Autopoietic (from Greek auto, "self," and poiesis, "creation") describes systems, especially living organisms, that continuously produce and maintain themselves by creating and regenerating their own components and boundaries through self-referential processes, essentially meaning they are "self-creating" or "self-making."
A human system that is Autopoietic cannot be changed by outside information. It is impervious to data. Here are four examples.
ONE. The MSM is only obliquely covering the uprisings in Iran.
The Western liberal media is ignoring the Iranian uprising because explaining it would force an admission it is desperate to avoid: the Iranian people are rebelling against Islam itself, and that fact shatters the moral framework through which these institutions understand the world.
Ideally, to cover an uprising is not just to show crowds and slogans. It requires answering a basic question: why are people risking death? In Iran, the answer is simple and unavoidable. The people are rising up because the Islamic Republic of Iran has spent decades suffocating every aspect of life—speech, work, family, art, women, and economic survival—under a clerical system that treats liberty as a crime. There is no way to tell that story without confronting the nature of the regime.
Western media refuses to do so because it has fundamentally misunderstood Islam. Or worse, it has chosen not to understand it.
Islam, in Western progressive discourse, has been racialized. It is treated not as a belief system or a political ideology, but as a stand-in for race or ethnicity. Criticizing Islam is framed as an attack on “brown people,” Arabs, or “the Middle East,” as if Islam were a skin color rather than a doctrine...
By treating Islam as a racial identity rather than an ideology, Western media strips millions of people of their ability to reject it. Iranian protesters become unintelligible. Their rebellion cannot be processed without breaking the rule that Islam must not be criticized. So instead of listening to Iranians, the media speaks over them—or ignores them entirely.
TWO. Europe is completely misreading the moment and its place in the world.
Europe has a serious military problem for which it has no solution: Ukraine. Eager to satisfy Joe Biden, they launched into a rhetorical escalation of support for Zelensky to the end and, logically, of confrontation with the Kremlin, without having the will or ability to deliver on their promises. Without the United States—and Zelensky knows this well—Ukraine is lost. But E.U. leaders keep talking as if they are ready to launch us into World War III, except that they have neither the weapons nor the soldiers to wage it. But instead of seeking a de-escalation in rhetoric and accepting the inevitable, that only Donald Trump could force a peace agreement, however painful it might be for Ukraine, Europe continues to jump on the bandwagon of bellicosity, putting fear into its population and painting apocalyptic scenarios but little else.
THREE. European green energy plans, now well underway, ignored the fragility of the system they were building.
This narrowing of the energy supply down to a single energy carrier (electricity) was called “sector coupling.” This sector coupling was propagated and celebrated by the “Green high priests” as a sustainable model for the future. Originally, it was an attempt to correct the weakness of renewable energies, which lead to unusable surpluses during periods of high wind and solar production. These useless surpluses were intended to be pushed into the heating and vehicle sectors after storage...
(T)he attack in Berlin demonstrates to us that such an energy system, based solely on electricity, is highly vulnerable. We are learning that when the power fails, the heat supply also fails—at least when it is supposed to be generated by heat pumps. And to make matters worse, we are learning that in freezing temperatures, heat pumps face total loss due to bursting pipes.
FOUR. Minnesota's Somali looting shows the systemic failure of self-interested NGOs.
Autopoietic systems lose the capacity for the environment to redefine their purpose. Inputs still arrive, but they are reinterpreted until they are compatible with the system’s existing outputs. Feedback loops close. Contradictions are absorbed. External signals stop producing corrective changes in internal behavior.
At that point, the system is no longer adaptive relative to its original purpose. It becomes self-referential. It is capable of internally justified expansion without reference to external success.
That’s a long-winded way to explain that none of these institutions were lying in the usual sense. They were maintaining equilibrium.
This is the key point: autopoiesis becomes pathological when stability is prioritized over external correction.
The system no longer asks, Is this true?
It asks, Is this compatible with what we already produce?
Now we tie in Helen Andrews' excellent essay, The Great Feminization. I spent a little time with AI this morning asking it to summarize what was common to all four examples above. Here's what we decided.
The Deeper Unifying Insight
Across all four:
1. Institutions confuse moral posture with competence
Virtue signaling replaces results.
2. Feedback loops close
Bad outcomes do not trigger reform — they trigger narrative adjustment.
3. Dissent is either absorbed or erased
Never allowed to invalidate the system.
4. Stability is prioritized over truth
Even when stability accelerates long-term failure.
5. External reality becomes an enemy
Reality is dangerous because it can falsify internal logic.
That sounds exactly like our diocese' synodal processes and endless support for the "migrants" at the expense of the American "marginalized." The contradiction involved is denied or dismissed. Since our synodal process is deeply and pathologically feminine, fitting into Helen's thesis perfectly, how about these four examples. Do they fit as well?
The Unifying Move Andrews Makes
Andrews explains autopoietic institutional failure as the downstream effect of demographic feminization combined with legal–bureaucratic enforcement of feminine group norms.
In other words:
The systems described earlier did not become self-referential by accident or ideology alone.
They became so because the dominant mode of conflict resolution, truth evaluation, and legitimacy production inside them fundamentally changed.
She identifies the Great Feminization as the force that reoriented institutions away from:
- truth-seeking
- adversarial testing
- rule-bound process
- outcome-based evaluation
and toward:
- consensus maintenance
- emotional validation
- narrative safety
- cohesion over correction
That shift is precisely what produces the closed feedback loops you identified earlier.
Bingeaux, as we say on the bayou.
Men and women, male and female, are complimentary. Both are necessary. When only one dominates, you get things like the Germans moving to nothing but electricity, the Minnesotans handing their ATM cards to the Somalis and delusions about European militaries and Iranian uprisings.
To borrow from an old post of mine ...
Does God have a plan, a template, an objective moral structure for sex or not? If not, why not? How did He manage to overlook our strongest evolutionary motivating force?
If He does have an objective moral structure for sex, why is it different than what JPII laid out in Theology of the Body?
 |
| BOOM. "I'll just leave this little pamphlet here. You may read it at your leisure ..." |
No comments:
Post a Comment