of Intelligence had sold the force out to gangsters.

In 1999, the MacPherson Report concluded that the Metropolitan Police suffered from “institutional racism”.

This was an extraordinary conclusion.

The concept was coined by Stokely Carmichael, a Black nationalist who came to embrace pan-African Marxist-Leninist revolution.

MacPherson had imported a concept from the 1960s US Civil Rights era into British public life thirty years later.

“Institutional racism” holds that the system produces oppressive outcomes regardless of the intentions of individuals within it. No individual officer needs to be racist.

This is not a new idea. It was the Marxist notion of structural oppression mapped onto race.

The state used the format of a forensic inquiry to install political dogma that cannot be challenged by facts.

Contrast the two rival explanations for the failure of the investigation:

The allegations of police corruption case can be investigated, verified, falsified.

The allegation of “institutional racism” is consistent with any individual behaviour. It cannot be proved or falsified. It is a political analysis, not a factual one.

A policeman looked at evidence of corruption and concluded Marxism was true.

But the police are not sociologists. They are not political theorists.

They are law enforcement officers. Their job is to uphold the law as it is written.

Once the police accepted ‘institutional racism’ as a self-diagnosis, they accepted a framework in which their guilt was structural.

Structural guilt is like original sin. It is permanent. No act can assuage it.

The police put themselves at the top of their own most wanted list. Forever.

They see themselves as subject to bouts of madness. They need outsiders to tie them to the mast and protect the public from them.

This explains why the Met had members of the Muslim Council of Britain working as theologians in its control room. A force that believes it is racist cannot trust its own eyes. It must borrow someone else's.

But who can be trusted? Only those who agree with the diagnosis.

MacPherson had forced the police to take a side in the culture war.

But only 12% of the public are on that side.

A police force that is politically aligned with just 12% of the population is no longer a neutral institution. It is an armed faction - a partisan force.

Only from within radical progressivism do the police appear non-political. To everyone else, their partisanship is obvious.

This is inherently unstable. Police legitimacy rests on the consent of the policed. Lose the 88% and you don't have a police force. You have a regime militia.

But why were the six policemen treated so differently from the men in Mayfair?

The logic of deterrence, again.

The jihadists are seen as beyond rational calculation. They are ideologically driven, emotionally volatile, capable of violence.

Confronting them risks disorder. The system has no levers to pull.

The policemen are ex-professionals. They have pensions, mortgages, reputations. They will comply. They can be deterred.

Threatening them brings results.

There is a second assumption beneath this - rarely stated.

Racial and religious minorities are held to a different civilisational standard. The system treats them as semi-civilised - not fully rational agents capable of being held to Western norms of conduct.

This is not respect for their culture. It is condescension disguised as sensitivity. It is racism in progressive clothing.

Another paradox: Treating minorities as lesser is progressive, holding them to the same standard as everyone else racist.

The system does what deterrence theory demands, and what its civilisational assumptions permit. It ignores the threat it cannot influence and crushes the one it can.

Do not police the violent. They cannot be deterred. They might fight back.

Police the compliant. They will submit.

The parking offender gets the death penalty. The murderer gets the fine.

The thought experiment escapes the walls of the Oxford college.

The state expands its interference in the lives of the law-abiding.

It retreats from violence and public disorder.

It hands the addict and the criminal to the therapist.

Forward-looking utilitarian calculations will always prioritise social justice over criminal justice.

Any society that values harm reduction over retribution will find itself in this world of paradox.

Share

Twickenham Green, south-west London. October 2023.

Norman Brennan is sixty-four. Retired British Transport Police. Arthritic knees.

He’s sitting in his car quietly drinking coffee.

A yell from Sainsbury’s Local. A man sprints past carrying a backpack.

Norman follows in his car. Cuts in front and jumps out.

The man turns and runs.

He calls 999 and follows by car.

He turns down a one-way street. He can’t lose him now.

Police arrive. The man is arrested. Norman finds nine stolen bottles of wine behind a block of flats.

Everything is handed to the police. The suspect. The evidence. The witness.

A week later: Norman receives a £130 fine for driving the wrong way down the one-way street.

Later, the shoplifter walks free. The Sainsbury’s manager has declined to press charges.

Share

Smoking cannabis is legal. Smoking tobacco is not.

A knife is thrown at a couple on a quiet mews. The constable shakes his head and leaves.

Men call for holy war in Mayfair. The police issue a theological statement written by “consultants”.

Officers send ugly jokes to each other in private. They receive suspended prison sentences.

A retired policeman catches a shoplifter and hands him to the police with the evidence. The shoplifter walks free. The policeman is fined.

None of this is accidental. None of it is incompetence. None of it is conspiracy.

This is the system working as designed.

It is the logical destination of deterrence theory, carried there by three cultural currents that have been flowing for over a century.

Utilitarianism removed the justification for punishment. Therapy culture removed the moral category of wickedness. Secularised Christianity removed the will to impose consequences.

Take away all three and you arrive in the same place, every time.

This is what society looks like when it no longer believes in punishment.

Subscribe now

Western civilisation is powered by the tension between two moral systems.

The Old Testament demands judgement: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The transgressor receives their punishment. The moral ledger is rebalanced.

The New Testament offers mercy: turn the other cheek, forgive them for they know not what they do. The sinner is redeemed through grace.

But neither can exist without the other.

Judgement without mercy is cruel.

Mercy to the wolf is cruelty to the lamb.

Mercy must always exist as an exception - an act of grace, an interruption of the normal operation of justice.

The king pardons a condemned man. A judge suspends a sentence. A victim forgives a perpetrator.

But forgiveness cannot exist without condemnation any more than a pardon can exist without a prior conviction.

Mercy depends upon Judgement.

The society that abolishes punishment also abolishes forgiveness.

There can be no compassion without Brimstone and Damnation.

An objection: Christianity is unfairly accused. It promoted retributive justice for eighteen centuries.

So what changed?

Christian doctrine holds mercy and judgement in tension. The full system requires both.

Sin is real. Damnation is real. Divine retribution is literal.

Mercy is justice interrupted. The sentence suspended but the punishment is still deserved.

Secularisation disturbed this carefully balanced system.

The new secular religion denied its origins. It reproduced Christianity’s values without Christianity’s structures.

Mercy, compassion and forgiveness were stripped of the judgement that gives them meaning.

The secular world saw judgement and retribution as primitive relics.

It believed it had arrived at compassion and forgiveness through reason alone.

Outbid with its own currency, Christianity quietly excised the half it was embarrassed to defend.

Mercy becomes an end in itself. The question of desert no longer arises.

But the system that results is not viable.

Share

You’ve always lived in this world of absurdities. You just haven’t recognised it until today.

“Two-tier justice”. “Two-tier policing”. “Anarcho-tyranny”. “Decarceration”. “Abolish the Police”.

These phenomena are not aberrations. They are not fringe positions. They flow from core liberal values, applied to their logical extent.

Deterrence replaces Retribution. Therapy replaces Judgement. Compassion replaces Consequences.

Someone has to play the bad cop.

Someone has to insist that punishment is the foundation on which civil order rests.

That case has gone unargued for too long.

A society that cannot bear to inflict suffering on the guilty inflicts it on the innocent instead.

There is no substitute for brimstone. Vengeance – we discover – must be ours.

Leave a comment

Something fundamental is wrong in Western Europe.

Growth is a distant memory. Wages have stagnated for a generation.

Public services are deteriorating. Infrastructure is crumbling. Every institution feels like it is running down.

Most workplaces have lost their energy. Growth plans are cancelled. Cost-cutting has taken their place.

The old explanations – a hangover from the GFC, austerity, Brexit, COVID, bad leadership, the Ukraine War, the debt brake – don’t hold anymore.

Britain flatlined for 8 years before Brexit.

France didn’t pursue austerity.

Germany stayed in the EU.

But three diverse economies have shared the same fate.

The cause is structural.

These states are trapped between faulty ideologies and the logic of global capital - a system our politicians do not understand.

Capital flows to where growth is.

Europe is ageing, over-regulated and energy-starved. It has none of the conditions that attract investment.

So Capital does what the textbooks predict. It extracts value from Europe and hunts for yield elsewhere.

America. Asia.

Anywhere but here.

The result: European Capitalism is butchering itself for parts.

A snapshot of Europe today: The BASF plant at Ludwigshafen. Once the crown jewel of European manufacturing. Now, a salvage yard.

Lines are being disassembled and exported to nations that have not declared war on themselves.

Every major political force – left and right – has participated in this process.

Their policies are forcing Europe to cannibalise itself to feed the world.

Beyond suicidal energy policy, there is one basic driver of this destruction: access to cheap labour.

This is a mighty weapon of social destruction. So powerful, it has the power to turn back time.

It can put the most basic processes of economic development into reverse gear.

It is destroying the social contract between the generations. Intelligence, study and hard work are no longer rewarded in the young.

The forces driving human progress have been put into reverse.

There is only one way out. But it demands a price that neither Left nor Right is yet willing to pay.

Subscribe now

How were we trapped?

When a fly is trapped in a bottle, one of two things happens. It either dies inside or finds the way out.

So it is with politics today.

Every political ideology contains a contradiction that destroys the thing it promises.

The Progressive Left destroys the welfare state it worships.

The Old Left decimates the tax revenue it longs to spend.

National Conservatives enable the immigration they claim to despise.

Neoliberals fail to deliver the growth they value above all.

Once we identify these contradictions, a pattern emerges. It has only one resolution.

This essay executes a proof in four steps:

It divides the political world into four quadrants.

It identifies the contradictions within each quadrant.

It analyses these paradoxes and shows that they can only be resolved in one way.

It describes the synthesis within which every viable ideology – whether left or right – must sit in the future.

What is the aim?

To show the fly the only way out of the bottle.

Subscribe now

Every major political ideology can be captured with four quadrants defined by its attitudes to business and immigration:

The Neoliberal Consensus (Pro-Business/Pro-Immigration)

This quadrant contains the entire political establishment of the 1990s-2010s.

It supports the free movement of capital and labour.

This is a broad church containing apparent enemies.

It spans the Clinton-Blair Third Way, establishment Democrats and Republicans, reaching as far as the Libertarian Right.

The Progressive Left (Anti-Business/Pro-Immigration)

This quadrant contains the radical left.

This movement demands redistribution and cultural progressivism. It wants open borders and an expanded welfare state.

This group includes the DSA in the US, the Green Party in the UK, AOC and Mamdani Democrats and left-identitarian movements.

The Old Left (Anti-Business/Anti-Immigration)

This quadrant contains traditional labour movements.

They prioritise worker protection over capital mobility. They embrace borders to protect wages and state intervention to protect communities.

In this quadrant, the Bernie Sanders who called open borders “a Koch Brothers policy” and some post-liberal Catholics.

In the UK, it covers traditional trade unions, elements of “Blue Labour” and the Labour left.

National Conservatism (Pro-Business/Anti-Immigration)

This quadrant contains cultural conservatives married to business-friendly economics.

It pursues anti-migration rhetoric. But it also defers to the “Chamber of Commerce agenda” - the business lobby.

It includes many in Reform UK, some MAGA Republicans, the NatCons and much of the right, including Donald Trump.

These four positions have dominated Western politics for decades.

But each contains a fatal contradiction that limits its ability to govern.

Share

The Paradoxes

The Progressive Left: Friedman’s Paradox

Open borders. A generous welfare state. Choose one.

Milton Friedman stated the problem clearly: when borders are porous, a welfare state becomes an “open-access global charity”.

The state offers First World benefits to anyone who can reach its soil.

This creates an uncapped global liability met with finite national revenues.

This is not a sustainable strategy.

Voters also retreat from redistribution when the recipients are not of “us”. The welfare state depends on solidarity - the belief that we share obligations to each other.

But open borders dissolves the “we” that makes it possible to sustain a progressive state.

This contradiction points to a deeper paradox.

The Progressive Left seeks to delegitimise the state and – at the same time - demands that it be expanded.

In the US and Canada: “No illegals on stolen land” denies sovereignty. If the land is stolen, the state is an occupying force and its authority oppressive.

In the UK and Europe: “They are here because we were there”. “Borders are the scars of colonialism”. The state lacks moral authority because of its historic crimes.

Yet the movement also demands that the state provides healthcare, housing, education and income support to all.

It also insists that the state uses its coercive power to expropriate wealth and income through higher taxation.

This is the contradiction. The Progressive Left needs state power but destroys its pre-conditions.

This presents it with an impossible choice:

Embrace borders to preserve the welfare state’s fiscal viability. Or,

Maintain open borders and watch the welfare state collapse

There is no third option.

The lesson: A powerful and generous state demands boundaries and acknowledged legitimacy.

National Conservatism: The Chamber of Commerce Paradox

Restrict immigration. Defer to the business lobby. Choose one.

National Conservatives promise strong borders and cultural preservation.

But when the business lobby demands access to cheap labour, they always fold.

Trump’s rhetoric was strong on “controlling immigration” before he was elected, but faced with lobbying from business, he changed focus. The administration moved to make it easier for farmers to hire foreign workers through an uncapped H-2A visa program.

In the UK, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Priti Patel long pursued tough rhetoric on “taking back control of immigration”.

But they later sponsored the biggest wave of low-skilled migration ever seen, with 3.5 million people coming to the UK between 2021 and 2023.

Defector Robert Jenrick said that – in cabinet discussions – almost every minister supported mass migration because it provided “cheap labour”.

This isn't hypocrisy so much as an epistemic trap.

National Conservatives defer to the business lobby because they believe it is the voice of the economy.

When the Chamber of Commerce says 'we need migrant workers', they hear 'the economy needs migrant workers'.

When business says 'we need to offshore our operations to stay competitive', it's the same story.

In their minds: to reject the lobby’s demands is to accept a basic tenet of the left - that the state knows better than business or the market.

Reject “Socialism” get Socialism

Consider the absurdity of the business lobby’s position.

Businesses demand to import low-skill labour to keep wages low and margins high.

But these workers earn too little to fund housing, health and education for their families.

So the State picks up the bill.

The good news for business: its wage bill is subsidised by the taxpayer.

The bad news: it ends up paying for its "cheap labour" in the most expensive way imaginable - laundered through the state bureaucracy and financed by higher taxes on business itself.

Now consider the absurdity of the National Conservative position.

Frightened of ceding an inch to the left on business, they give in to the lobby and open the border.

This boosts demand for welfare spending, forcing them to raise taxes.

Parties that promise to be “right on the economy, right on culture” push taxes to record levels while presiding over record migration and falling social cohesion.

The fear of looking leftist produces genuine leftism.

The business lobby agitates against its own interests - against the interests of the economy - and conservatives give them what they want anyway.

National Conservatives thus face an impossible choice:

Accept the business lobby’s demands for mass migration and outsourcing

Reject business as the economic authority. Accept that state sometimes knows the economy better than business

There is no third option.

The lesson: You cannot be anti-immigration and pro-business lobby when business wants cheap labour.

The Old Left: The Proceeds of Growth Paradox

Redistribute the proceeds of growth. Attack the sectors that generate growth. Choose one.

The Old Left promises worker protection, a generous welfare state and community protection through state intervention

But this quadrant has no viable strategy for growth.

It gestures toward “the entrepreneurial state”: the claim that state investment drives innovation, so that increased state investment will boost the economy.

The slogan: “The Apple iPhone could never have existed without state investment”.

But this narrative contains three errors, each fatal:

First, it confuses infrastructure with product.

The state funded GPS and the internet. It did not develop the iPhone, build its supply chain across the globe, create the App Store or generate the business model that made it viable.

Crediting the state for the iPhone because it funded GPS, is like crediting the Romans for Uber because they built the first roads.

But even if we grant the attribution. It doesn’t matter. No policy follows.

“The state once funded X and Y emerged” is a historical observation. “Therefore more state funding will produce more Y” does not follow.

Where is the transmission mechanism? At what rate does a pound spent on basic research convert into commercial growth in the country that funded it? Through which institutions? On what timescale?

This is the post hoc fallacy dressed up as growth policy.

Counterexample: The French state - which does have a dirigiste tradition - funded Minitel. Zero iPhones have resulted so far.

But even if we grant this. Grant that state funding drives innovation and that more funding will drive more. The state is not capable of execution.

DARPA worked because it operated with unusual speed, autonomy and tolerance for failure.

In Britain and the US, the state cannot even build a railway line. They are not going to drive the next technological revolution.

The focus of this quadrant is on who deserves the kudos for past innovation.

It provides no explanation of why more state spending would produce more growth in the future – least of all in the country that spends the money.

Famously, British basic research is commercially exploited elsewhere: Penicillin, the Jet Engine, LCD Technology, Computed Tomography, World Wide Web and Graphene.

But there is one thing the economists who identify with this quadrant get right. They have studied the postwar development of Asian economies. They see that the market, left alone, will not allocate capital to long-term strategic development in a declining economy.

They argue that success comes from the state directing investment toward strategic sectors within a market framework.

This is a valuable observation.

But there is a problem.

The Old Left coalition cannot accept the market discipline that makes this model work.

The Anti-Growth Coalition

Everywhere state-directed investment worked – post-war Japan, South Korea, Singapore - it required governments to override local interests, pick winners, and impose short-term costs on existing communities.

It also required government to send failing companies to the wall.

But the Old Left coalition can’t do any of this.

Every major infrastructure project in Britain is crippled by the alliance of local objectors, environmental campaigners and community defenders that this quadrant represents.

The trade unionist who wants a new factory is in coalition with the environmental campaigner who will block it, the community organiser who will object to it and the planning lawyer who will delay it for years.

The development economist who wants failing companies to go bust is in coalition with the trade unionist who will force their rescue.

These aren’t incidental allies, they are its core coalition.

The Old Left doesn’t occasionally get captured by anti-growth forces.

It is an anti-growth force.

The problem: The Old Left cannot share “the proceeds of growth” if they don’t exist.

If it is to secure growth as the party of technological revolution, it cannot also be the party of community protection.

The reality: Its favoured policies - high taxes, aggressive regulation, a deep hostility to finance and tech - destroy the growth that is supposed to fund their plans.

This is the core incoherence: the Old Left wants to divide a pie they have no credible plans to bake

The Old Left faces an impossible choice:

Protect communities from change. Abandon growth and redistribution.

Or embrace creative destruction and betray the communities they represent

There is no third option

The lesson: You cannot redistribute the proceeds of growth while blocking the change that generates it.

The Neo-Liberal Consensus: The Four Paradoxes

The Neoliberal Consensus gets by far the most scrutiny here because it is the only quadrant to have governed.

This history means that it faces four paradoxes:

Extractive Capitalism. Mass migration. Growth. Pick two.

Open borders. A generous welfare state. Pick one. (Friedman’s Paradox again)

Geopolitical strategy. Laissez-faire economics. Pick one.

Institutions that depend on high social trust. Policies that destroy social trust. Pick one. (Goodhart’s Paradox).

Since the 1980s, every major party in the US and UK has operated within this quadrant. Labour and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, have governed as neoliberal parties, whatever their rhetoric.

This group justifies its dominant position with promises of growth and prosperity.

Yet it has consistently failed to deliver per capita growth in Europe and - outside growth hotspots – it is now failing in the US.

The Neo-Liberal Case for Immigration

The Lump of Labour Fallacy

Neo-Liberals argue that immigrants don’t “steal jobs” because there isn’t a fixed number of jobs to steal.

Immigrants are both workers and consumers. They don’t just take jobs - they create demand for jobs by spending money, needing housing, buying food, using services and raising families.

When a cohort of immigrants arrive, they boost demand for many types of goods and services, creating jobs for native workers.

From this perspective: opposing immigration because “they take our jobs” is like opposing babies being born today because “they’ll take our jobs in 20 years”. It simply misunderstands how economies work.

The real question isn’t whether immigration creates or destroys jobs - it creates them - but how to ensure the benefits are broadly shared.

The Problem

None of these claims survive contact with European reality.

If the Neoliberal analysis were correct, mass migration would be accompanied by substantial GDP growth, rising productivity and a more dynamic economy.

Job creation would exceed immigration numbers.

Native workers would move up the value chain into higher-skilled, higher-paid roles as immigrants filled positions below them.

Wages would rise across the board. This would boost the tax take driving down Europe’s debt burden.

Public services would improve, funded by the tax revenues of a larger workforce.

There would be a construction boom to house the new population.

Business investment would surge.

Struggling regions would be revitalised as new workers and consumers arrived.

Innovation would accelerate.

Native’s living standards would inevitably rise as a consequence of migration.

But not one item on this list occurred in - Britain, Germany or Canada - countries with unprecedented migration.

Testing the Theory

The UK provides a perfect test case.

Between 1960 and 1990, average arrivals were 175,000 a year.

Between 2000 and 2021 - the Neoliberal Era - the number rose to 575,000.

Between 2021 and 2023, it hit 1.2 million a year.

This period of unprecedentedly high migration provides a natural experiment in Neoliberal theory.

What happened?

Per capita GDP growth has been near zero for 17 years.

Productivity has been flat - the worst performance since the Industrial Revolution.

Real wages have stagnated for most workers, the longest period without wage growth since the Napoleonic wars. Wages in many skilled and technical roles are actually falling.

Neoliberal economists define themselves in opposition to the “disastrous handling of the Great Depression” – “never again”. But real wages recovered within ten years that time. This time it has been seventeen.

Housing is in acute crisis, with construction nowhere near matching population growth.

Public services have visibly deteriorated - longer NHS waiting lists, fewer school places, crumbling infrastructure - despite “a larger workforce funding them”.

Regional inequality has worsened, not improved.

Native workers have not moved up the value chain; they are instead competing with migrants and offshore resources. Businesses are shifting from high-skill models to low-skill factory models staffed with offshore labour.

UK business investment remains the lowest in the G7. Companies have used migrant labour to cut costs and extract profits rather than invest in productivity.

Neoliberal theory: 0 Reality: 8

Every one of its predictions has failed. Every one.

Neoliberals Explain European Decline

Neoliberals have an explanation for European stagnation.

They continue to believe that open markets and migration deliver growth, despite the contrary evidence.

The growth never arrived, of course.

But each failure is explained away with a conveniently timed auxiliary factor. Austerity. Brexit. COVID. The energy shock. The 35-hour week. The nuclear phase-out. The debt brake. The Ukraine War.

Each event appears just in time to explain a stable, 17-year long flatline.

No failed prediction ever falsifies the theory. The experiment wasn’t given the right conditions.

Britain has its excuses. France has different ones. Germany has different ones again.

But France did not pursue austerity.

Germany did not leave the EU.

Britain doesn’t have a debt-brake.

And yet all three economies flatlined.

This shows that shared structural conditions explain the common outcome - not local policy choices or ad hoc factors.

What went wrong?

Taking Britain as the test case: why did the largest immigration experiment in its history achieve the opposite of what mainstream economic theory predicted?

The Neoliberal treatment of migration assumes Investment Capitalism.

The causal chain works as follows:

Migration → Low Wages → Higher Profits → Reinvestment → Expansion → New Jobs.

Firms become more profitable by employing foreign labour. They reinvest the profits in the economy to exploit new opportunities. This expands their capacity and generates new jobs for native workers.

But economists assume conditions that don’t exist in Europe and many parts of the US economy.

Under Extractive Capitalism the causal chain breaks at "Reinvestment".

Investors do not invest in new productive capacity at home, they return the money to their shareholders instead.

The signs of this are clear in the UK.

Total UK investment fell from c.25% of GDP in the late 1989 to c.17% from 2008 onwards. The equipment and machinery investment that drives productivity, more than halved from over 8% to under 3% of GDP in that period.

Here’s the problem: on a global scale, the logic of the economist holds. The Lump of Labour is indeed a fallacy. Migration creates jobs.

But on a regional or national scale, it does not. In a world of globalised capital, profits do not need to be reinvested in Europe. Shareholders can send the money to other regions.

Money is extracted from one region and reinvested elsewhere.

Immigration to Sunderland or Burghausen does create jobs. But the new jobs are in Shenzhen or Bangalore.

The consequences of this are dark.

Extractive Capitalism

Extractive Capitalism arises when investors and managers cease to boost profits through investment and growth and seek to achieve it through cost cutting instead.

When migrant labour is available, companies use it to suppress wages, reduce investment and extract more profit.

They do not invest the profits to grow.

The resulting savings go to shareholders, not to building the future.

At a global level, this nets out. For the region being extracted from, it does not.

Cheap Labour and Automation Business Cases

Easy access to cheap labour tends to push businesses away from investing in their future.

This happens through the simple arithmetic of the automation business case.

Manual operations cost nothing upfront. But they cost a steady amount to operate forever more.

Automation projects cost money to execute. But they are cheap to run once they are in place.

Automation projects are thus financed from the future savings from using less manual labour.

If I have 100 workers who can be redeployed by automation and they each cost $50k a year, then the project will break even over one year if the project costs $5m.

100 x $50,000 = $5,000,000

Let’s say we gain access to cheap offshore labour for a 10th of the price. Now it takes 10 years to break even (ten times as long).

As firms have investment horizons that are shorter than 10 years, the project will be cancelled.

Automation loses this competition with offshore labour.

Access to cheap labour comes through two channels: importing workers through migration and exporting work through offshoring.

Both destroy the business case for domestic investment through the same mechanism. Immigration is a more visible channel. Offshoring can be the more damaging one.

The lesson: gaining access to cheap labour not only removes management incentives to invest in productivity-enhancing technology, it can make automation impossible to finance.

The most terrifying part: no one at the top makes a conscious decision to halt progress. Often, the board is trying to do the opposite.

A concrete example: A major European company launched a multi billion automation programme. Shortly after, the Sri Lankan currency halved. Operations automatically switched their processes there.

It was now possible to access graduate labour for $5,000 a year. No business case could compete with labour at that price. The programme ran into the sand. Nothing was automated.

If you understand this dynamic, you now have a better understanding than many people on the boards of major European companies.

This decentralised mechanism explains why government or corporate mandates for 'growth' fail.

The centre pulls the investment lever, but the lever is disconnected from reality.

So long as the arithmetic of cheap labour undercuts technology, every business case dies on the spreadsheet.

The destruction of Western productivity isn't a conspiracy; it's a maths problem.

Extraction in the Round

We’ve seen what happens when one company ceases to invest, but what happens when this happens to a whole economy?

When many firms cease to invest, other companies revise their expectations of future demand and trim their own investment plans.

Pessimism spreads across the economy.

The result: business progressively goes on investment strike.

This behaviour helps explain why two Neoliberal predictions failed.

Wages didn’t rise: they were suppressed.

Productivity didn’t surge: investment collapsed.

The theory assumes that cheap labour drives investment. We got extraction.

The Low-Wage, Low-Productivity Trap

But a rising population without new capital investment is not net neutral.

Economic development consists in a rising capital stock per worker.

With a fixed capital stock and rising numbers of workers, capital is diluted.

This puts the basic process of economic development into reverse, generating falling living standards.

This has locked the UK into a low-wage, low-productivity trap.

The Fiscal Trap

Why haven’t we received the predicted “migrant tax dividend”?

The Neoliberal model failed to factor in the existence of the welfare state.

In the UK - for instance - only the top 47% of earners are net fiscal contributors - and even within that group, contributions are heavily concentrated at the top.

Only a small number of people are significant net contributors. The top 1% of earners pay 33% of tax. Nearly a quarter of these people are immigrants, many working in finance. But they entered through long established corporate routes or STEM education.

Most migrants entering through other routes will be net fiscal drains.

On average, immigrants earn approximately 7.8% less than UK-born workers. If we removed the financiers distorting the figures, the number would be even worse.

This lower income puts a larger proportion below the 47% threshold where net contribution begins.

This means that they consume more in public services than they contribute in taxes.

The “migrant tax dividend” never materialises because most immigrants are net fiscal drains, not contributors.

Now, it’s the state’s turn to extract. It must take revenue from citizens to fund the new arrivals.

But boosting tax tends to drive the highest earners abroad.

This is a dangerous dynamic.

The abolition of non-dom status in the UK has already provoked many of its richest people to leave. The top 1% are its most mobile workers.

Britain is progressively swapping the citizens who contribute the most, for non-citizens who are a permanent drain.

The recent “Boriswave” of largely unskilled migrants will be particularly costly. They will soon be able to access benefits. The total cost is disputed. Estimates range from the low hundreds of billions to half a trillion over their lifetimes.

But no one thinks they will bring a “tax dividend”.

The result: The UK remains stuck in a debt trap. Low skilled migration is making the situation worse, not better.

Infrastructure and Public Services

Why haven’t we experienced the predicted boom in construction and infrastructure with better public services?

An unprecedented wave of immigration has increased demand for housing and basic infrastructure, but the predicted construction boom is conspicuously absent.

Migrants need housing, roads and hospitals as soon as they arrive.

But building housing requires planning permission, land, infrastructure and state spending.

This takes years, if it happens at all.

Planning restrictions, and the recent disastrous introduction of a new building regulator, have made mass building impossible.

This means that existing services must handle a growing population.

NHS capacity hasn't kept pace with population growth and is thus spread across more patients. The same school capacity is divided among more students. The same infrastructure is shared among more users.

Neoliberal theory predicted that mass migration would create a boom in tax revenue. This would fund the infrastructure expansion needed to accommodate a growing population.

But we’ve seen that the tax dividend never arrived.

And even if it had, planning restrictions and regulatory failures would have blocked construction.

This means more people competing for infrastructure created for a smaller population.

The result:

The public sector is “undeveloping”, like the wider economy. State capacity is diluted in the public sector, just as capital is diluted in the private.

Asset prices go up, even as wages go down.

Older generations who own property grow wealthier. The young pay rising rents from falling wages to landlords whose assets appreciate without any investment. This is redistribution - from the young to the old, from the poor to the rich.

Public services and public infrastructure are in obvious decline.

Wage Suppression

Why haven’t wages or employment risen as predicted?

Economic theory assumes that immigrants complement native workers. The reality is often substitution at lower wages.

Immigrants compete with native workers for the same roles.

For example, outsourcing firms like Wipro, TCS, HCL now substitute for entire verticals. They use a mix of onshore and offshore staff to replace British workers across the whole value chain – from top to bottom – from routine tasks to senior management.

In response, British companies are abandoning graduate training schemes. Graduate places are down 24% over three years.

Youth unemployment has risen as businesses cease to finance entry-level jobs with training requirements.

The manager of an onshore consultancy explained it to me this way. His clients once accepted that part of each team would be low-skilled graduate trainees. Now they have ready access to migrant and offshore labour, they do not.

His graduate scheme had to go.

With their operations, technology and change programmes outsourced, many companies are drifting towards nameplate status.

The final model: only HR, Compliance and C-suite executives and their support teams onshore.

But this model leaves major European businesses entirely dependent on Indian outsourcers to tell them how their organisation works.

These organisations are so completely hollowed out, they barely exist as independent entities.

“Moving up the Value Chain”

Native workers didn’t magically “move up the value chain” as predicted, many were pushed out of the workforce.

For clear evidence of the vast gulf between Neoliberal predictions and empirical reality, consider the fate of British data scientists.

If any group of workers should have benefited from migration, it should be these workers.

They are essential to the future of AI. AI is undergoing a huge boom. They sit at the top of the value chain, at the vanguard of the revolution in “the technology that will define the century”.

According to the Neoliberal model, this employment sector should - above all - be exploding with vitality.

Migration driven growth should be pushing native workers into this rapidly expanding sector of the global economy.

Data scientists’ pay should be rocketing.

A reality check: the website ITJobsWatch has tracked data scientists’ pay since 2012.

There is no explosion.

The wages of both consultant and permanent staff have been flat in cash terms since 2012, despite the “boom in AI”.

This represents a 31% real terms pay cut over 14 years.

We have long expected wages to increase at 1-2% a year in real terms. Had data scientist's wages grown at just 1.5% annually in real terms, a £60,000 salary from 2012 would be £108,000 today about 80% higher than their actual pay.

Instead, the data shows pay consistently falling, year in, year out.

If data scientists’ wages are falling during a boom, the employment market must be very sick .

Worse. This is a sign of a fundamentally broken society.

Falling wages destroy young people’s incentives to gain productivity-boosting skills. A PhD-educated Data Scientist (London pay £61-75k) is no better off than a self-employed plumber who left school at 16 (London pay £65-70k).

They will also pay higher taxes at this income. Student loan repayments function as a graduate tax the plumber doesn’t incur.

In a jobs market like this one, why should a student listen in maths class?

The returns on education no longer exist.

The forces unleashed by cheap labour are so strong, British society is losing the basic gravitational forces that shape everyday life.

Neoliberal theory rests on the idea that native workers “move up the value chain” as technology advances.

But under the extractive model, there is no chain to move up to because companies also use migration and outsourcing to suppress pay and displace workers at the top of “the value chain”.

Three Skill Levels. One Pattern.

When capitalism is in extractive mode, immigration and offshoring can harm the prospects of natives at every skill level:

Low-skilled jobs: Business privatises gains while socialising costs. Workers require subsidised housing and public services that exceed their tax contributions. Taxpayers provide huge subsidies to corporate wage bills.

Mid-skilled jobs: Business abandons investment in human capital. Why recruit graduates and provide training when you can import ready-trained workers?

Graduate schemes disappear. Entry-level career paths collapse.

If a company can hire a 28-year-old experienced coder from abroad for less than training a 21-year-old local graduate, they will hire them.

High-skilled jobs: Per the data scientists, business suppresses senior wages through substitution. Promises that natives will “move up the value chain” prove false - there is no chain to move up when high skill positions go to cheaper alternatives by default.

At every level, the mechanism is the same: privatise the gains, socialise the costs, suppress wages, avoid investment, extract profit.

Why Extractive Capitalism?

Why is European Capitalism working in this extractive mode?

It’s not that investors have become “greedy” or “evil”. We do not need to resort to Marxist theory to explain this outcome.

There is no mystery at all: the logic is documented in textbooks of corporate finance.

The basic principle: Capital responds to incentives. It flows to where the returns are highest. This means extracting capital from failing regions and investing it in growing ones.

Investment Theory

Investment theory divides businesses into one of two states defined by their growth prospects:

1. Growth Companies - Investment Mode

The company has opportunities to invest capital at a rate of return higher than the cost of capital.

It borrows money to invest. It builds factories, writes code and trains staff. It does not pay dividends or buy back shares because the money is more valuable inside the company than outside.

These companies need productivity above all. They will pay high wages to attract the best talent because that talent generates huge returns.

Think of: Investment banking in the 00s. Silicon Valley in the 2010s. German manufacturing in the 1960s. US AI now.

2. The Mature/Decline Phase (Extraction Mode)

These companies operate in saturated or declining markets. They have no opportunities to invest capital at returns above the cost of capital. Any dollar invested in business expansion returns less than it costs.

As the company has “nowhere to go”, it makes sense to return capital to shareholders. They can invest it somewhere where money generates adequate returns.

This is why we see high dividends and share buybacks from these companies rather than investment.

This shapes these companies’ strategies. Investors pressure them to boost their profit margin. But they cannot grow revenue through growing the market or through innovation, they can only boost profits by cutting costs.

Think of: High street retail. Tobacco firms. Water utilities. European retail banks.

The Trap

In a healthy economy, old Type 2 companies tend to shrink, releasing their capital and labour to Type 1 companies in the same region.

This is “Creative Destruction“.

Mass migration breaks this cycle. When a mature, low-innovation sector (like car washes, delivery services or low-end care) hits a wall, it should be forced to automate or shrink.

Without Migration: Labour costs rise. The business must invest in technology - type 1 behaviour - or go bust.

Many will fail - that's creative destruction working as intended. The capital and labor they release flows to more productive uses.

The hand car wash goes to the wall. An automated car wash is built in its place.

With Mass Migration: The business can access an unlimited supply of labour at the statutory minimum or, if illegal, below it. It does not need to innovate. It does not need to invest. It can survive by scaling cheap bodies.

Automation is stripped out of a mechanised car wash. Immigrants hand wash cars in its shell.

We see low-wage manual operations undercut high-wage automated ones, making investment in automation uneconomic.

Undoing Civilisation

There is one basic process that has driven human history for two million years: the augmentation of human effort with technology.

That process begins with hand axes and ends with GPUs and space rockets.

Each wave of innovation provides the preconditions for the next.

First, we develop the bellows. Then the bellows allows us to forge steel. Steel facilitates building engines. Engines generate electricity. Electricity proves essential to creating the computer.

Like geological strata, each layer becomes the foundations of the one above it. The sequence is cumulative, directional.

In a healthy civilisation, this process is an irreversible ratchet.

Technology drives human development. When a task performed by human labour is transferred to a tool, a machine, a system, a human is freed to climb one layer higher.

The farmer becomes a machinist. The machinist becomes an engineer. The engineer becomes a programmer.

But here we see the astonishingly destructive power of cheap labour.

It can construct a time machine that throws the most basic civilisational process into reverse. It can strip out automation in favour of manual labour.

Across the UK, automated car washes have been replaced by hand-washing operations staffed by migrants.

The sight of a group of migrants washing down cars in the empty shell of an automated car wash is not an economic curiosity.

It is the clearest possible warning of civilisational decline.

European Suicide

European Capitalism’s extractive dynamic is not an accident. Neither does it result from bad - or evil - management practices.

Capital is responding to Europe’s structural position in the global economy and its extremely poor policy choices.

If you are a global capital allocator in New York or Singapore, looking at a map of the world - wanting to invest - where do you place your bets?

Capital responds to future growth prospects.

These are driven by three signals: demographics, energy costs and regulation.

On all three counts, the UK and Europe are flashing red.

1. The Demographic Ceiling

Europe is an ageing continent. An ageing population consumes less, takes fewer risks and starts fewer households.

High growth returns are rare in a shrinking market with an ageing workforce and declining consumption.

When Capital looks at Europe it sees a “Bond”: steady, low yield, low risk.

When Capital looks at the US or Asia it sees “Equity”: high risk but high growth.

Following the principles we have described, capital will extract earnings from low-growth Europe to invest in high-growth US & Asia.

Investors – and sector analysts – direct senior company managers to maximise dividend pay-outs and so minimise investment.

The result: An increasing number of European companies are put into run-down mode. Investment is ended. Profit is extracted.

2. Energy Suicide

This is the single biggest driver of European de-industrialisation.

Since the Ukraine war, European energy costs have structurally decoupled from the rest of the world. Heavy industry in Germany or the UK pays 3-4x more for energy than a competitor in Texas or Shanghai.

Europe's renewable energy strategy has increased total system costs through intermittency and grid complexity, while failing to deliver competitive industrial power prices.

If you run chemical plants, steel mills or AI data centres, you cannot invest in Europe. The physics don’t work.

The result: Companies run their European assets into the ground via extraction to fund investment in new capacity in the US or China.

BASF, Miele and Volkswagen have famously shut down German factories and opened new ones in low energy cost locations.

3. Regulatory Overload

The EU and UK have positioned themselves as “Regulatory Superpowers”.

But this is less a strategy and more suicidal ideation.

You cannot regulate your way to growth.

This is particularly clear with AI. There, the “precautionary principle” has reached a point of logical impossibility.

Regulations require companies to classify and vet data before it enters an AI system. Yet, the primary purpose of GenAI is to discover and analyse the very unstructured data the law demands you already understand. You are required to finish the analysis before using the tool meant to do that analysis.

AI demands speed, scale, and massive energy. Europe takes pride in imposing friction.

By making compliance a logical impossibility, Britain and Europe aren’t “shaping the future of AI through regulation”.

They are ensuring they won’t be part of it.

These three forces combine to make Europe structurally un-investable for growth.

Capital treats European companies as mature assets to extract from, not dynamic businesses to invest in.

Immigration does not create the extractive dynamic. The causes are structural - demographics, energy costs, regulation.

But it does lock it in, by removing the incentive to invest that would otherwise force recovery.

Mass immigration into this context is not a catalyst for investment. It’s a cost-cutting tool that aids extraction.

The Hospital of Horror

Politicians usually present competition for global capital like a “Beauty Contest”.

Will Nissan build its new EV factory in the UK or the EU?

They think the worst that can happen is that we just don’t win the prize.

The reality is far darker.

Imagine two patients in a hospital run by Capital.

Patient A (Europe): Older and sicker with expensive life-support costs.

Patient B (US/Asia): Younger, growing fast, hungry for resources.

In a normal hospital, the doctor transfuses blood from the healthy patient to help the sick one.

But global capital runs this clinic. And it is not trying to save both patients.

Capital flows to wherever it gets the best returns.

This ends with the doctor siphoning blood out of the sick patient to pump it into the healthy one.

This is what that extraction looks like:

Shell - 115 years British, $270 billion market cap - threatens to abandon London for New York.

Arm - Britain’s crown jewel in semiconductors, the technology inside your phone - lists on Nasdaq. London doesn’t even get to host its own success.

BASF shuts German chemical plants after 150 years. Equipment from its ammonia and methanol units is dismantled to be shipped overseas. New plant has been opened in China where energy is cheap.

Volkswagen closes Dresden - the first VW factory closure in Germany in 87 years. New battery plants open in Hungary, Poland, China.

Michelin closes two German tyre factories.

Bosch cuts 7,000 German jobs while expanding in Asia.

Companies are systematically harvesting European assets - capital, technology, talent, equipment - to boost growth elsewhere.

They move the listing.

They move production.

Then they move R&D.

Finally, what’s left? A nameplate. An HR department. A shell.

Europe is not just “missing out” on one-off investments.

It is being actively cannibalised to feed the rest of the world.

Worse, our governments are spurring the process.

European states maintain policies that make their economies un-investable. High energy costs. Regulatory hypertrophy.

They ensure capital has no choice but to extract and go elsewhere.

Then they watch as the lifeforce is sucked from a continent.

If you live and work in Western Europe, you already know this.

Your workplace has lost energy. Growth plans have been cancelled. There is cost-cutting in their place. Infrastructure is crumbling.

This isn’t decay. This is extraction at work.

Europe is the meat that feeds growth elsewhere.

The US Experience

But surely America proves the neoliberal model can work? The US is achieving growth while Europe stagnates.

On the surface, yes. But this masks a deeper similarity.

Strip out AI-related capital expenditure - data centres, chips, information processing - and US GDP growth in the first half of 2025 was 0.1%.

The numbers are stark: AI and information processing - just 4% of the economy - generated 92% of the country’s GDP growth in H1 2025.

Outside the AI boom, the American economy looks remarkably European: flat investment, stagnant consumption, declining capex in every other sector.

Deutsche Bank concluded the US “would be close to recession if it weren’t for tech-related spending”.

Retail, hospitality, logistics, manufacturing face the same dynamic as Europe. Mass immigration suppresses wages, removing pressure to invest in productivity. Investment collapses. Capital extracts.

American growth is real. But it is concentrated in sectors that employ relatively few people.

The aggregate statistics look great, but the growth is concentrated in one narrow sector. The rest of the economy extracts.

Geostrategy versus Neo-liberal theory

America is also experiencing a collision between Geostrategy reality and Neo-liberal theory.

America aims to maintain military-strategic competition with China while remaining committed to free markets and porous borders. But this is impossible.

China operates with:

Explicit industrial strategy

State direction of investment

Controlled borders and labour markets

Strategic deployment of resources

America responds with:

Faith in market mechanisms

Outsourcing to strategic competitors

Importing Chinese nationals to work in sensitive technology sectors, training them, then watching them return home with expertise

Refusing industrial policy as “protectionist”

The result: America has no comprehensive industrial strategy of its own. It has the shadow policy of China.

Whatever serves Chinese strategic interests becomes American reality.

The US ships manufacturing abroad and exports entire sectors to China. Then it finds itself subject to threats that those outputs are withdrawn.

China controls 90% of rare earth processing capacity. It has repeatedly threatened to cut off exports as geopolitical leverage.

The US military discovered it cannot build F-35s or Virginia-class submarines without Chinese rare earths for avionics, lasers and magnets.

Here the Neoliberal Consensus faces another impossible choice:

Maintain laissez-faire ideology and cede industrial capacity to strategic competitors

Or adopt industrial strategy and abandon neoliberal theology

There is no third option.

You cannot compete geopolitically with a state-directed economy using market mechanisms.

The lesson:

China has a Chinese industrial strategy. The US also has a Chinese industrial strategy.

China has Geo-political strategy. America has Neoliberal theology.

Neo-Liberalism’s Self-Destructive Impulse

But the case against neoliberalism is not only strategic. The model is also destroying
its own social foundations.

Neoliberal theory sees itself as a set of eternal principles that are detached from any historical, cultural or ethnic context.

But this is delusory.

These ideas emerged from a set of social conditions specific to Northern Europe, described by the historian Alan MacFarlane in The Origins of English Individualism.

Macfarlane showed that England developed unusual characteristics by the 13th century:

Individual property rights (not clan or family ownership)

Nuclear families (not extended kinship networks)

Market-based land transactions

Weak kinship obligations

High social trust among non-kin

These characteristics helped Britain develop liberal, neutral institutions.

The details of Macfarlane’s thesis are disputed by some historians, but even his critics
accept that the high-trust, low-kinship model describes a local cultural configuration and not a human universal.

But Neo-liberal economics assumes those conditions exist everywhere:

Property rights are secure without kinship enforcement

Contracts are honoured without family pressure

Strangers can be trusted in market transactions

Individuals act independently of clan obligations

The Welfare State is an extension of Macfarlane’s model. It depends on high trust, individualism and a broad willingness to pay for strangers who are seen as extended kin.

In 2004, David Goodhart predicted that rapid demographic change would reduce trust and social solidarity. This would undermine political support for the redistributive
systems that are essential to social democracy.

Goodhart saw a contradiction: the same people who support mass migration also support the Welfare State.

But the former inevitably undermines support for the latter.

This is Goodhart’s paradox: you can have a diverse society or broad support for generous welfare, but not both.

But Goodhart’s logic extends far beyond the welfare state. It applies to the
Neoliberal model itself.

Consider arch-neoliberal Niall Ferguson’s argument that mass migration from Africa to the West is inevitable and necessary to counteract demographic decline in
industrial societies.

Yet many African societies lack the pre-requisites of Ferguson’s preferred social
model.

Many operate through extended kinship networks, clan-based property, family obligation enforcement and high in-group but low out-group trust - the inverse of every condition Macfarlane identifies.

These social structures can function in their own context. But they are incompatible with Western liberal institutions.

Mass immigration from societies that lack these characteristics undermines the social substrate the model requires.

You cannot import millions of people from kinship-based, high-context cultures and expect low-context, high-trust individualism to persist.

The recent scandal of Somali immigrants siphoning money from Minnesota’s Nordic-style welfare system provides an example of how clan systems can clash with Western institutions.

The scandal involved the theft of $250 million from federal child nutrition programs. The scheme used a network of fake non-profits to bill for millions of non-existent meals.

Investigators found that the fraud relied on tight-knit community networks to fabricate records and launder money. It exploited the “high trust” nature of the Minnesota Nordic-style welfare administration, which operated on the assumption of honest reporting.

But this problem is not limited to Africans.

Northern Europe and the Anglosphere are global outliers.

Kinship-based obligation systems everywhere treat state resources as legitimate targets for family benefit – think of Sicily.

This behaviour is normal within that cultural framework but catastrophic for high-trust liberal institutions.

Why Europe Takes the Least Compatible Migrants

The lesson: US and Europe should take the most compatible migrants. It should ask whether a migrant come from a society with the social prerequisites of liberal institutions.

Unfortunately, the reality is entirely different. European migration processes are optimised to bring the least compatible migrants.

Countries with strong clan-based cultures find it difficult to sustain a unitary nation state.

Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya, Iraq, parts of Pakistan, Eritrea and Syria are all unstable clan-based societies. Where these cultures maintain a unitary state, this is rarely accompanied by liberal institutions.

This instability creates a constant flow of asylum seekers. The absence of liberal institutions in their homelands means that it is impossible to return them under the existing rights regime.

The strongest asylum claims come from societies with the lowest cultural compatibility. International law demands we accept them. But accepting them in unlimited numbers undermines the very institutions that make our societies worth fleeing to.

The lesson: Neoliberals are blind to their own cultural situatedness. They consistently fail to see the pre-requisites of their system.

Just as the Neo-cons thought Western values could be imported to the peoples of the Middle East, now Neo-liberals think that the peoples of the Middle East can be imported without touching Western values.

They share the same universalist delusion: that liberal institutions are independent from their social substrate.

The Neoliberal Consensus thus faces an impossible choice:

Maintain mass immigration and watch liberal institutions fail

Or restrict immigration to culturally compatible populations and abandon their universalist ideology

There is no third option.

See the appendix for a response to counter-arguments based on the US experience.

The Gerontocratic Death Spiral

We have explained why immigration does not deliver the benefits that economists predict. Immigration into Extractive Capitalism in a welfare state works differently. Lump of Labour is not a fallacy at the national or regional level.

We have explained why Capitalism turned extractive in Europe and much of the US economy. It is simply doing what the corporate finance textbooks say it should.

But we have not yet explained why the European political system has been so inert in the face of this challenge.

The final piece of the puzzle is demographic. Extractive Capitalism is the default mode of greying societies.

When a nation ages, it enters a vicious cycle where cannibalising the future is in the rational self-interest of voters.

This is the Gerontocratic Death Spiral.

It operates in four stages:

Stage 1: The Consumption Collapse

As the population ages, consumption shifts. Older people spend less on innovation, new technology and the goods of “household formation”.

Domestic demand for “Type 1” (Growth/Innovation) products softens. At the same time, demand for health and care services jumps, pushing up taxes on the young.

Capital watches the growth potential of the market fail. It stops investing in expansion and switches to extraction (Dividends/Buybacks).

The result: The economy begins to ossify.

Stage 2: The Safety Reflex

The state should respond by boosting the consumption of the young and investment in growth sectors of the economy.

This implies aggressive deregulation, slashing planning constraints and incentivising risky investment to attract capital back to “Type 1” activities.

The problem: The electorate demands exactly the opposite.

Older voters live off their stored wealth in housing and pensions. They will not live to see the fruits of long-term investment.

This makes them risk-averse and short-termist.

They prioritise capital preservation over capital growth. They vote for:

NIMBYism: Blocking new infrastructure to protect local house prices.

Regulation: Demanding high safety standards that make experimentation illegal.

Pension guarantees: Demanding state-guaranteed income regardless of productivity.

The large size of the Boomer generation means that their preferences rule.

Stage 3: Capital Flight and Rentierism

Faced with a shrinking consumer base, a hostile regulatory and planning environment and rising taxes, Capital becomes even more pessimistic about future growth.

With the fundamental drivers of growth now turned off, the pessimism spreads across the economy.

Investors look at the results, call it “secular stagnation” and go on investment strike. This pushes up the cost of capital, spurring another burst of pessimism.

Now, investors attempt to extract rents from existing investments while cutting costs, so they can invest in high-growth economies where risk is rewarded.

Since businesses cannot grow profits through innovation or investment, they lobby for cheap labour.

Often the excuse is to service the consumption needs of the elderly. The disastrous “Boriswave” of low-skilled migration was a response to lobbying from the care sector.

This reinforces the “Low-Wage / High-Migration” model.

Stage 4: The Cannibalisation of the Young

To fund the demands of the Gerontocrats in a low-growth economy, the State must tax the working population harder.

Young workers face stagnant wages (due to extraction), high taxes (to fund the old), and high housing costs (due to NIMBYism).

The young cannot afford to start families. Birth rates collapse and society ages faster.

The result: The dependency ratio worsens, requiring even more extraction. This leads to more calls for more migration “to plug skills gaps”, provide social care and boost “pension affordability”.

In practice, “skills gap” is just a name we give to resistance to working at suppressed wages.

The mathematics of pension migration does not work either - each cohort of low-wage migrants creates a future pension liability that must be funded by an even larger cohort next time. The system requires exponential population growth, which is unsustainable.

It is not a solution. It’s a Ponzi scheme that defers the crisis by pretending migration can grow forever.

The only functional solution is growing productivity through investment - a workforce that produces more per head as it shrinks.

Japan demonstrates that productivity growth can maintain living standards - they've automated extensively despite their demographic decline.

But even Japan hasn't fully escaped this trap: their gerontocracy has blocked the aggressive deregulation and risk-taking needed for actual growth.

They achieved stability without dynamism.

But our gerontocracy has refused even this half measure. It demands short-term sacrifices: higher prices for manual labour, smaller dividend pay-outs to fund investment and the disruption of infrastructure construction.

Growth becomes politically impossible. Older voters - living off stored wealth - reject policies that put asset values at risk.

These are the political and demographic forces that lock us into our death spiral.

A Suicide Pact

The Neoliberal Consensus functions as a suicide pact between the old and the State.

Older voters demand policies that make growth impossible and extractive Capitalism inevitable.

The Left demands open borders to deliver social justice.

The Right demands open borders to deliver cheap labour.

Both get capital extraction.

The native working population is crushed by a combination of falling wages, higher taxes and more competition for public services and housing.

The fundamental problem: Every policy needed to break out of this spiral - controlled borders, more investment, strategic economic planning - demands that we override the preferences of a gerontocratic electorate.

Seven Paradoxes: What have we learned?

Each political quadrant contains at least one impossible contradiction:

Progressive Left (Social Justice Activism):

• Friedman’s Paradox: Open borders. A generous welfare state. Choose one.

• The Legitimacy Paradox: A powerful state requires boundaries and legitimacy.

National Conservatism (Pro-Business Nationalism):

• Chamber of Commerce Paradox: Restrict immigration. Defer to business lobby. Choose one.

Old Left (Interventionism):

• Proceeds of Growth Paradox: Redistribute growth. Attack sectors that generate growth. Choose one.

Neoliberal Consensus (The Establishment):

• The Lump of Labour Paradox: Extractive capitalism. Mass migration. Growth. Pick two.

• Friedman’s Paradox (again): Open borders. Welfare state. Choose one.

• Geostrategy Paradox: Geopolitical strategy. Laissez-faire economics. Choose one.

• Goodhart’s Paradox: High social trust institutions. Policies that destroy social trust. Pick one.

What the Contradictions Reveal

Look at what escaping these contradictions requires:

Friedman’s Paradox demands controlled borders. You cannot combine open borders with social democracy or a welfare state.

Chamber of Commerce Paradox tells us that business can’t seek rents through endless immigration and outsourcing. We can’t defer to lobbies that demand them.

Lump of Labour Reality demands that capital to reinvest domestically. Immigration to Sunderland currently creates jobs in Shenzhen.

Proceeds of Growth Paradox demands a viable growth strategy. A growth strategy always has losers as well as winners.

Geostrategy Paradox demands an end to laissez-faire. You cannot compete with state-directed economies without an industrial policy.

Goodhart’s Paradox demands selective immigration from culturally compatible populations. High-trust institutions require specific social prerequisites.

We have also witnessed the awesome power of cheap labour.

It has the power to turn back time. It can turn the process of economic development backwards. It can put the basic processes of civilisational development into reverse gear - processes that have driven human development for millions of years.

Beyond this, it destroys the social contract between the generations. Intelligence, study and hard work are no longer financially rewarded in the young. The old extract the life force from the economy.

Access to cheap labour is not a win:win boost to growth; it is a nuclear weapon of social destruction.

Policy Options

The goal of this essay is not to specify a list of policies. It is to mark out a space within which future policies must sit.

The contradictions define the boundaries. Any programme that crosses them will fail for the reasons we have described.

But these are examples of the kind of policies the space might contain:

Cap immigration to match infrastructure capacity - housing starts, school places, GP capacity. No more importing workers faster than we can house them.

Prioritise high-wage, culturally compatible migrants.

Reimagine the Human Rights regime from first principles. Reform international asylum frameworks to match modern migration realities rather than post-WWII assumptions.

Sectoral collective bargaining to ensure productivity gains are shared with workers, not captured entirely by shareholders.

Direct state investment in infrastructure, energy and strategic industries where private capital has failed to deliver.

Mass public housebuilding programme to break the asset price trap and reduce intergenerational wealth transfer.

Block business from lobbying for migration exemptions by sector.

Develop strategic autonomy by identifying the supply chains rivals could sever and building alternatives.

Learn the Rare Earths lesson. Find secure suppliers for strategic sectors like semiconductors, energy, defence. These sectors require domestic processing and secure sources of supply.

Impose surcharges on offshore outsourcing contracts.

Tax policies that reward domestic capital expenditure and penalise shareholder extraction.

Windfall taxes on share buybacks. Higher capital gains taxes relative to income taxes to rebalance the incentive from extraction toward productive employment.

No more regulatory suicide missions. End the “regulatory superpower” delusion. Energy policy cannot raise costs above competitors while claiming to support industry.

Audit every framework - GDPR, ESG, carbon policy - against the question: does this attract or repel investment?

Planning approval capped at six months for strategic projects. Override local veto rights for national infrastructure.

Deregulate AI, energy production, housing construction.

Kill NIMBYism by charging councils a social opportunity cost on rejected planning applications.

End the triple lock. Override boomer preferences that block investment.

Yet Another Paradox?

Notice a pattern: the escape route combines a mix of greater state power (borders, directed investment, industrial strategy, controlled immigration) and reduced friction (deregulation, creative destruction, fast approvals, overriding NIMBYism).

This appears to create a new paradox.

State power? That’s Soviet planning. That’s Harold Wilson “picking winners”. They both failed.

Reduced friction? That’s neoliberalism. We just saw its failures described in detail.

State power. Reduced friction. Choose one.

But it is possible to resolve these tensions.

The Synthesis

Strategic direction and frictionless execution are not opposites.

They exist on separate dimensions.

Strategic direction determines which sectors are strategic. Where capital must flow. Which borders matter.

Frictionless execution means: Fast approvals. No veto rights. No planning sclerosis.

We need to control the border to resolve the Friedman, Chamber of Commerce and Goodhart Paradoxes.

We need to ring-fence strategic sectors from rivals to solve the Geostrategy problem.

We need to incentivise domestic reinvestment to resolve the Lump of Labour issue.

On the other hand, we can only incentivise re-investment and escape the extraction trap if our countries are attractive places to invest.

That means planning reform that overrides NIMBYs and the gerontocracy blocking growth.

That means deregulation and faster infrastructure approvals to spur growth and solve the Proceeds of Growth Paradox.

Why this Synthesis Works

We know this model can deliver. China exemplifies it. Strategic priorities are set centrally. Execution facilitated with minimal friction and rapid approvals.

The result: growth and strategic autonomy.

This is the only policy mix that produces both in the 21st century.

This synthesis resolves all seven paradoxes.

It doesn’t fit conventional left-right categories.

For the left: This means accepting borders and rejecting human universalism.

In return: worker bargaining power restored by ending cheap labour, public investment in strategic infrastructure, mass housebuilding to break the asset trap, and productivity gains shared through sectoral bargaining rather than captured by shareholders.

For the right: This means accepting that markets require active state direction.

In return: deregulation, fast execution, an end to regulatory suicide, and an investment environment that attracts capital rather than repelling it.

The Choice

Each of the four quadrants has failed. Each contains contradictions that make it unviable.

The synthesis requires:

Borders, not universalism

Investment, not extraction

Strategy, not ideology

Cohesion, not fragmentation

The alternative is not preserving the status quo. The status quo is collapsing.

The choice is between managed reform and chaotic breakdown: fiscal crisis, social fracture, geopolitical defeat.

Authoritarianism?

An objection: China made this model work because it is an authoritarian society. Every successful example of state-directed industrial development - Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan - was achieved under authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian conditions.

An honest answer: normal democratic politics cannot deliver this synthesis. The gerontocratic electorate and the business lobby will block it under normal conditions.

But we are not in normal conditions. We are in a death spiral.

Democracies will not choose this synthesis willingly. They will be forced into it when every alternative has failed.

The Final Paradox

We have accused the current political class of incompetence, short-termism, and capture by special interests. Yet our solution requires this same apparatus to deliver strategic reform.

This is the final paradox: the system that created the crisis must resolve it.

But it is not as hopeless as it sounds.

Political systems do not reform through persuasion. They reform through crisis.

Bretton Woods, the post-war welfare state, Thatcherism - each was forced into existence when the cost of inaction became unbearable.

The mechanism is not mysterious. The Death Spiral is already underway. Each stage makes the next worse.

Extraction suppresses growth and creates demand for more migration. Migration erodes social trust. Eroded trust erodes basic liberal institutions. Suppressed growth pushes greater extraction.

And the cycle begins again.

The contradictions do not stabilise. They compound.

At some point, the political cost of reform must fall below the cost of decline.

That is the moment this synthesis becomes possible - when every alternative has visibly failed.

Japan points at half of the solution.

Japan accepted demographic decline rather than fighting it with immigration. It kept its borders closed. Its social cohesion remained intact. Firms were forced to automate rather than import cheap labour.

But it did not do the other half: slash execution friction, strategic direction of capital, force risk-taking on an ageing society.

Japan is famous for its zombie companies, kept alive by policy. It is notorious for suffocating bureaucracy and extreme risk aversion.

But Japan also shows what borders and cohesion buy without the growth reforms. Stability, but not escape. The full synthesis requires both halves.

The escape route remixes three competing models.

Restrict borders to force capital investment on the Japan model.

State direction to ensure strategic autonomy on the China model.

Low friction to enable growth on the US model.

It is not going to be easy. But it is going to be inevitable.

The fly just needs to discover that the bottle only has one opening.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Appendix

Italian American Assimilation: A Success

The obvious counter-argument to cultural arguments against immigration: The US successfully integrated waves of immigrants from “kinship” cultures - Southern Italians, Irish - into a high-trust market economy.

This proves that assimilation is possible.

But the conditions matter.

US assimilation worked because of:

Pause periods for absorption. The US effectively shut its borders for forty years following the Immigration Act of 1924. This provided time for assimilation without new arrivals overwhelming the process.

No welfare state. Immigrants faced “sink or swim”. They had to adopt American work norms immediately to survive. There was no alternative.

Economic boom. Massive industrial expansion created abundant opportunity. Jobs were plentiful. Upward mobility was real.

Strong institutions. America had 150 years of institutional development before mass immigration began. The foundations were solid.

The Argentine Counter-Example

Contrast Argentina.

In 1900, it was America’s peer – one of the wealthiest countries, resource-abundant, optimistic.

Argentina received the same Southern Italian immigration without US pre-conditions - weaker institutions, no pause periods, limited absorption capacity.

It went from First World to Third World in two generations.

The institutions didn’t transform the cultural practices. The cultural practices transformed the institutions.

Southern Italian political culture operated through patron-client networks - the local padrone who delivered jobs and favours in exchange for loyalty.

This model shaped Argentine politics. Perón built a system of union bosses and party operatives who distributed state resources through personal networks rather than institutional rules.

The party became the padrone. State institutions became kinship structures.

The problem: Europe – and arguably America – today meets none of America’s historical conditions and most of Argentina’s. Mass immigration, no pause periods, comprehensive welfare from day one, institutional decline, economic stagnation.

The question isn’t whether assimilation is theoretically possible. The question is whether it’s possible under current European conditions.

The evidence suggests not.

A crisis is coming that will destroy Europe’s faith in its political, media and constitutional model. It will shift European politics far to the right and towards nationalism.

Britain and the EU countries are running their own Great Leap Forward. A massive policy gamble undertaken for ideological reasons.

Like the Chinese experiment, it is disconnected from physical reality.

As in 1959, the state has disassembled its checks and balances to shield the project from scrutiny.

Once again, political fantasies trump real world constraints.

We have created another system entirely immune to feedback.

This is the project to reduce Europe’s net carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2050.

This time, there won’t be millions of deaths. Not one person will starve.

But it will achieve something unprecedented in peacetime: the systematic immiseration of the European population.

When its people realise their elites chose this - chose fuel poverty, chose industrial decline, chose falling living standards for their children - the reckoning will be savage.

Mainstream parties, establishment media, public sector bureaucracies and the institutions responsible for government safeguards will be swept away.

This time there’s just one life at stake. That of the European political order.

The Iron Famine

Village in Xinyang, 1958

The village is lit by small fires. The air smells of sulphur.

A farming village has no more farmers. A decree promoted them to “steel workers”.

Crude mud-brick chimneys stand amongst the rice paddies.

They feed their ploughs, their woks, the iron hinges of their doors – a thousand essential objects - into the demonic mouth of a backyard furnace.

A megaphone crackles: “Overtake Britain! Steel is the Marshal!“

Far away, a steam locomotive whistles. A train arriving with coal.

The village’s grain reserve sits in open-air wicker bins, pushed to the periphery of the platform to make room for the precious coal. Uncovered and forgotten.

It begins to rain.

Henan, 1959: Cardiac Arrest

The national economy is suffering heart failure.

The railway network - the circulatory system of the nation - has collapsed.

Trains are tasked with transporting pig iron from the backyard furnaces.

The metal is too fragile to use, too impure to refine. But national quotas demand it be moved nonetheless.

At a rail hub in Henan, the stationmaster watches. He has ten wagons of wheat destined for Beijing. Rations are tightening there.

But the order from the Ministry of Metallurgy is absolute: Priority One - Scrap Metal.

Labourers heave the worthless iron onto flatbeds and the wheat stays on the platform.

Days pass.

First the rats. Then the rot. Grain sprouts green in wet sacks.

Precious food transformed to stinking sludge.

Trains are burning high-grade coal to move low-grade slag.

Logistical planning has become a counter-revolutionary crime.

Gansu, January 1961

By January 1961, the fires are out.

Last year’s grain is gone. This year’s wasn’t planted.

The trees are also gone, cut to feed the fires.

The furnaces are cold. Crumbling monuments to a moment that has passed.

On the rail line between Baotou and Lanzhou, a passenger train sits motionless.

The train lacks coal. A network that was devoted to moving energy can no longer feed its own engines.

Inside the carriages, the air temperature has fallen to that of the frozen steppe outside. Windows are frosting on the inside.

Hundreds of refugees are fleeing a famine, packed shoulder to shoulder. Wrapped in rags. Clutching empty bowls.

But no rescue is coming.

Across China, passengers are marooned in the frozen countryside with no food or water on board.

Corpses pile up rapidly.

Subscribe now

The Toll

The death toll of the Great Leap Forward was around 45 million people.

Starvation caused the vast majority of deaths. But the state killed 3 million.

Exhaustion, accidents and suicide ended the lives of 2 million more.

The total is approximately the same as the number deaths across the entire European theatre during WWII. Nazi extermination included.

But the story occupies less space in our mental model of political madness.

This is a mistake.

WWII arose out of real political tensions. Versailles. Military competition. The threat of Communist Revolution.

But every one of those 45 million deaths was avoidable.

This makes it the world’s worst policy failure.

The Great Leap Forward should be the reference point for catastrophic governance. Its ultimate cautionary tale.

Europe’s Great Leap Forward

Western institutions have faced a series of legitimacy crises in the last decade. But these are just small tremors prefiguring the Big One.

A crisis is coming that will destroy Europe’s faith in its political, media and constitutional model. It will shift European politics far to the right and towards nationalism.

Britain and the EU countries are running their own Great Leap Forward. Another massive policy gamble undertaken for ideological reasons.

Like the Chinese experiment, it is disconnected from physical reality.

As in 1959, the state has disassembled its checks and balances to shield the project from scrutiny.

Once again, political fantasies trump real world constraints.

We have created another system that is entirely immune to feedback.

This is the project to reduce Europe’s net carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2050.

This time, there won’t be millions of deaths. Not one person will starve.

But it will achieve something unprecedented in peacetime: the systematic immiseration of the European population.

When its people realise their elites chose this - chose fuel poverty, chose industrial decline, chose falling living standards for their children - the reckoning will be savage.

Mainstream parties, establishment media, public sector bureaucracies and the institutions responsible for government safeguards will be swept away.

This time there's just one life at stake. The survival of the European political order.

Fatal Inversion: Why did the Great Leap Forward Fail?

The Great Leap Forward used two proven models - Localism and Fordism.

But it applied each to precisely the wrong domain.

The result: Fordist agriculture and Localist industry - two impossible hybrids.

China ran heavy industry as village smithies; farming villages as car factories.

Neither model could be made to work.

The “Cellular” Delusion

Mao’s economic outlook was shaped by the Yenan Period, when he led guerrilla cells in the mountains.

In guerrilla warfare, survival depends on self-sufficient cells. They grow their own food, make their own shoes, and fight independently.

A cell is resilient through self-reliance.

But Mao applied this logic to steel production.

The Americans and Soviets built massive steel complexes.

Mao planned 600,000 industrial cells - every commune with its own blast furnace.

But the plan ignored the physical demands of smelting and economies of scale.

Smelting demands precise temperatures (1500°C+), removal of impurities - sulphur, phosphorus - and controlled carbon content.

A backyard setup cannot achieve the thermal mass or chemical consistency needed.

In place of steel, the furnaces produced millions of tons of “pig iron” that was too brittle to use.

Fuel and labour were wasted on a process that can only work at scale.

The fundamental problem: localising industry destroyed it.

The Fordist Delusion: Farming as Industry

The Party made exactly the inverse mistake with agriculture.

Both the USSR and Communist China were intoxicated by Fordism – Henry Ford’s system of production.

Ford’s model was built on economies of scale. The larger the factory, the lower the unit cost.

Standardise inputs. Automate processes. Deskill labour. Costs will fall.

Just four years before the Russian Revolution, Ford had perfected innovations that boosted industrial production by a factor of 10 or more.

The Soviets sensed an opportunity to leapfrog the West.

The West was too obsessed with “freedom” and “individuality” to fully exploit Ford’s discoveries.

It had limited Ford’s authoritarian methods to factories. Unconstrained by these bourgeois concepts, the communist world would apply them to society itself.

Both the soviet and Chinese regimes tried to apply this model to agriculture.

Under Fordism, a farm was not a biological system but a grain factory.

Thousands of small family plots were collectivised into communes of up to 5,000 households.

Communes rooted up physical boundaries - hedges and paths - to create vast, uninterrupted fields suited to tractors. This would be farming’s “factory floor”.

Farmers were retrained as assembly-line workers: given repetitive, specialised, de-skilled tasks.

“Shock brigades” performed one duty - ploughing or sowing - over and over, across thousands of acres.

But there was a fundamental problem: farming rejects standardisation.

The system severed practice from local knowledge. Land was treated like a Model T - every unit identical.

But farming is biological and local. The field on the south side of the hill needs different treatment from the north.

Specialisation also compromised farming integrity.

The Ploughing Brigade cared about quotas, not soil quality. The Seeding Brigade cared about targets, not ruined soil.

This was classic “High Modernism”, as James C. Scott called it.

Theory trumped practical experience. When local knowledge conflicted with the utopian vision, it was ignored.

The bitter irony: if Mao had swapped the models - peasants managing plots (Localism), the state building steel mills (Fordism) - he would have saved 40 million lives.

Instead, a fatal inversion: Mao engineered a double catastrophe that ruined both industry and agriculture.

Production vs. Logistics

But there was an even deeper failure.

Mao’s regime obsessed over production targets - tonnage of steel, bushels of grain - while ignoring logistics.

In a capitalist society, middlemen move food from glut to shortage.

Maoist China abolished the price mechanism. Only the state could move goods.

The leadership assumed that decentralising industry would eliminate long-distance transport. Each “cell” would make its own steel, tools, and food.

But few villages had coal mines. And no villages had a use for pig iron.

Decentralisation didn’t eliminate the need for transport - it created massive, unplanned demand.

Now, the Steel Campaign hijacked the rail network.

Backyard furnaces needed massive amounts of fuel. Communes had already burned their doors and furniture.

Lacking coking coal, peasants used household coal high in sulphur. But high-sulphur iron is useless.

The economic equation became net negative:

High Utility Inputs (Tools) + Labour + Fuel = Zero Utility Waste (Brittle Pig Iron)

Railways were charged with distributing coal anyway.

The result: China’s rail network was clogged with coal shipments moving from mines to the countryside to feed the furnaces.

Because the state prioritised railways for industrial materials, food transport was deprioritised. Grain rotted on railway platforms in one province while people starved next door.

A local official couldn’t say, “The trains are full of bad steel, but people are starving, let’s ship food instead”.

To do so would be to question the Plan.

Ford’s authoritarian planning system had been remade in totalitarian form. Its discipline enforced with a threat of violence.

Marxism Contra Logistics

This focus on production over logistics flowed from a defect in Marxist economics.

Marxism obsesses over material objects: commodities, industrial products, heavy machinery.

It sees the economy’s purpose as producing physical objects in bulk. This creates a blind spot for services like logistics.

The Labour Theory of Value cannot account for location. A ton of coal at the mine has the same value as a ton at the furnace door.

But coal’s worth changes entirely with location.

These problems were reinforced because the entrepreneurs who lubricate the logistical process had been edited out of the system.

Marx, Lenin and Mao saw merchants as parasites who skim profit without producing anything. Wholesalers and transport brokers found themselves on the same list.

Communist aesthetics celebrated the Sublime of Production.

A blast furnace is heroic - tall, loud, dangerous, photogenic. Pure Progress.

A warehouse or train schedule is not.

The Great Leap Forward was produced by an ideology that fetishised production and despised logistics.

Yet an economy isn’t about making things - it’s about getting them to people who need them, when they need them.

By destroying the price mechanism, they created a system that excelled at producing stuff no one ever used.

The Politicisation of Data

The Marxist belief that politics permeates everything - even supposedly neutral facts - created yet more problems.

A command economy relies on one thing above all: accurate information.

There are no price signals. No decentralised decision-making. If the centre is to function, it must rely upon reports.

But the Chinese regime systematically destroyed its own data collection systems.

After the 1957 “Anti-Rightist Campaign”, officials who urged caution were purged. Economic reporting became a test of political loyalty.

To report a shortage was to assert failure. To report a surplus was to prove loyalty.

Under a rational system, targets are goals. In 1958 China, a target was an oath.

This created a bidding war known as Launching Satellites (fang weixing).

If one village promised 5 tons, its neighbour promised 10. By the time reports reached Beijing, yields were exaggerated 10x or 20x.

Officials reported yields of 36,900 jin per mu. But the biological limit was 800.

The government believed this propaganda and calculated taxes on fantasy numbers.

The state demanded 30% of the reported harvest. As the report was a lie, the state confiscated 100% of the actual harvest, leaving the peasants to starve.

The Politicisation of Science

But the corruption went far deeper than lying officials. It extended to scientific truth itself.

Marxist theory requires that nature - and man - be malleable.

If Western genetic theories were true, living things were shaped by their genes.

This gave backing to biological determinism and implied limits on state power.

Mao - like Stalin - mandated Trofim Lysenko’s counter-theory.

Lysenko argued environment trumps genes. Expose wheat to cold, he claimed, and it learns to be winter wheat.

This matched Marxist ideology: change the material conditions, change the thing itself.

But the policies that flowed from Lysenko’s theories were disastrous.

Standard science teaches that plants compete for light and nutrients.

Lysenko taught that plants of the same “class” cooperate.

Farmers were forced to plant seeds up to ten times denser than normal.

The seedlings choked each other to death. But officials staged “show fields”, transplanting crops from multiple plots into a single plot to hide the problem.

Lysenko taught that soil fertility is limitless if “unlocked”. Peasants were ordered to plough two meters deep.

But soil is stratified. The top 30cm contains humus, nitrogen, and active microbial life. Below it lies inert subsoil - clay, rock, gravel.

Deep ploughing inverted the soil horizon. The fertile topsoil was buried two meters down. Dead subsoil was brought to the surface.

The result: the immediate sterilisation of millions of hectares of Chinese farmland.

No Feedback Loop

The regime permitted no feedback on these failures.

To point out that close-planted wheat died wherever tried, was to be a “class enemy”.

To report that millions were starving was to “attack the Three Red Banners”.

Science was entirely politicised. Reporting facts was banned.

The social “Truth Machine” had been deactivated.

Honesty was now ruthlessly punished.

Europe’s Great Leap Forward

This story may seem alien. It concerns a country distant in both place and time.

But Europe is currently undertaking a project with many parallels to China’s Great Leap Forward.

It is based on spurious targets born of crude slogans: “Overtake Britain in 15 Years” becomes “Net Zero by 2050”.

It – again – obsesses over production while ignoring logistics. And for the same reason: it uses a narrow economic model that edits out key aspects of reality.

In the early 20th century, Detroit was Silicon Valley. Henry Ford was its king.

Ford’s prestige encouraged Communists to apply his model to wildly inappropriate contexts.

We are repeating the error: applying the pricing model of falling microprocessor pricing to heavy industry.

This is our own fatal inversion.

We are building the modern equivalents of backyard furnaces.

Western politicians celebrate record-breaking numbers of wind turbines and solar panels.

These create useless outputs that cannot be transmitted to consumers and for exactly the same reason - the logistical connections between countryside and cities do not exist.

Rapid build-out of generation capacity without power transmission lines creates a product that exists in statistical reporting but has no economic utility.

We are - once again - creating stuff that cannot be used.

Transmission cables lack capacity to carry power to cities, just as Chinese railways lacked capacity to transport food.

Like grain rotting on railway platforms, grid operators pay wind farms to turn off production on windy days.

The Chinese ate their seed corn and melted tools to meet ideological targets. We force heavy industry to close - destroying the economic engine needed to pay for any “energy transition”.

Finally - and most damning - we are shutting down our Truth Machine.

Climate activists compared those who doubt climate change to Nazis who deny the Holocaust. The single most toxic accusation of the post-war period.

But this accusation has gradually been extended.

First to those who doubt the state’s preferred solutions. Then to those who offer information that undermines the state’s preferred narrative.

Our institutions took note.

They abandoned their role as checks and balances to become cheerleaders and apologists.

Just as in China, this corruption extended to the data itself.

Launching New Satellites

Countries announce impossible carbon reduction targets to prove “climate leadership”.

Governments misrepresent Installed Capacity as dispatchable power, conflating nameplate statistics with actual delivery.

Governments celebrate achieving metrics that server to increase global emissions - simply by exporting them to China.

The UK Treasury abandoned its rules and dropped any Cost Benefit Analysis for Net Zero.

This leaves legally binding Net Zero budget an open-ended, uncapped financial liability for the state.

The Duty of Expertise

The corruption extends to science itself.

We fund science to stop pseudoscientific enterprises. When Lysenko claimed wheat could “learn”, Soviet geneticists knew better. Their duty was to speak.

They stayed silent. Millions starved.

Today, Net Zero rests on technical claims that violate known physics. Once again, those who know better stay silent.

Three areas of passive deceptions:

Energy storage claim: Storage solves the “Dunkelflaute problem”. Britain needs to store 60–100 TWh for a windless winter month. Total UK battery capacity today is roughly 15 GWh or 1/7000th of this. Other solutions have low “round trip efficiency” requiring many more wind turbines at huge additional cost.

Hydrogen economy claim: Hydrogen solves our energy storage problems. But converting electricity → hydrogen → electricity loses 70% of input energy. Engineers call this a "system tax". Germany’s strategy is already collapsing.

Smart inverters claim: Inverters can easily replace physical “grid inertia”. Yet they failed during the April 2025 Iberian crash. Europe has bet everything on this experimental technology, nonetheless.

The Silence

Every competent physicist and engineer knows these claims are unfounded.

So why haven’t they called this out?

Because doing so is career death.

To question battery assumptions is to be “fossil fuel shill”. To cite the Iberian crash is to be a “denier”.

The parallels to China are exact: pointing out technical failures becomes political heresy.

Scientists have a duty to prevent pseudoscientific state policy. Yet the threat of cancellation keeps them quiet while society adopts policies that violate basic physics.

High Modernism

If these two phenomenon have a lowest common denominator, it is “High Modernism”.

This is the supreme faith in ‘rational’ design over practical experience.

It is the belief that a central planner with a spreadsheet knows more about a forest than a woodsman, more about a farm than the peasant who works it.

To the High Modernist, the ‘messiness’ of reality - local knowledge, physical constraints and human habit - are obstacles to be swept away by the Plan.

In Mao’s China, this meant treating a field like a factory floor. In modern Europe, it means treating a continental power grid as if it were a single copper plate or forecasting the cost of wind power as if it were software.

Fordism, Communism, Net Zero and many forms of Market Economics are permeated by the spirit of High Modernism.

Their common enemies are pragmatism, the particular and the local.

How Did We Get Here?

Britain and Germany are sophisticated capitalist economies that recently led the world.

How did they fall into the same trap as an agrarian command-economy ruled by a Poet-Tyrant?

The story begins in the 1990s, when energy policy was taken out of the hands of technicians and given to economists.

Market Economics Contra Logistics

Before the 1990s, state-run monopolies were run by engineers. Their priority was reliability. This created a robust grid, but it was expensive to run.

Market economists called this approach “gold-plating”. They argued that engineers were wasting public money on redundancy that wasn’t necessary. Allowing the market to take control would squeeze out inefficiency and lower bills.

But the engineers’ “gold-plating” was actually system resilience - spare capacity, geographic diversity, dispatchable reserves. What economists called “waste” was insurance against exactly the failures we are now seeing.

The national grid was then a vertically integrated monopoly. When an organisation built a coal plant, the same people built the transmission lines.

But economic theory told us to unbundle the system and split generation from transmission. EU directives also mandated unbundling.

Here, economic theory edited logistics out for a second time.

Marxist Economics cannot account for the value of logistics, while Western Economics certainly can.

Yet - in practice - time and location were missing from the skeletal supply-and-demand models that guided energy policy.

This absence created the same blind spots.

Commodification

Economists treated electricity like pork bellies or wheat. It was just another standard commodity.

They assumed a Megawatt (MW) is a Megawatt, regardless of where it is or how it is made.

But to an engineer, a MW from a gas turbine in London is physically different from a MW from a wind turbine in Scotland.

The gas turbine provides immediate power and inertia, requires little transmission. The wind turbine is intermittent, provides no inertia, sits far away.

These models priced energy (as MWh), not physics (with inertia, location, reliability).

This incentivised suppliers to build the wrong generation. Wind farms went wherever wind was strongest and land cheapest - typically far from cities.

Unbundling doubled the problem.

Generators don’t care about transmission capacity or inertia - those are problems for others.

Deindustrialisation

This created huge problems in both the UK and Germany.

In each case, the wind farms are located in the north (Scotland, the North Sea, the Baltic), while the main demand centres lie in the south (London, Bavarian industry).

The transmission cables connecting them have thermal limits - they function like pipes with maximum flow rates. When wind generation exceeds this limit, energy cannot be transported.

In both countries, this has mandated huge expenditure on new North-South transmission lines.

In 2013, Germany began SudLink. Scheduled for 2022 completion, it remains unfinished.

Voters hated its pylons; the government ordered the cables buried underground.

Budget: €4 billion → €10 billion.

Completion: 2022 → 2028 → likely 2030s.

Meanwhile, Bavarian chemical and automotive industries were starved of affordable power.

BASF - the world’s largest chemical producer - declared it could no longer manufacture in its homeland.

It shut down ammonia, fertiliser and caprolactam plants at Ludwigshafen citing “permanently high energy prices”.

Simultaneously, it broke ground on a €10 billion “Verbund” site in Zhanjiang, China. Cheap, dirty coal power is available there.

Miele symbolised the German Mittelstand - high quality, family-owned, unbreakable products.

In 2024, it moved washing machine production to Poland because of energy costs.

In Poland, coal still stabilises the grid.

For 88 years, Volkswagen never closed a factory in Germany. Not during oil shocks, not during financial crisis.

In 2024, VW crossed the Rubicon with at least three plant closures, tens of thousands of layoffs.

It’s impossible to build mass-market cars when industrial electricity prices are the G20’s highest.

Michelin, Goodyear, ThyssenKrupp Steel, the German aluminium industry: it’s the same story.

Just as the Great Leap Forward melted useful farm tools to make useless pig iron, the German Energy Transition melted down the world’s most efficient industrial base to make a grid that doesn’t work.

This was not just a disaster for the German economy - it was a net negative for world ecology.

The German sacrifice has achieved nothing. It simply moved production to dirtier energy sources. Global emissions actually increased.

Theory ignored reality, once again.

The Copper Plate Fallacy

Both the UK and Germany suffer from the “Copper Plate Fallacy”.

This imagines a country as a single, flat copper plate where electricity flows cost-free, instantly, anywhere.

But the grid is a complex, congested web of wires with physical limits. Ignoring these limits pushes huge costs from generators onto industry and then the public.

Just as in China, this simplistic model prioritises production (theoretical capacity) over logistics (transmitting power where needed).

“Unbundling” was supposed to marketise an old statist model of electricity supply.

The irony: It created a model with striking similarities to Mao’s farms.

Separating generation from transmission had the same results as separating the Ploughing Brigade from the Sowing Brigade.

Each sought to meet targets independently, guaranteeing systemic failure between them.

Subsidizing the Wrong Metric

Finally, these cutdown models prompted the state to subsidise Renewable Energy with the wrong metric: production volume.

Contracts for Difference pay wind and solar farms for every Megawatt-hour (MWh) they produce, regardless of whether the grid needs it at that moment.

This incentivises maximising volume over value. A wind farm produces massive surges of power when it’s windy, crashing the price to zero or negative. But because of subsidies, they keep producing.

We are paying for “Junk MWhs” - energy that is produced at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

Just as Mao’s peasants produced junk iron that was technically “steel” but functionally useless, we are producing “Green Energy” that is technically “electricity” but functionally unusable.

The Tonnage Delusion

Once, Mao celebrated millions of tons of pig iron too brittle to use. Today, Western politicians celebrate gigawatts of “installed capacity” that are unusable when needed.

Both systems were optimised for statistical metrics - capacity in tonnage or gigawatts - while ignoring true utility.

When grid operators pay a wind farm to turn off, a gas plant in the south must be paid to turn on. The consumer pays three times:

1. The subsidy for the wind farm construction.

2. The constraint payment to the wind farm to not generate.

3. The market price to the gas plant to generate in its place.

This is another value-subtraction machine.

Just as backyard furnaces consumed labour and tools to produce unusable metals, so the grid consumes capital and subsidies to produce unusable electricity.

The Politicisation of Reality

In a command economy, the most dangerous thing you can do is distort reporting. The failure of the Great Leap Forward was guaranteed the moment its critics were silenced.

After the ‘Anti-Rightist Campaign’, pointing out that a furnace didn’t work was political subversion.

The punishment: exclusion from the workforce.

We have recreated this dynamic in Europe. We took a complex engineering challenge- rebuilding the energy grid - and made it a moral crusade placed above criticism.

If you question the policy response, you are accused of denying the problem.

This creates a culture of silence. Just as in China, engineers, technicians, and civil servants - those who see the problems close up - are bullied into silence.

The Institution of Silence

Chinese state media amplified the “successes” of the communes and ignored the famine.

Our own major media institutions have formalised the exclusion of dissent.

In 2018, the BBC issued formal guidance to its staff stating they no longer needed to provide “balance” on climate change. The logic was that the science was settled.

This “settled science” shield was progressively extended to cover policy. The BBC and other mainstream outlets stopped challenging the mechanisms for delivering Net Zero.

When the government announces a new wind farm target, interviewers ask, “Is this ambitious enough?” not “Is this physically possible?” or “What is the cost of backup generation and new transmission lines?”

By deciding that discussion is finished, mainstream media has abdicated its role as the feedback mechanism of society.

The result is a closed loop.

The Government sets an impossible target.

The Civil Service produces sketchy models showing the target is easy to meet (because to do otherwise is “denial”).

The Media applauds the ambition.

The Engineering reality - the lack of cables, the lack of storage, the basic physics of grid inertia, the impossible costs - is suppressed.

The societal Truth Machine is put into reverse gear. Instead of evidence-based policy-making, we get policy-based evidence-making.

The system is once again flying blind.

It will remain convinced of its success, right until the moment its nosecone hits the mountainside.

The Great Awakening

This politicisation of science and media propagandised an entire generation.

We raised a cohort of citizens who believe four things:

1. Net Zero is technically easy and cheap - “The sun and wind are free!”

2. That delivery is inevitable - “Britain is on course for Net Zero 2050!“

3. The world’s survival depends upon Britain’s policy choices.

4. That anyone who questions these tenets is not just wrong, but evil - “A denier”.

The state made promises that can never be kept.

We built our culture over lies.

The state, the civil service, the education system, our politicians - all will eventually be forced to concede this was a massively costly delusion organised from the top down.

What happens then?

The Collision with Reality

There are three likely failure modes: two physical and one financial.

The end of the Great Leap Forward came when the grain ran out.

Our Great Leap ends either with the lights going out or the money running out.

1. Grid Stability, Inertia and System Strength

The first cracks will likely appear in grid frequency.

In a conventional grid, huge chunks of spinning metal ensure stability.

Thousands of turbines spin across the European continent at 3000 RPM, in perfect synchronisation. When a power plant trips or a line fails, the grid suffers a shock.

In conventional grids, these heavy spinning rotors resist change - they possess physical momentum. They instantly surrender their kinetic energy to the grid, clamping down on voltage spikes and frequency drops.

This physical resistance buys time for control systems to react.

A renewables-only grid has no physical equivalent. Solar panels and wind turbines have zero physical inertia.

They are passive observers, following the grid’s waveform rather than forming it.

The Iberian Crash

We have already seen the consequences of this “hollow grid”.

On April 28, 2025, the Iberian Peninsula suffered grid failure.

This occurred at 12:33 PM, when renewable penetration was at a peak of 80%. Solar power flooded the Spanish grid. Heavy gas and nuclear plants dialled down to avoid overloading.

The grid's "system strength" reached a historic low. Its physical ability to absorb voltage shocks vanished.

A cascade of generation losses began in southwestern Spain. In normal times, spinning turbines would have crushed the shock instantly. But turbines were offline. The grid lay exposed.

An oscillation of 0.6 Hz developed between the Iberian peninsula and the main European grid. Within seconds, the French interconnector tripped to save the European grid, isolating Spain and Portugal.

Smart inverters - which proponents claimed could simulate physical turbines - could not replicate instant spinning mass physics.

Restoration crawled.

The grid had “Black Start” capabilities relying on gas plants. But they were cold and unstaffed.

Complete restoration required over 15 hours.

The Cover-Up

Parties immediately politicised the cause.

Days before, the government had congratulated itself for running the grid on 100% renewable energy for the first time. Now, the lights were out.

The opposition blamed renewables. The government denied the link.

The obfuscation began instantly. The Portuguese grid operator initially told news agencies the collapse was caused by “induced atmospheric vibration”, implying weather, not the grid, was at fault.

Then, realising how ridiculous this sounded, they denied having said it.

The Spanish operator (REE) and later European reports were more sophisticated. They correctly identified a “voltage collapse”, then used bureaucratic logic to absolve the technology.

They claimed the crash wasn’t caused by renewables, but by “regulatory barriers” that prevented wind and solar farms from stabilising the grid. In their view, the machinery worked; it was the rulebook that failed.

The official investigation offered a carefully constructed narrative to avoid the unacceptable conclusion: high renewable penetration creates a profoundly fragile system whatever the regulations.

But look at the big picture.

Total grid collapse is incredibly rare. It has not happened in Britain or Germany. The last one in France was in 1978.

Robust grids handle generation losses daily without issue. Yet here - with renewable penetration at record highs - they triggered a continental collapse.

Official reports claimed “inertia” was sufficient. They ignored system strength (electromagnetic stiffness). A high-strength grid crushes voltage deviations instantly. An inverter-dominated grid is “soft”.

The cause wasn’t regulations that have long been in place - it was dismantling the grid’s physical immunity to meet a political target.

Spain ran an unprecedented grid configuration and suffered an unprecedented failure at the exact same moment. If these two facts are unrelated, it’s also an unprecedented coincidence.

When A shoots B dead, we do not cite “B failing to wear a bulletproof vest” as the cause of death.

Yet the state blamed the grid for failing to defend itself against its energy policy.

In 1958, when crops failed, it was "pests" or "sabotage". In 2025, when the grid fails, it is "regulatory barriers" or "atmospheric vibration".

2. Dunkelflaute (The Capacity Crunch)

The second failure mode is the “Dunkelflaute” - a cold, still week in January or February where the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

The Royal Society reported that Britain needs 100 TWh of long-duration storage to guarantee supply during wind lulls. For reference, the world’s largest battery installations are in the low single-digit GWh range.

The alternative plan: maintain two entire infrastructures - at enormous cost. Gas plants sit idle for 350 days a year, firing up for a few weeks.

Machinery hates idleness.

Which engineer wants to devote their life to a project that doesn’t operate 95% of the time?

When the panic button is finally pressed during a cold snap - just as in Spain - the “Strategic Reserve” may refuse to start.

3. Financial Reality (The Bond Market Revolt)

The final failure mode, and the most likely, is financial.

The “Green Leap Forward” requires European states to borrow huge amounts to build duplicate infrastructure with the same energy outputs, at much higher cost.

But one effect is de-industrialisation via higher energy prices.

In other words, it wipes out the revenues needed to repay the loans.

This makes it a high-risk project for investors.

No Cost-Benefit Analysis

The state is not helping itself.

It has made no cost estimate and undertaken no Cost-Benefit analysis.

The Treasury Green Book process is the Holy Bible of civil service spending. It requires rigorous Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) for every pound spent.

But in 2020, the Treasury updated the Green Book to prioritise “Strategic Objectives”.

A 2020 review argued that relying on Benefit-Cost Ratios undermines strategic goals like Net Zero.

This allowed civil servants to approve projects with negative economic returns, provided they contributed to the strategy.

Now, a £50k webpage requires rigorous Cost-Benefit Analysis, while a £7.6tn crusade requires none.

Logic is inverted:

Basic Treasury rules ban spending that fails a Cost-Benefit Analysis.

The Net Zero project would fail.

So the Treasury cancels the rules, not the project.

Treasury spending controls have become the airbag that deactivates at 10mph. They apply only when nothing is at stake.

We are back in 1950s China: pursuing a faith-based project, with contrary evidence rejected on principle.

What cost estimates exist?

Estimates for the cost of Net Zero range widely. The Climate Change Committee cited £300bn. Ex-Chancellor Philip Hammond cited £1Tn.

NESO calculated total energy policy costs to 2050 - including Net Zero - at £7.6tn.

But all these estimates were sketchy or hedged.

When a project is failing, businesses calculate the cost of continuing against the cost of stopping now.

No official body has priced suspending Net Zero against continuing until 2050.

But this is the only figure that matters in deciding financial viability.

Without it, the government adopted the policy blind.

Faulty Models

Faulty models were at the centre of the two biggest crises of the 21st century: the Global Financial Crisis and the COVID lockdowns.

Net Zero will make that three.

For the GFC and COVID, models predicted the future. They were difficult to disprove until tested.

With Net Zero models, many predictions have already passed. We can see the assumptions are deeply flawed.

Revise those assumptions and the plan’s full insanity emerges.

Interest Rates

Renewable energy is capital intensive. You pay for steel and silicon upfront; the wind is free.

Therefore, debt cost determines electricity cost. Here it differs from gas production:

Gas Plant: 40% of the cost is building it; 60% is buying fuel over time. If rates rise, it hurts, but not fatally.

Wind Farm: 90% of the cost is building it; 10% is maintenance. If rates rise, the cost of paying back the debt explodes.

Assumptions about future interest rates are thus critical to estimating wind costs.

The problem: COVID and Ukraine drove long-term interest rates far above the zero-interest world of 2019, when Net Zero was conceived.

Official models assume a cost of capital of roughly 5.1% for projects in the 2030s.

In 2026, UK 30-year Gilt yields are roughly 5.3%. But commercial developers pay a premium over government. They borrow at 8–10%.

When we reset interest rates from zero-interest era assumptions to commercial reality increases wind costs by 70-100%.

“Learning Rates”

How can we predict the future cost of wind and solar technologies?

Between the 1970s and 2010s, economists watched solar panel prices drop by about 90%. To them, this looked like two familiar patterns.

Moore’s Law: prices halve every two years.
Wright’s Law: prices reduce by a fixed percentage each time production doubles.

These laws operate in fields where the physical medium is secondary to information or design.

Gordon Moore predicted that the number of transistors on a microchip would double every two years, driving down costs.

This prediction held true for 50 years because computing is a process of dematerialisation. To make a chip more powerful, you make components smaller. You etch more logic onto the same wafer.

The cost of sequencing a human genome fell from $100 million in 2001 to under $200 today.

Why? Because it is purely processing information.

The value is in the design, not the atoms. You get more output for less physical input.

Wright’s Law seemed to apply to solar panels:

In 1976: Solar was primarily for satellites; a system cost about $106 per watt (inflation-adjusted).

In 2020s: $0.38 per watt - a 20% drop with each doubling of installed capacity.

When economists applied these laws to future renewable energy prices, they predicted that they would fall forever.

This looked like a miracle.

Energy had become Software - a technology of pure information, destined for infinite improvement.

But this approach misrepresents the nature of technology.

Energy is not Software. Energy is Heavy Industry,

It is a material technology of steel, copper, silver, glass and concrete.

Wright’s Law cannot continue forever for material products.

The physical aspects of wind and solar will eventually hit a material floor.

Chips: Costs drop forever because transistors shrink to the size of atoms.
Energy: Costs drop until they hit the cost of materials floor.

A solar panel is, ultimately, a sandwich of silver, copper, glass and aluminium.

A wind turbine is a tower of steel and a base of concrete.

“Learning” cannot force the price of copper, concrete and steel down forever.

Nuclear proves this. In the West, nuclear plants have a negative learning curve - they get more expensive with each build.

Here, economists recapitulated a Maoist error.

They applied the model of the most successful industry of their times - then Ford’s cars, now microprocessors - to an inappropriate target: the agricultural farm for Mao, the wind farm for Europe.

The S-Curve Model

There is another, well-established model for pricing physical technologies: the S-curve.

According to this model, the technology goes through three distinct phases:

1. Emergence: Slow progress and high costs as the tech is developed.

2. Acceleration: Rapid improvement and plummeting costs as it hits mass production.

3. Maturity: Reaching the “physical limits”. Costs flatten out because you can’t make the raw materials or the physics of energy conversion any more efficient.

Real World Data

Three models exist that predict falls in future wind and solar pricing. From most to least optimistic: Moore's Law, Wright's Law and the S-Curve.

Question. Which model matches real world UK auction data?

Answer. None of them. Prices are not falling. They are rising.

UK offshore wind strike prices fell from £140/MWh (2015) to £37.35 (2022) - then reversed to £65.45 (2026).

Solar prices followed the same path. Bottoming at £45.99/MWh (2022), they plateaued at £47.00 (2023), then rose to £50.07 (2024) - 9% up from the floor.

The latest price - announced Feb 2026 - is still above the 2022.

Prices rise - or at best plateau.

Neither Moore’s or Wright’s Law is at work.

It now seems that economists mistook the Acceleration Phase of the S-Curve for Wright’s Law in permanent action.

China’s manufacturing scale-up drove early solar cost drops. Once optimised, we hit maturity. Fewer cost reductions options exist at this material floor.

Wright’s Law vs the S-Curve. Why does it matter?

The long-term viability of Net Zero turns on which pricing model applies.

If Wright’s Law applies: Global adoption drives production volumes up, unit costs down.

This creates a virtuous circle - rising production, falling prices, greater adoption.

If the S-Curve has hit the material floor: Global adoption drives up demand for copper, silver, and steel. This drives "Greenflation", pushing the material floor higher and making Net Zero progressively less financially viable.

This creates a doom loop - rising costs discourage investment as the project fails.

The short-term viability also depends on this question.

State modelling uses Wright’s Law. Official UK government reports explicitly forecast falling renewable costs via “learning curves”.

They project permanently falling prices, while reality demonstrates rising prices.

Fix the models to reflect this and Net Zero’s projected costs multiply.

Green Revolt

The most damaging critique of Net Zero modelling comes not from sceptics, but from within the movement.

Dieter Helm wants drastic measures. He is a Professor at Oxford, a former government advisor, and fully convinced of the urgency of climate change.

This makes his critique of the economics even more damaging.

He is a “Net Zero True Believer” regarding the necessity of climate action. But he is savage on the economics.

Helm argues that the state corrupted its accounting to hide Net Zero’s true cost.

He cites six distinct sources of hidden cost:

1. The Cost of Intermittency (Backup)

The cost of building and maintaining a fleet of gas or nuclear power stations that must sit idle for most of the year, waiting for the wind to stop blowing.

2. The Cost of Spatial Location (Transmission)

The billions needed to build new pylons and subsea cables to connect remote wind farms (e.g. in the North Sea) to demand centres (e.g. London).

3. The Cost of Balancing (Frequency/Inertia)

The “Ancillary Services” needed to keep the grid stable (50Hz) when using non-synchronous generation. The grid operator has to pay companies to provide “synthetic inertia” or to run flywheels. This cost has already exploded from ~£100m to nearly £3bn/year, but is hidden in the “network charges” section of the bill, not in the energy price.

4. The Cost of “Cannibalisation” (Oversupply)

The cost of over supply - the payments made to turn turbines off.

5. Legacy Costs (The “Sunk” Tax)

The historic subsidies promised older wind farms, now wildly above market rate.

6. Carbon Leakage (The “Imported” Emission)

The CO2 China emits to build steel towers and solar panels. By calculating Net Zero based on Territorial Production rather than Consumption, the state excludes the massive carbon footprint of the transition hardware itself. We claim we’re “decarbonising”, while simply moving the pollution from power generation to the manufacturing of turbines.

Dieter Helm does not give a single “multiplier” for these costs. But when independent analysts like Prof. Gordon Hughes (Edinburgh) and Andrew Montford (Global Warming Policy Foundation) apply his logic to the UK grid, the results are terrifying.

Once you add his factors back in, wind costs rise threefold.

Calculating the Cost

We have identified three additional sources of cost.

The Higher Interest Rates Multiplier, the Rising Materials Multiplier and Helm’s Multiplier.

Note: these are not additive (A + B + C) but multiplicative (A x B x C)

Helm’s 300% Multiplier must be multiplied by a 70-100% Financing Multiplier from higher interest rates.

The result is multiplied by a Rising Materials Multiplier to cancel out the the mistaken use of Wright’s Law.

The true cost of Net Zero is not just “a little higher than predicted”; it rises by an order of magnitude.

In 2019, the Climate Change Committee guessed costs of c. 1–2% of GDP. The chancellor warned parliament that it was a serious under estimate at the time.

Accepting that number, with these multipliers it reaches 10-20% of GDP.

Paid every year.

For context: The Versailles Treaty demanded only 2.5% of GDP.

Net Zero as “Total War”

The most depressing aspect: Dieter Helm argues Britain’s Net Zero sacrifices have achieved nothing.

We have simply exported production to places where it is more polluting.

His solution: a Carbon Tax on imported goods made with fossil fuel power.

This would make Net Zero ecologically effective. But it would also put the UK economy on a Total War footing.

His Carbon Tax would trigger immediate high inflation, high interest rates and falling living standards.

It would feel like travelling back in time to when Britain was much poorer and greyer.

Helm accepts that politicians are lying to voters about Net Zero - claiming it will boost growth, lower bills, and require no sacrifice.

He accepts that this fiction will soon collapse.

He accepts that the transition requires a “peacetime to wartime” economic shock. Worsening living standards. Permanent austerity. Travel restrictions. More deindustrialisation.

The kicker: Helm expects the British public to endorse this policy anyway.

The Public Veto

Helm’s so-called “realism” is just another layer of fantasy in the Net Zero delusion.

Support for that programme barely exists in the UK.

Only 12% of Britons are willing to pay higher taxes to reduce emissions (Serco Institute).

A YouGov poll found that while 60% of people support Net Zero in principle, 71% would withdraw that support if it resulted in higher energy bills.

Polls show that support collapses once the personal cost exceeds roughly £100 per year.

Even the Green Party is quietly pivoting. Their recent political broadcasts barely mention the climate or environment. That well is dry.

They complain about high energy prices though.

Perhaps 1-2% of the population supports Helm’s “wartime economy”.

No political party supports it openly.

It is out of the question in a democracy. A dictatorship would struggle against 98% opposition.

Helm’s programme requires social control and sacrifice with no precedent outside existential war.

The media presents him as a “voice of reason”, but his project is fantastical.

The Conclusion

As the UK is responsible for less than 1% of global emissions, Helm’s “wartime sacrifice” would be meaningless.

Even if Britain ceased to exist tomorrow, the growth in Chinese emissions would replace our entire national output in less than 12 months.

For Helm’s plan to succeed, the rest of the world must follow. This is inconceivable.

The probability of Net Zero’s success is thus zero.

It might have been imaginable in 2019, pre-COVID, with zero interest rates, falling renewables prices and the world at peace.

But today:

100% debt ratio.

Far higher interest rates and thus capital costs.

Rising cost of wind and solar.

Zero per capita GDP growth for 17 years.

6.5 million on out-of-work benefits.

Trump demanding NATO spends more on defence

War in Ukraine. Calls to put Europe on a war footing.

Attempts to decouple from China.

Demands for European independence from America.

Net Zero is just one impossible challenge among many.

The Net Zero project is already dead.

It died when interest rates rose. When Germany’s industry fled. When the Iberian grid crashed. When UK wind and solar prices reversed. When Helm published his critique.

The Great Leap Forward ended when the grain ran out. Europe’s Green Leap Forward will end when the money runs out. That moment approaches.

The only question remaining is how long the state, mainstream media and global NGOs will continue the pretence.

The Endgame

The state can put off costing Net Zero forever. It can hide the figures, fudge the Green Book and silence the civil service.

But there is one entity that cannot be silenced forever - the bond market. It will eventually ask questions.

Tax levels are at a post-war high. The population is ageing. Debt is around 100% of GDP. Plans exist to greatly increase defence spending.

Britain needs to ask global investors to lend it hundreds of billions of pounds to help it dismantle an efficient energy base and replace it with a less efficient, more expensive, more weather-dependent one.

To an investor, this is value destruction.

Investors lend money on the promise of future returns. We are asking the market to fund a project that results in deindustrialisation: the destruction of the very industries needed to repay the loan.

It’s just a matter of time before a major European sovereign debt auction fails. Yields will spike. The currency will crash.

The ultimatum will not be public. It will happen in a quiet room between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor.

The message will be simple: “We can no longer support the Gilt market if you continue issuing debt for negative-return projects. Pause Net Zero capital spend, or face a Sterling crisis by Friday”.

Britain has been here before. In 1976, the bond market forced the UK to the IMF. This time, the humiliation will be greater - the policy was an unforced error and transparently irrational from the start.

The Prime Minister will walk to a podium and announce a “Strategic Review to align our climate goals with the new fiscal reality”.

That review will recommend “a pause”.

But everyone will know it is the end.

The Crisis of Competence

When the Net Zero project detonates, many institutions will find themselves in the blast zone.

The impact will not be confined to the economy. This will be a universal Crisis of Legitimacy.

For decades, the technocratic elite justified its rule on the basis of “expertise”.

When the “Green Leap Forward” fails, it proves that the entire expert class - from the Department of Energy to the BBC Science Editor to the Bank of England - was either functionally illiterate in arithmetic or politically compromised.

The public will learn that the people in charge didn’t just make a mistake; they promoted a utopian hallucination as national strategy.

This is not just a policy failure; it is a Lysenkoite crisis for the West. The revelation that political ideology has been allowed to override physical reality, with catastrophic results.

This is the kind of wholesale collapse of legitimacy that normally only happens after a revolution or major military defeat.

Citizens will look anew at every frustration in their lives and blame it on elite deception.

Sharing Out Blame

The British government encouraged schools to prime students on climate. They told students: Net Zero is essential to saving humanity.

This belief has become core to their identities.

Now the state must tell them that the apocalypse has been put on hold due to budget cuts. Some will not accept this reversal.

The state created zealots and gave them an apocalyptic mission: save the world through complete social transformation.

Dead-enders will sense sabotage.

Some will turn violent.

The End of the Mandate

The rest of the population will reel from this epic narrative collapse.

They will discover a simple explanation for the country’s problems: a traitor class at the top of society.

Today’s populism will seem mild compared to what follows.

The median voter will look at the State and see not a protector, but an enemy that has destroyed any hope of prosperity for the sake of a fantasy.

This will create a vacuum of trust so profound that it will open the door to genuine radicalism and fury.

The left will try to capitalise, but will fail. Selling more top-down plans will be impossible. “High Modernism”, grand plans and global coordination will provoke revulsion.

The winners will be nationalists on the right.

Their emphasis on “common sense”, their domestic focus and long rejection of top-down, globalist institutions will appear prescient.

The AfD in Germany. National Rally in France. Reform in Britain. Parties currently seen as “far right” are likely to become the new centre.

We are about to discover that the true cost of Net Zero is not measured in Pounds or Euros, but in social trust.

Mao’s Great Leap Forward starved 40 million. But the Party lived on.

Europe’s Green Leap Forward will starve no one. But the technocratic consensus that has governed Europe since 1945 will not survive.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Two minutes after take off, the plane’s software took control.

The plane plunged 700 feet in 20 seconds.

The crew fought back, managing to climb back to 5,000 feet. They held that altitude for six minutes.

But twelve minutes into the flight, the aircraft vanished from radar.

Workers on an offshore platform watched the plane hit the water in a near vertical dive.

All 189 people onboard perished.

Four months later, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 left Addis Ababa for Nairobi.

This time, problems arose one minute after take off. The first officer again reported flight control problems.

Once again, automatic systems forced the nose of the plane down. Once again, the crew fought back.

At 13,400 feet, the pilots tried manual trim inputs, but the system overrode them.

Six minutes after take off, Flight 302 hit the ground at high speed.

All 157 people died immediately.

346 dead in less than five months.

Who was responsible?

Not the pilots.

Not the engineers who built the planes.

The culture and practice of strategy consultancies.

A world in which abstraction matters more than physical reality.

Economist John Maynard Keynes warned that “practical men, who believe themselves exempt from intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.

Today, those men are the slaves of some retired strategy consultant.

Trace major state failures back to their source, you’ll find their fingerprints.

The consultants claim privileged knowledge based on a profound empirical analysis of the organisation, of the world economy, of government itself.

But their advice rests on a basic misreading of work, knowledge and economic value: the belief that you can lead the world by just thinking about it.

The short-term returns can be spectacular. The long-term results ruinous.

Yet their mythology continues to shape the world, despite clear evidence of damage.

Global organizations reproduce it: Davos, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN Global Compact, the Gates Foundation.

Technocrat politicians absorbed it wholesale and now sell it on for profit. Tony Blair built a global strategy consultancy off their programme.

The mainstream gets its basic framework from the consultants.

The UK had fourteen years of “Conservative rule”. Yet that ideology was never seriously challenged.

It’s time to pull these ideas up at the roots.

Tony Blair was less a politician, more an aspiring strategy consultant. His policies were lifted from McKinsey reports. Read this for an account of the damage this has done to the UK.

Share

Enter the Consultants

How could strategy consultants kill 346 people?

To understand why, we need to understand what consultants actually sell.

Not expertise. Not analysis. A philosophy.

From the 1980s on, the strategy consultants began to take ideas from academia and sell them as products.

They sold four promises.

We possess special knowledge. We can make every organization more productive - public or private.

We can re-design government to be far more efficient.

We can redesign the global economy. Remake global supply chains. Disperse organizations across continents.

We can create a new world order founded upon trade.

This vision was supposed to come from a deep analysis of business and trade.

It didn’t.

It remixed notions that have circulated in the academy for millennia.

Ideas that the university-educated are primed to accept without question.

The ideas of Plato. His value system.

The Platonic Template

Plato believed in a realm of perfect Forms: abstract ideals that transcend messy reality.

Now the consultants applied his ideas to the organization.

They sold Frameworks. Built Matrices. Set Targets. Imposed Dashboards. These became the new Ideal Forms.

Abstract thinking sits at the top: high status.

Messy execution sits at the bottom: degraded and degrading.

The Platonic Template makes strategy the master discipline; those who create strategy, the masters of the world.

Armed with this ideology, the consultants sold a vision of a new world order with themselves at its summit, ruling as the new Platonic Guardians.

Technocrats for Platonism

The consultants’ theology didn’t stay in the boardroom for long.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair converted in the 1990s. First disciples, later evangelists.

For a time, the ideas brought huge short-term financial gains.

But the Platonic template has a fatal flaw. It assumes a static world, while reality is in flux. Parmenides, not Heraclitus.

Once thinking and doing are severed, creation becomes impossible.

Innovation is iterative: it survives upon 'learning by doing'.

You make a better battery by building batteries. Not by contemplating the eternal Form of the Battery.

That’s why the Knowledge Economy has always been a fallacy.

The most important knowledge can't be abstracted into PowerPoint. It lives through creation and execution.

The consultant’s dream - that Western economies could be re-made in immaterial form - was always a fantasy.

Why?

Because strategy follows execution. Not the other way around.

Try to split thinking from doing.

Try to keep the thinking for yourself.

See the high-status work of the thinker flow to wherever the low-status work is carried out.

But the Platonic Template spread despite its flaws. It has reshaped business, government, education and the global economy.

See it happen via the stories of four phrases.

‘The War for Talent’.

‘The Value Chain’.

‘Core Competence’.

‘Steer Don't Row’.

“The War for Talent”

The “War for Talent” transformed the world.

McKinsey consultants coined the phrase in a 1997 research paper.

The thesis: in the “New Economy”, traditional factors of production are irrelevant. Land. Machines. Capital.

The only thing that matters is Human Capital.

“Superior talent” is scarce. Companies must fight a “war” to attract and retain the top performers.

The consultants saw “talent” as generic skills: “sharp strategic mind, leadership ability, emotional maturity, communications skills, the ability to attract and inspire.”

Not technical skills. Not domain knowledge. Not engineering expertise.

The State Takes the Bait

One year after the paper, the UK Government published: Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy.

It argued that the UK could no longer compete in “low-value” manufacturing. It must specialise in “high-value” services.

The old advantages - cheap labour, land, raw materials - were obsolete. Britain’s future lay in knowledge, skills, creativity.

McKinsey had declared “talent” the only resource that mattered.

Blair concluded that the state should mass-produce it.

Marx meets McKinsey

Blair set his target of 50% university attendance at the 1999 Labour Party Conference.

His speech was a bizarre mash-up, drawing equally from McKinsey reports and the Communist Manifesto.

A spectre haunts the world: technological revolution.

10 years ago, a fifteen year old probably couldn’t work a computer.

Now he’s in danger of living on it…

Global finance and Communications and Media. Electronic commerce. The Internet. The science of genetics…

These forces of change driving the future: Don’t stop at national boundaries… They wait for no-one and no nation

We know what a 21st century nation needs. A knowledge-based economy…

The answer is people… The future is people… People are born with talent and everywhere it is in chains…

Talent is 21st century wealth… In the 18th century land was our resource. In the 19th and 20th century it was plant and capital. Today it is people…

The class war is over.

University expansion became the British national strategy.

University would give people the skills they need to be “flexible” in a changing global market.

Colleges would construct talent, forging the 'Human Capital' described in Blair's appendix to Das Kapital.

Share

“Talent” is Domain Specific

But the idea of “Talent” was wrong from the start.

It fundamentally misreads the nature of education and of human skills:

Universities do not develop “talent”.

They rarely impart knowledge or skills that are used in the jobs market.

They don’t impart “portable skills” like critical thinking, problem-solving or “how to learn”.

Only one aspect of the Blair-McKinsey narrative is correct: educational credentials are valuable to employers.

Not because universities develop skills. But because credentials prove intelligence and conscientiousness.

The bitter truth: Students spend years studying subjects they’ll never use. Geography. Sociology. Literary Theory.

Then they forget them.

Three years later, nothing remains but debt and a certificate.

Research into retention rates is brutal: 80% to 90%[i] of material is forgotten within one to two years unless that knowledge is applied in action.

Transfer of Learning

Blair claimed that university education creates agile thinkers who can pivot between industries.

But Transfer of Learning research refutes this entirely[ii].

Humans are remarkably bad at transfer. When we learn logic in class, we don’t become more logical in business meetings.

Psychologists demonstrate this repeatedly. Teach a principle in one domain. Ask students to apply it in another. Ivy League students fail routinely.

Chess masters memorise a real game board in seconds. But show them pieces placed randomly and they perform no better than novices.

Their “genius” lies in recognizing patterns learned through practice. Make a small change to the domain and that “talent” disappears.

The Implications

The clear implication:

Knowledge and skills are domain-specific.

“Human Capital” is not a generic resource.

Valuable skills flow from action. From work, not from classroom training.

The premise of a generic ‘liberal arts education’ as preparation for general management is a delusion.

The notion of the ‘generalist consultant’ who can parachute into any domain is a fraud.

Most Education has no Economic Value

Outside domain specific education – law, medicine and engineering – tertiary education has little economic value.

It functions as an obstacle course. Completing tedious, difficult tasks, proves intelligence and conscientiousness.

Those are the only portable skills.

Credentials signal what was always there. Not the benefits of classroom learning.

The Credentialling Trap

Send more students to university to gain credentials. The value of that credential falls.

Students respond by wasting more time and money on Masters and PhDs to regain the signal that a Bachelor’s degree used to provide.

The end result: young people are forced to hand over $90,000 - plus years of their lives - to prove they possess exactly the same IQ and conscientiousness they had at the beginning.

This isn’t “investment in human capital”. It’s a ransom paid to the credentialing mob.

The lesson: University education functions as a tax on society - and the young in particular.

It is a gigantic waste of time and money.

The Blair-McKinsey vision of “Talent” and “the Knowledge Economy” was a hallucination.

There is no “War for Talent”

And the problems don’t end there.

McKinsey’s picture of the graduate jobs market also bears little connection to reality.

Meta-analysis of SAT scores: the average IQ of all US undergraduate students is around 102 points. Two points above people picked at random. It was 119 in 1939.

A quarter of UK graduates now end up in non-graduate roles - even though graduate requirements have recently been added to jobs like nursing, policing, executive assistant work.

The pay premium of new UK graduates over the minimum wage has fallen from 115% in 1999 to 30% today.

The economic value of university education is so low, only 56% of new UK graduates are expected to be able to pay off their student loans. This over 40 years.

Men who graduate from the 23 lowest-performing British universities go on to earn less than those who did not go at all.

Many Graduate Jobs Pay Less than Manual Labour

The structure of the jobs market bears no relation to the consultant’s fairytales.

Pay levels show little competition for “talent” or even intellectual ability.

Many white-collar graduate jobs pay less than blue-collar work.

Most shocking: many of the “elite jobs” Blair once celebrated, now pay less than manual labour.

According to the construction press, the seven years of study required to become an architect has a negative financial return:

The annual average salary of a scaffolder is now £40,942, according to a survey of smaller building companies, whereas that of a university-trained architect is just £38,228, says the Federation of Master Builders.

In fact, plasterers, bricklayers, plumbers and electricians are all taking home more in pay a year than architects now, and not just architects but other professionals including teachers, veterinarians, nurses, and accountants.

According to 2019 figures from the Bar Council, a junior criminal barrister with up to 15 years’ experience receives £40,000 headline pay. £28,000 after fees and costs.

Criminal barristers earn as little as £13,000 pre-tax in their first two years. Below the minimum wage.

For comparison, a bricklayer can earn £90,000.

In 2021, the Times reported that lorry drivers earn more than senior executives at John Lewis:

The supermarket chain is prepared to pay up to £53,780 a year to large goods vehicle (LGV) drivers, who it says are of “critical importance” to the company.

This is more money than many head office jobs advertised at its parent company, John Lewis Partnership, including £45,000 for two senior executive roles, £46,000 for a pensions specialist and £46,700 for a finance analyst.

Where did this idea come from?

The “War for Talent” was always autobiography.

It reflects the consultants’ own experience. They must fight for high-IQ candidates willing to work 14-hour days on dull, repetitive work.

They need credentialled workers to justify the highest fees in business.

Both Blair and the consultants mistook credentials for portable skills.

Their “war” describes their own fight to recruit limited numbers of intelligent individuals.

Accustomed to seeing university degrees as proxies for IQ, they forced the masses to waste years to establish intelligence that could be proven with an hour long test.

Conclusion

There is no generic “War for Talent”: white-collar salaries prove it.

If “talent” exists, it is just a proxy for IQ and conscientiousness.

Mass tertiary education doesn’t boost “talent”, IQ or portable skills.

Mass education doesn’t augment Western economic resilience - as Blair claimed - it damages it. Severely.

But the consultants’ project was just beginning.

They had sold their domestic program: mass-produce talent.

Now it was time for the international strategy: outsource everything else.

“The Value Chain”

Harvard’s Michael Porter formalised the Value Chain in 1985.

Competitive advantage stemmed from discrete activities: designing, producing, marketing, manufacturing, delivering, supporting.

He divided these activities into two categories:

Primary Activities: Physical creation and sale of the product.

Support Activities: The backend functions that allow the primary activities to happen.

Porter’s conclusion: Keep primary activities in-house. Outsource support activities.

Nike had proved the model could work.

By 1985, Nike had built a billion-dollar brand with almost no manufacturing. Phil Knight kept design, marketing, and brand management in Oregon. Production went to Asia.

The strategy generated spectacular returns.

Porter seemed to have identified a winning formula that could be universally applied.

The Smiling Curve

But Porter’s framework remained at the corporate level. It was Stan Shih who gave it a geographical dimension.

Shih founded Acer. In 1992, he wrote the “The Smiling Curve”.

He split the Value Chain into three parts, plotted on a curve.

At one end: Research, Development, Design.

At the other end: Marketing and Branding.

These generated high value. They would stay in developed nations.

In the middle: Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing.

This was low-value commodity labour. This would go to Asia.

Shih had turned Porter’s framework into a new theory of international trade.

Now, it wasn’t just companies who would specialise according to the value hierarchy. It would be entire nations.

A New Global System

Management consultancies took this framework and sold it to governments as fundamental economic policy.

Throughout the 1990s, McKinsey and BCG told Western political leaders the same story they had told CEOs.

Your country’s core competence is high-value cognitive work. Outsource the rest.

The Politician Evangelists

Clinton and Blair made this ideology their personal manifesto.

They had their reasons.

Both men had inherited impossible contradictions.

Blair controlled a party that was - in theory - committed to “nationalising the means of production”.

Its funding came from trade unions.

Its MPs represented deindustrialising constituencies.

Its activists hated “Capitalism”.

But Blair’s life had none of this. He was a product of Fettes (the Scottish Eton). Oxford. A barrister.

He’d never worked in a factory. Never joined a picket line. He was more comfortable in Davos than the Durham miners gala.

Clinton faced exactly the same tensions. The Democrats were the party of organised labour.

But Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who'd never done a day's manual work. His world was that of the film star, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur, the senior partner at McKinsey.

Both men led parties that had been defined by the class war.

Neither had any emotional connection to it.

And both could see that society was changing.

The old industrial working class was declining. A new middle class on the rise.

Their answer: eliminate the class that had blighted their political lives. Once and for all.

The Perfect Escape

The consultant ideology offered a way out that was almost too perfect.

If Porter and Shih were right, there was no need to choose between Capital and Labour. The class war was over.

The West would specialise in high-value cognitive work - the work Blair and Clinton understood. Abstract thinking. Financial services. Media. Law. Software even.

Manufacturing would move East. Henceforth, the problem of the industrial working class would belong to China.

The Western workforce would be retrained as “knowledge workers” through the mass expansion of the university system.

Here was the move of genius: the class conflict would be geographically externalised.

There would still be a global bourgeoisie and proletariat. But the class divide would run between nations, not within them.

Britain and America would become spiritually middle class. One vast graduate meritocracy.

Clinton and Blair had hit on Mao’s “Three Worlds Theory“. Remixed.

Mao argued that revolutionary struggle no longer ran within nations - capital vs. labour - but between them. Imperial Powers vs the Third World.

China’s own class tensions? Erased.

Clinton and Blair stole this strategy.

The Weltgeist

This project was partly megalomania.

At the height of their popularity, Clinton and Blair began to see themselves as the Weltgeist - the World-spirit made flesh.

They found their personal fortunes and the future of the globe hard to separate.

Their vision for the global economy became a projection of the world they felt most comfortable in: that of the high-status, credentialed leader, freed from class conflict.

The real world began to fade away.

Would Asians embrace their subordinate status forever?

Could there ever be enough high-status cognitive work for 50% of the population?

What would happen to the working class once their industries went East?

None of these questions were asked.

Those actors were only walk-on extras on The Bill and Tony Show.

The Flaw

Unfortunately, Porter's and Shih's ideas were delusional from the start:

The Value Chain does not exist in the universal form they claimed. Porter's model worked for Nike. But the same approach cannot be applied to all products and industries.

The pieces of the Value Chain are not independent. They cannot always be split up and sent around the world.

The attempt reflects a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between thinking and doing.

“Core Competence”

If any concept has done more damage to the West than the “War for Talent”, it is “Core Competence”.

C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel coined the term in 1990.

They argued that Honda’s “core competence” wasn’t making cars. It was making engines. Master the engine, outsource the seats, glass, tyres.

McKinsey and BCG took this manufacturing insight and abstracted it.

Their advice to CEOs: “Doing” is almost never a core competency.

The Head - Brand, Marketing, Strategy, IP - was core. The Hand - Manufacturing, IT, Logistics - was a distraction. Outsource it.

This advice became “strategic outsourcing”.

Everything other than core competencies would be split off and sent to the cheapest overseas location.

“Steer, Don’t Row”

Two years later: David Osborne and Ted Gaebler transferred these ideas to the public sector.

Reinventing Government became the bible of the Clinton administration. Then Blair’s.

The thesis: The state was failing because it was too busy “rowing”. Running schools. Cleaning streets. Managing hospitals.

Government should instead be “catalytic”.

It should steer by setting policy, budgets, targets.

Let the private sector row by delivering services.

This was core competence applied to the state. The state’s only true competencies were policy, regulation, procurement.

This ends in a policy of outsourcing almost all delivery. Running public services. Designing operations. Building websites. Everything.

The Problem

The strategy consultants’ analysis of how value is created is fundamentally wrong.

The notion that “core competencies” are discrete - that they can exist in a vacuum - is false.

The destructive consequences of splitting thinking from doing are now painfully obvious.

These aren’t isolated failures. War for Talent, Value Chain, Core Competence, Steer Don’t Row - all rest on the same error.

That error is philosophical.

It concerns the most basic question: what is the relationship between thinking and doing?

Two Philosophies

One fundamental fact shapes all attempts at practical achievement.

There are two fundamentally different approaches to any task. Building software. Constructing bridges. Designing public services.

Just as Left and Right shape politics, these two rival philosophies shape practical work.

The two schools map to the deepest intellectual traditions of the West versus East Asia.

The Western Platonic School

According to the Western Platonic school, the world we see and work in is an imperfect shadow of perfect Ideals.

Thinking is high status. It is communing with sacred Forms. Wisdom is found in quiet reflection.

Doing is dirty, low status, corrupting.

Greek thinkers explicitly linked these values to their class system. Manual and craft labour was the domain of women, foreigners, slaves.

This work was not just low status. It was the work of people excluded from civic life.

In the Platonic schema, the highest activities - philosophy, mathematics, geometry - had no connection to action of any kind.

The Platonic process: Perfect the idea. The Design. The Plan. The Planning Application. The Impact Assessment.

Only once this high-value activity is complete does the low-status work of execution begin.

Contrast this with the values of the East Asian philosophers who parallel Plato. They evince a form of pragmatism that is alien to the Platonic tradition.

The East Asian Pragmatic School

Zhu Xi (1130–1200) is the Chinese thinker closest to Plato. He promoted an analogue of Platonism where everything has a “principle”.

Like Plato’s Ideal Forms, these eternal, perfect, abstract principles exist “above form”. There is a “Principle of a Horse” independent of any physical horse.

But Zhu Xi differed from Plato in one critical way. You can only identify Xi’s Principles by studying physical things.

The physical world was not a distracting shadow of perfection. It was the only route to truth.

Xi argued for the Investigation of Things - a prototype of modern science.

This idea reappears in modern East Asian industrial practice via the Japanese phrase Genchi Genbutsu: "actual place, actual thing".

Managers must "go and see" the problem at the source (Gemba) rather than relying on reports or data displayed on a dashboard.

The “actual thing” holds the truth. The observer must humble themselves to receive it.

In East Asian business culture, you cannot solve every problem from the office.

You must see the machine, the customer, the product, and rectify your understanding through direct contact.

Unity of Knowledge and Action

But the core of East Asian pragmatism comes from Xi’s nemesis: Wang Yangming (1472–1529).

Wang rejected Xi’s Platonic metaphysics for the Unity of Knowledge and Action.

True knowledge must come from action and drive action. Knowledge that doesn’t drive action isn’t knowledge at all.

This spirit survives today in the East Asian insistence that insight comes from iteration.

Knowledge comes from action. Knowledge has value insofar as it drives more action.

Treat each plan as a hypothesis.

Treat each action as an experiment.

Test your theories against the real world.

Once we can see this basic polarity, we can see that “Core Competence”, the “Value Chain,” and Porter and Shih’s geographic dispersal of tasks is not the product of empirical analysis.

It is prior to experience.

It is Platonism imposed on the business world.

The Platonic Template:

The Status of Thinking and Doing:

Plato:

Doing and making: low status.

Thinking: high status.

Porter & Shih:

Manufacturing and processing: low status.

Design and Marketing: high status.

The Relationship between Thinking and Doing

Plato:

Thinking is independent of Doing.

Thinking is upstream of Doing.

Thinking rules execution.

Porter & Shih:

Thinking and Doing must be split organisationally and geographically.

Doing must be sent to poor nations of the world.

Strategy must rule execution.

The Neo-Confucian Reality:

Thinking, doing, inspecting the “actual thing” are inextricably connected.

Knowledge comes from exposure to the “actual thing”. The Principle lives on the front line.

Innovation depends upon thinking and doing cycling iteratively. Neither rules the other.

Talk of relative status is deluded.

No one immersed in the Neo-Confucian model would accept the consultants’ ideology without a fight.

Why the Platonic Template is False

The offshoring system seemed to work at first.

Manufacturing existing goods in China was much cheaper. Delivering existing services in India costs far less.

Business leaders who made the change earned large bonuses. Their investors made supernormal returns.

But outsourcing the doing to the East gave those societies stronger grounding in both doing and thinking.

Knowledge didn’t just flow from thinkers to doers as the Platonic model dictates.

Manufacturing millions of units created knowledge that fed back into design and innovation.

Delivering hundreds of millions of operational transactions fed back into high end consulting skills.

As Europeans and Americans lost their memory of the front line, they lost the skills they needed to innovate.

The First Decade of Outsourcing

At first, everything continued as before. Little of the work sent East needed updating.

The people managing the contracts in the West were the people who used to manage the front line. Western designers had once worked alongside production.

But they left or retired.

No one in the West had the experience to replace them.

The sociology of the workplace had changed. It was dominated by marketeers, pure managers, accountants, administrators, compliance specialists. Strategy consultants.

You cannot maintain an engineering culture in a head office that lacks anyone with engineering experience.

What’s left is bureaucracy: thinking detached from creation. People whose only job is managing a Dashboard that is separated from the “Actual Thing” by thousands of miles.

The Asian Ascent

Outsourcing gave Asian companies massive advantages in developing next-generation products.

BYD. Huawei. Xiaomi. TSMC. Lenovo. Wipro. Tata.

The idea that Asian doers would accept the low status forever was shown to be a narcissistic fantasy.

The notion that Asians are copyists - never innovators - was delusional from the start.

Routine assembly grew Chinese engineering and innovation. Firms learned to out-innovate Western rivals by staying closer to manufacturing realities.

They started in the 'low-value' trough of manufacturing, used operational expertise to master R&D and branding, flattened Shih's curve and outcompeted Western firms.

Indian IT support grew into software development. Then product companies. Then high value consulting.

Many Western organizations are now entirely hollowed out, lacking not just technical skills but basic self-knowledge. They must rely on Indian firms to explain their basic operations to them.

They enter the AI revolution as corporate zombies: they continue to operate but can no longer change direction.

Western theorists found themselves competing with practitioners who worked their way up from the factory floor. The consultant who never saw a production line was outmatched by the strategist who started there.

Shih and Blair’s ‘low-value work’ had taught Asians to do ‘high-value’ work.

Huawei

Huawei has the world's largest patent portfolio and a massive brand, but refuses to abandon manufacturing.

The company was built by Ren Zhengfei, a former military engineer. He promotes "Wolf Culture”, collective action and empiricism on the frontline. Executives must "hear the gunfire" (have direct frontline experience): Genchi Genbutsu.

BYD: “Build Your Dreams”

Wang Chuanfu was a battery chemist. He built BYD by mastering the process of manufacturing batteries, often designing his own manufacturing equipment because he couldn't afford Japanese robots.

BYD manufactures 70-80% of its vehicle components in-house, including batteries, semiconductors and motors.

Because they make the battery and the car, they understand the interaction between the two better than a company that buys the battery from a supplier. This allows them to launch new models at an extremely high velocity.

Shih’s curve is inverted at BYD. Manufacturing is not a low-value sinkhole, but a high-value engine of innovation.

Apple

The obvious counterexample is Apple. It became the world’s largest company under the slogan “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.”

But that slogan is misleading. Apple may not own its fabrication plants, but its engineers live in them night and day.

It’s not possible to manufacture a mobile phone that is just 5.6 mm thick without understanding and controlling every aspect of the supply chain and the production process.

The War on Talent

The 'Core Competence' idea destroyed the 'War for Talent'.

Almost all technical work has been categorised as non-core in the UK, the jobs exported East.

Jobs that remain must compete with wage levels in Bangalore and Warsaw.

The very jobs Blair celebrated as the future have seen large pay drops.

Data scientists – critical to the UK’s implementation of AI – have seen pay fall by 31% since 2012.[iv]

The most shocking example: a Research Director at a British AI lab earns less than the plumber unblocking his sink. [v] As a graduate, he will also pay higher levels of tax.

Blair called technology a spectre haunting British society. In fact, his ideology was a spectre haunting British technology.

If there never was a War for Talent, Blair launched a War on Talent.

Worse: a War on Society.

His ideas created a society with a negative ROI on education and training.

Failing to work at school has become a get rich quick scheme.

No society can succeed without incentive to learn the skills that drive productivity gains.

A Special Case Generalised

Why did the system work for Nike?

Michael Porter’s system works for mature products where knowledge is codified.

Nike’s shoe designs were stable enough to specify completely. The manufacturing process was well-understood. No learning required. Just execution.

But Porter generalised from a special case to a universal principle.

He didn’t distinguish between:

Mature products where outsourcing works vs. evolving products where it destroys learning.

Codifiable processes specified in documents vs. tacit processes embedded in practice.

Stable manufacture vs. innovative manufacture that requires iteration

Outside those special cases, the Value Chain is the dissection of a living organism.

Pull it to pieces and you no longer have a living thing. You have a pile of organs slowly expiring on a laboratory table.

The Verdict

The value chain existed for mature products with codifiable processes. Nike shoes. Commodity electronics. Standard services.

But consultants and politicians treated it as universal law. They applied it to evolving products, to innovation, to entire national economies.

Porter’s universal “value chain” never existed.

Yet this non-existent abstraction has become the blueprint for Western industrial policy.

The Clinton-Blair vision of the Post-Industrial Society rested upon it.

A delusion built on a fantasy.

A national economic model premised upon stasis, has ceased grow,

Wang Was Right. Plato Was Wrong. Knowledge and action are inseparable.

Core Competence in the Public Sector

The most damaging application of “Core Competence” is in the public sector.

The doctrine: Government’s only competence is policy, procurement, and contract management.

It severs the what (policy) from the how (delivery). Government writes the wish list. The private sector does the work.

The result: a lobotomized state. No one in government possesses delivery skills.

This model fails twice. It doesn’t work in practice and it’s impossible in theory.

The Mechanic

The practical problem: imagine taking your car to a disreputable mechanic.

He tells you the engine is shot. Expensive faults. Multiple issues.

You’re sceptical. You try to leave.

But he stops you. The car is “too dangerous to drive”. He’s disabled it for your safety.

Do you have the deep technical knowledge to prove he’s a robber and not the Good Samaritan he claims?

No?

Then you’re at his mercy.

This is the position of the modern state:

You cannot procure something you don’t understand without being taken for a fool.

You cannot manage a contract when the vendor knows more than the client.

We endure defective trains, failed IT projects, undelivered hospitals, higher taxes as a result.

The Theoretical Impossibility

Put the practical issues aside.

The split between “what” and “how” is flawed in theory.

It is impossible to describe the “what” without understanding the “how”.

They appear independent. But they’re not.

The Flat Roof

A basic example: procuring a flat roof.

A homeowner tells the builder: “Asphalt the roof.”

Puzzled roofers explain better technologies now exist. Membranes. Poured rubber.

So the homeowner makes the spec more general: “Install a roof guaranteed for 30 years.”

But what if the 30-year system costs ten times the 29-year one?

So make the spec vaguer still: “Install an optimal roof.”

But this hands the entire decision to the roofers.

The reality: There is no safe process an ignorant client can follow to avoid every pitfall.

Even for this simple purchase, we cannot write a good specification without a good understanding the landscape of costs and benefits, of risks and rewards.

Success demands that information flows both ways. The client explains needs and preferences. The supplier explains options and trade-offs. Together they zero in on a solution.

The lesson: the What cannot be detached from the How, even in theory.

Now scale the roofing example up thousands of times to the complexity of a major public service.

Policy staff with zero operational or technology expertise must specify systems of extraordinary complexity.

They detail the “what” of problems whose “how” they cannot comprehend.

This is a fundamental cause of public sector failure. It flows directly from the concept of “Core Competence”.

The doctrine tells government to outsource delivery and retain only policy and procurement. Stop employing people who understand how things actually work. Don’t hire technical experts.

The result: a government full of policy specialists trying to procure systems they cannot possibly understand.

The flat roof problem, scaled to national level.

Boeing: A Warning

Boeing provides the best example of consultant delusions playing out in practice.

Boeing was once a hugely successful engineering company.

In the 1980s, Boeing commercial airplane sales were the US’s biggest export. In 1990, Boeing held over 60% of the commercial airline market.

The company was built by Thornton “T” Wilson, a trained engineer who started on the factory floor.

He understood every blue-collar role in the production process.

Wilson sat down with factory workers at lunch in the cafeteria. Found out what was going on in their operations. Took up what he’d learned with the relevant managers.

2001: The Transformation Begins

Then the former CEO of McDonnell Douglas got the top job at Boeing. He saw the world differently:

When I say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm. It is a great engineering firm, but people invest in a company because they want to make money.

The same year, Boeing moved its corporate headquarters from Seattle - where the planes were made - to Chicago - where the money was managed.

The move was intended to insulate corporate leadership from the “distraction” of engineering operations. To let them focus on what really mattered: sales, capital allocation, shareholder value.

This was the Platonic hierarchy as geography: high-value Strategy in Chicago physically separated from low-value Execution in Seattle.

Boeing’s “Core Competence” wasn’t building planes any more. It was making money.

The cultural distance between the leadership and the technical teams in Seattle grew - just as intended.

Senior leaders were now insulated from the engineering challenges, making short-term fixes more likely.

There were approximately 50,000 layoffs from the front line between 1999 and 2003. Vast amounts of tacit knowledge exited the company.

2005: The MBA Takes Over

James McNerney became the first Boeing chief executive without engineering skills.

He was a Harvard MBA. A former McKinsey consultant. His background was in brand management and general management, not aviation.

He was brought in to focus upon financial performance.

McNerney personified the “Pure Manager” and the McKinsey vision of “talent”. He saw leadership as a portable skill that required no technical knowledge in the product area.

Boeing’s culture changed fundamentally. Senior engineers were made to report to business unit leaders, rather than the chief engineer.

The company was flooded with consultants. Long-term employees reported seeing “McKinsey folks skulking around the offices”.

Priorities shifted from “How do we build the best plane?” to “How do we drive margins and sales?”

The Asset-Light Strategy

The consultants persuaded Boeing into the “Asset-Light Strategy”.

Boeing’s “core competence” was Final Assembly and Integration. The manufacturing of parts was deprecated as “metal bending”, a low-margin commodity activity.

Leaders were judged by “return on net assets” (RONA): the ratio of net income to capital employed.

Leaders in Chicago managed Boeing through RONA dashboards. The actual planes being built in Seattle might as well have been on another planet.

T Wilson had walked the factory floor daily.

His successors studied PowerPoint presentations of production metrics and RONA reports.

The Dashboard had entirely replaced the Actual Thing.

The easiest way to make the number go up was to reduce the capital employed by selling off the manufacturing plants.

In 2005, Boeing sold its Wichita plant to private equity, creating Spirit AeroSystems. Now it outsourced design and manufacture of 737 MAX components to hundreds of third party suppliers.

The Platonic model is authoritarian by nature. Instructions flow down from the Ideal to the shadow world of execution. The plan must be followed without question.

Boeing engineers had once been able to raise safety concerns even when they held up construction.

Not any more.

Wang Yangming's feedback loop - action generates knowledge and knowledge drives action - had been severed.

Workers learned that raising issues was met by retaliation. Reports of problems ceased to flow from Seattle to Chicago.

The 737 MAX

In 2011, American Airlines threatened to defect to Airbus.

To stop them, Boeing scrapped a decade-long plan to engineer a new aircraft.

Instead, a “frenetic” update to the 50-year-old 737.

Over the next six years, this sales imperative drove a cascade of bad engineering decisions.

The Engine Problem

To match Airbus’s fuel efficiency, Boeing needed larger engines.

But the 737 must sit low to the ground to serve small airports with limited ground equipment.

Boeing couldn’t hang the larger LEAP-1B engines under the wing. So they moved them further forward and higher up.

That allowed Boeing to accommodate the engines without re-engineering the 50-year old airframe.

But this shift also created physical instabilities.

Wind tunnel testing showed the external form of the engines generated lift. The engines were so far forward, that lift pushed the nose up.

Worse, the engines then created more lift. This produced a self-reinforcing feedback loop that would crash the plane.

Rather than fix the physical airframe, Boeing elected to fix it in software.

This decision resulted in the loss of 346 lives.

The 737 had been a mature, stable platform - suited to the Value Chain model.

Bolting new engines onto a 50-year-old airframe transformed it into an innovation challenge requiring iteration.

The fundamental error: Boeing treated the 737 like a Nike shoe. They applied Porter’s special case to an innovation problem.

MCAS: The Software Solution

The new MCAS software was designed to push the nose down without pilot input when sensors showed the Angle of Attack (AOA) was too high.

Airplanes must have redundant hardware and the 737 MAX had two Angle of Attack sensors.

But MCAS used data from only one sensor at a time, alternating with each flight.

Relying on one sensor created a single point of failure. The external sensors are prone to failure from bird strikes, icing or improper maintenance.

So Boeing created more hardware to report failed AOA sensors to the pilots. A “disagree alert” would report when the two sensors didn’t match.

To recap:

Sales imperatives – service small airports, beat Airbus – created a fundamentally unstable physical design.

Rather than fix the physical design and risk losing sales to American Airlines, Boeing attempted a software fix.

This created a new hardware issue: a dependence upon notoriously unreliable external sensors.

This was fixed with another piece of hardware – the “disagree alert”.

This was the aeronautical equivalent of a “software hack”: a complex, ad hoc workaround that didn’t address the base problem.

Why do we avoid “hack solutions”?

Because they create complex and unmanageable dependencies.

This set the stage for Boeing's most deadly misjudgement.

The “disagree alert” should have been a standard feature of the plane. But sales and marketing took the lead once again.

Boeing made the warnings a paid luxury add-on. If an airline didn’t pay for the indicator, pilots would be blind to sensor failure.

Airworthiness became an optional extra, like leather seats.

80% of 737 MAX planes shipped without this essential warning system.

Both Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines chose not to pay for the optional feature.

Theory Over Practice

MCAS was a Platonic solution to a physical problem. Instead of fixing the doing (the material airframe/engine placement), they tried to think their way out with immaterial code.

That it became a paid add-on was another triumph of head (Sales and Marketing) over hand (Engineering).

In 2016, Boeing abandoned Genchi Genbutsu - the actual thing - in its testing. Test pilots stopped flying actual 737 MAX planes and started using simulators instead.

But these simulators didn’t model MCAS or sensor failures.

The test pilots were testing the wrong thing.

A flawed Map had displaced the Territory.

Immateriality had won again.

The End Point

The company had been transformed from an engineering-led culture into a financial engineering laboratory.

Boeing’s Head had detached itself from its Hand.

Theory ruled practice.

The feedback mechanisms from Action to Knowledge, from Practice to Theory, were deactivated.

Now, the Crashes

October 29, 2018: Lion Air Flight 610. 189 dead.

March 10, 2019: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. 157 dead.

346 people killed by consultant ideology.

2024: The Door Plug

January 5, 2024: The left mid exit door plug detached from the fuselage of an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX just after take off from Portland, Oregon.

There was a rapid depressurization.

Boeing factory workers told investigators they were pressured to work too fast. None of the 24 people on the door team were trained to remove a door plug before working on the plane.

The outsourced supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, admitted that five years prior, 95% of their staff were experienced mechanics. By the time of the accident it was 5%.

Boeing faced the mechanic problem at scale. How do you write specifications for a door plug when no one in your organization understands manufacturing anymore?

How do you audit Spirit's quality when you've outsourced the expertise needed to check their work?

You can't. You're at their mercy.

Boeing admitted the failure of the Asset Light strategy by reacquiring Spirit AeroSystems for nearly four times what it sold it for, reintegrating Head and Hand.

The Verdict

The Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes were the inevitable product of the strategy consultants’ ideology.

The Wrong Picture of the Value Chain: The Boeing organism would survive dissection into hundreds of outsourced suppliers.

The Wrong Value Analysis: Engineering the airplane was ‘low-value’ work. Generic ‘strategy skills’ were the highest value.

The Wrong Economic Picture: The ‘War for Talent’ meant hiring MBAs to manage spreadsheets, not retaining master engineers who understood flight physics.

The Wrong Philosophy of Action: You could “steer” the creation of the 737 MAX from a dashboard in Chicago without touching engineering reality.

For a long time, the strategy seemed to work.

Between 2001 and 2018 the share price rose 1000%.

But decisions made in the name of shareholder value have cost its investors $87 billion since then.

346 people paid with their lives.

Conclusion

Strategy consultants and their politician evangelists offer a self-serving ideology.

According to the Platonic Model, Ideas are perfect and Execution is a low-status commodity.

Strategy sits at the top of any organisation.

Above strategy sit the meta-strategists of the global consultancies. They occupy the position of Plato’s Guardians.

Contrast the Neo-Confucian Model.

Wang Yangming’s Unity of Knowledge and Action. Strategy flows from execution. There is no place for a generic strategist in this world.

Naturally, the consultants promote the first system over the second.

But we have just witnessed something rare: a direct test of metaphysical worldviews.

The hypothesis: Thinking and doing can be separated. “High-value” strategy work can be retained while “low-value” execution is outsourced.

The experiment ran for four decades and the results are in.

346 people died in Boeing 737 MAX crashes because executives in Chicago lost touch with engineering reality in Seattle.

Millions of British graduates now earn less than school leavers because politicians believed “talent” could be mass-produced in classrooms rather than learned through work.

Western firms are being outcompeted by Asian rivals who used the doing to acquire the thinking.

Our politics is destabilised by a new class of downwardly mobile graduates and 6.5 million people without work. There is no constituency left to lobby for industry.

Wang Yangming was right. The Platonic model is failing us.

Yet boards continue to retain strategy consultancies.

Ministers continue citing Porter’s frameworks.

Universities continue to promise portable skills they cannot deliver.

This isn't an innocent mistake. Consultants profit from this ideology. Politicians used it to erase a class that embarrassed them.

These ideas persist because they serve the people who promote them.

A New Enlightenment

The West often derides the Islamic world for failing to develop its own Enlightenment. It remains “mired in the Medieval Age”.

But we never had the debate between Xi and Wang that China had in the 16th century.

Western culture is still premised upon Plato’s 2,400-year-old delusion: that Ideas rule Things.

How does that now look from China?

We can’t claim ignorance any longer. The experiment has run. The evidence is in.

We need a second Enlightenment.

The first Enlightenment demanded: demonstrate Knowledge with Evidence.

The second must demand: demonstrate Knowledge with Action.

The East Asian industrialisers won because they never accepted that separation.

We can either abandon it or accept permanent decline.

Boeing proves that this is a matter of life or death.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

[i] 1. The Conway, Cohen, and Stanhope Study (1991) One of the most cited studies in this field tracked students who took cognitive psychology courses. They found that:

· Within two years, students had forgotten almost all the specific names and details.

· By the five-year mark, the “retention curve” had bottomed out.

· The only students who retained information were those who moved into “Action” - those who became researchers or practitioners. For those who moved into unrelated management roles, the degree was effectively blanked within 24 months.

2. The Bahrick “Permastore” Research Harry Bahrick’s research into the retention of Spanish and Algebra showed that unless a student reaches a high level of “overlearning”, the “decay” is rapid.

For the average student pushed into university by the “War for Talent” ideology, the vast majority of “Knowledge” acquired is economically useless because it is never converted into action in the same field.

[ii] 1. The Thorndike “Identical Elements” Foundation (1901)

A Victorian idea called Formal Discipline: the belief that the brain is a muscle and studying “hard” subjects like Latin or Geometry makes you generally smarter.

Edward Thorndike refuted this idea over a century ago. He tested thousands of students and found that learning one subject (like Latin) provided zero improvement in unrelated subjects (like English or Logic) unless the two tasks shared “Identical Elements”.

2. The Detterman & Sternberg Studies (1993)

Richard Detterman, a leading researcher in intelligence and transfer, edited a definitive volume titled Transfer on Trial. His conclusion:

“If there is a general conclusion to be drawn from the research on transfer, it is that transfer is remarkable for its absence.”

He found that even when two tasks are quite similar, students often fail to see the connection unless it is explicitly pointed out to them. The idea that a university student will “naturally” take the logic of a physics lab and apply it to a corporate crisis is a consultant-led fantasy.

3. The “Chess Master” Paradox (De Groot / Chase & Simon)

Research into expertise (pioneered by Adriaan de Groot and later Herbert Simon) shows that a Chess Grandmaster’s “talent” is almost entirely domain-specific.

The Experiment: If you show a Grandmaster a chess board from a real game, they can memorize it in seconds. But if you show them a board with pieces placed randomly, their “genius” vanishes—they perform no better than a novice.

The Takeaway: Their “talent” isn’t a portable “super-brain”; it is a massive library of 50,000+ specific patterns (the “rowing”) learned through practice. When you remove the specific domain, the “talent” disappears.

4. The Wason Selection Task (Contextual Logic)

When people are given a logic puzzle in abstract form (using letters and numbers), most fail it. However, when the exact same logical structure is presented in a familiar “real world” context (like checking if people are old enough to drink alcohol), they pass easily.

The Research: This shows that humans don’t think using “portable logic.” We think using “Social Contract Rules” and domain-specific experience. A degree in “Logic” does not make you a logical person; it makes you someone who knows how to pass a Logic exam.

[iii] Arthur Jensen (1998). The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability.²

Jensen argues that training and education affects specificity (skills/knowledge) but has little to no effect on g (general intelligence).

Plomin, R., & Deary, I. J. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings. Molecular Psychiatry

The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood.” This implies any educational component of “nurture” must wash out.

[iv] Data scientist pay has been flat in cash terms £500 a day since 2012. This is a 31% fall inflation adjusted.

[v] Researching this topic, I found ads for “Research director at a Innovative AI lab” paying £475 a day. Experienced London electricians charge the same. Plumbers charge more.

The case for AI-driven mass unemployment is simple.

AI capabilities are advancing exponentially.

2023: GPT-4 passes the bar exam in the 90th percentile.

2025: AI writes the Californian bar exam.

Previous automation waves hit manual labour. This wave hits cognitive work.

The jobs that were supposed to be the safest - lawyers, accountants, management consultants, programmers - are now the most exposed. Modern AI writes legal briefs, diagnoses diseases, codes software at levels exceeding most humans.

Add in vision-equipped robots and many skilled trades are becoming vulnerable.

The economic logic is brutal. Why pay a lawyer $600 per hour when AI drafts the same contract in seconds for pennies? Why employ a team of analysts when Claude processes a thousand financial reports before you wake up?

The market doesn’t consult over redundancies. It eliminates inefficiency, taking human jobs with it.

There’s no historical precedent for this transformation. The Industrial Revolution displaced agricultural workers over generations, but it created factory jobs to replace them.

The AI transition will happen in years, not centuries.

The lazy objection: “Every new technology has made more jobs than it had destroyed”, invites the retort “And those jobs will also be automated months later”. (See Endnote ii for a detailed rebuttal of the standard economic counter-arguments.)

If you cannot explain what makes the new jobs fundamentally different from the old jobs, this objection amounts to nothing.

Combine these factors and the conclusion is inevitable: soon there will be no jobs left that humans can do better than AI.

But this prophecy has a fatal flaw.

We already possess the technology to automate vast swathes of work.

We haven’t done so.

Why not?

Share

The Good News – The Roles that AI Cannot Take

Consider chess.

Computers exceeded humans at chess in 1997. IBM’s Deep Blue defeated world champion Garry Kasparov.

Today, the gap is absurd. Magnus Carlsen’s peak rating was 2882. The leading chess programmes score between 3500 and 3700.

Computers have been superhuman for three decades. And yet the 2024 World Championship broke viewership records.

The London venue sold out in minutes.

Chess tournaments between the world-leading computers? They draw a few thousand viewers. A rounding error in comparison.

The lesson: spectators aren’t coming for raw chess ability. They’re watching human drama. The high personal stakes. The possibility of an embarrassing blunder.

Only humans can supply this.

Why?

Consider Paris Hilton’s DJ career.

Hilton is the highest-paid female DJ in the world, receiving six figures per appearance.

Her critics claim she’s faking it. Her music plays from a mixtape. She just claps along at the front.

They are probably right. But does it matter?

We’ve been able to automate DJing for decades. Forget progress towards AI mixing, a tape recorder could do the job.

Imagine an alternative universe in which clubs replay the greatest nights in clubbing history from tape. Studio 54’s hottest disco night of ‘77. Berghain’s best techno sets.

Instant availability. The highest possible quality. Negligible cost.

But we rejected this fork in the road.

No one pays to hear Paris Hilton mix. They pay to see Paris Hilton DJ.

But why?

Now consider the painter Alexander Rodchenko.

In 1921, Rodchenko exhibited three canvases: one red, one yellow, one blue.

“Pure Red Colour. Pure Blue Colour. Pure Yellow Colour.”

Today, his work sells for millions.

The auction record is $4.5 million.

You could replicate his canvases in minutes. The execution is trivial.

But the value lies elsewhere: in Rodchenko’s intention. His positioning in post-revolutionary Russia.

His declaration that Art was finished: “I affirm: it’s all over. Basic colours. Every plane is a plane.”

The value is not in the artefact. It’s in the human context.

Why does his art have value?

Finally, consider ‘The Vladimir Highway’ painted by Isaac Levitan in 1892.

The painting shows an ordinary dirt path winding through nondescript Russian countryside under an expansive sky.

Why would anyone find deep meaning in that?

Many Russian artists have painted the scene. It was the road that Decembrist rebels followed into Siberia, led in chains, often never to return.

The revolt was the best opportunity for peaceful reform in Russia before the later violent revolution, so the image still has significance for us today.

But, why?

Subscribe now

The Pattern

Four examples. Three domains. One pattern.

In each case, the value doesn’t lie in the artefact itself. It lies in something human that stands behind it.

Carlsen’s moves carry narrative weight. The possibility of decline. His history. His humanity.

A computer move is just a move. But Carlsen’s move is freighted with meaning.

Paris Hilton’s tape is just music. But her performance is a cultural event.

Rodchenko’s canvas is just monochromatic paint. But his painting is a statement.

Levitan’s road is boring. It’s the human history that resonates.

But what is the principle?

Let’s call it “Human Anchoring“.

Some forms of value only exist when a human stands behind it. The artefact is secondary, often irrelevant.

If a machine painted it’s own version of The Vladimir Highway, the artefact would have no more significance than a photocopy.

The reason: machines cannot have human intention. So they cannot participate in human context and they cannot create human meaning.

But why can’t machines create meaning?

The Difference between Words and Acts

Two philosophers - J.L. Austin and John Searle - discovered something important about language.

They found that the significance of words on a page is different from the significance of speaking them.

Take the sentence: “The cat sat on the mat.”

There is a dictionary definition.

This is what the words literally say. A cat. A mat. The cat sitting on it.

Anyone can read this. A computer can parse it. A printer can print it. Simple.

Then there is the act of speech

Context A: Your cat has been paralysed for weeks. You rush into the room and shout: “The cat sat on the mat!”

You’re not describing a cat on a mat. You’re announcing a miracle.

Context B: There are muddy footprints all over the mat. You say, looking at your partner: “The cat sat on the mat”.

You’re not describing. The cat is in the dock.

Same words. Completely different significance.

The principle: words are inert. What matters is what you’re doing with them.

Austin and Searle called this the difference between the sentence (the words on a page) and the speech act (what you do by speaking).

Announcing. Accusing. Promising. Threatening. Celebrating. Commanding.

These are acts, not just information transfer.

Consider: “I’m sorry.”

An AI can generate these words on a screen, with the correct spelling in the appropriate context. They can even voice them with the right emotional tone.

But an AI cannot apologise.

Why not?

Because an apology is not words on a screen: it’s a moral act.

A real apology requires having a persistent identity, acknowledging you did something wrong, feeling regret, and committing to improvement.

An AI has no more moral agency than a photocopier. It has no enduring identity. It cannot feel regret. It cannot commit to anything. When ChatGPT says “I apologise for the error”, it’s simply generating text.

Which Jobs Will Survive?

The jobs that survive won’t be the ones requiring highest skill. They’ll be the ones that require human anchoring.

The key question is not: “Can a machine do this task better?” But: “Do we need a human behind the work?”

That is a question that turns on provenance, not competence.

Chess computers are superhuman. We still watch humans play.

DJs can easily be automated. We pay for a human to clap along.

AI can generate perfect paintings. We don’t want them.

The robot can speak, but it cannot mean.

The Existing Structures of Human Anchoring

Human anchoring isn’t a philosophical theory. Three social mechanisms lock roles to humans permanently.

A Human Must Be Liable

Many current AI processes mandate that there must be a Human In The Loop. Not because humans perform better. But because someone must own the risk.

A surgeon operates on the wrong kidney. The patient sues. The surgeon loses their license. Their career ends.

This knowledge changes behaviour. The surgeon double-checks. Takes precautions.

Now replace the surgeon with AI.

The AI makes the same error. Who do you sue?

The AI has no assets. No license to revoke. No career to destroy. No persistent identity.

You could sue the company that made the AI. But a corporation indemnified against millions of errors behaves differently than a human with personal liability.

When you hire a doctor or lawyer, you’re not just buying their skill. You’re buying their legal vulnerability.

An AI cannot be the responsible party.

The human isn’t there because they’re better. They’re there to own the risk.

Trust Requires Social Embedding

You hire a lawyer for a complex case. You can’t verify their work - that’s why you need them

Why don’t they immediately betray you?

Because they’re embedded in social structures.

Bar association membership. Professional reputation. Partners watching. Malpractice insurance. Career trajectory dependent on referrals.

Betray a client and word spreads quickly. Other lawyers won’t work with you. Judges remember. Your practice dies.

An AI has none of this.

It has no career to protect. No reputation to lose. No professional community to shun it.

Every interaction is fresh. There is no “Remember that AI who betrayed his clients. I hear he’s washed up now.”

When the stakes are high, you need someone who stands to lose if they let you down.

Machines cannot participate in human reputation networks. We need human anchors.

Authority Requires Social Recognition

Courts could use AI to judge cases. The analysis would be more consistent, less capricious, and less biased than many human judges.

But we require human judges. Why?

Because certain acts can only be performed by humans with proper standing.

“I sentence you to 20 years” is not just text. It’s an exercise of state power. Only a human with legal authority can perform this act legitimately.

A machine can process marriage paperwork. But only a human officiant can marry you.

Machines can verify signatures. But only a human notary’s verification has legal standing.

A machine can identify suspects. But only a human can judge the evidence and decide whether to prosecute.

These aren’t technical limitations. They are central to social authority.

Many jobs require all three qualifications.

Richard Hanania writes of the hurdles he must jump to get his quarterly Adderall prescription. On his libertarian reading, government regulations ensure he

“can only have Adderall if a human with certain degrees fills out a form, and another human with different degrees reads it and then gives it to me. The process of paying for all this goes through an insurance company, which creates even more jobs”

But Adderall is an addictive drug of abuse with a lively black market. Its possession is illegal in many countries and heavily controlled in others.

Society places human frictions in the system to block over prescription.

A doctor prescribing controlled substances must be personally liable, socially embedded, and socially recognized. Remove any element and the system fails.

Jobs Resistant to AI Automation

Human anchoring identifies nine domains of work resistant to automation:

1. Human Drama & Narrative Stakes

Audiences value vulnerability. Authentic risk of failure. Emotional investment in human outcomes.

The possibility of human error and triumph creates emotional investment.

2. Celebrity & Branded Presence

Value comes from the specific human identity performing, regardless of technical execution.

Audiences pay to see that person, not for optimal performance.

3. Ritual, Legal & Moral Authority

Society only accepts these acts when performed by a recognized human with proper standing. The words must come from an authorized person to have effect.

A machine cannot marry you. A machine cannot convict you. A machine cannot absolve you of your sins.

4. High-Stakes Trust & Moral Accountability

These roles require reading micro-signals, building trust, taking moral responsibility for outcomes, and being personally liable.

When the stakes are high, we need someone who can be held accountable.

5. Therapeutic & Intimate Care

Trust, empathy, personal accountability, and human connection are essential. Patients require embodied human presence and someone personally liable for care decisions.

You cannot automate empathy. You cannot outsource accountability for human life.

6. Early Development & Transformational Teaching

Role-model presence is essential for human development. Young learners especially require embodied social cues, emotional connection, and moral example.

Children don’t need information. They need role models.

7. Prestige, Status & Luxury Service

Human presence signals status and provides personal recognition. Clients pay a premium for feeling personally attended to by a recognized individual.

The wealthy don’t want efficiency. They want attention from a human.

8. Physical Courage & Dangerous Work

We value human courage, judgment under pressure, and willingness to risk life. The human accepting the risk matters.

These jobs will change as the tools improve, but we will still want a human in charge.

9. Artisan Craft & Human Provenance

Value lies in the human process and intention, not just the output. We pay premiums for “handmade by a specific person.”

A machine could replicate the product. But we pay for human provenance.

For a full list of anchored jobs see endnote 1[i].

The Bad News: The Hourglass Economy

At the start of this essay, I argued that if you want to resist the most pessimistic claims of mass job losses, you need more than good vibes about “new jobs”.

You need something that defines a class of jobs that cannot be lost.

Human anchoring, with its three social manifestations, does that. It picks out a long list of roles whose value depends on a human standing behind them. Those jobs survive even when machines are technically superior.

I don’t see any other argument on the table that is comparably specific[ii].

Most writing from AI optimists gestures at “new jobs” without identifying any reason why those jobs would be safe from the forces that destroyed the old ones.

It points to history and hopes.

But the old paradigm is dead. Unlike previous waves of automation, LLMs start at the top of the value chain and work down. The residual tasks won’t be PhD work. It will be the Amazon warehouse work that robots cannot yet do.

The Social Implications

So let’s take a hard line: assume human-anchored work is the only kind of work that survives.

If so, the economy shifts from making things to making meaning. From output to presence.

This is a check list for survival, not a roadmap for full employment. There aren’t enough butler jobs for 8 billion people.

The economy splits in two:

A Non-Work Economy: Here, the unemployed masses consume cheap, automated goods and services. Machine-made food, AI entertainment, and algorithmic legal services. This is a domain of efficiency, where human presence is too expensive to maintain.

A Prestige Economy: Here, we find a shrinking circle of humans whose labour still holds value because it is anchored in humanity. This is the domain of meaning, where value is derived from provenance, not competence.

The Return of Hierarchy

Notice what dominates the list of surviving jobs: luxury service, prestige work, ritual authority and personal care.

These are intensely hierarchical roles. A sommelier serves the wealthy. A concierge attends to status. A judge wields state authority.

Status is amplified.

Handmade goods become premium luxury items. A Savile Row suit. A handcrafted watch. A Michelin-starred meal. Making things by hand becomes a mark of extreme wealth.

The largest sector of surviving jobs involve caregiving. Nurses, therapists, teachers, social workers, eldercare companions.

This becomes the largest employment sector. Not because caring is automated poorly. Because those with options will refuse automated care.

The Medieval Pattern

Strip away the modern terminology and we see a pre-industrial society.

Lords: The ultra-wealthy commanding luxury services. Personal stylists. Private yacht captains. Concierges attending their needs.

Magistrates & Clerics: Judges. Clergy. Wedding officiants. Ritual authorities whose words bind because of their office.

Servants: Armies of luxury service providers. Maîtres d’. Personal shopping advisors. Executive assistants.

Entertainers: Actors. Musicians. Comedians. Social media influencers. Court jesters now called “content creators”.

Knights: Professional athletes. Competitive gamers. Jousting replaced by football. Warriors performing for spectators.

Guild Artisans: Master craftspeople making luxury goods by hand. Watchmakers. Tailors. Jewellers. Medieval guilds reborn.

Physicians and Apothecaries: Therapists. Nurses. Midwives. The caring professions that cannot be mechanised.

Pedagogues and Tutors: Early years educators. Life coaches. Mentors. Those who mould young minds and souls.

Peasantry: Everyone else. The former middle class, now the automated poor. Subsisting on automated abundance, excluded from the meaning economy.

There is one glaring omission. The middle class.

Medieval society had nobility, clergy, craft guilds and commoners. It had no broad, upwardly mobile middle class.

The Industrial Revolution created a middle class. People who made things. Processed information. Managed systems.

AI eliminates them.

The Uncomfortable Conclusion

The pessimists have the wrong focus. AI won’t eliminate all jobs.

But the story is still grim.

The “AI Revolution” is truly revolutionary.

But it’s a counter-revolution.

Taking us back to a social model we thought we’d escaped.

The future is feudalism.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

[i] 1.Human Drama & Narrative Stakes

Audiences value vulnerability. Authentic risk of failure. Emotional investment in human outcomes.

Professional athletes and competitive gamers. Stage and screen actors. Stand-up comedians. Classical and popular musicians in live performance. Chess grandmasters and esports competitors. Sports referees and umpires. News anchors and war correspondents. Public speakers and motivational figures. Reality TV participants.

2. Celebrity & Branded Presence

Value comes from the specific human identity performing, regardless of technical execution.

DJs and club performers. Social media influencers and content creators. Pop stars and entertainers. Celebrity chefs and cooking show hosts. Branded personality performers like podcast hosts and YouTubers. Fashion models and brand ambassadors. Auction house specialists and art dealers. Personal brand consultants.

3. Ritual, Legal & Moral Authority

Society only accepts these acts when performed by a recognized human with proper standing. The words must come from an authorized person to have effect.

Judges and magistrates. Jury members. Wedding officiants. Funeral directors and grief celebrants. Clergy. Legal witnesses and notaries. Court officials. Police officers with arrest authority. Border guards and immigration officers. Executors of wills.

4. High-Stakes Trust & Moral Accountability

These roles require reading micro-signals, building trust, taking moral responsibility for outcomes, and being personally liable.

Diplomats and ambassadors. Hostage and crisis negotiators. Family law mediators and divorce lawyers. Labour union negotiators. Ombudspeople and complaint resolution specialists. Sales closers in high-value transactions. Real estate negotiators handling major transactions. Conflict resolution specialists. Peace treaty facilitators. Executive search consultants. Investment managers. Surgeons. Doctors.

5. Therapeutic & Intimate Care

Trust, empathy, personal accountability, and human connection are essential. Patients require embodied human presence and someone personally liable for care decisions.

Psychotherapists and counsellors. Clinical psychologists. Hospice and palliative care nurses. Midwives. Paediatricians treating young children. Physiotherapists providing hands-on treatment. Social workers. Addiction counsellors. Grief counsellors. Doulas and birth coaches. Mental health crisis interventionists. Eldercare companions. Disability support workers.

6. Early Development & Transformational Teaching

Role-model presence is essential for human development. Young learners especially require embodied social cues, emotional connection, and moral example.

Nursery and primary school teachers. Special needs educators. Elite sports coaches. Music and arts instructors teaching in person. Mentorship coordinators. Life and career coaches. Religious education teachers. Youth programme directors. Scout leaders and youth group facilitators. University lecturers. Martial arts instructors.

7. Prestige, Status & Luxury Service

Human presence signals status and provides personal recognition. Clients pay a premium for feeling personally attended to by a recognized individual.

Personal shopping advisors in luxury retail. Fine dining maîtres d’ and sommeliers. Luxury hotel concierges. High-end boutique staff. Private banking relationship managers. Luxury real estate agents. Personal stylists. Executive assistants at high levels. Private yacht captains. Luxury travel planners. Private club managers. Art gallery owners and curators.

8. Physical Courage & Dangerous Work

We value human courage, judgment under pressure, and willingness to risk life. The human accepting the risk matters.

Police. Firefighters. Emergency health care. Search and rescue personnel. Bomb disposal experts. Cave rescue specialists. Bodyguards.

9. Artisan Craft & Human Provenance

Value lies in the human process and intention, not just the output. We pay premiums for “handmade by a specific person.”

Michelin-star chefs. Master watchmakers. Bespoke tailors. Artisan cheesemakers and winemakers. Custom furniture makers. Tattoo artists. High-end hairdressers and barbers. Custom jewellers. Craft brewers with signature styles. Perfume “noses”. Musical instrument makers.

[ii] There are seven common arguments from economists that AI will not destroy jobs.

1. The “Reinstatement Effect” (Acemoglu & Restrepo)

The Claim: Automation is a ladder. When machines take over routine tasks, they create surplus that generates new, more complex tasks for humans to move into.

Rebuttal: The Ladder Fallacy

This assumes AI starts at the bottom of task complexity and climbs upward. That was true of industrial automation.

Generative AI started at the top: creativity, mathematics, reasoning, coding.

If AI automates the complex tasks (software architecture, legal analysis), there is no “up” for displaced workers. The “new tasks” created are either too complex for average humans or will be automated by the same AI that created them.

The residual tasks are menial work at the bottom of the complexity ladder, not the top.

This theory has reality upside down.

2. The “O-Ring Theory” (Autor & Kremer)

The Claim: Named after the Challenger disaster component, this theory argues that in complex production processes, output quality depends on the weakest link. Humans remain necessary because they handle out-of-distribution errors better than machines.

In high-stakes environments - law, medicine, nuclear safety, military command - the cost of a catastrophic error is effectively infinite. Therefore, demand for human oversight is structurally permanent.

Rebuttal: This is the Human Anchoring Described in the Essay

This isn’t about humans being better at error-handling. It’s about needing someone with legal personhood who can be held liable.

The surgeon double-checks because they can be sued. This is human anchoring through liability, not superior judgment.

This protects a tiny elite: senior surgeons, pilots, diplomats, generals. These roles would be protected anyway through social recognition requirements.

This describes a small class of highly paid “liability sponges” at the top of the hierarchy. It’s not an argument for mass employment.

3. Polanyi’s Paradox (Tacit Knowledge)

The Claim: “We know more than we can tell.” Humans possess intuition and muscle memory (folding towels, diagnosing illness by feel) that cannot be coded into rules. This makes manual and adaptable work safe from automation.

Rebuttal: Outdated

This relies on an outdated view of AI as rule-based symbolic systems.

Modern AI learns by observation (video pre-training) and practice (reinforcement learning), exactly like humans.

There is no “magic” to tacit knowledge. If a robot can watch 10,000 hours of plumbers on YouTube, it can learn the same intuitions.

The remaining barrier is engineering robots that can physically work under a sink. The constraint is hardware cost, not software impossibility.

4. Model Collapse (Entropy)

The Claim: AI is a “brain in a vat” requiring fresh human-generated data to prevent degradation. Humans are needed as “entropy generators” to prevent AI from feeding on itself.

Rebuttal: Outdated

This assumes AI only learns from static files presented by humans.

Agentic AI and embodied robotic AI learn from reality: writing code and executing it, trading stocks and observing results, manipulating physical objects.

AI generates high-quality synthetic data (AlphaGo playing itself). It doesn’t need human “data farmers”.

AI developers are achieving strong results training on AI-generated synthetic data.

5. Jevons Paradox (Infinite Demand)

The Claim: Making intelligence cheap creates millions of new industries (asteroid mining, personalized VR design) currently impossible due to cost. These generate millions of new jobs.

Rebuttal: The Decoupling Effect

If AI provides the intelligence to solve these problems, why does it need humans to execute solutions?

This again falsely assumes AI climbs the complexity ladder. It descends.

If AI invents the industry, it will also provide the agents to run it.

We will see decoupling of economic activity from labour: infinite tasks performed by infinite software agents.

6. The “Last Mile” Problem (Pareto Principle)

The Claim: Automating the final 10% of tasks (messy edge cases) is prohibitively expensive. Humans will handle exceptions indefinitely.

Rebuttal: Valid but Depressing

This conflates two different “last mile” problems.

Some are genuinely about cost - irregular warehouse tasks where humans remain cheaper than custom robotics.

When AI was expected to climb the value chain, this was encouraging. Now that we know it descends, these gaps exist at the bottom. This protects low-wage work where humans serve as “biological glue”.

Many supposed “last mile” problems are actually human anchoring requirements misidentified as edge cases. A therapist handling complex emotional situations isn’t just “glue” - they’re performing acts requiring human presence for legitimacy.

This guarantees wage suppression. The moment your wage exceeds the cost of sensors and robotics, you’re replaced.

It creates a precariat class serving as “meat servos” to fill gaps in software.

7. Baumol’s Cost Disease

The Claim: As manufactured goods become cheap, spending shifts to “human services” - education, care, arts - making these the new growth sectors.

Rebuttal: Valid but Depressing

This confirms the conclusion of human anchoring analysis. If “human time” is the only scarce resource with value, the economy recentres around the wealthy purchasing the time of the poor.

This isn’t a “creative economy”. It’s a return to pre-industrial domestic service.

Share

Leave a comment

Share

The text version of this podcast is available here

This post is 8,000 words, which is long for a Substack.

But it’s 52 minutes to listen, which is short for a podcast. Available here.

A companion piece examining the ideology of the strategy consultants is available here.

Easter Weekend 2002, Chequers

The pages of a vast legal contract are spread across two long worktables in Tony Blair’s study. He spends the holiday poring over the details, attempting to tame an experiment that is already spinning out of control.

The document is the Metronet Public-Private Partnership for the London Underground.

This wasn’t just a contract. It was an attempt to govern the world of practical endeavour through pure abstraction.

At the centre of Blair’s worldview lay a firm conviction: if you could define the terms of reality with sufficient precision, you could control its mechanics entirely.

In the system that he created, the legal contract would occupy the same place as the Five Year Plan in the USSR. It would be a document so comprehensive, so precisely specified, that reality would have no choice but to comply.

The Metronet contract was certainly titanic in scale. The final version ran to 135 volumes. Over 28,000 pages. 2 million words.

It attempted to specify every bolt, signal upgrade, and station detail - down to a mathematical formula for toilet provision - as a precise legal obligation.

But twenty years later, we can see it for what it was: not a procurement project but a radical experiment in governing through pure abstraction.

It provides the ultimate case study in how educated elites, armed with a theory and severed from practical reality, can seize control of an economy and systematically destroy it.

These events would indict not just the political establishment, but the legal profession, the civil service and Britain’s leading management consultancies.

All of them were shown to have been captured by an ideological fantasy as disconnected from reality as Stalin’s Five Year Plans.

Subscribe now

Blair was not a Politician

Everyone knows the arc of Margaret Thatcher’s career. Frustration and radicalisation in the ‘70s. The experiments that boosted finance and collapsed industry in the ‘80s. The final battles over Europe.

No one understands Blair’s trajectory.

This is because Blair was not a politician. “I was never really in politics,” he said in 2000.[i] “I don’t feel myself a politician even now.”

After leaving office, he created the Tony Blair Institute. Not a political party. Not a think tank. A global strategy consultancy.

He never saw himself as a Prime Minister in the traditional sense. He saw himself as a world-leading management consultant.

His inspiration came not from Marx or Keynes, but from McKinsey. The head of his delivery unit, Michael Barber, was indeed a McKinsey partner.

This is why he remains illegible to the British cultural establishment.

The UK’s educated class is trained in philosophy, history, literature. They are not expected to understand the grubby work of management.

The commentariat looked for a political philosophy. They found nothing. Because they cannot read management theory, they cannot read Blair.

Blair didn’t have a political theory. He had a management theory.

He was the avatar for a worldview promoted by global strategy consultancies in the 1990s. McKinsey. Bain. BCG. He took their slides and turned them into laws, regulations, institutions.

Without this key, his career remains encrypted: what he did, why he did it, and why it ultimately failed.

This essay attempts to decode his story.

Management Revolution

To understand why a Prime Minister came to spend Easter reading 28,000 pages of technical specification, we need to understand the backdrop.

A global management revolution threatened the British establishment in the 1990s.

The arrival of the “Toyota Way” (Lean Production) and early Agile software introduced a terrifying idea: that the person doing the job on the front line knows more than their manager.

This was revolutionary.

First, it dethroned the dominant model of management - Fordism. Toyota replaced Ford as the world’s largest carmaker in 1990. The new system didn’t just work in theory. It won in practice.

Second, it inverted the moral universe. Under Fordism, planning was rational. Improvisation was waste. Under Toyota, rigid planning was waste. Creativity moved to the front line. The old virtues became vices.

Third, it eliminated any justification for the managerial class’s existence. If workers know more than managers, what is management for?

These ideas threatened to shift power within Western organizations.

Under the old system, power sat with the “thinkers” - strategists, planners, managers. The new system sought to eliminate them. They lost their status as corporate heroes and became overhead to be minimised.

Class War

The Toyota-Lean-Agile model was a universal acid for dissolving British class values.

The British establishment relies on the dominance of the Generalist - the Oxford humanities graduate, the barrister, the civil servant.

Its governing principle: the less you know about how an institution actually works, the better placed you are to manage it.

A Permanent Secretary moves from Transport to Health to Defence. His qualification for each role is his ignorance of all of them.

Expertise is suspect. It generates small-picture thinking. The domain of technicians, not leaders.

The motto: “Experts should be on tap; never on top.”

The authority of the thinking classes rested on a Platonic inheritance. Theory always supervenes over practice. Strategy always directs implementation.

Now this system faced a mortal threat.

The Toyota system was inverting the hierarchy.

First, it had inherited East Asia’s Neo-Confucian epistemology. Knowledge comes from action and must drive action. Knowledge that fails to drive action isn’t really knowledge at all.

Second, it operated on the principle of Genchi Genbutsu - “go and see.” You cannot manage a factory from a desk. You must stand on the production line and see for yourself.

Third, it turned British class values upside down. In the Toyota universe, a thinker who does not add value to the front line is defined as Muda - waste.

The middle classes were spiritually demoted.

This was the prospect facing the thinking classes in the early 1990s: first dismissed as “waste”, then cut or - exquisite humiliation - subordinated to a blue-collar worker.

If Toyota’s model had spread, it would have been a mass extinction event for the most powerful class in British society.

If authority flows from technical competence, what happens to the Permanent Secretary who has never run a hospital?

To the strategy consultant who has only seen a factory in photos?

To the barrister directing the Underground with a legal contract?

The Neo-Fordist Counter-Revolution

The Blairite project was part class immune reaction, part Platonic counter-revolution. It rescued the thinking classes by reinventing the economy in their image.

The thinking classes were saved. Their numbers have exploded. Their status has never been higher.

But the British economy was fatally undermined in the process.

Blair’s answer to the Japanese challenge was Neo-Fordism.

Under Old Fordism, the manager controlled the worker with a plan and stopwatch.

Under Neo-Fordism, the manager controlled the worker with a contract and a dashboard

The goal was the same under both systems: the total separation of conception from execution; the total subjugation of the doer to the thinker.

What was Old Fordism?

Henry Ford’s titanic status in the early 20^th century is now a suppressed memory.

A few clues remain. In Brave New World, Ford is worshipped as a god.

But we have forgotten how completely he dominated the imagination of the early 20th century.

One way of seeing 20th-century politics is not as a fight between Communism and Capitalism, but between two versions of Fordism.

The USSR was more influenced by Ford than by Marx[ii]. Its Five Year Plans were an attempt to apply his principles to the entire economy. The Soviets brought thousands of American engineers, architects, industrial and agricultural experts to develop and implement the first plan.

The West, by contrast, confined Fordism to the factory floor. Management could be scientific, but society should remain free.

The main geopolitical disagreement of the 20th century, then, was not whether Ford was right or wrong - but how far his principles should extend: to the factory floor, or to all of life.

Why was Fordism so compelling?

Before the Revolution, Lenin opposed American management models, picking on Taylorism with particular venom.

But once he inherited the Russian economy, his tone changed.

The reason was clear. Four years before the October Revolution, Ford had completed a series of innovations that had increased the productivity of his factories tenfold.

This was exactly the magic promised by “Scientific Socialism”, delivered by an American capitalist.

Ford was an anti-communist.

But his system appealed to something deeper than politics. The Left’s core belief that human life can be perfected through rational intervention. This against the Right’s faith that the universe is fundamentally self-organizing.

Ford seemed to prove that rational planning was infinitely superior to organic growth.

If a capitalist could achieve tenfold output increases by organizing production scientifically, imagine what a Socialist State could achieve by organizing all of society scientifically.

There were other, darker resonances. In 1911, Taylor wrote:

“In our scheme, we do not ask for the initiative of our men. We do not want any initiative. All we want of them is to obey the orders we issue, do what we say, and do it quick.”

Here was a technical justification for soviet authoritarianism. In the Fordist state, the Party would do the thinking. The masses would do the executing.

Global Fordism

Ford was happy to export his revolution. He hosted Soviets and Nazis alike.

By the 1970s, Ford’s methods had spread across the globe. They were the operating system of the Communist Bloc. In the West, they powered the German miracle at Volkswagen, the French recovery at Renault, and the Italian boom at Fiat.

Only one country was left behind: Britain.

Alone among the great powers, no British car manufacturer ever successfully implemented the system. Austin couldn’t even implement the conveyor belts of 1913.

The reason? The British class system.

In the late 1980s, the MIT Study Group toured the world’s car factories examining their industrial practices.

Their report on Britain could not have been more damning:

The performance [of Ford’s UK car factory] seemed to deteriorate steadily. None of the English managers shared a conception of management that was compatible with mass production. The idea of a manufacturing career beginning on the shop floor with hands on management was unattractive to the middle-class Englishmen who emerged from an educational system that steered them towards the civil service, the law, and other types of high-level administration. They didn’t want to get involved with the nitty-gritty of running anything. Rather, they wanted to delegate operational details, just as they did with Empire.

In addition, British managers were persuaded that Englishmen, with a long experience of craft working, would not tolerate Ford’s methods. For a short time perhaps – under the whip hand of the American managers – but certainly not over the long term.

Consequently, managing the shop floor soon became, by default, the responsibility of the shop steward, who typically was a skilled craftsman highly suspicious of mass production. These front-line managers lobbied to retain traditional skills and piece-rate payment systems, which made no sense in continuous-flow production, where every worker’s effort is paced by that of every other worker.

If there is one reason why Britain fell behind France, Germany, and Italy in the late 20th century, this is it.

If the country had brought itself to implement Ford’s mass production system, it would not have joined the European Community in 1973. The hope that European success would somehow rub off was betrayed by the deep cultural causes of its failures.

Fordism worked in the USA because Ford employed immigrants who barely spoke English and had no other option. It succeeded in war-torn Continental Europe because resistance had been beaten out of the population.

It failed in Britain because the country had ‘won the war’ and the British working class - supported by their middle-class managers - felt they deserved a better fate than Ford’s immigrant workers.

Share

The Fatal Flaw: The Separation of Head and Hand

Ford built his system with a singular goal: to take a recent immigrant off the street who spoke no English, give him a couple of hours of training, and make him productive on the same day.

These workers were “meat servos” - biological prosthetics grafted to his machines.

They were not paid to think. On the contrary, they were compensated for the pain of not thinking.

The work was so demeaning that initial turnover was catastrophic. Ford had to double the pay to retain his workers.

But here was the irony.

Ford had two identities.

The first Ford – the early Ford - was a tinkerer. He built the Quadricycle in a shed behind his home. He created his world-changing system through hands-on experiments, with engaged front-line workers playing a full part.

But that all ended once the system was complete.

The second Ford - the Ford of scale - was the inverse of the first. Now, the “thinkers” (engineers, managers) designed cars in distant offices. The “doers” (front-line workers) executed the process on the line, strictly forbidden to think for themselves.

The Toyota Inversion

If Fordism – in its second form – was the industrial embodiment of the top-down, command and control worldview, the system that emerged in post-war Japan was its radical inversion.

In the rubble of 1950s Japan, Toyota faced a crisis. No cash. No space for massive warehouses. A tiny domestic market.

They could not afford a system that worked at massive scale.

Taiichi Ohno, the father of the Toyota Production System, realized that to survive, he had to tap into the only free resource he had: the intelligence of his workers.

While Ford treated workers as unreliable components, Ohno saw them as problem solvers. He returned to the model of the early Ford and applied it systematically.

In a Ford factory, the cardinal sin was stopping the line. The line was God. If a worker saw a defect, he let it pass. Stopping the line was like severing an artery.

Ohno inverted this.

He installed a cord above every station – the Andon Cord.

If a worker spotted a problem – a bolt that didn’t fit, a weird vibration, a safety risk – he pulled the cord. The entire line stopped.

This transformed the sociology of the factory.

The power to stop production now rested with the lowest-paid person on the floor. When the cord was pulled, a manager had to come running - not to shout orders, but to ask: “How can I help you solve this?”

It was an affirmation that the person on the front line knew reality better than the person in the office.

The Generalist’s Nightmare

This system was terrifying to the British middle class.

They had rejected Ford when they encountered his system in the factories. But once the model spread to office work, they found it most congenial.

Fordism had its “Officers” (management) in the mess hall and its “Privates” (workers) in the trenches.

They never had to speak.

The Officer didn’t need to know how to fire the gun. He just needed to know how to order the troops over the top.

Toyota’s model destroyed these comfortable distinctions.

In the Toyota view, the manager who cannot strip down the machine, who cannot see the problem on the floor, is “waste”.

Question: if the workers can solve their own problems, then what is the humanities graduate for?

Answer: Nothing at all.

This was not a minor adjustment to the labour market. It was an existential threat to the most powerful class in British society.

And they were not going to accept it quietly.

They did not reject the new model through conscious conspiracy. They rejected it because it rejected everything they most valued.

To someone trained in Fordist thinking, letting a team self-organise is negligence. Trust must be regulated out of the system because trust is a control failure. Tacit knowledge must be eliminated because it cannot be audited.

The Toyota model had no place for everything the thinking classes most values: rules, processes, documentation, oversight, hierarchy.

It had to be destroyed. Not because they understood all the implications, but because they couldn’t function within it.

The Revolt of the Control Functions

To understand how Blair saved the Generalist, we must introduce a new concept: the Control Function.

In a Fordist system, you cannot trust a worker. You must police his labour with specialised overseers.

You need schedulers to tell him what to do. Inspectors to check if he did it right. Auditors to count materials. Middle managers to monitor them all.

Then come the specialists working at one or two orders of detachment: Strategy, Compliance, Finance, Legal, R&D, Architecture, HR, Communications, Procurement and Operations.

These are the Fordist Control Functions: the Head that polices the Hand.

In the Toyota universe, the optimal number of people employed in these roles is zero. They are Muda. They add cost but no direct value at the front line.

A front line worker should be skilled enough to build it right and check his own work. The inspectors should be fired.

In other words, the Toyota project is a project to eliminate all Control Functions.

This is where the terror lay.

The British Middle Class is society’s Control Function.

The Civil Service, the quangos, the NGOs, the consultants – a vast army of social schedulers and inspectors.

Just as it looked as though the generalist humanities graduate without front line experience was finished, Blair stepped forward to save them.

He undertook a series of legal and regulatory reforms that rendered it impossible to operate the Toyota system. Together, they re-codified “professionalism” in extreme Neo-Fordist form.

This vision was further deepened during 14 years of continuity-Blairite governance under the Conservatives.

The Control Function was not just saved. It did not just become dominant.

It was now legally mandated.

The Conservative Puzzle

Future historians will puzzle over the behaviour of the Conservative Party between 2010 and 2024.

Pause and review the big picture.

In the early 20th century, the USSR implemented Fordism as a societal operating system. Throughout that century, Fordism spread across global industry.

Then in the 1990s, three disasters for Fordism.

First, the Communist operating system crashed; decisively.

Second, Toyota became the world’s largest car company by rejecting Fordism.

Third, the software industry became the primary driver of global growth by adopting the “Toyota Model” - Agile and bottom-up organization.

But this was the exact moment Tony Blair chose to impose a Neo-Fordist regime across the whole of British society.

If anyone in Britain should have recognized the danger, it was the Conservative Party.

They had three reasons to resist.

First: They had just watched the Metronet disaster unfold.

Second: Blair’s system violated the core principle of Thatcher and Joseph.

After watching Labour’s failed top-down industrial strategy, they had concluded that creativity and innovation could not be delivered through a government mandate. It could only be unleashed by freeing the front line.

This was also the essence of the “Toyota Way”.

Third: Tory ideology celebrates self-organization. It is built on rejecting rational planning.

Yet in practice, the Conservatives accepted the central premise of the Blair years: that if you pull a lever in Whitehall, reality changes in a hospital in Leeds; that the reality of that hospital can be reduced to a one-page dashboard.

Instead of devolving power to the front line, stripping out middle management, and trusting professional judgment, they doubled down on the “Audit Society”.

They kept the targets. They kept the compliance frameworks. They kept the armies of consultants.

And they multiplied the Control Functions.

The Law as Control Function

The Ford and Toyota models are like Kuhnian paradigms.

You are inside one or the other. There is no halfway house.

The virtues of one are the vices of the other, until you switch paradigms entirely and your value system is inverted.

Professionalism and control are defined completely differently under the two systems.

To the Fordist Mind, professionalism means the rule of theory.

Up-front preparation is paramount: you must define the entire solution before you start work.

Extensive documentation follows: if it isn’t written down, it doesn’t exist.

Fixed processes are sacred: deviating from the plan is an error.

Extensive audits complete the picture: trust is mistaken, checking by a third party essential.

To the Toyota Mind, professionalism means the rule of practical experience.

Adaptation is key: you learn by doing, and since the plan will be wrong, you must change it as you go.

Working output is all that matters: a working train or running code is the only true documentation.

Empowerment follows naturally: the person doing the work decides the process.

Judgement by results concludes it: if the output succeeds, audit is irrelevant.

Of all professions, lawyers are most resistant to the Toyota paradigm.

Blair was a barrister. To a barrister, the world of work is not made of atoms, girders or workers. It is made of rules and clauses. Ultimately of words.

Law is the ultimate severance of Head from Hand. The Lawyer sits in a clean room, writing alternate drafts of reality. In a barrister’s world, outcomes are never determined by physical craft, but by semantic precision.

Blair’s project remade the British economy in the image of Law. Starting with the public sector, before proceeding to private.

The effects are clearly visible in UK per capita productivity figures. Public sector productivity has been flat since Blair’s election. Private sector, flat since 2008.

This was Fordism 2.0. Replacing the stopwatch with the legal contract.

A huge victory for the thinking classes. It took the messy reality of running trains, hospitals, schools - which requires technical expertise - and abstracted it into a game of textual definitions, which requires generalist expertise.

The vision: if they could write enough specifications, enough KPIs, enough penalty clauses, they could force the physical world to comply.

The aspiration: if the Map was only detailed enough, the Territory would fade away entirely.

The Metronet Insanity

To understand Blair’s approach in practice, we need a concrete example.

If there is a single government initiative that exemplifies the pathologies of the thinking class, it is Metronet - the Public-Private Partnership to renovate the London Underground.

It was a unique fusion of the worst features of communism and capitalism. A form of central planning, red in tooth and claw.

The story begins in 1997. The Tube was decrepit. Its signalling equipment supposedly held together by dust. New Labour’s goal: renovate it to pristine condition using private capital.

Earlier failures had destroyed confidence in Underground management. The Jubilee Line extension of the late ‘90s overran its budget by 70%.

A Millennium Eve fiasco left the UK’s entire political and media elite stranded for hours on a cold platform on their way to the Dome. The rotten cherry on top.

The government didn’t trust the managers (incompetent) or the workers (recalcitrant). So they decided to run the entire system via a proxy.

For three decades, activity on the Underground would be driven by a web of rules devised at the outset.

The idea was pure Neo-Fordism: set the “initial conditions” correctly - write the perfect rulebook - and the machine would run itself for thirty years without government getting its hands dirty again.

The complexity was unprecedented. Drawing up these rules cost £500 million.

Half a billion pounds spent on words before a single rail was laid.

The Hallucination of Precision

The final contract ran to 135 volumes. 28,000 pages. 2 million words.

In an attempt to lift Tube maintenance out of the grubby world of mechanics and into the clean air of Plato’s realm, they turned a physical service into a mathematical proof.

Contractor performance was calculated using 3,000 separate mathematical formulae. The Evening Standard reported that formulae like ERT=dx3.78x would determine if trains were on time.

Cleanliness was not measured by looking at the station. It was calculated via a page-long formula based on “abatement service points” and “facilities thresholds,” expressed to two decimal places.

This was theory-worship in its purest form.

The belief: if they could just describe “Value” in enough granularity, private companies would be forced to deliver it.

This descended into farce. Drafters noted that without a specific legal clause, the contract’s incentives would force private companies to delete driver’s toilets to save money.

They were forced to write a clause modelling toilet provision mathematically.

This came to be known as the “Bog Standard”.

The Map vs. The Territory

While Tony Blair sat at Chequers reading 28,000 pages, the reality of Underground maintenance remained stubbornly physical.

Formulae or not, the real challenge was coordinating skilled manual labour in a tightly constrained environment, hundreds of feet below London’s streets.

The contrast between legal fiction and brute reality was absolute.

The Lawyer’s Projection was a world of “ambience scores”, “service points” and “risk transfer matrices”.

The Worker’s Reality was manhandling 20-meter steel rails weighing over a tonne. Welding magnesium and iron filings at 2600°C to a tolerance of 0.5mm in the dark.

The contract assumed reality could be governed by algebra. But steel weighs 52 kilos per meter regardless.

The men worked productively for three hours on a good night - the brutal reality of the time window between service ending and service starting.

No matter the content of Blair’s legal agreements. No matter how many thousands of mathematical formulae they contained.

They eventually resulted in the same workers tramping down the same escalators, carrying the same tools, to the same tube lines, to do the same work, in the same cramped environment.

No lawyer, management consultant or mathematician could improve their lot one jot.

Gosplan on the Thames

In their hubris, the British establishment had recreated Gosplan.

The Soviet planning agency famously struggled to set targets for factories.

When they set targets for “rolled metal” by weight, factories produced only the thickest, heaviest girders. Smaller metal items disappeared.

When they switched to targets by quantity, factories produced millions of uselessly thin needles. Girders could not be found.

Metronet faced this exact problem.

By codifying value as rigid metrics, they created perverse incentives. Companies chased the formula rather than the outcome.

The symmetry was not accidental.

Fordism 1.0: Control via Stopwatch - inspired Gosplan’s Five Year Plans.

Fordism 2.0: Control via Contract - inspired Metronet’s 30-year plan.

Both systems shared the same foundational delusion: specify reality in enough detail upfront, and you can govern the physical world without touching it.

The Soviets used production quotas and central directives.

Blair used legal contracts and performance metrics.

The mechanism changed, but the Platonic fantasy remained the same.

The Parasite Class

The financial engineering behind the scheme was the final insult.

The government wanted to keep the debt off the balance sheet, so they paid private companies to borrow the money at higher rates than the government could get itself.

To get the private sector to agree, the government guaranteed 95% of the loans.

Notionally, the private sector had “taken the risk”. In practice, the public sector had agreed to pay if something went wrong.

It was a casino where the House paid you to gamble and also covered your losses.

When the costs inevitably exploded - because the contractual Map did not match the Territory - the financiers simply walked away.

On July 18th, 2007, Metronet collapsed.

It had burned through billions. The LSE estimated that between £5 billion and £7.5 billion had been incinerated to deliver a service “overall no different from when we began”.

The goal of the PPP deal was to subordinate the “untrusted” blue-collar worker to the “trusted” knowledge worker.

But Neo-Fordism put its trust in the wrong people.

The “smartest guys in the room” - the consultants, the lawyers, the financiers - turned out to be the least productive people in the entire system.

They achieved parasitic value extraction in its Ideal Form. They walked away with hundreds of millions in fees as reward for constructing a paper labyrinth that destroyed billions in public wealth.

The Generalists were saved.

The trains were still late.

But the destruction of the British economy was just beginning.

The Pattern Established

Metronet was not an anomaly. It was the prototype for the programme of organisational change pursued by both major parties over a quarter of a century.

Toyota’s system threatened the core values of the thinking classes. It threatened their existence in the private market.

They used state power to fight back.

If Neo-Fordism could not compete with Toyota’s system, that system could be regulated out of existence.

From 1997 on, the state enacted a programme that embedded the Neo-Fordist model into every corner of the British economy.

This was not done through direct nationalization or explicit command.

It was done through a web of legal mandates that rendered the Toyota model unlawful.

The Death of a Bank: A Case Study (1997–2020)

To understand how this programme destroyed British productivity, we don’t need national statistics.

We just need to look at one institution from the inside.

Call it Albion Bank.

In 1990, it was a respectable commercial lender with 10,000 employees.

This is the story of how Neo-Fordism conquered the institution. How Head was severed from Hand. How productivity collapsed.

1990: Late Fordism

The bank’s technology consists of one mainframe computer the size of a room.

Development and maintenance fall to a hierarchical team with rigid processes. Changes are slow and bureaucratic.

The lending team is similarly rigid. Men who only recently abandoned their bowler hats, following a rulebook written in the 1950s.

Layers of middle managers do little but filter and direct information.

The bank is safe but stagnant.

1990s: The Era of the “Skunkworks”

Then, a minor revolution.

The “Toyota Way” reaches the UK.

First response: middle management is “delayered” from six tiers to three.

The bank recruits young software developers in emerging technologies - desktop software and “client-server.”

They work in a new and informal way. Tiny, tight-knit teams, almost exclusively male, sitting next to the traders and lending teams.

Unlike the mainframe programmers, they don’t write documentation. They write code.

If a trader needs a new risk tool, he shouts across the desk at the lead developer. The developer writes a script. They test it. It goes live that afternoon.

This is Genchi Genbutsu in software. The feedback loop is instant. The person writing the code understands the business purpose because they can see the user in front of them.

Similarly, in the branches, delayering has empowered the manager. He visits customers, builds direct relationships.

Perhaps he started as a teller at 16. When a local factory needs a loan, he drives to the site, walks the floor, shakes the owner’s hand. He trusts his eyes, not the spreadsheet.

Productivity is extremely high.

The future seems clear: the new generation of managers will be experts, promoted from the front line.

In 1997, two teams of five hard-working developers could service both the trading and lending teams.

Phase 1: The Regulatory Wedge (1998-2003)

The counter-revolution begins.

Three legal earthquakes hit the boardroom between 1999 and 2002.

The Turnbull Guidance (1999): This mandated that directors must conduct an annual review of the group’s “internal controls”. This birthed the internal audit industry overnight.

Because tacit knowledge (expertise in a developer’s head) cannot be audited, it had to be eradicated and replaced with explicit process documentation.

The result: permanent friction that illuminates nothing.

The Financial Services and Markets Act (2000): Before 2000, if a bank made a mistake, the entity was fined. The new Approved Persons Regime made senior managers personally liable for breaches.

Sarbanes-Oxley (2002): For banks with US operations, this was the death blow for Toyota-style coding. SOX auditors demanded “Segregation of Duties”. The person who wrote the code could not be the person who deployed the code or supported it in production.

Terror in the Boardroom

Senior management is terrified. The “skunkworks” is no longer an asset. It is a criminal liability.

They commission a review by a management consultancy - Accenture, KPMG, or Deloitte. The consultants warn the Board: “Informal processes are non-compliant. You are exposed to personal risk.”

The bank adopts PRINCE2 - a project management methodology designed for massive defence procurement, applied to every three-line code change.

Managers insist on specifications and test plans for everything. The developer is no longer allowed to talk to the traders. The “DevOps” loop has been legally severed.

Now, the trader must talk to a Business Analyst who writes a 30-page “Business Requirement Document”, which is given to a Project Manager who gives it to the developer.

The bank brings in graduate trainees to write the docs. Team leaders to manage the trainees. A massive HR team to manage compliance.

In commercial lending, loan officers are banned from visiting clients - Compliance warns of “corruption risk”. Only specialist “Relationship Managers” (who can’t make decisions) can visit.

By 2003, sixty people deliver the same output as ten people in 1997.

Phase 2: The Great Separation (2004-2008)

The first crisis hits: falling productivity starts to bite.

Senior management does not see this as “too much Fordism” or “too much regulation”.

They see it as “rising staffing costs”.

They bring in the consultants a second time.

The management consultants see the London software teams as massive overhead.

The Push to Outsource

This isn’t just wage arbitrage.

Two new pieces of legislation made employing technical staff in London problematic.

IR35 and The Conduct of Employment Agencies Regulations (2003): This attacked the “Contractor” market. The highly effective “mercenary” developers who built the systems in the ‘90s became tax risks. HR demanded they be fired or converted to permanent staff with attendant organizational bloat.

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (2007): While aimed at construction, its “Duty of Care” principles terrified the bank. If a system failed and caused harm - cutting off a vulnerable customer - a senior manager could face prison.

The Reaction: Distancing the Risk

The board realizes that outsourced execution is outsourced liability.

If a developer in London breaks the system, it’s an internal compliance breach.

If a developer in Bangalore breaks the system, it’s a “Vendor Service Level Agreement” dispute.

They decide to outsource execution..

This turns the notional separation of Head and Hand into geographical separation.

The Head (London): The “thinkers”. Business Analysts, Project Managers, Architects. Their job: write the contract (the specifications).

The Hand (Bangalore): The “doers”. Developers and Testers. Their job: execute the contract.

The “Toyota Way” has been inverted. The optimal number of front line workers in the UK is now zero.

At the same time, the number of people employed in Neo-Fordist Control Functions explodes.

Metronet Recreated

Just like the Tube contract, the bank assumes that if the “spec” is detailed enough, the “coding” will be perfect.

It fails.

The practical experience of the UK front line cannot be exported. Their tacit knowledge doesn’t survive the journey. Most of it is lost in transit.

The London team writes specifications. The India team misunderstands them. The code comes back broken.

London blames India. India blames the spec.

To fix this, the bank hires more middle managers in London to “manage the contract interfaces.”

By 2008, 150 people are doing the work that ten people did in 1997.

Quality has fallen sharply.

Phase 3: The Demographic and Regulatory Trap (2008-2016)

By 2010, the bank is drowning.

The 2008 Financial Crisis should have been a wake-up call that the “Map” (financial models and regulatory models) was not the “Territory” (real world risk).

Instead, the state concludes that the Map wasn’t complex enough.

Two colossal pieces of legislation seal the tomb of the Toyota model.

The Regulatory Supernova (The Turner Review & Twin Peaks)

Following the crash, the “Light Touch” era ends. The FSA splits into the PRA (Prudential Regulation Authority) and the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority).

The mechanism: “Intrusive Supervision.” The regulator no longer just checks outcomes. They check culture.

The effect: The “Risk Function” is granted absolute veto power over the “Business Function.” A commercial lender cannot approve a loan unless “Risk” agrees. Since “Risk” is risk averse, the easiest answer is “We need more information”.

The Equality Act (2010)

The final act of the Blair/Brown era, passed just before they left office. It consolidated discrimination law but introduced the Public Sector Equality Duty. While technically for the public sector, the bank treats it as a mandate.

The mechanism: Legal risk for organizations that cannot demonstrate “proportional representation” at senior levels.

The effect: A demographic straitjacket.

Gender Targets (2016)

Theresa May’s government made gender diversity targets mandatory for large companies. Voluntary “best practice” became an enforceable requirement.

The mechanism: Companies must report gender pay gaps. Boards face intense pressure to show “progress” on diversity metrics.

The effect: The straitjacket tightens. Senior management positions become subject to explicit quotas.

The Structural Impossibility

The “Hand” of the bank – the people actually doing the work on the front line - has now been made structurally unpromotable.

The Coders are in Bangalore. They cannot become London managers.

The Architects and Project Managers in London are overwhelmingly male, a legacy of the “hacker” culture of the 90s.

The Commercial Lenders are men who spend their lives on construction sites.

These groups do not fit the Board’s new demographic targets.

So, who does the bank promote to meet its diversity quotas?

It promotes the only group left in London that is gender-balanced and university-educated: Control Function managers.

The HR Business Partners. The Compliance Officers. The General Counsels.

The last traces of the 90s model are wiped away.

The deputy head of Legal is passed over for Head of Legal. The lead Architect is passed over for Head of Change Management.

Instead: the Head of Digital Banking has never written a line of code. A Chief Risk Officer is appointed who has never made a commercial loan.

The unpromotables begin to drift away, retire, retrain. What’s the point? They’ve grown sick of being called “male, pale and stale”.

Somehow, knowing how something works has become a badge of shame. Ignorance, a status symbol.

The Result: Paralysis

The Control Functions explode in size as organizational priorities shift. Compliance, Regulatory, Diversity & Inclusion, Environmental, Social and Governance become the fastest-growing departments.

The definition of Muda - their efforts contribute nothing to the front line.

Change slows to a crawl.

The software built in the highly productive late 1990s is now falling obsolete, unsupportable. Suppliers no longer provide security updates, exposing the bank to cyber risk.

£1 billion of software urgently needs to be rebuilt. It’s painfully clear the Indian resources cannot do this.

Checkmate.

By 2017, 300 people are doing work that ten people did in 1997.

2017: The Zombie Bank

By 2017, the transformation is complete.

Headcount: Up 500% from 1997.

Output: The bank releases fewer software features than it did in 1997. Loan approval time has expanded 300%.

Productivity: Dead.

Quality: Abysmal.

Worker empowerment: Long forgotten.

David Graeber coined the concept of the ‘Bullshit Job’. Albion Bank exemplifies the ‘Bullshit Organisation’.

The London office is now a ghost town haunted by “thinkers” who occasionally exchange PowerPoint files: HR strategies, mission statements, design standards, terms of reference … anything but practical action.

If a developer in India spots a bug - reality asserting itself - he cannot fix it. He must raise a ticket, which goes to a London contract manager, who asks a business analyst from another team in Delhi, who checks the specification.

Genchi Genbutsu is impossible.

You cannot “Go and See” the problem. The problem is 5,000 miles away. Compliance forbids you from speaking to that person anyway.

The Kicker

The IT meltdown of 2020 completes the irony.

When the bank tries to migrate its accounts, the system crashes. Customers are locked out for weeks.

The “Smartest Guys in the Room” - the ex-McKinsey generalists on the Board - stare at their dashboards in panic.

They are all green.

The Compliance Reports are all green.

Management consultants just rated the bank’s control processes A++.

The Map says the bank is fine.

But in the basement, the last surviving “cowboy” from 1997 - who wasn’t fired because he is the only one who knows COBOL - is trying to fix a million lines of code he didn’t write.

Four hundred project managers simultaneously Slack him for status updates.

The triumphant generalists hounded competence from the organization.

They built a bank that was perfectly compliant, perfectly diverse, and perfectly incapable of functioning.

The Safety Objection

The obvious objection: Wasn’t the expansion of compliance necessary? What about Enron, Lehman Brothers, RBS?

This confuses safety theatre with safety.

The hypertrophy of regulation has not made us safer. Every compliance dashboard was green when disaster struck in 2008. RBS passed every audit. Lehman Brothers was fully compliant until the day it collapsed.

Critics point to Grenfell and demand more oversight.

But Grenfell didn’t happen under libertarian deregulation. It happened in a sector already drowning in inspectors, safety ratings, compliance forms, and sub-contractors.

The bureaucracy was there. It achieved nothing.

The response: double the dose of poison that killed the patient. The new Building Safety Regulator hasn’t made buildings safer. It has stopped them being built.

In London today, “risk management” has achieved perfect safety through total paralysis. Activity has ceased. This is the terminal stage of an Obsessive-Compulsive disorder.

We didn’t eliminate risk. We created an expensive system for generating excuses and distributing blame.

The divergence is visible in the data. The United States faced the same scandals. It passed Sarbanes-Oxley. Its regulatory burden expanded.

But America retained the Toyota ethos in its technology sector. Google, Amazon, Facebook - these companies kept small teams, rapid iteration, front-line decision-making. American productivity growth continued.[iii]

Britain went further. We used compliance as a weapon against the Toyota model itself. We regulated rapid iteration out of existence. We mandated separation of conception from execution. We turned every three-line code change into a compliance exercise.

The result: neither safety nor productivity. British banks still failed. British productivity flatlined.

We developed a form of societal OCD. Like the man who cannot leave his house until every book is perfectly aligned, we have an obsessive compulsion to check and re-check until activity ceases to be viable.

We have paid an enormous price for a meagre illusion of control.

What Then Was Blairism?

We can now answer the question posed at the beginning of this essay.

Blairism was not a political philosophy. It was a management theory. A counter-revolutionary hybrid of Ford and Plato.

It served three purposes.

First: it rescued the Fordist-Platonic conception of professionalism from a fatal challenge.

Second: it saved the British professional class - Blair’s prime constituency - from obsolescence.

Third: it provided a modern, corporate mechanism for leftism’s fundamental tenet: that the chaotic reality of human life can be tamed, optimized, and perfected by a superior, central intelligence.

Confronted with a system that valued front-line competence over strategic planning, Britain chose counter-revolution.

It did not adapt. It did not learn to manage from the front line.

Instead, it used state power to make the new model impossible to implement.

The new model is now the old model. A system that values just one skill: the ability to write detailed text. Coincidentally, on the model of a legal contract.

Blair created his own version of Neo-Fordism. Control through contracts rather than stopwatches. The forced separation of thinking from doing via regulation.

The result: the UK is not a capitalist economy.

Nor a socialist one.

It’s a Bureaucratic-Legalist Theocracy.

The Great Replay

This story should sound familiar.

It is a replay of the MIT narrative from decades earlier.

Then, the British middle class rejected Industrial Fordism because it required them to “get involved with the nitty-gritty”. They viewed the factory floor with disdain. They preferred to “delegate operational details”.

The cost was catastrophic. The loss of Britain’s international status. The stagnation and decline of the late 20th century.

Now we are repeating that mistake.

Beyond destroying productivity in existing companies, we are cutting ourselves off from the economic future.

The Toyota model - rapid iteration, front-line decision-making, continuous adaptation - is central to how Silicon Valley operates.

By making this model obsolescent, we have severed ourselves from the software economy and the AI revolution it has spawned.

This time, the major European nations have also opted for communal suicide.

But there is a final, darker irony awaiting those who engineered this.

The generalist class spent thirty years building a world of pure text. Contracts. Compliance reports. Emails. They thought this made them safe from the “dirty” work of the Hand.

They made a fatal error. Text is the natural domain of AI.

The plumber is safe. The welder is safe.

It is the compliance officer, the junior lawyer, and the strategy consultant who are about to be swept away.

Neo-Fordist, Neo-Platonist

At the heart of the Blairite programme lies an epistemological counter-reformation: the resurrection of Platonism.

Plato believed the physical world was merely a shadow cast by the really real world of Forms, of Ideas, of Abstractions - a realm where the Idea of a chair possessed more reality than any chair you might sit on.

Blair applied this ancient theology to the British economy.

To the Blairite mind, the “reality” of a hospital is not the patient experience. That is messy, physical, anecdotal.

The “reality” is the Ideal Form of Waiting List Data. The Idea of the Equity Impact Assessment. The abstracta of the spending forecast, the page-long mathematical formula that defines “ward cleanliness” to two decimal places.

If The Data says the hospital is performing, the hospital is performing.

Even when the patients are dying in the corridors.

Blair built a world in which only the Map is real.

The Costs

This project succeeded in its objectives.

The thinking classes were saved. The Control Function - compliance officers, project managers, legal advisors, HR professionals became the most powerful class in the British economy.

But the costs are severe.

Productivity growth in the public sector has been flat since 1997. In the private sector, flat since 2008. The gap between British productivity and American productivity has widened steadily. This is the explosion of Muda visible at the macro level.

The separation of Head from Hand, conception from execution, has created organizations that are perfectly compliant and perfectly incapable.

The Future

“Albion Bank” is not an outlier. It is a template.

We are condemned to live in the world Tony Blair conjured into being one Easter at Chequers.

A country of 28,000-page contracts and crumbling infrastructure.

A country where the “Hand” has been severed, demoralized, regulated into silence. If not exported entirely.

In the boardrooms of Whitehall and the City, HR specialists recently promoted to COO positions stare at their dashboards.

Green. All green.

ESG targets met. DEI targets exceeded.

Compliance at 100%.

The Map says everything is fine.

But outside, the lights are going out.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

The story of Metronet is largely gleaned from Christian Wolmar’s excellent book Down the Tube.

For a positive account of how we should respond to these challenges, click here.

A companion piece looking at the the ideology of the strategy consultants in detail. Available here.

[i] BBC2 television interview broadcast on 30 January 2000

[ii] For a full account of Ford’s global impact, read Stefan Link’s Forging Global Fordism.

[iii] Boeing is the US equivalent of Albion Bank. For decades, Boeing HQ was in Seattle, smelling the jet fuel. Engineers ran the company. If a door plug failed, the CEO could drive to the hangar and look at it. In 2001, Boeing moved its HQ to Chicago - intentionally separating the “Head” (Strategy/Finance) from the “Hand” (Engineering/Manufacturing). The “Head” spent 20 years optimizing share buybacks and financial abstractions while the “Hand” was squeezed. The result wasn’t just inefficiency; it was doors falling off planes in mid-air.

Two uneasy students would sit in his lodgings each week, nursing cups of tea and a Hobnob. He would confront us with bizarre scenarios: a teleportation system with a broken destructor ray, a packed tram descending a hill toward certain disaster.

Each week brought new variations, new impossible choices.

Our task: to inspect our “moral intuitions” and develop a system that resolved the puzzles to his satisfaction.

The truth? We struggled.

We were in our late teens. That was one reason.

We had little life experience. Any wisdom we brought to that room had been borrowed from the library.

But that was only part of it.

As I listened to my tutorial partners work through the problems, a pattern emerged. Faced with moral complexity, we always reached for the same solution: W.W.H.D.

Ask “What Would Hitler Do?” and reverse the answer. This was our method: Satan worship, inverted.

As the weeks wore on, it became clear that we didn’t have moral intuitions of our own. We had a mnemonic.

A shortcut that worked well. Until it didn’t.

Hitler expressed views on a broad range of subjects, but on many others he remained troublingly silent. Whenever philosophical inquiry strayed beyond his documented interests, the room fell into uneasy silence.

Without Adolf as a guide, we were lost. We lacked the resources to navigate on our own.

Looking back, I see that this was not a personal failing. Those tutorials were a microcosm. We were recapitulating deep flaws in the post-war mentality.

Because since WWII, ethical judgements across the West have been driven by negation. We ceased to pilot towards a vision of the Good and began to steer away from evil.

This negative theology eliminates nuance. The tragic geography of human affairs has been flattened to a rudimentary map with just one label: “Not This”.

South is always marked upon our moral charts. Never North.

For decades, they seemed to serve their purpose. Now they don’t.

The signs are everywhere.

The AfD rises in Germany - the homeland of “Never Again”. In the UK, parties plan to leave the ECHR - the supposed bedrock of the post-war moral system.

Most starkly, Israel - the state founded as a refuge from Hitler’s genocide - faces accusations of genocide from the institutions built to prevent it. Some Israeli cabinet ministers advocate for eliminationist policies the post-WWII order was supposed to make unthinkable.

Whether the accusations are justified or not is irrelevant; either way, the ironies are crushing.

The post-war period is not fading. It is violently correcting.

Flaws that were baked into the system from the start - imperceptible at first - have begun to tear the structure apart.

For the eighty years we navigated by the Hitler Heuristic, our moral muscles atrophied.

Now that system is failing.

We are like cosmonauts, fallen to the Central Asian steppe. Our journey has left us weak as infants, barely able to raise a hand against terrestrial gravity.

But while the cosmonauts are met by Kazakh rescuers - lifted, cradled, taught to walk a second time - no one is coming to rescue us.

There is no one to help us but ourselves.

Subscribe now

Negation Rules

“Never again”

The post-war era was animated by negation.

It gave birth to a shadow morality – not the pursuit of virtue, but the avoidance of vice.

We learned well what we were against, but forgot what we were for.

Restraining Orders

This spirit of negation did not remain abstract. It was codified into law as a trauma reponse.

The West issued a series of dramatic proclamations: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions.

These were intended as restraining orders upon the State.

Not blueprints for the good society. Defensive fortifications against a bad one.

This was the beginning of the true Prohibition Era.

The State shall not torture. Shall not imprison without trial. Shall not separate families. Shall not persecute on grounds of race or religion.

But the courts came to see these mandates as a beginning, not an end.

The Living Instrument

Why is the post-war system failing?

Metal fatigue.

The flaws were always there, inclusions latent in the material. They were imperceptible at first. But as we placed ever-heavier loads upon the framework, the micro-fractures propagated.

The system is being tested to destruction by a massive expansion of flawed principles.

The engine is the doctrine of the “Living Instrument”: the judicial theory that rights are not fixed by the text of a treaty, but evolve to reflect “modern social conditions”.

Consider Article 8 of the ECHR: the “Right to Respect for Private and Family Life”.

It was drafted in the shadow of the death camps. The goal was specific: to ensure that a totalitarian state could never again tear families apart. It was created to neutralise a new Gestapo[i].

Yet over 80 years, the legal establishment has expanded these principles to absurd extremes.

This growth has exposed three fatal defects that had been latent in the system from the start.

Fracture I: Rights are Negative

The first defect is the negative status of rights.

In classical ethics, a “right” was the B-side of the record - the negative impression left by our moral duties.

The philosopher Simone Weil identified the problem before WWII ended. “The notion of obligations comes before that of rights”, she wrote. Rights are “subordinate and relative” to obligations. She proposed a Declaration of Duties in place of a Declaration of Rights.

Rights are passive by nature. They can only block action (’You cannot silence me’, ‘You cannot deport me’).

Rebuilding our civilization upon a foundation of rights has created a car with a thousand brakes and no engine. We have robust tools that stop the state from doing evil, but have lost the ability to motivate it to do good.

Article 8 is now routinely deployed to prevent the deportation of foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes - rapists, drug dealers, repeat offenders - simply because they have a partner or child in the country[ii].

The logic is entirely negative. The court asks one question: Will deportation violate the individual’s right to family life?

Courts never ask the active, balancing questions: What are the individual’s duties to the community? Does the state have a duty to protect its citizens from a known predator?

Our culture of negation nullifies such obligations. The “right” of the criminal trumps any duty to society.

The active half of ethics - virtue, duty, sacrifice - has been deleted from the system.

Fracture II: The Absolutist Trap

The second defect lies in the status of rights as “trump cards”.

In the original ECHR text, rights were qualified. They were to be balanced against the needs of the community - public order, health, morals. But under the “Living Instrument” doctrine, this balancing has been dismantled.

The legal establishment has adopted the philosophy of Ronald Dworkin, who argued that rights are “trumps” held by the individual against the state.

His logic is compelling. If a right can be outweighed by policy, it is not a right at all.

But the trade-off is the essence of mature moral reasoning. We balance privacy against security; individual liberties against the well-being of the community.

Balancing is forbidden by Dworkin’s regime. It doesn’t matter how compelling the counter-arguments are, how high the cost or how damaging the outcome might be. “Human rights” win out. Full stop.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin called this unreason “monism” - the childish belief that all good things can coexist without conflict. A mature society, he argued, must face up to the “tragic necessity” of choice.

The essence of moral thinking consists in balancing competing virtues and choosing between their undesirable side effects.

By wrapping government in the absolute language of rights, we have shielded ourselves from reality. We constructed an alternative universe of moral binaries. Rights implemented? Or not?

This system is brittle because absolute rights cannot flex to new realities.

Take the 1951 Refugee Convention.

It was written in a world where international travel was difficult, expensive and rare. The absolute “right to asylum” was a check written on the tacit assumption that few would ever reach the bank to cash it.

Under current implementation, there are billions of people with potential claims. Every woman in Afghanistan. Every dissident in China. Its entire Uyghur population. Every LGBTQ+ individual in the Islamic world. Together with the whole populations of Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Eritrea.

In the early decades, the rights regime depended upon the physical difficulty of moving to the West. The system appeared to function - not because its principles were sound, but because impediments ensured they were never tested.

Then friction disappeared.

Cheap air travel, ubiquitous smartphone GPS, and sophisticated industrial-scale smuggling networks removed the physical barriers.

Suddenly, the bank was accessible to everyone.

Rights say: “Come if you are persecuted”. Reality says: “We can’t accept you all”.

In a sensible system, the rights would bend to this reality.

But absolute rights cannot flex.

Fracture III: The End of Democracy

The third defect is the voiding of democracy.

The essence of democracy is resolution of disagreement through debate. But the rights regime siphons issues out of the political sphere and sequesters them in the legal realm.

Migration, deportation, family structure, public order - these are no longer questions of policy to be decided by voters, but matters of judicial fiat.

The voter’s most fundamental questions - who belongs, who stays, what is owed - are stolen from the ballot box.

As rights are absolute, they are immune to compromise and must be impervious to the popular will.

The public demands: “Stop the boats”. The state pleads impotence: “Our hands are tied”. The electorate concludes that democracy is a sham.

We have constructed a political system that is legally obliged to ignore the expressed will of its citizens.

We have built an Empire of Rights that has devoured politics and is now eating itself. Political issues that would once have been resolved within the system can only be resolved by its destruction.

We have created a feedback loop that produces rage and alienation, fuelling every political force dedicated to the overthrow of the rights regime.

Mass migration drives the rise of the AfD in Germany[iii], Reform in the UK, and many similar movements across Europe. These parties promise what the state can no longer deliver: borders, security and a preference for citizens over strangers.

These parties are not rising despite the rights regime; they are rising because of it.

The state shaped by negative ethics exists to limit itself, rather than to protect the community it serves.

Once the state ceases to feel obligations to the citizen, the citizen ceases to feel obligations to the state.

The result: a pervasive crisis of legitimacy.

The Small Boats

From the elite perspective, the small boats are a minor irritant. The numbers are small. The fiscal cost is just a rounding error. Why all the fuss?

But the public sees something else.

The boats prove that our politicians are not decision-makers. They are petitioners. They must ask the courts for permission to govern.

The Rwanda plan was not rejected by voters. It was vetoed by judges.

Sunak promised to “stop the boats”. He had a majority. He had the legislation drafted. He held the highest office. But he did not have the authority.

That belonged to the ECHR[iv].

The small boats have exposed a constitutional lie.

Power no longer resides in Parliament. It has been usurped by the courts. Our politicians are petitioners; the public are petitioners twice over. And our judges take pride in ignoring them both.

The small boats are not a migration crisis. They are a constitutional crisis.

They prove that Human Rights Law is a hard ceiling on democracy. Parliamentary sovereignty is a fiction. The “will of the people” is subordinate to the “rights of the individual” - interpreted by judges who answer to no one.

This is why the boats enrage. Not the numbers crossing. The revelation of a silent revolution.

The Collapse of Negative Morality

For eighty years, the West founded its identity upon negations. We steered away from evil, not towards the good.

We built a moral system out of prohibitions, not duties.

We relied upon the minimal Hitler Heuristic.

This negative morality created a state that could block, forbid, and constrain - but never inspire or demand sacrifice.

It created absolute rights that could not bend to reality. It stole vital political questions from democratic debate and handed them to judges.

The system appeared to work because physical barriers prevented people from testing it. When cheap flights and smartphones removed those barriers, its incoherence became obvious.

Now the memory of WWII is fading. A moral system based upon its negation loses its binding force.

We allowed our positive morality to atrophy to nothing. Now its meagre substitute is dying.

The Lost World

This failure forces us to ask: what did political morality look like before it was reduced to prohibitions?

Before 1945, the Western state possessed a moral purpose. It was not a neutral referee presiding over atomised individuals. It cultivated a particular form of life.

The state asked positive questions: Does this policy strengthen the nation? Does it foster family formation? Does it maintain social cohesion?

These were not Rights questions (”Must we forbid this?“) but questions about the Common Good (”Should we encourage this?“).

Trade-offs were accepted. Security sometimes trumped liberty. Order sometimes trumped mercy. Justice sometimes had to bend to preserve the community.

This was not considered to be corruption of principles, but the normal conduct of politics.

The legislature held moral and political authority. If the public concluded that a policy threatened the Common Good, Parliament could change it.

The courts interpreted law; they did not write it.

Rights existed, but they were not absolute. They were permissions granted by the community, contingent on duties fulfilled. A criminal forfeited certain rights. An immigrant had to earn them. Rights and obligations were more or less synchronised.

This framework was no utopia. It had its own pathologies and was no golden age.

But it was coherent. The state could act. Citizens directed policy through the ballot box. Social issues were resolved via the political process.

Then came Hitler.

And we concluded that all of it - the moral state, the Common Good, valuing community alongside the individual - was implicated in his crimes.

A Judicial Putsch

The Empire of Rights that emerged is paradoxical.

We are told that rights are eternal truths with absolute status; this places them beyond the reach of mere voters.

Yet simultaneously, we are told that they are a “living instrument” that must evolve with the times; this places them under the control of judges.

Asserting these two principles at the same time amounts to a judicial putsch. It creates a system where the law is too immutable to be touched by the people, but malleable enough to be rewritten by the courts.

This is a bait and switch. The judicial regime voids the democratic process by authority of the fundamental text, while also claiming the right to rewrite that text at will.

This is not neutrality. It is a constitutional coup camouflaged in the language of rights.

The Way Forward

Looking backward does not uncover any easy path forward. On the contrary, it reveals formidable obstacles to the politics of the Common Good.

The strongest objection deserves a full hearing:

The “Common Good” is dead. Any attempt to resurrect it would trigger civil war.

We no longer inhabit the homogeneous societies of 1945. Our culture has fractured along irreconcilable lines. We cannot agree on what a “woman” is. Whether “British culture” exists. Whether borders are legitimate at all.

These are not policy disagreements. They are theological divisions.

In this context, the “Common Good” can only be a weapon. It is the preferences of the majority disguised as moral virtue, to be targeted at minorities.

When the state acts for the “good of the majority”, the minority are inevitably victimised.

The sterilisation of the “unfit”, the internment of “enemy aliens”, the crushing of unpopular religious sects: they were all were justified in the name of the Common Good.

Without the check of absolute rights, majorities do not negotiate with minorities; they consume them.

Rights exist to protect the weak from the strong. Remove Dworkin’s “trump cards” and minorities will face the tyranny of the 51%.

The rights regime may be incoherent and paralytic. But that paralysis prevents something far worse: one faction’s weaponisation of the state against the other.

Your “moral vacuum” is really a demilitarized zone - the only thing standing between the status quo and bloodshed.

Who decides this Common Good? The losing faction will not accept subordination gracefully.

If you dismantle the neutral framework and impose a “moral state”, you will force a winner-takes-all death match.

When diverse societies attempt to enforce a single moral vision they start down the road to totalitarianism. The only stable equilibrium is procedural liberalism - where the state polices boundaries but takes no position on the ultimate good.

The rights regime is a truce. Imperfect, yes. But the alternative is not moral renewal. It is mutually assured destruction.

This is a powerful objection. It captures genuine fears about majoritarianism and the risk of cultural war.

But it fails on five counts.

I. The Premise is False

The tacit assumption: we can retain the status quo. We cannot.

The rights regime is already collapsing - not because of populist campaigning, but because reality has smashed it to pieces.

The small boats. The ECHR showdown. The mathematical impossibility of universal asylum. The constant drip of violent attacks by migrants across Europe.

The public sees that every solution is blocked by the courts.

At the same time, our only ethical system - the minimal “Hitler Heuristic” - is dying through generational change.

This dual collapse means the post-war armistice period is ending.

Stasis is not an option. Politics is back, whether we like it or not.

II. Keep the Democratic Faith

Returning to a politics of the Common Good is not a surrender to mob rule. It is a return to a system of political rather than legal restraint.

In the British tradition, our freedoms were not written down but woven into common law and social conventions.

The objection asks: ‘What stops the majority from doing evil in the absence of absolute rights?’

The answer is the same as it always was: ‘Culture and conscience.’

If we believe our neighbours to be so morally bankrupt that only a distant panel of judges keeps them from slaughtering one another, then democracy is already dead.

III. The Neutrality is Fake

The objection claims we must maintain the “moral vacuum” to avoid imposing one faction’s vision upon another.

But that space has already been filled.

The place where the Common Good once stood is occupied by a specific political vision of technocratic progressivism: a radical project supported by a small fraction of the population.

Our courts constantly make political judgements. When they block deportations, they prioritise the global over the national. When they mandate diversity policies, they prioritise group identity over the individual. When they seek to redefine biological categories, they prioritise fringe academic theory over biological reality.

This is not political neutrality. It imposes the values of a tiny - but powerful - social faction under the cover of legal procedure.

The feared “winner-takes-all” victory has already happened.

The discontents are not demanding we replace neutrality with partisanship. They are demanding that we stop pretending the current system is neutral and return politics to its home in the democratic arena.

IV. Politics as Safety Valve

The objection’s biggest error is in arguing that the rights regime prevents conflict.

The opposite is true. It amplifies conflicts by blocking their resolution.

Democracy serves two purposes. The first is familiar: the selection of optimal policies through debate and voting. The second is older and more fundamental: it defuses social tensions through non-violent means.

The technocratic mind fixates on the first. It sees politics as an optimisation problem - find the best answer and implement it.

From this point of view, removing contentious questions from democratic debate is a positive. Why let the mob vote on complex issues, when experts can decide?

But this misses a basic function of politics: the avoidance of war. It provides an alternative to violence, channelling conflict into speeches, votes and peaceful transitions of power. The losing side can accept defeat because they know they can try again next time.

Remove these channels and that pressure has nowhere to go.

When the public votes to reduce immigration and the courts block it, the demand doesn’t evaporate. When voters reject identity politics and it returns through judicial mandate, opposition doesn’t disappear. It intensifies.

The rights regime hasn’t prevented extremism. It has guaranteed it.

A citizenry that cannot change policy through voting concludes that voting is pointless.

The “paralysis” the critics defend does not keep us safe. It is pressurising a sealed container. An explosion is inevitable.

V. Paralysis is Suicide

The objection also assumes the world is static. It is not.

A state that cannot act will not survive contact with reality.

Mass migration continues. Growth stagnates. Debt compounds. Birth rates collapse.

China and Russia face no such paralysis. They act.

A negated state that cannot deport, cannot build, cannot grow, cannot defend its borders will be destroyed by its competitors.

The critics argue we must accept paralysis to avoid causing offense. This is choosing extinction over difficult conversations.

The Return to Earth

The era of negation is over.

For eighty years, the West floated in a world without moral gravity, filling the void with the Hitler Heuristic.

We believed we could do away with politics - borders, trade-offs, culture – by handing the issues off to judges.

That time is over.

The “demilitarized zone” of the rights regime is not holding back chaos; it is creating it.

By refusing to define a Common Good, we have surrendered the public square to an alliance between the progressive and technocratic fringes that is imposing its own conception.

A judicial putsch has voided our democracy.

But generational change is driving cultural change. Adolf Hitler is - at last - losing his place at the centre of our culture.

This is the fundamental dynamic of the Boomerdämmerung: negation negated. Politics is back, whether we like it or not. The moral vacuum must be filled.

The juridical regime will be overthrown - by bad actors if not by good. If responsible leaders do not seize authority, power will be seized by demagogues with no such hesitations.

We cannot choose the status quo; it is already gone.

We are cosmonauts, returned to the steppe. The muscle atrophy is real. The gravity hurts. There are no rescuers coming.

But we must stand up and walk.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

[i] The ECHR was drafted in the late 1940s by the Council of Europe, influenced by the British lawyer Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. The primary motivation was to prevent the recurrence of totalitarianism (Nazism and Stalinism).

The Article 8 protection of “private life” and “correspondence” was a direct response to the secret police tactics of opening mail, wiretapping, and arbitrary searches. The protection of “family life” was a response to the Nazi practice of separating families in concentration camps or through forced labour.

[ii] Between 2008 and 2021, approximately 11% of First-tier Tribunal appeals against deportation succeeded on human rights grounds. In the period 2015/16 to 2020/21, roughly 1,000 foreign criminals successfully used ECHR grounds to block deportation. This represents about 3% of the total number of foreign offenders removed (31,400) in the same period.

While the percentage is low (3-11%), hundreds of convicted criminals (including those with sentences between 1-4 years, which can include sexual assault, grievous bodily harm, and drug dealing) successfully avoid deportation annually based on Article 8 rights. We do not have figures for the numbers of deportations that did not proceed because legal challenges were anticipated.

[iii] The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has seen a surge in support, particularly in the former East Germany. In September 2024 state elections, the AfD placed first in Thuringia (32.8%) and a close second in Saxony (30.6%). Studies consistently show a strong correlation between migration inflows (particularly the 2015 crisis) and AfD support. Immigration is cited as the top concern for AfD voters.

[iv] Supreme Court Ruling (AAA v SSHD): In November 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled the Rwanda policy unlawful. Crucially, they cited not just the ECHR but multiple international treaties (UN Refugee Convention, CAT, ICCPR) and domestic statutes.

“Safety of Rwanda” Act: The government’s response was to pass legislation declaring Rwanda safe, explicitly ordering courts to disregard key sections of the Human Rights Act and international law - a move described by legal scholars as “constitutionally extraordinary” and a potential trigger for a constitutional crisis.

Rule 39: The initial Rwanda flight in June 2022 was blocked by a “Rule 39” interim measure from the ECtHR in Strasbourg, issued by a single judge without a full hearing.

It argued that they are crippled by a 2,500-year-old Platonic prejudice that theory outranks practice.

But this diagnosis - read in isolation - is a perfect example of the disease it condemns: it’s just another theoretical treatise.

It is epistêmê - thinking about the problem - detached from the technê of a solution.

The scholar-general Wang Yangming argued that knowledge without action is not knowledge at all. A diagnosis cannot be separated from a cure.

This essay aims to fill this omission. Here, we put the theory aside and set out a concrete, practical programme to address the diagnosis.

Subscribe now

The Diagnosis

To repeat that diagnosis: Europe inherited a fatal prejudice from ancient Greece. Theory beats practice. Contemplation trumps creation. Those who work with their minds outrank those who work with their hands.

Plato turned the class structure of ancient Greece into a metaphysical system. Cicero refracted it through the power structures of ancient Rome and turned it into a curriculum for elites.

Christianity preserved it. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions - all passed these values on intact.

The result: British, Continental European and Anglosphere elite culture is optimised for thinking. So much so that it has become a displacement activity for doing.

If this diagnosis is correct, we should not see the same symptoms in civilizations located outside the Greek zone of influence.

We don’t.

China flirted with its own version of Platonism in the 12th century when Zhu Xi developed his theory of perfect principles versus imperfect matter. But three centuries later, the scholar-general Wang Yangming decisively refuted it. His doctrine of the Unity of Knowledge and Action - that to truly know is to do - became one of East Asia’s most influential ideas.

Wang’s pragmatism later spread to Japan, where it resonated with the samurai class. Centuries later, the same principles reappeared almost verbatim in the teachings of Taiichi Ohno, the production genius who made Toyota the world’s biggest car company:

Knowledge comes from action and is of value insofar as it drives more action.

From Toyota, these values migrated to Silicon Valley, helping to kickstart its software industry.

The world economy is now divided into two philosophical blocs.

Not Adam Smith versus Karl Marx, this time. But Plato versus Wang Yangming.

America occupies an uneasy middle position. Its most successful industries - software, hardware - operate on Neo-Confucian principles. But much of the rest - the public sector, legacy institutions - remains steadfastly Platonic in nature.

Globally, the outcome is stark. The ‘marketplace of civilizations’ has delivered a verdict.

The Neo-Confucian sectors have shown remarkable vitality - enabling Toyota, Samsung, and Silicon Valley’s dominance, while coastal China lifted 800 million from poverty.

The Platonic sectors - Continental Europe, Britain, and much of the Anglosphere - have known stagnation, failure and decline.

A History of Declinism

This diagnosis isn’t new.

In Britain, critics from both political extremes have traced Britain’s decline to the same source for 60 years: an elite educated in classics and abstraction that is contemptuous of trade and making.

The “Declinist” thesis has been argued by Marxists and free-marketeers, by left-wing historians and Thatcherite reformers.

And there have been real attempts at change. Margaret Thatcher attempted to reform the economy. Tony Blair tried to ‘modernise the state’. Each generation speaks of breaking the gentleman-amateur culture, rewarding doers over talkers, valuing engineering as much as essays.

And yet here we are. Still in decline.

Why did Declinism fail? Why did decades of diagnostics generate no cure? Why did reform movements from opposite ends of politics – who, against all odds, agreed on the disease - fail to save the patient?

The answer matters. The goal of this Substack is to contribute practical solutions. If we don’t understand why past reforms failed, the next wave will also fail.

This essay examines the Declinist tradition: its twin birth on the Marxist left and the free-market right. The diagnoses they developed. The solutions they proposed. And what we can learn from their failure to arrest - let alone reverse - Britain’s slide.

The Declinists were right about the disease. They were catastrophically wrong about the cure.

The Rise of Marxism-Thatcherism

In principle, Marxism and Thatcherism are two radically opposed ideologies. But by the 1970s, they’d converged on a common diagnosis of Britain’s problems.

The country had surrendered its industrial leadership, lost its technological edge and turned inwards.

Both radical left and right blamed the same culprit: the British governing class.

Both flanks had lost faith in the ‘mandarin class’ that had steered Britain since World War II. A rolling series of economic crises - stop-go cycles, sterling crises, the IMF bailout - had proved those in charge were unfit to govern a modern nation.

Two ideologies. One diagnosis. A shared failure to effect reform.

The Marxist Diagnosis

This project began on the left. In 1962, Perry Anderson took over the New Left Review with a mission to diagnose Britain’s decline. He partnered with Tom Nairn, a Scottish writer who shared Anderson’s alienation with English intellectual culture.

Both were internal exiles. Anderson, raised abroad, had returned to Oxford in the 1950s and found its ‘stiff parochialism’ suffocating. Nairn viewed English culture from a Scottish periphery, alienated from the centre of English power.

Their diagnosis was radical. Britain suffered from a ‘blanket of complacency’ that smothered dynamism and innovation. The governing class - educated in classics, contemptuous of industry - had failed to modernise.

Britain needed shock therapy.

The answer: import European Marxist theory and jolt the nation awake.

Anderson and Nairn’s critique of British institutions was thoroughly Marxist. The country had failed to throw off feudalism because revolution had come to the UK too soon. Britain never experienced France’s clean break - the Year Zero that swept away the old order.

The aristocracy had merged with industrial capital to form a peculiar hybrid elite. It valued farming and finance over manufacturing. It sent its sons to public schools that trained them in Latin and Greek, not engineering or economics. It treated industry as vulgar and commerce as beneath a gentleman.

The result: an industrial revolution led by outsiders - Scottish engineers, Welsh ironmasters, Midlands tinkerers - while the elite watched from the margins. When those outsiders’ children were absorbed into the elite through public schools and Oxbridge, they learned to despise the source of their families’ wealth.

Britain’s decline wasn’t an economic accident. It was cultural suicide and a direct product of its class system.

The Problem’s Not Feudalism

The Marxist diagnosis was seductive. Britain appeared to be ruled by complacent aristocrats with anachronistic values. The monarchy acted as a capstone holding the failed structure in place.

But this analysis had causation backwards.

The aristocracy wasn’t the disease. It was a symptom. Blaming Britain’s ‘feudal remnants’ for its decline was like blaming a hangover for a night of boozing.

If any institution blocked British progress, it wasn’t the monarchy. When Oxford and Cambridge rejected the Scientific Revolution, the Crown sponsored The Royal Society.

The universities were the true blockers of progress. Oxford and Cambridge - ancient, prestigious, intellectually dominant – had taught that practical work was beneath educated men for centuries.

If the British elite had contempt for science and industry, it was the universities that were the transmission vector.

Each new generation of the British governing class was taught Plato’s contempt for ‘base mechanic arts’ and to respect Cicero’s ‘liberal arts’ (literally: studies for men liberated from work).

The aristocracy certainly embodied ancient Greek values – like Socrates, they rejected every craft except farming and warfare. But they didn’t invent these values. They absorbed them from the same churches, schools, and colleges that shaped the rest of elite culture.

Neither is the character of the civil service a ‘feudal hangover’, as the Marxists claimed. The modern British civil service was born from the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan Report. This report, which ended the system of patronage, explicitly modelled its new ‘meritocratic’ open competitive examination system on the Chinese ‘Keju’ examination system.

Oxford played the villain once again. Trevelyan selected Benjamin Jowett, the Master of Balliol College, Oxford, to design the examination scheme. Jowett hijacked the practical Chinese system and bent it into a Platonic examination focused on Classics.

The ‘feudal remnants’ weren’t the cause of decline. They reflected a deeper prejudice that is woven into British culture at every level: that theory beats practice, that thinking outranks doing, that proximity to power correlates with distance from reality.

The Marxists had identified the disease: our elites are educated to despise the activities that create wealth.

But they’d misdiagnosed its origins. The problem wasn’t feudalism. It was Platonic culture embedded in both the educational system and the civil service and reproduced across generations.

This misdiagnosis doomed their cures to failure.

The Thatcherite Analysis

The right-wing Declinist critique also came from outsiders.

Martin Wiener was an American cultural historian observing English elite culture from afar. His work might have remained an academic curiosity if Thatcherite politicians hadn’t seized on it as ammo.

But the intellectual leader of right-wing Declinism was Corelli Barnett. A freelance military historian who’d worked in intelligence and public relations, he applied a strategic lens to Britain’s economic performance. His verdict was damning.

Wiener’s diagnosis echoes the thesis of this essay’s companion piece: ‘England was the world’s first great industrial nation, yet the English have never been comfortable with industrialism’. A ‘pervasive middle- and upper-class frame of mind hostile to industrialism’ had taken root.

Both Wiener and Barnett traced this culture to elite education. Wiener diagnosed an ‘anti-industrial spirit’ that infected even successful manufacturers - their sons learned at public schools that their fathers’ work was vulgar. Engineers’ children became gentlemen farmers.

Barnett’s analysis cut deeper. The ‘Arnoldian public school’ - with its ‘high-minded emphasis on religion and the classics’ - was designed to create a ‘non-technological intelligentsia and governing elite’.

The results were catastrophic. Barnett’s Audit of War catalogued the damage. A ‘shameful lack of technical schools and colleges’. Britain’s reliance on the ‘practical man’ who only learned on the job, contrasted with the ‘regiments of highly trained, superbly educated engineers found in America and Germany’. The fragmentation of British industry into small, scattered, often family-run companies meant that they couldn’t compete at scale.

But Barnett added a right-wing twist of his own. The 1945 Attlee government’s decision to create a comprehensive welfare state had diverted finite resources from industrial investment to social consumption.

Britain had chosen to distribute the proceeds of past industrial success as welfare, rather than invest in future competitiveness. This had sealed Britain’s post-war decline.

The Thatcherites and Marxists had arrived at the same diagnosis from opposite directions: Britain’s elite was educated to despise the source of national wealth. Both identified the public schools and Oxbridge as transmission mechanisms for this cultural poison.

But their cures would prove equally ineffective.

The Declinist Cure

The Declinist project was built by outsiders from the political fringes.

The Marxists: a Scot and an Anglo-Irishman alienated by English philosophy – attributed the problem to feudal remnants.

The Thatcherites: an American cultural historian and a military historian alienated by English economic performance – correctly attributed it to the culture of education.

The common perception: Britain had turned away from practical science and technology for cultural reasons.

But here’s the shared failure: this was theory critiquing theory in order to fix practice.

None of these writers had direct industrial experience. They’d never made anything, never run a factory, never managed a production line. Yet they presumed to prescribe what Henry Ford and Taiichi Ohno had learned through practice: how best to organize people to deliver value.

Their writing shows no awareness of the rich intellectual tradition of these practitioners. The ‘practical men’ Barnett identified as insufficient had built systems, refined processes, and solved problems through iteration and experience. They’d developed sophisticated knowledge about how production actually works.

But the Declinists, trapped in their own theoretical frameworks, never doubted their ability to lecture specialists on how to do their jobs.

Declinist Attempts at Reform

We have seen the diagnoses, what happened when their cures were attempted?

Wilson: Burned by White Heat

Harold Wilson made the first attempt to reverse British decline by turning towards science and technology.

Wilson’s prescription: a ‘new Britain’ to be ‘forged in the white heat of .. technological revolution.’ His solution was centralised economic planning. Top-down plans would shape bottom-up reality.

His government created two bodies:

The Department of Economic Affairs (DEA): an abstract planning entity tasked with drawing up a National Plan to promote growth.

The Ministry of Technology (Mintech): a top-down body designed to push the swift adoption of new technology by industry.

But Wilson’s revolution died immediately.

The new Department of Economic Affairs was tasked with long-term growth and planning. But the established Treasury retained control over short-term spending, taxation, and the pound’s value.

This left two competing centres of economic power. The DEA wanted to expand and invest: go.

The Treasury, facing a currency crisis, needed to cut spending and slow the economy: stop.

But in any conflict between an abstract planning department and the one holding the nation’s wallet, the wallet wins every time.

The Treasury’s deflationary policies, designed to defend sterling’s prestige, undermined the DEA’s expansionary goals. Wilson refused devaluation - the practical tool that would have given industrial policy room to breathe - because Labour feared being tagged as ‘the party of devaluation’.

Mintech’s Collapse

The Ministry of Technology was based on a simple idea: government could ‘pick winners’ and force industries to modernise. In practice, this meant spending vast sums propping up uncompetitive ‘lame duck’ industries.

The ministry became associated with massively expensive, high-prestige projects. Concorde, the supersonic jet, was its ultimate symbol: technically impressive, commercially catastrophic.

Wilson’s top-down approach couldn’t solve the deep problems of British industry - poor management, adversarial labour relations, an unwillingness to innovate.

A government department couldn’t just order a private company to become more efficient or creative.

When devaluation finally came in 1967 - forced by markets, not ministers - it was too late. The ‘white heat’ had cooled. The DEA was abolished in 1969. Mintech was merged to death in 1970.

Wilson had diagnosed the problem correctly. But his solution was pure Platonism: theory directing practice, plans preceding action, an unmodernised state telling industry how to modernise.

Wilson failed for the same reason all Platonic interventions fail: theory couldn’t adapt when reality pushed back.

Barnett’s Answer

But what of Barnett’s prescription?

Barnett’s recommendations are sometimes painful to read. Britain’s reliance on the ‘practical man’ - who lacked the formal technical education of his German and American counterparts - was supposedly Britain’s core problem.

His solution was a Platonic one, anticipating Tony Blair: elevate the practical man through classroom instruction by learned theorists. More education. More abstraction. More theory.

Barnett wanted to make Britain more German. Import their education system. Import their industrial strategy.

While he correctly identified that the German Mittelstand was run by formally educated engineers rather than classics-educated amateurs, his solution was fundamentally Platonic: simply replace one form of classroom theory (Classics) with another (engineering).

Barnett and Wiener’s books nonetheless became required reading for the Thatcher cabinet. They provided the intellectual justification for the Thatcherite revolution: attacking anti-enterprise culture, redirecting resources away from the welfare state.

Barnett believed that Britain needed to shed its ‘romanticising humanism’ and adopt the ‘hard of mind and hard of will’ ethos he associated with 18th-century empire builders and 19th-century Germany.

This meant a cultural shift where engineers and entrepreneurs ranked higher than civil servants, lawyers, or academics. Where industrial success was seen as patriotic, not vulgar. Where ‘ruthless’ national efficiency replaced disastrous idealism.

Barnett saw the education system as the primary cause of industrial failure. His solution: scrap the ‘academic’ bias and rebuild to serve an industrial economy.

Elevate technical education. Massive state investment in technical colleges and vocational training to create a German-style system for the ‘unbookish many’.

End ‘romantic’ humanism. Stop focusing on ‘useless’ academic subjects like classics. Start producing the engineers, technicians, and skilled managers the country actually needed.

A Fatal Flaw

Barnett was right to attack the humanist values education inherited from Cicero - the idea that exposure to classical literature improves character. He was right to stress technical education’s value versus abstracta.

But his diagnosis contained a fatal contradiction.

The dominance of the ‘practical man’ - characterised by learning-by-doing - was supposedly the source of Britain’s problems. His solution: elevate the practical man through classroom instruction.

This was exactly backwards.

Successful industries were created by his practical men. Henry Ford built his first cars in a shed behind his house. He developed 20th-century industrial practice through thousands of experiments on the factory floor.

Taiichi Ohno fits the ‘practical man’ description even better. He was sceptical about classroom education’s value. For Ohno, knowledge came from action and had value only insofar as it drove more action.

Michikazu Tanaka, trained by Ohno himself, recalled:

Ohno-san hated written materials. If you took him some papers to see, he might go through the motions of looking at them, but he wouldn’t really pay any attention at all. You’d be trying to explain something in the documents, and you could tell from his eye movements that he couldn’t care less…

Seeing things first hand as they really are in the workplace was absolutely fundamental to Ohno-san’s approach. He never rendered judgment simply on the basis of hearing about something. He always insisted on going to the place in question and having a look.

Ohno believed academic study was an enemy of insight: ‘as much as possible, get the opinions of the people who are actually doing the work. Wisdom is born from the ideas of novices’

Ohno insisted that to truly understand a problem, you must go to the gemba (the “real place”, i.e. the factory floor) and observe the genbutsu (the “real thing”, i.e. the machine, the part, the worker’s process) with your own eyes.

When training new managers or engineers, Ohno would draw a chalk circle on the factory floor and tell the person to stand in the circle and observe the work process. He would come back hours later, asking, “What did you see?”

Ohno was forcing the trainee to move past their theoretical understanding of the job (”The manual says step A, then step B”) and gain a direct, experiential understanding of the motions the worker made.

Tanaka illustrated this with the story of a 93-year-old uncle who went deaf. An ear, nose, and throat specialist prescribed expensive hearing aids. But then the uncle visited the barber:

“Have you had your ears cleaned lately?”

“Can’t say that I have.”

“Let’s have a look,” said the barber. And he promptly dug wax from my uncle’s ears. All of a sudden, my uncle could hear perfectly well - without the hearing aids.

I heard this story straight from my uncle. It’s a pretty good example of how specialists, like his doctor, get hung up with their experience and expertise. The barber is a pure amateur from a medical perspective, so he doesn’t get caught up with all the technical possibilities.

This insight is an ancient one. Aristotle made the same point against the Platonists:

Those who dwell in intimate association with nature and its phenomena grow more and more able to formulate … principles such as to admit of a wide and coherent development: while those whom devotion to abstract discussions has rendered unobservant of the facts are too ready to dogmatise on the basis of a few observations.

In other words: theory can easily blind us to the world.

Barnett diagnosed Britain’s problem as contempt for practical work. Then he prescribed elevating practical men through abstract classroom instruction by theorists.

His was a cure that embodied the disease.

Thatcher’s Answer: Free the Market

Key figures in the Thatcherite movement, most notably Keith Joseph, embraced Barnett’s diagnosis. Britain’s deindustrialisation was rooted in cultural bias against industry and enterprise.

But they rejected his solutions. Barnett’s ‘Prussian-style’ state industrial policy - reallocating resources from welfare toward industrial R&D - repeated Wilson’s recent mistakes.

These had proven that practical business processes cannot simply be commanded into existence by a government ministry.

Thatcher and Joseph drew the correct conclusion: if productive knowledge evolves on the front line of production, not in ministries or classrooms, the solution must be to free that process up.

Rather than directing the process from above, we must remove the forces that distort or constrain it.

Thatcher rejected Barnett’s dirigisme entirely. She believed that if she could revive enterprise culture by rolling back the state, productive businesses should flower.

Nairn & Anderson’s Answer

Anderson and Nairn had a clear diagnosis: Britain’s problem was an incomplete bourgeois revolution.

The remedy was thus obvious: complete the revolution.

Force Britain to emulate Germany’s ‘efficient administration’. Sweep away the old constitutional order. Create a ‘truly modern state’.

But how?

Import continental theory.

The British Left, in its ‘atheoretical’ and ‘empiricist’ state, was incapable of revolutionary action.

The solution: create a new intelligentsia ‘torn adrift from the social consensus’ to forge an ‘intense rational consciousness’.