ANSWER: All out
war. A war of them against us. A war against Constitutionalist Conservatism and
God.
And how was it fought by them?
As I witnessed from beginning to end the spectacle of
Kavanaugh’s appointment process, I was stunned at the unwavering determination
without reason of EVERY Democrat in America who was fiercely dedicated
to the objective. That’s when it
hit me. Democrats have become the
standard bearers of MBO----Management by Objective, the business model devised
in the 1950’s by an Austrian journalist named Peter Drucker, a post WWII immigrant
to the USA.
 |
| Add caption |
I’ve spent several days reading about Drucker and his
wildly popular model. This may have
given me simply enough information to come to an erroneous conclusion. (A little information can be a dangerous
thing, I realize.) You can decide for
yourself if I am right or wrong. My gut tells me I’m right. For those who don’t know what MBO is, click
on the hot spots and familiarize yourself.
This method works. It can be very
effective. It can also be dangerous
and terribly destructive so it isn’t for all situations.
It works very well for the military. It works just as well, for a while, for
totalitarian dictators. The difference
in the two is that the military is supported by a civilian population that
believes in the objectives being carried out, whereas under a dictator, the
population is victimized by the people in control to the point of extreme
suffering.
In all scenarios of Management by Objective, the “objectives”
which are broad statements of intent are established by a tiny number of people
at the top of the organization. For a
military application, this may be in the war room or in the secret meetings of
the upper level brass along with the political leaders of a country. Whatever plans they devise are then passed
down a chain of command to the men below to be carried out whatever the
cost. Very often, this means at the cost
of many lives, but seldom if ever the lives of the upper echelon.
In a dictatorship, such as that of Stalin or Mao, the
objective might be something like the industrialization of a country and the
spread of an ideology to unwilling masses of people. The people in the second and third and fourth
level of command, in this case, must be extremely loyal and willing to do
whatever it takes to reach the objective.
The end justifies the means. Break
a few eggs to make the omelet, as we’ve heard said.
 |
| Joseph Stalin |
When Peter Drucker developed this style of management his
intent was to improve the running of large businesses. (Not that he'd ever actually run one or even worked for one, but he believed he knew people and with that, how hard could it be.) The method requires an already established
operation. This cannot work with a “start
up” business because a small business does not have a chain of command ordinarily,
but only a small work force that pitches in and does whatever has to be done
with little division of authority. A “mom
and pop” business is a good example.
They both wear all the hats to get things done.
For any company that decides to apply this model for
running their business, it is imperative that the people at the top—the board
of directors and the CEO and other top dogs, convince the rest of the workers,
including the “management team” that the OBJECTIVES are worth striving
for. The OBJECTIVES make whatever you
are asked to do worthwhile. The
OBJECTIVES make that day to day mundane task you perform important because you,
the guy in the mailroom, are part of the “big picture.”
One would hope a company or corporation would have
admirable goals and objectives, but sadly, they may or may not. It would also be hoped that all these loyal
workers who do their best will be treated with respect, but often they are
not. Frequently, companies hire
consultants to identify workers who can be “downsized”---a much nicer word than
being fired, to protect the OBJECTIVES and keep the company “on track” for
profits, which are foremost in the minds of the people who establish the
objectives and almost never have their own livelihood at risk. Arguably, it is the duty of the executives in
any corporation, especially those publicly traded, to protect the interests of
all stock holders and prevent loss, but shenanigans do occur when the primary
goal is to meet arbitrary objectives without regard to the lives of real
people.
In a small company based on providing a customer base
with a product they desire and are willing to spend money to get, if the
customer isn’t happy, the company goes down the drain and it won’t matter what
the heck your “objective” may have been, whether it is getting rich or saving
the planet. Larger companies tend to have a lot of capital and many people to fire and blame before that happens, so it is easier to recover from mistakes.
The other very important thing to note is that MBO
works only by using what others have created.
It does not work for anything, whether it is an army or a business that
is not already well established. MBO
does not create, it uses.
Translate all this to a political party. You have people at the top. They establish a platform of beliefs and
ideals. They appoint people to run the
state offices and the precincts. They
enlist a willing bunch of followers who are willing to do whatever to meet the
OBJECTIVE, because the objective is philosophical
opium that will make them happy. At
any time, those at the top can interject sub-objectives (stop Brett Kavanaugh)
along the way and the mob that follows them will go at it doing whatever it
takes to win, regardless of whom it destroys in the process. No one stops to say, “Is this right?” Or “Should we be doing this?” Or “How will
this end up if we do this?” All that
matters is the OBJECTIVE.
A close examination of the Democrat Party Platform will
tell you what a candy store it is for most godless socialists. Why wouldn’t they sign up for that? It’s all their disordered minds desire!
What would happen if you tried this with a church?
(To be continued……)
I currently work for a company which has its employees involved in collecting money for a charity - the goal of which is to raise millions of dollars across the country for a certain charitable entity. Large amounts of money - millions and millions - come with a moral price, and even though the charity does do some good, it has also been known to bring in Planned Parenthood to "educate".
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I told one of my immediate managers that I would not be participating. She agreed with me, but yesterday, one of the higher ups point blank asked me if I was participating. I said no, I refuse. If the company wanted to donate money to a charity it could do so from its own profits and not coerce employees into asking clients for extra money to donate to the company's chosen charity.
They cannot make me do it. They could fire me but I doubt it. I would sue them.
In other words, according to that philosophy the ends justify the means?
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with setting goals as long as the means to the goal is moral. But if the only thing that matters is the outcome and anything goes to reach it, well then, you have the Democrat party. The goal is to defeat Kavanaugh so you can lie, hire false witnesses, hire thugs to demonstrate and intimidate supporters, etc.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, we all need money to live. Some work and earn it and some rob banks or refuse to work and let taxpayers support them. Big difference. And the final outcome (goal) may be hell depending on the means chosen to reach it.