Finally, this effort is feeling conclusive, which I hoped for from the outset 2+ yrs ago. With the discovery of the socialist emergence from the "Jewish settlements in the Pale," the pure negativity of academic oligarchy the possibility of scientific rehabilitation in an aboriginal context. Cultural "fleshing" will continue with reprints of currently-relevant recently-historical experiences, often gangster, while "the Pale" experience is solidified upto present revolutionary efforts. The hope is to create a hinge with which to restore revolution as evolution after the excessively long period of oligarchic occupation -since 500BC.

Then, probably, the entire blog will be consolidated and "put to rest" with the first wikified writing about the occupy dialectic two years ago.

Comparing the Western and Asian Dialectics

Comparing the Western and Asian Dialectic -- as I am phenomic (or phenomenological--a branch of experiential thinking), I believe that if Western society was "civilized" (a process) using the Dialectic (a process), then something similar happens everywhere else, such as in Asia (China) and India. As empires, it seems logical that they would be empirical--which is the West is Science as it developed from Aristotle's Syllogism.

My first reading this morning confirmed that Asian oligarchy is Confucian (as you would guess), but did not produce a direct dialectic. Searching using the dialectic's partner word, the didactic, I did find many sources, but, interestingly, the majority of them were focused on "Confucianism for women."

Further, the family/communal trait of the typical Asian village that is universally attributed to Confucianism does not differentiate from Buddhism in current studies, which suggests to me that Asian village life is not necessarily related to Confucianism but has deeper roots that are not understood by Western writers.

However, in the end, Confucianist influence is no different that Socrates' and Plato's Dialectic; In the end, both are about government control. Just as with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the influence of Confucius was such that a Chinese emperor had carve the core "Five Classics" in stone to prevent them from being maligned by politicians and scholars (same thing in ancient Asia) who would bribe official librarians to alter texts to help them alter the social structures.

As Confucius is associated with the creation of "civil service exams" (that were based on his philosophy) it might be suggested that he was purely didactic in his educational approach, which would put the Asian civilization development process at about the stage of the Christian Reformation--about a 2,000 year difference! Perhaps in Asia the "debate was over" and the social structure had settled into a mode of "respect for superiors" (which I differentiate from elders as superior suggests politics and elders family).

While Confucius seems to be ahead of Greek oligarchs in reaching didactic control, it is interesting that the Asian and Greek philosophers were near-contemporaries. (It is also interesting that the Buddha was also a near-contemporary, suggesting the possibility of communication between East and West that occurred somewhat "below the historical radar.")

The purpose of the comparison is to use each of the philosophies as templates to lay over the other to attempt to remove extraneous ethnicity-related traits so as to "boil down" a core philosophic process that is universally used to "civilize society." While the Greek oligarchs used the Dialectic, the Dialectic in Plato's example may not be different from Confucius' question/answer mode, where students would be satisfied with "the master's" intuitive answers, and then meditate upon them as homework. In Plato's dialectical interactions, the master was always right in the end, as he determined, through introversion, what was real, or his forms, by deliberately ignoring reality. Aristotle took acceptance to this (in his competing Lyceum) to initiate empirical science which is based on a concept of matter and utilizes observation and experimentation. (I have not yet discovered the Asian equivalent or parallel of empirical science.)

So far, the comparison has been useful; for instance, the use of empirical to describe Aristotle's science (which may really be Hypocrites') does not seem coincidential, it really could be "empire-oriented science," as we can easily see that the Confucian oligarchy exists solely to promote the ruling empire and to reinforce with didactic education whose leadership (of scholar-philosophers) is carefully filtered with "civil service exams." But putting the poets in control, Confucius was far ahead of Plato who foretold a day when all the leaders would be philosophers. Ironically, Plato reached his goal with the purely-didactic Marxist empire that, of course, swallowed Asia with Maoism that dislodged Confucianism after so many centuries.

Using Korea (Southern) as an example, Western oligarchy triumphed over Confusicanist through capital rather than communism (thanks to the Korean War) by displacing a single 1500-year-long Confucian dynasty. It is through Korea that we can compare the two Asian philosophies, oligarchic Confucianism and democratic Buddhism. From my reading about Korea, it seems that levels are family respect exceed both Confucius and the Buddha suggesting a "human" phenomena, or perhaps a "phenomic" philosophy that is purely natural, and hence ignored by the synthesis of both the Dialectic and Confucianism.

This suggests that Confucius, thus, only altered (or perverted) the ancient Asian morality for the benefit of the aristocracy, and, if he did, then there may be a parallel (though unique) Western natural morality that has been suppressed by the Dialectic (whose purpose was to likewise benefit the aristocracy of Sparta). If so, then that natural morality might be wrapped in the Pre-Indo-European (PIE) concept of "Menos," which initiated this learning thread nearly two years ago with my interest in the parallel evolution of thought, mental abilities, and language. Since neither Confucius nor the Dialectic are associated with evolution, then perhaps we have a "model" for the evolutionary fork called "de-evolution" (or devo) if such a phenomena can be described as a "model."

OpEdNews rejection: Anti-Dialectical writing is taking hits from the "Left"

I honestly believe that I am hitting a nerve at the very core of "civilized" thinking by extending my empathy writing to something the unemphatic can comprehend: the evil that is the Dialectic.


OpEdNews rejection letter from "Anon1020."

Perhaps unfortunately for your article, I have read much of the material upon which you based your article, and while their is a kernell of truth in some statements you write, as one would expect when you work from Wikipedia footnotes and other secondary sources, most of your article is incomprehensible or mere gobbly-gook.  The presumption that the Soviet Union was communist, without more, or your failure to address the concept of "praxis," within the Marxist view of philosophy, or to distinguish from the beginning that Plato fathered the idealist line of philosophy and Aristotle the materialist line, all demonstrate the weakness of the overall work.

That you attempted such a massive undertaking is admirable, but you will need to read and understand the subjects of your criticism to do it properly.  Take a look at Volume III of Marx's Das Kapital.  When you can read, if that is the proper word for volume III, and understand that volume, you may be ready to undertake a critical review of the history of the dialectic and Western philosophy.


My response to the OpEdNews rejection asking for more "world-view" information (and protecting my research) which, has been, so far, ignored.

Dear "Anon1020,"

You wrote: "The presumption that the Soviet Union was communist" (among other things) "demonstrate(s) the weakness of the overall work."

You will have to explain this one because all my reading indicates that it dogmatically followed Marx and Engels, and further, Trotsky, the "real

communist" to many, sided with Plato and his Academy by attacking the "abstract" that he found in Aristotle's (Lyceum) syllogism as much as any

Hegellite as being "vulgar."  (Hegel changed before he died to Geist.)

USSR spies, for instance, were party electorate who had to take four more months at the Marx/Engels Institute to assure that they were in alignment with the "Material Dialectic" as was English traitor Kim Philby as he learned it in Cambridge or Oxford and at CP meetings.

As I said I would be too happy to see your explanation because I must have a hundred citations by now that support the possibility of a remarkable direct line from Plato to Hegel to the USSR, and possibly China through Mao.  Also, what Plato (and especially Aristotle) said is largely conjecture

because the material was largely fictional (in the sense that Plato's dialogues were) or, worse, destroyed by the endless wars and other tragedies over the 2500 years since to be "interperted" by Roman Church or Reformationist clerics.

This is why I believe psychological recreation of the dialectic model (especially including the "material" and "historical" dialectics of Marx and Engles) with comparison to the dialectic/didactic development of other Civilizations such as China or the Hindu states is the reliable socially-scientific approach this topic--which is why I used Occupy.  No musty books, but actual real-time, immediately supportable evidence.

I think that we may be confusing "idealistic" (Plato and communism) and "Utopian" which may be attributed to Aristotle--but falsely, I think.  "Touchy-feely" approaches might be more linked to Hypocrites whom Aristotle only extended with Syllogism (as rudimentary empiricism with relational tables) using Hypocrites' psychological/psychiatric biles/temperaments personality model (which survived in some parts until the 1970s).

I would appreciate your comments (and to know who you are).  I say this because I actually think that you are arguing the same points from different angles simply because so many people have written so many opposing views.  If Marx's Das Kapital is significantly different than Engel's Anti-Duhring (which I have read) then Marx and Engels, themselves, were not on the same page, which is, of course, impossible.

My sources are all primary, especially Trotsky and the Hegel experts. (You may have read it too quickly.) What you saw (on the wiki-sphere) were to my annotated bibliographies; I was having trouble with the links and I am "parking" the document on the Beta Wikiversity. (I am going to solve that problem with "markdown" text management.)

Finally, I strongly hope you respond because I want to use your material as a critical response to my writing, but I cannot not do so fairly (to you) without more background on your world-views, experiences, etc,

Genuine regards, John

Farewell letter to John Penley


The critical inquiry into the occupy movement began with the hypothesis that "there is a copy of the problem in the solution."  A copy of the problem was indeed found, and it is the Dialectic. Occupy's John Penley assisted greatly identifying real-world examples of the problem in the highly-paranoid "Hedges faction" of Occupy. 


There should be no doubt that you contributed greatly (in a positive way) to the Dialectic VS Geist discussion (that describes antagonism leading to synthesis as the death of spirit and abstraction).  My inquiry was initated by a post of yours complaining about the dishonesty and divisiveness of the Occupy Wall Street leadership (Occupy is NOT a leaderless group).  This led me to Fithian's leadership training video and an occupier who very clearly linked it to the dialectic process.  With the, well, abstracted knowledge, I have been able to "sniff out" the formation process of Plato's "Republic" simply by a dialecitian's attack of a well-modeled abstraction (usually my own).

Old-school of protesting relies on recruiting numbers of bodies to assault high-powered meetings, such as the DNC, many of them admittedly "loosely wrapped." The problem is that mental deficiencies are at the root of the dialectic; Plato, for one, only believed what he saw in his head; he was disconnected from surrounding reality, opposed abstraction, and thus helped invent synthesis as a substitute for reality.  With the simply abstraction VS antagonism test, a dialectic can be exposed nearly instantly because he or she has no alternate stratagem to accomplish synthesis.  Often the antagonism is veiled, as it was historically during Plato's time, or now as part of experimental (or CBT) psychology.  Nonetheless, we know many of the attributes; we have just had difficulty centralizing (or abstracting) a model so as to exclude the part of protest that negates progress.

In short, I see that a disproportionate number of your "FaceBook friends" are dialectical (though not you, of course) probably because you need bodies for your continued anti-war efforts.  Further, there is a tendency to unfairly smear Obama, when in fact there are many opportunities to point out his weakness in ways that a) give Republicans reason to vote for him (DEA and capital bail-outs) and b) give him a good idea of where we want him to go.

The power of the dialectic for me is that it extends my Empathy Model, my life-work, out of my own mind and into the real world of the unempathic.  The empathy approach is only useful for empathic people, though, as the unempathic can't possibly conceive of what it is as they lack the necessary working neurology.  To them empathy is something to exploit either to get people to feel sorry for them and give them resources, or to leverage as part of a confidence scheme or outright ambush.  But, they definitely know what the dialectic is; that is their common tool, and they can now be addressed about empathy issues in ways that they can comprehend. (Invariably the run away, but watch your back(!), and it may be better to deal with them outright.)

The dialectic discussion gives a central point for an all-encompassing abstraction with which to model politics.  (This, alone, is a good reason for dialecticticians to attack abstraction.)  Dialectics also closely connects to the didactic method, and the two comprise nearly all instructional education (as seminars and rote learning), and most of psychology as well (as cognitive behavior therapy that is empirically derived).  Since this discussion expresses the same (whole system) modeling goals as the empathy model, the singular goal should be empathy (which we find in Geist).  So, if we implement empathy into protesting, the political model is not focus entirely on fighting the war machine (by going to prison), or focusing too closely on specific other causes (with the hopes of small victories while we wait for class warfare).  

With a well-abstracted model, a very small group can apply highly-moral actions against those who want to destroy all that is nice and natural. The reason this can succeed is that most people--as normal people--are receptive to empathic ideas even at a sub-language level, such as through body-language, and that the effect will spontaneously spread.  "Spreading the word" overtly should, then, lead to very quick change, especially if the group is able to adapt quickly to changes in the hearts of those in power, such as Nancy Pelozi's support for medical marijuana.  As things are, Pelozi's conversion will be ignored because, as one of your allies said, "all dems are warmonger-ers."

Shifting further to the empathy component (in that a successful group would have to be all-empathic), our social abilities (especially of love and the abilities of beauty) are evolutionary--Darwin said that.  What that means is that nature is central to the effort, and from support for nature, the industrial complex you are attacking will fall.  My Rattlesnake Rebellion model suggests taxation on corporate size, which would break up all the biggest corporations into smaller pieces (that would be more responsive and efficient).  Further, the size issue with respect to low empathy at the high levels of control, suggests that the only way to break the war monopoly is to break up the nation in to semi-autonomous states.  (This latter idea makes the most sense, but is invariably ignored showing the effects of the dialectic on political minds of otherwise sensible people.)

Needless to say, because I recognize the totality of dialectical control, I don't expect this message to you to have any immediate impact, but I am absolutely confident in its "correctness."  This confidence is supported by an old-school German who instantly recognized my writing about Hegel's Dialectic as describing the very worst thing that has happened to his country--Adolf Hitler's Nazism.  He also independently recognizes it in Occupy, my primary source of evidence.
Finally occupying the hypothesis, the dialectic, and closure:
First copy comes out, and was submitted to OpEdNews (which told me I don't understand communism, and has yet to reply about updates).


The critical inquiry "working hypothesis" is that there is "a copy of the problem in every solution." By studying the Occupy movement using FB, the problem, or "bit string," has been named: The Dialectic. The Dialectic is the "process of Plato," the original oligarch (anti-democratic) philosopher, but so is Western Civilization itself Plato's process... This is a complex topic, but not excessively so, just un-intuitive as it is hard to accept that the process of Civilization has been implanted itself behaviorally in nearly all of our minds. My work is pretty much done here with my writing on the Dialectic that shows how revolution tends to be even more Dialectical than the capital structure it seeks to replace--and hence Occupy's often presaged failure.

The writing is "parked" here until I can find a more "prestigious" place for it:http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:John_Bessa/Dialectic


Note: GS, below, is in/from Germany, Hegel's home and the land of "Geist," so his comments are especially relevant.  (He is also an excellent "old-school film" and "rangefinder" photographer.)

Gy├Ârgy Stiffel 
Puuuh, John, a heavy reading for a not native speaker. But your thesis about dialectic is right (somehow). Hegel and his followers are idiots (sorry) they are whispering in the dark of their theorem. 

The Occupy movement is a (another) fashistoid movement. All these leaders aim to get real political power to suppress the people and force them to accept theit leadership (like Adolf). The theorems of good old Plato were made for his class only - you certainly know that the ancient Greek society was only possible on the platform of slavery. So every kind of Hegelianism is based on a mystical philosophy without any gnosis. Read Karl Popper! The only thing the civilized man can do in this days is to be humane to his own kind and the whole creation. Forget power, greed and any kind of creed (salvation from above). My 2 cts. Amen

15 hours ago · 

Occupy Inflation/Deflation

Gary Goodman writes:
Deflation grinds everything to a halt, while debts remain in place and grow, people subject to bankruptcies and foreclosures. Creditors seize property, including public property of cities, etc.

He writes that "deflation grinds everything to a halt." Not entirely to a halt, as people have to eat and their hunger will drive agricultural restoration and reformation -- and food will get better! Schools can become constructive shortening time to PhD graduation to the time that the student wants it to be.

Deflation is a vastly safer alternative to violent revolution, which is the only other option, as debts can be forgiven, foreclosure outlawed, and factories given to the workers to fulfill local needs--railroads can be restored. They way many talk about the dangers of debt, China can seize tye US anytime it wants--which won't happen, obviously. So having read "obviously," a readers mind might move towards "rational" explanations of why China will not/cannot foreclose. This will not explain how it works, or how it CAN work, but will rationalize on behalf of it negating the simple fact that it does not work in that we are "cooking" our planet because of economic growth. So, in fact, a reader might be (a minor) part of the problem.

In simple math, growth is decline, and therefore, decline is growth, the return to the natural human minus all the defects (such as central domination), but keeping all the benefits, especially health and medicine. Underlying the problem is mental health, in that the sick are promoted to positions of control in ways that are supported by everybody, including the religions (prayer can fix anything) and the rights people (we are empowering the sick).

My signifcant recent writing shows, or really discovered, that the "method" of Western Civilization (our banking system), which is the Dialectic, was in fact restored to its Platonic and "spiritless" (or Geist) state by Marx and Engels, which suggests that globalism was "supercharged" with surplus communism made available by the "fall of the wall." Of course, it is the professors who teach the economists, and of course counsel the president, so they are an unquestionable source of dialectic thinking, but one has to look at the waste in (so called) China, to see the true effects of economic insanity to fully comprehend what is called "antithesis" (or anti-thought, anti-abstraction or even anti-God) to see the full effects of the dialectic tripartite.




  • John Bessa think about it, deflation is a safe alternative to violent revolution -- as Penley is preparing for!

  • General inflation -- of both wages and prices --- allows gen population to pay off aggregate private sector debt with cheaper money.

    Inflation is friend of the debtor. Who hates inflation? Bankers, going back to Gold std and McKinley vs Bryan.

    Not about one individual debtor, but aggregate debt of US private sector to banks is 300% of GDP, instead of 50%.

    Deflation grinds everything to a halt, while debts remain in place and grow, people subject to bankruptcies and foreclosures. Creditors seize property, including public property of cities, etc.

    April 29 at 4:32am ·  ·  1


    John Bessa 
    You write that "deflation grinds everything to a halt." --  Not entirely to a halt, as people have to eat and their hunger will drive agricultural restoration and reformation -- and food will get better! Schools can become constructive shortening time to PhD graduation to the time that the student wants it to be.

    Deflation is a vastly safer alternative to violent revolution, which is the only other option, as debts can be forgiven, foreclosure outlawed, and factories given to the workers to fulfill local needs--railroads can be restored. They way you talk, China can seize us anytime they want--which won't happen, obviously. So having said "obviously" your mind will move towards "rational" explanations of why China will not/cannot foreclose. This will not explain how it works, or how it CAN work, but will rationalize on behalf of it negating the simple fact that it does not work in that we are "cooking" our planet because of economic growth. So, in fact, you are (a minor) part of the problem.

    In simple math, growth is decline, and therefore, decline is growth, the return to the natural human minus all the defects (such as central domination), but keeping all the benefits, especially health and medicine. Underlying the problem is mental health, in that the sick are promoted to positions of control in ways that are supported by everybody, including the religions (prayer can fix anything) and the rights people (we are empowering the sick).

    My recent writing shows, or really discovered, that the "method" of Western Civilization (our banking system), which is the Dialectic, was in fact restored to its Platonic and "spiritless" (or Geist) state by Marx and Engels, which suggests that globalism was "supercharged" with surplus communism made available by the "fall of the wall." Of course, it is the professors who teach the economists, and, of course, counsel the president, so they are a likely source of dialectic thinking, but you have to look at the waste in (so called) China, to see the true effects of economic insanity to fully comprehend what is called "antithesis" (or anti-thought, anti-abstraction or even anti-God) to see the full effects of the dialectic tripartite.

Occupy Hegel


Note: At this point the word dialectic as ringing in my ears in the early AM like from a dream as the phrase "aspergers empire" had many years before.  I knew I was onto something, and I did the first google search.


The first serious writing about the dialectic is by Raapana and Friedrich and they strongly suggest understanding Hegel's dialectic solely so that we all can communicate and come to agreement with out the conflict of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis," and perhaps most important, come to conclusions that are not pre-determined; in other words, come up with something new. 
From: Raapana and Friedrich, http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html


Singly an important issue to me, is that existentialism is being used as a rationalization for poor Occupy behavior, such as heroin overdoses in camps. In the end, existentialism conflicts with Rogerian "experience" as does Vieneese constructivism; experience is nearly purely "new world" (suggesting aboriginal guidance) and the others are Socratic old-school.

While I find workable solutions in many of my mentors (nearly all of whom are humanistic), we really do need new ideas because the basis of all "restorative" thought is aboriginal, and, quite to our surprise, the First Nations are not necessarily "stepping up to the plate" in ways that we would expect, such as their continued reliance on casinos for sustenance.




Occupy economics --> dialectics (unfortunately)
Occupying university-taught economics will require understanding the underlying thought of academia and economics, which appears to be in a single word (that defines academia itself): the dialectic. I was tipped of by a description of communism as "dialectic materialism" in a 1960s book about Cold War spying. The fact that communism holds the key is not surprising to me as I see it as Plato's manifestation that "all kings shall be[oligarchic] philosophers."

Capital growth is waste that can be shown with simple math (for the top of the pyramid to rise a little the bottom must widen with geometrically widening proportions, with diminishing returns to the bottom; this is exaberated by greed at the top, of course.) Capital growth is capital construction that creates the structures for a yet-to-grow population. 

Pulling away from FB's in the moment existence is useful. And the word existence is telling -- we are circling around existentialism (again). A would-be "law giver" on FB's Repeal the Indian Act list predicted this in terms of heroin addiction, claiming that the junkies of Vanc. Occupy, especially the one that died, has been robbed of life's meaning, presumably by the 1% -- not everyone who is unhappy with the system needs daily total anesthesia!

Clearly the key and central word is "dialectic" which is (apparently) a way to leverage conflict so as to arrive at a "pre-determined" synthesis. This is contradictory on many levels, yet persists through the European ideology such that it shapes not only how we live, but all of our thoughts. Just as with economics (but not psychology) there are seemingly endless ways to abstract the process of the dialectic, but, primarily, it should be noted that it is ancient Greek and first formal treatments of it are in the works of Plato such as the Socratic Dialogs.

Ultimate development (but not evolution) of the dialectic come through Hegel and are introduced into the world of economics by Marx and Engels. Occupy Wall Street tends to describe it's name sake target as "corporate oligarch," but we see an obvious problem--no capitalist in his right mind would be even remotely concerned with communist "dialectic materialism." This also throws a wrench into the concept of Plutarchy, which implies a blending of Socratic oligarchy and aristocratic families, which were early corporations (with Roman, yet private armies--like the Bush or Saud families). (It may have been the Greek-born Roman counsel Plutarch who succeeded in this blending around the time of Christ by transporting the Socratic academy to Rome, putting the Roman Empire into high gear.) 

Further, the various definitions of dialectic raise questions about Occupy, as Occupy is self-described (not so much as leaderless, but) as rudderless-- it has no direction. In it's non-direction, it is synthesizing action that, by dialectics, should be pre-determined, and, from what I can see, is pre-determined to fail to accomplish anything as every other movement has, probably as they all follow the dialectic.

Seeing that the dialectic has flowed through the ages into economic control structures, and that those structures "disseminated" by people who don't really care too much about riches for themselves, only for the capital families, and presumably would like to succeed where they failed in the past (with communism) there is every reason in the world for Occupy to start occupying professors, specifically didactic professors. Dialectic for them is an argument they cannot lose -- if there is conflict, guess what(?), the rebellious student loses and gets a lower grade than a student would who who supports the professors' world-views. An open-mined professor (thus constructive) would naturally encourage research that is mind-changing, because that benefits the world (as my mentor/professor did -- though he had other damning issues).



Occupy Behaviorism:

Note: like the previous article "occupy inhumanity" this will soon be blended with the empathy model.


This extends "occupy inhumanity" with an important non-topic, that is to say that behaviorism is the World's leading "red herring" (as much as I like herrings!).

In terms of humanity and in-humaneness, behaviorist psychology is equivalent to "experimental" psychology, and is what it sounds like: sadistic experiments using animals and, in important cases, children. BF Skinner is the best-know "experimental" name, and his contribution was pretty much that if you jab an animal, it jumps, and if you jab, shock, or otherwise traumatize an animal you can malign and, importantly, rationally reduce, its behaviors. He raised his child in a "Skinner box," which was a large experimental animal box, which pretty much says it all; though his child seemed to survive the experience.

A singly important experiment on a child was the "Little Albert" experiment by Watson. He was able, through traumatization using loud and frightening noises, make a child afraid of a piece of fur. Today, he would instantly go to prison where he would immediately be beaten in "general population" as nearly all prisoners where abused thus as children.

A second important fact about Watson is that he was tossed out of psychology and went on to establish the behaviorist nature of advertising on "Madison Avenue." All advertising is pure behaviorist modification, but really only appeals to watchers who are susceptible to suggestion, meaning that they are impulsive in the ways pathological gamblers are, as are narcotics addicts. In other words, thanks to "advertising human engineering," television (and other media such as the Internet) does not apply to normal people. Normal people (technically) can "inhibit" impulses, meaning normal people have inhibitory neural constructs to save themselves from Watson's monster advertising).

However, the World in heavily invested in experimental, behaviorist psychology as an explanation for behavior for a simple reason (especially from the empathy perspective): those who seek and are driven to control others do not have normal neural constructs, and are fully aware of their deficiencies. To admit this would be to resign power, and, as it happens, normal people don't seek power, they seek to collaborate in groups of more or less equal status with elders a little higher, and children a little lower--but not much. With absolute certainty, the financial pyramids would collapse -- the ancient empires, such as the Egyptian that build massive monuments to their control structures, would indeed be things of history and not fear.

These structures are the oligarchies, and are not actually differentiated from ancient empires, which are technically aristocratic; a catch-all term for oligarchy (like Plato who invented Western Civilization) and aristocratic family (like Heinz Ketchup that patronized BF Skinner) is plutocracy, but that is weak for various reasons. Far better for explaining the phenomena of human decline that comes from empire growth (especially as a result of empirical experimentation) is neurology and evolutionary decay. Ironically, the decaying portion of humanity does not actually deny an "evolutionary fork." Instead, they say that there has been an improvement (which is described by evolutionist Dawkins as the "selfish gene." The argument becomes moot when this (apparently mutant) faction is presented with the facts of environment destruction, they they often attempt to deny it or suggest it improves things somehow, such as with global warming--they call it "climate change."

The "mutants" do have a good argument in one area, medicine, and successfully "occupy" it as a monopoly; they always send one offspring to medical school--just in case normal people figure things out. Medicine is the one thing we cannot live without, and it is easily argued that current medication (which can be good stuff) could not exist without capital--period. Without doubt (and this I got from a political competition) medicine and education costs are the two biggest problems we have, and as it happens they are closely related through academics, which is the creation of Socrates and Plato. Interestingly it was "wrangled" from Hypocrites' school for the original academy by Aristotle who attempted to manualize Hypocrites' odd "bile" ideas by putting them in a 4X4 table; this "oddity" survived until the mid-70s under Eysenck (who is a mutant story unto himself).

The question is obvious then, we are kind of stuck with the oligarchy through medicine unless we can replace academic structure created by the oligarchy. Asian is in the same boat, as Confucius is near exact copy of Socrates down to the same-sex student sexual abuse--it's phenomenological, or "phenomic." Going with this lase word, phenomena, we can segue here to the "new world" leaders who are the experiential humanistics such as Carl Rogers (client-oriented psych), Ruth Benedict (aboriginal-inspired Synergy), Abe Maslow (self-actualization), and Buckminster Fuller (who adapted Synergy to engineering and architecture). The best word for the solution is "constructivism" which is the educational process of constructing knowledge from experience where the knowledge is constructed into logical structures such as we see in wiki pages. This, if you fully comprehend it solution, would in fact fix everything as both factions could be one happy family--but, not so quick. Oligarchs as mutants exist as they do for a reason; this is phenomenological (or phenomic) requirement. They would not be so mean unless there is a reason for it, and the reason happens to be that they cannot think in terms of conceptual structures. As some constructivists would say, they lack a "frame of reference" to be updated by experience. My view is that they can think only sequentially as a continual fluent stream, such as a poem, and cannot hence cannot abstract knowledge with structures. They are out of the picture, and, ironically, the ranks of construcitivist s would be thinned, as constructivism is taught academically (and hence didactially).

With experimental, constructivist, and Synergistic success is the obvious: halt the oligarchic gene, that is, make sure they cannot pass it along to future generations--which is something they obsess about. The difficulty is not so much that the oligarch is established in the "first world" (Occupy's supposed 1%), but that it may be breeding out of control in the "third world" at the "behest" of the 1% of the first world. (The third world is the supposed beneficiary of Occupy as well as globalism and multi-culturalist feminism). The world population is exploding because the (formerly colonial) third world is dedicated to providing "bodies" that oligarchic economic growth (first and foremost) requires, or population growth (because average first world families will not). This shows oligarchy's obsolescence because, obviously, a few machines now do the work of many--we barely have to work in the first world, and the World should be a vast summer camp. 

Perhaps more important than the (deprecated) population need for labor are the actual "bodies" to fill the structures created by oligarchic capital's most indicative trait and its primary purpose: capital construction. Capital, all agree, is capital construction. The rise in population necessary to "push up the top of the pyramids" (which are real, physical structures) results in a smaller portion of capital benefits for each individual, except those in the higher layers of the oligarchic structure. Thus, Plato made the second layer of his "republican" pyramid "the cops," or guardians. However, today's oligarchs pull them up into the top layer as an "executive function" (which is an interesting choice of words from the psychological perspective).

If the malignant of the third world by all of the oligarchy ranging from cruel "Austrian" economic school to the multicultural feminists, who self-describe as warm, then an obvious place to start is the restoration of third world aboriginals, and the continuing restoration of first world aboriginals which includes the "going native" of many of the better-off as we saw with the hippies of the 60s (who failed because of synthetic drugs such as LSD).

What we will find in aboriginal culture is, in fact, constructivist structure. Think about it; we are all decedent from aboriginals, and aboriginal culture brought us to the point were the modern oligarchic mutants could begin to destroy it with capital construction (while, in fairness, making contributions to medicine). So, it is all good, and we can come to a place where no one gets hurt, only those with limited capabilities "self-actualize" in the context of their abilities, and occasionally have to be put on medication if they become dangerous. As a final aside, aboriginal reconstruction should not include the restoration of problems they faced, be they natural as in disease, or internal oligarchic problems, which must have existed, but to a lesser degree as they are closer to natural "wild" life, which has no such problem as we know from Darwin.

Occupy Fithian's occupy-training programme: containerized control, or meme

Note: getting closer to the dialectic as this resembles Dialectic Behavioural Therapy (DBT)

I "friended" "Occupy Chappell" (FB text below) and found that he is promoting Lisa Fithian's training management program, which I say (in another article) is simply feeding "sheep to the slaughter." From a video link that Chappell provided, I learned that Fithian is attempting to create accountability, presumably by getting kids busted -- which, of course, sounds insane.

Watching the Fithian video confirmed that she promotes a pure management style that works to alter "critical inquiry" towards actions by behaviorally altering naturally occurring questions in ways that don't resemble authority but appear to be democratic, and even aboriginal. But this, to me, reminiscent of behaviorists Skinner and Lineham (who has confessed to severe mental illness). Even more so, she continually mentions "containors," which is her term for the "meme" of selfish-gene evolutionist Dawkins: contain and control to remove critical inquiry, which Fithian (correctly) describes as blocks.

Explaining to Chappell that facilitation is about experience and self-actualization:

I cited for Chappell the original facilitator who is Carl Rogers by explaining that all people, and even animals, have their own innate abilities to self-facilitate themselves in the context of experience, and the conceptions created from experience. The key concept is of course "experience," and through Rogers' compatriot became the core of change staring in the 60s. Chappell and Fithin provide strong evidence that "experience" is being replaced with ancient and oligarchic didactic control of the dialectic -- which is, by definition, the oligarchy of academia.

My argument is that the underlying struggle is really neurological; that those who cannot self-facilitate, and need Fithian to orchestrate self-defeat, are in fact, lacking the neurology necessary for "facilitating the experience" and hence must attempt to use behavioral controls and them disguise as Rogers' facilitation (as we see in control-type psychotherapies). Of course their success is only partial, and a good portion of Occupy has opted for the traditional experience and combats the control "circle" led by Hedges and behaviorally empowered by Fithian. A prerequisite for acceptance in the Hedges Occupy faction (that controls OWS) is to put your head on the chopping block of criminality with ideas from Fithian suggesting that you are somehow helping create accountability.

"Occupy Chappell" decays to a battle of the egos:
As I attempted to promote the progressive ideas of synergy, constructivism, and humanistic experience, which give each organism credit for the ability of self-determination, Chappell said I was condescending, called me an academic "jingoist," and accussed me of "pushing my weight around." I told him he did not have to be my friend, but he remained to "fight me" more, which suggests Lineham's self-described disease: borderline personality disorder. He further accused me of using the "double-edged sword" of academia and street experience (in ways that suggest that he is projecting) when, in fact, my environments have been the forests (and other nature), museums, and libraries! My academic experience is purely for certification requirements.

In the end, he agrees to a "battle of the egos," to fight me as I am, in his view, a central authority so that he can employ a strategy that he describes as a deconstructionist blender-mixing of all humanity's ideas to synthesize something that is superior. I assume that he will expect all to accept his synthesis, and hence tells us why he needs Fithian's non-experiential facilitation proccesses.

Then, oddly, he wrote "check your privilege" suggesting to me that he was threatening me with a "computer hack."

I think it is imperative to put all the Occupy facts together. The power-central faction of Occupy (OWS) is becoming the cult phenomena that plagued the 60s anti-war and environmental movements, but with new-found sophistication. It is most alarming that Occupy is apparently dominated by a writer, Chis Hedges, who has long "rationalized" global terror, and has in lectures advocated using assault weapons (according to witnesses on FaceBook). This suggests that the controlling desire of cults that alter thought may ultimately be to create a terror group from Occupy's OWS. However, despite it's modern psychological sophistication, this faction is still finding it impossible to disguise its oligarchic nature, largely because, I believe, of the inherent mental illness of oligarchy--which is the good news. Clearly a keyword is "synthesis," which, by definition, means unnatural, and thus contradicts one of the purposes of Occupy, which is to restore nature, including human nature--and especially the natural experience. (Fithian argues that Occupy has no purpose, that it is a "rudderless ship," as a rationale for her type of management style. Then why facilitate a meaningless uprising in the first place? Why not actually build a rudder!?)

My "Occupy" activity is strictly in the context of "critical inquiry" using FB as a source, and my conversations here are increasingly become battles between experience (which I write about as a "new world" traditional experience) and the "old world" dialectic (which is the old-word strategy to synthesize a new form of human, first for the benefit of the aristocracy, but ultimately working to create control structures such as communism; as Plato said, "when all kings are [oligarchic] philosophers." Oligarchy has been called fascism form the very beginning; fascism, along w/ all its apparatus and tricks, is solely Plato's invention. European philosophy's synthetic "new human," or perhaps existential "super human" is, to me, simply a mental patient.

Below is the text of the conversation:

John Bessa to Occupy Chappell [writing to Occupy Chappell about facilitaiton]:
Hmm, that would be "the facilitation of the beginning facilitation experience" -- no training necessary-- you already know how -- born that way

Occupy Chappell to John Bessa:
very much disagree. we are not born with the ability to fcilitate toward concensus. learning proper facilitation is an absolute necessity, and has been a small stumbling block for theoccupy community.

John Bessa:
if we were not born that way, or more specifically, it was not written in our DNA, then we could not have evolved -- you may be confused by the fact that that DNA is being erased in the way evolutionist Dawkins describes as the "selfish gene" (but not in the way he means it)

oligarchy exists to create "manuals" for those who lack an experiential "frame of reference" -- academia

[Facilitation] is also related to [what is called] self-concept by Rogerians, whereas academians have personality disorders that disable their experience process: narcissism, written OUT of their DNA

[this is] why the return to nature is necessary for human survival: hippies and surviving aboriginals

do you know john penley?

Occupy Chappell:
john penley? knew a constance penley... art critic ?

John Bessa:
nyc lower east side anarchist occupier in NC

Occupy Chappell:
i'm out west

John Bessa:
OK, he is organizing Rep and Dem conventions -- he is Hedge's nemesis

John Bessa:
LES anarchists fight with Hedges and Zeese every single day

Hedges is having the police arrest them, which is reason for his "pacifist" strategy
apparently, because he is no pacifist -- [he has] encouraged people to use AK 47s [in lectures according to witnesses]

Occupy Chappell:
.fek that shit. u serious???

John Bessa:
one title: one day we will all be terrorsts
for real
one of my FB friends said that he said in a lecture that "there comes a time to use assault weapons"

Occupy Chappell:
hafta run toward a meeting. did you friend me to use my page to blow up a personal agenda? would love discussions

and in depth ones at that, but not necessarily thru my personal FB page.

John Bessa:
not a personal agenda -- constructed research based mostly on Synergy, Humanistic, and Constructivsm

you might think is it personal if you don't recognize those words
but it isnt

you don't have to be my friend, that is your choice
perhaps your ego will not allow critical inquiry
process problems

Occupy Chappell:
hmmm... yer position is one of condescension... check yer priviledge, mate. i understand everyone of yer jingo

lingo words... am highly schooled in academia as well as the streets of life... so why you pull yer double edged sword here? my ego is willing to engage with yer ego... yer ego seems to be highly invested in pushing its weight around? i come from this position: people ACCUSE others of what they fear most IN themselves? that beingsed, is yer ego willing to engage in a critical inquiry without foisting itself as the central authority?

John Bessa:
rational reduction
tell me, what does rational reduction mean?

Occupy Chappell:
is this a feckin test?
seriously, i find reductive tinking to be less conducive to effective critical tinking than a process of exploding domains/slash paradigms/concepts and tossing them into schroedinger's black box to shake them up, dump them out, and reconfigure a new domain, that takes those aspects that share some functional/empirical/practical and yes, let's throw in abstract similarities, to create a sythesis of the best of all possibilities.

Occupy Chappell:
check yer priviledge...

John Bessa:
you do reductive thinking, dialectic, didactic: training, because you are missing key neurons -- you are mentally ill, you have no business telling others what to do
 ·  · 

    • Occupy critical inquiry 
      With a little after-thought, Fithian is creating an occupy management class, which is, of course, from Plato's republic and leverages Plato's dialectic -- soon I will be writing about Lineham's dialectic behavior therapy that Fithian seems ...See More

Occupy inhumanity



Occupying it in terms of the writer's experience
Note: at this point I was sort-of joining the occupy old-school, the faction that allowed let itself be falsely labeled anti-pacifist (that recently got reversed by old- and neo-school patch-ups).  I looked back to my early psych writing (which preceded my masters in it) which was empathy-based and hoped to be a manual for empathic action for the Care2.com empathy action group that helped me (and the world) define empathy in social terms.  I created this and the Occupy behaviorism articles to help them identify with what I think of as the "normal, democratic majority."  This writing adheres to standard psych and will probably be blended with the empathy model that evolved from the original empathy action work.


My life has been a shift from forests and ocean (as a child and youth) to technology to sociology finally arriving at psychology. In going from technology to psychology, I self-built the "empathy model" that easily describes the problems we face in terms of empathy as healthy neurology and un-empathy as the unhealthy counter part -- extending to anti-empathy as the predatory leveraging of no emotional relationship with others or the environment. It is a valid model that easily accepted by others and does what models do: predict results and provide instant benefits. In its total, if formed--independently--many of Carl Rogers ideas but extends them, of course, with the current research in imaging (fMRI) and genetics.

Implementing existing (yet nearly useless) psychology
Shifting to psychology required my learning a whole new, yet obsolete language -- but this is the language used to describe the brain and mental functions, so empathy has to be described in terms of disorders (which are largely only labels). I have to do this for my career (to make my points about empathy), but I have chose to begin here to attempt to apply the ideas to political evolution, because, in my opinion, politics, and with them human behavior, are dominated by mental illness.

The empathy model:
The empathy model specifically defines healthy human interaction as a triumph of evolution that embraces the "intent" of evolution which is seen, for instance, in the parent animals caring for the young, and the beauty of the surrounding environment. (In this model, evolution actually supports the concept of a "God" and a beautiful creation, rather than attempting to replace it with something resembling a computer program.) Most important, human emotionally connected interactions result in collaboration that produces all the good things we have in life. Conversely, those who cannot interact emotionally fall back to a much older form of interaction that we see in predatory gangs, and is found in very simple animals such the Humboldt Squid. Underlying differences between these two resource obtaining (or creating) styles are different thought processes: collaborative thought is highly structured, abstracted, and organized in complex (data) structures; predatory communication is purely digital and sequential (and convoluted and complicated in the human context).

Psychology, on the other hand, does not actually describe thought (as amazing as that may seem). It only describes humanity in terms of mental disorders, which, in my opinion, is a projection of the mental functioning of those in the "academia" of Universities, which, in my experience, is cruel (and thus sick).

So to make a "tool" that can be easily remembered and applied to identify and understand inhumanity in the environment, the practical empathy model has to be blended with existing psychology language to produce a "cheat sheet."

Like all of my work, this writing based on the accepted language of psychology is "constructively" structured (as with a wiki page) and has four components that link directly to three categories of genetic defects, or mutations, and one category that describes damage from the trauma of two of these mutations, psychosis and aspergers.

Three mutations:
1. Psychosis
2. Aspergers
3. Schizophrenia

Present "holes" that are filled w/ maladaption:

  • Cruelty
  • Narcotics and Alcohol self-abuse


4. Mental trauma:

  • complex PTSD (such as child abuse)
  • military or shock PTSD (war and accidents)
  • temporary mania ("you are driving me crazy")
  • depression from sadness, continual disappointment, or pain


Psychosis and Schizophrenia are easily recognized:
In psychosis, the victim is "on fire," or "out of control" often for no apparent reason. Their thought processes can operate with a complete disregard for the surrounding environment. Empathic connection is shut down--they will not listen, are angered easily. Sometimes the empathic shutdown is cyclic as with the "bipolar."

Schizophrenia results from "false signalling" from the front (and evolutionarily newest) part of the brain; what can be called the "executive function" region but is best described in conjunction with "working memory." Long-term LSD victims tend to be schizophrenic, and I have to say that schizophrenics that I know are non-psychotic, are very kind, but say strange things because of this false signalling. (Nonetheless, they can absorb "logical" thought through the emotional interconnection enabled by empathic neurology.)

Aspergers is the most important component:
Aspergers is less easily recognized but is far and away the most important for occupying inhumanity as it is an inability to "feel" the effects of one's actions on others; this means it "allows" for cruelty that is "stopped " in normal people by an actual "feeling" of the damage done through empathic neurology. Beyond this, empathic neurology also allows for feelings of remorse which is an extension of empathic communication that is internal, is conceptually modeled in relation to otherwise-external empathic feelings.

Apsperger sufferers, or self-described as "aspys," are what we think of as "cold and calculating" when they are intelligent, otherwise we may think of them as "mean and stupid." Psychotics see "aspys" as sociopathic, though a sociopath typically suffers from aspergers and psychosis, in other words is "cold, calculating, and out of control." 

Aspergers is considered "high functioning" as all parts of the brain work except empathy, and aspys are highly-organized, especially on the Internet. Lacking natural affection, they also lack morality and rely on rules-sets generally termed ethics. These rule-sets are directly descended from the original rules, or controls applied to slaves, which shows that aspys have been organized for a long time, and set humanity on its immoral path.

Asperger organizers specifically refer to aspergers as high-functioning autism, which is also a very important distinction, as autism is quite differently defined by society. To the organized aspy, aspergers is a necessary component of autism. Initially, I identified anti-empathy as autism, but then as an autistic teacher, I learned that autism is a combination of a long list of mental disabilities. However, recently while closely observing and exceptionally cruel and controlling aspy in my area, I saw him "rocking" --which is an autistic "marker." This may be important to identifying the broken DNA component that causes aspergers.

Beyond these simple definitions is the reality that modern civilization has introduced a variety of problems, especially poisoning from cocaine or meth, and pollution that damages mental neurons. The cocaine problem appears to be ancient though, and isolated to the region that is now Latin America in antiquity. There can be show, with current evidence, a correlation between cocaine use and human sacrifice. Cocaine appears to damage empathic neurons as well as causing psychosis in ways that another damaging drug, LSD, does not.

Other disorders, such as ADHD, are not relevant to occupying inhumanity, as these disorders are unrelated to damaged empathic neurons, and, in most cases, do not present a problem outside of the stresses of civilization, which are un-empathic and appear to be the work of the anti-empathic.