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.

Why occupy critical inquiry? It defines a social model.

"Within every change movement is the oligarchic element that the movement is attempting to change: someone successfully achieving control (often by silencing others) and hence defeating democracy by replacing it with a new copy of the previous oligarchy defeating the whole purpose of change" (from the original group statement).

This is a model in that this writing predicts "behavior." The model is more the concept though, and should provide benefits. As it happens, it has predicted behavior in the NB shale gas movement (the writing is below) that resulted in my being censored and ultimately silenced (in one FB group) by the exact type of person whom I describe in the model--a copy of the problem within the solution." (The situation is well-documented below.) This person is a copy of the problem within the solution, and, as predicted by the model, is successful within the scope of what he does. But because his actions result in destruction just beyond the boundaries of his self-descrbed successes (which may be real), the model predicts that his success is a "mal-adaption" (psychology term) to a sickness that he has, or mental functioning that he does not have. Generally this is described as egotism or narcissism and underlying feelings of inadequacy are often revealed (but sometimes not. Ultimately the illness will be easily identified using scans such as fMRI.)

What is important to me is that this model apparently defines "modern" civilization (dating back to 500 BC with Socrates and Plato). The civilizing process is not just the creation of rules to operate capital structure (based on exploitation), but to create a split between intellectuals and aristocrats, so that as Plato said, philosophers will replace the aristocrats as kings. In current terms, especially within occupy, this describes the split between the planners and teachers in the universities (Obama's economist is a Harvard University leader) and the huge corporations that dominate us. (Politicians can only rubber-stamp what they don't understand.)

There is a manual that dictates how this system operates in the vast texts of the business, law, and economics universities -- it is "manualized." It has to come with specific instructions because an symptom of this disease of those who control is "concreteness," which is an inability to be flexible. Those in control, and those who seek control, by the very disease of their burning desire for control are unable to construct solutions from; that is to be able to construct solutions by understanding problems and implementing available resources such as materials and friends or coworkers. Normal people do this; control types cannot.

If this model is correct, then correctly observed behaviors will be predicted by it, and it just did so with this New Brunswick (Canada) activist who leverages censorship for control. He may be successful in leveraging others to force a change in government, but nothing further will come from the effort and there will be significant collateral damage, and the cycle of damage that is capital exploitation will not be halted; in fact it will probably be increased. The reason for this is that this activist is a participant in the split -- he sees himself as a "philosopher" (though maybe in not in those words) where as the others are "aristocrats" as promoting corporate solutions. Philosopher (as meaning "lover of wisdom") is clearly a bad word (despite Plato's continuing influence) but oligarch is absolutely correct (which is the correct word for Plato, as Plato aligned with the aristocracy to attempt to destroy democracy).

So in the end, the single goal of this "maladaption" to this disease (as a mental deficiency) is to silence others, and this is precisely what this activist, and nearly every other activist using FaceBook does. Democracy, of course, requires free speech, so it is essential for the survival of activist efforts that these "oligarchs" be ousted asap. This will be difficult, of course, because they are protected by FaceBook, which is, itself, a product of Harvard and therefore aristocratic and oligarchic.

No comments:

Post a Comment