A classic example of creative destruction is automobiles replacing horses and horse-drawn vehicles. When it became apparent that cars were a potentially superior form of personal transportation, society began to shift away from horse-drawn vehicles. This growth accelerated as automobiles became increasingly affordable. Over time, horse-drawn vehicles were rendered obsolete.
As Dr. Charlton observes in his post, creative destruction has more to do with growth than creativity. As the new something grows, it begins to press against the older form and either "destroys" it by replacing it outright or "destroys" it by relegating the older form to a lower position.
Destructive creation, on the other hand, inverts this sequence by placing destruction before growth:
So the essence of Creative Destruction is in the sequence of growth 'causing' a tendency towards destruction. Growth +/- destruction.
But what we are seeing very clearly from early 2020 is a reversal of this causal sequence.
Instead of growth ('creation') causing destruction, destruction comes first - and growth (creation') is asserted to come afterwards.
This I term Destructive Creation because the idea is that destruction comes first, and creation of new forms may follow.
However, what actually follows destruction is conjectural. There may be growth of some new form that replaces the old, or there may not be.
Dr. Charlton goes on to outline how practically every trendy agenda item currently in play fits neatly into the paradigm of Destructive Creation:
An example of Destructive Creation is the self-styled sustainable energy economy. The generation of electricity by coal and gas is being destroyed by laws and taxes. Its replacement by windmills and other devices is conjectural, has not happened, and is indeed impossible.
Personal cars powered by the internal combustion engine are being squeezed towards extinction by regulations and taxes; and urban road transport is being expensively crippled by 'bike lanes'.
Vast resources in the current world are being devoted to destruction. But the replacements are conjectural, and may or may not happen.
There will be (already has-been) a vast shrinkage of power generation - and therefore electric cars will not be possible for mass transport. Cars are being cleared to make way for bicycles etc; but the bicycles cannot functionally substitute for cars, so the net result will be reduced efficiency and effectiveness (then prohibition) of all activities that depend on mass usage of private cars.
So, just as Creative Destruction actually amounts-to Growth first and for-sure... plus or minus destruction; so Destructive Creation really means Destruction first and for sure, then maybe (or maybe not) Growth to replace that which has already been destroyed...
From 2020 we are seeing a decisive shift from Creative destruction to Destructive Creation, as announced by The Great Reset, Build-Back-better and Agenda 2030 of the UN. The new strategy is to to clear-the-ground of what is, allegedly to make-way for growth of what-is-to-become.
But all that is certain is the destruction of what has-been and is.
Dr. Charlton makes a crucial point. Unfortunately, very few people appear to be aware - I mean really, truly, fully aware - of the massive destruction that has occurred since 2020.
Even fewer seem to understand that higher magnitudes of destruction in the present and the near future are practically guaranteed.
The System that functioned before the 2020 birdemic coup no longer serves the Establishment's purposes. As a result, the Establishment has no interest in tweaking it, or debugging it, or improving it. On the contrary, They aim to completely dismantle it and erect something else - something "better" in its place.
"Build back better" is not the rallying cry of creative destruction, but the war cry of destructive creation. "Build back better" is not growth leading to destruction, but destruction that may (or may not) lead to growth.
Thus, the mantra of "build back better" should actually be interpreted as "destroy worse first."
And what is the "worse" that needs to be destroyed? Simply put, anything and everything that is necessary, useful, and functional - and this includes everything that can still be classified as Good (God, religion, family, friendships, community, love, honesty, etc.).
Building back better does not imply that we have hit bottom. Building back better implies that the worse still needs to be eliminated before the better can emerge.
Based on this sequence, things like lab-based meat will only become available after industrial meat production has been completely derailed. Electric cars and other green forms of transport will only be accessible after gasoline-powered cars are removed from the roads. Tourism will only return after what remains of tourism at present is unceremoniously snuffed out.
What happens during the interregnum between the destruction and the planned/ anticipated/envisioned growth is anybody's guess.
Of course, there's no guarantee that lab-based meat will ever really become a suitable or affordable substitute for real meat. The same could be said about mass-produced electric cars. I personally believe the vast majority of the "growth" the totalitarians envision will either fail or will never see the light of day. Thus, instead of building back better, we will all likely end up in a world filled with nothing but "destroyed worse."
But hey - at least we'll all be safe!