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.

Merry Christmas from Caesar and Christ

The second coming will be aboriginal and pacifistic

Christ and Caesar resembled each other in that they were "people's people."  They took their "stands" with the working people and the poor to attempt to organize them to help improve the "qualities of mercy" that affect them.  In so doing, they synergized their respective cultures nearly concurrently.   Caesar was "top down" in that he attempted to synergize the Roman empire by changing its laws and institutions so that it could be strong yet beneficial. "Top-down" would be expected from a General.  

Christ, in contrast, was nearly-anarchist in that he attempted to "humanize" Judaism by replacing its 700+ highly-repressive laws to only a handful about love and respect for others, self and God.  He hoped to ultimately empower individuals, family and community to synergize surrounding society.

Both, of course, were martyred for their attempts despite being so important to Western democracy.

This comes highly paraphrased from Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, and, in my opinion, summates his volume and the Western democracy and represents the crux, pardon the term, of Western democracy (rather than its founding Durant initally dodges an "atheist bullet" by showing material that Christ may have been the product of Christian imagination, but then carefully describes Christ's life (and the beginnings of his religion) in the context of the Bible largely as fact.  

Durant trivializes Christ by describing Christ's initial Christian family as "a band" and appears to credit Church founders in succeeding centuries for the Christian religion, especially the Roman Church which he describes nearly-merely as an extension of Rome in the Middle Ages.  I should seem obvious, however, that without Christ there would be no Christianity(!) and humanity today might be purely-Roman with no resistance to the likes of Hitler or Stalin.  In so doing, Durant exposes himself as an oligarch--a likable one--who makes many useful observations from excellent research that is (unfortunately) held together with Socratic cement.

He accurately describes a three-to-four century transition from Christ's liberation movement to Christianity's institutionalization, but he hilariously calls Christ a communist in many places--communism had not been invented then! (Perhaps he saw communism as a natural phenomena rather than a synthesis.)  As a philosophic oligarchic, Durant fails to see that Christ was simply attempting to restore natural democracy.  Because oligarchic leader Plato equated democracy to anarchistic chaos, a spiritual from of anarchy, perhaps seeking to restore the aboriginal relationship with the surrounding environment--including Rome's, would then necessarily be out of Durant's scope. Nonetheless, "spiritual anarchy" correctly describes what happened: civic law was largely erased, and natural morality was restored.  Over succeeding centuries, the negative aspects of ancient Judaism were re-instituted by Christian leaders with the preservation of Jewish law as the Old Testament, and the ancient prophesies were extended, especially the violent ones, as the visions of the mad apostle John--the apostle no one talks about in public!  It was this reversal of Christ's beliefs that Durant credits for Christianity's success, not the efforts of Christ's extended family, nor its humanistic morality --as every Christian believes.

Judaism was, of course, rejected violently by the Christian hierarchy (as Christianity had been by both leading Jews and Rome), but Judaism's controlling "belief system" was preserved in the Old Testament and revived and extended, for instance, with the hellacious hallucinations of the last of the apostles, mad John.  Durant closes by describing Christianity as that last pagan invention, particularly the communion as a typically-pagan ritual cannibalism.  Christ, as I am told, however, only asked us to think of him (viscerally) when breaking bread (a symbol of brotherhood) and drinking wine (a libation); ritual sacrifice was most-definitely off the menu!

The best of Christianity is Christ's walk to organize (and admonish) his followers; a walk we literally take at times, perhaps all through life.  The best of preachers make one feel the dry Mideastern gravel under his bare feet and the internal conflicts he feels as he admonishes his disciples.  We feel his feelings as he approached his arrest, death sentence, and crucifixion at the hands of the Jewish oligarchy.  Christ's fellow Jews may have been excited or ambivalent about his new version of Judaism, but they all accompanied him to the Calvary--he was their man, the first mensch!

Important in our time is the memory (Durant describes perfectly) that Christ was not willingly killed by Pontus Pilate, nor for any Roman crime. The Roman empire caved to the Jewish oligarchy of the time whose (ill-advised) rebellion against it would lead to Jewish Diaspora.  Likewise, Rome did not hate apostle Paul; it gave him every opportunity to escape, gave him endless judicial delays, good treatment --Paul sought martyrdom, as did many early Christians.  Further, Rome's issue with Christianity was not its religion (which it would eventually adopt), but it's pacifism, something it could not afford as the many lands it colonized increasingly rose to retaliate --seemingly in concert.

Durant shows how Christ's pacifism became distorted to be some kind of guilt-ridden masochism that Rome could accept, and promote, to scaffold it's declining civilization.  Many independent priests of the time attempted a "living Christ" (as we see today), but Rome chose the incomprehensible Holy Trinity (gleaned from ancient Egypt according to Durant) at Constatine's Nicene conference . Representatives of the "living Christ" at the conference were disemboweled to assure that Rome's newly-ritualized "belief system" could create organizational alternatives as its military government collapsed.  It is exceedingly unfortunate that Christians today tend to live the very repression that Christ sought to end with images of human sacrifice (Abraham and Issac) or sexual repression (Leviticus' rules against homosexuality).

The Republic: Plato's brick wall has dialectical cracks

This rough draft (if not core-dump) mashes government and education as they control us in the context of the designer of Western Civilization: Plato.  Unlike the Occupy-related writing which identified the didactic as the basis of communism, this explores a dialectical basis for Western capital--something we all seem to take for granted, but I find surprisingly difficult to cite.  This covers government and education as a single Platonic and oligarchic product leaving the third component of society missing, psychology, which describes the individual functioning we share socially.  In the West, it is as much psychiatry as psychology, and thus abnormal--by design.  A parallel document covering this in the context of capital influences this one, but a blending would be impossible at the moment given this document's current roughness.  

When studying language development in the context of natural evolution, I took a look at Greek logic, or logos.  When I arrived at ancient Athens, I found I could not circumvent Plato's brick wall, which, to most of us, manifests has his Republic: the blueprint for Western Civilization.  At the time, I felt foolish not knowing this obvious fact, that Plato designed our society and its psychology as being egotistical (whereas Joey Ramone apparently designed our current rebellious individuality, according to a DJ).

By knowing that Plato created academia with Socrates, which is the wide-spread educational system that pre-determines how we think, I assumed that Plato promoted oligarchy because academia is so non-democratic.  Also, every historian I have read has linked Plato to oligarchic Sparta in opposition to democratic Athens.  Surprising, then, was learning that he supported aristocracy as the ideal government rather than oligarchy, but only if an aristocracy is led by a philosopher kings--which seems to be highly-self-serving.  Aristocratic families are never mentioned in is five government forms, and democracy is near the bottom, is described nearly as anarchism, and that it necessarily leads to tyranny--the worst possible world where psychotic leaders kill innocents at whim.

Reference note: I am using Wikipedia's as a single source as I know that the wiki-encyclopedia's problem (why it is rejected by all instructors as a valid source) is that distorts information in the direction of the Platonic/oligarchic world view without fail in both content and how it is managed.

Plato was dialectic; this was his Academy's method of choice for tutoring; the competing didactic system resembled "morality plays" and was used by Athens to instruct the people, or demo, about new laws, for instance.  The familiar didactic teaching method of lecture, homework, and tests, only took hold during/after the period of the Christian Reformation with the opening of huge universities for mass teaching.  

(To provide some depth, the dialectic can be compared to metacognitive programming where a teacher, or therapist, leverages an illusion of "free choice" to "tease" a student, or client, towards a predetermined learning goal or, more precisely, a predetermined way of thinking.  In contrast, didactic teaching is behavioural; if you get the too many wrong answers, you get a lower grade; too many wrong answers and you will be dropped from the education track and you are forced into a low status in society.  Didactic education leverages fear, disappointment, and, in the near-recent past, severe, often sexually-related, violent abuse--even among royalty.  Thus, the didactic system is behavioural: what is called positive punishment.  The dialectic might also be said to be behavioural as negative strategies may be used, such as ignoring a student's response while waiting for a pre-determined one.)

Plato's five political systems are linear, and as the Wikipedia shows, connect to show how societies and civilizations decline.  They are not, however, a loop; that is to say, Plato does not show how the final result of decay, tyranny, might necessarily lead back to Plato's perfect system, a philosopher-led aristocracy.  Internet searches show a paucity of information about Plato's groundwork formation of Western government--which also surprises me.  What you find instead is lots of philosophic opinion.

Philosophic opinions, even most conservative, universally agree that Plato was too hard on democracy, and that his perfect, or "just," society (or civilization) included no upward mobility and thus removed "free will."   He provided Adam Smith with the "division of labour" structure that defined the Industrial Revolution.  The Industrial Revolution, however, was revolutionary partly because it created a business management class that was separate from British royalty; royal estates, for instance, tended to be rural.  It appears that Plato predicted, or helped create, a neo-aristocracy to replace the sometimes-violent aristocratic families that "took over" nations to pass control of them to princes and princesses.  In this, Plato's neo-aristocracy parallels Confucius' public exam system that created the Mandarin class specifically to end nepotism.  (It also describes the affluence of the communist  party elite with its "aparat" bureaucracy, which is significant as Marxism is highly-dialectical, far more so than capitalism.  (Interestingly, bureaucracies are dependent on "forms" for information collection and structure, and forms are the structure of Plato's thinking.)  Both Plato nor Confucius supported the aristocracy with their dialectic structures--only the communists eliminated the aristocracy--by killing them.  Communism is the only example of Plato's "philosophers as kings."  Current communists use the word "oligarchy" to describe the gangsters who were able to grab industrial control during the Soviet downfall.)  Just as Plato's ideal of a neo-aristocracy was confounded by his contemporary Alexander the Great, Confucius' Mandarin civil service was confounded by China's royally-appointed eunuch society that suppressed China's civil service over many dynasties until recent times.  (Confucius might be described as a mix of Socrates and Plato, but his version of the teacher/student dialogue is described as a question-answer pair followed by homework.)

If one moves Plato's "philosophic aristocracy" to the oligarchic level, and replaces it with typical capital families, such as the Roman empire's families, then it makes more sense if viewed from the perspective of how things turned out after 2500 years of his influence.  This makes me wonder if the Republic is, in fact, a dialectical deception designed to promote is desire for philosophic (or theosophic) control, such as we see in Roman Church under Thomas Aquinas, or current academia that "designs us" using dialectics and didactics in a mix that is now described as metacognitive programming.  Also controlling our minds is the television (and other "media" including the Internet) which is clearly metacognitive in that uses endless examples of dialectic deception to get us to buy luxuries we don't need (to power the global-garbage economy), or food that is dangerous enough to kill us (such as fast food).

With respect to Plato's linear governments, I 'smell a rat."  Given what aristocracy is--Plato personally experienced Alexander's father as king of Athens--it seems hard to believe that he would confuse an oligarchic "aparat" with aristocracy.  Possibly, I believe, he may have designed his political system categorizations with a deliberate deception to eliminate his competition: aristocratic families with powerful kings who sought democracy--but, obviously, without anarchy.  His deception is designed to make us think that democratic control has nothing to do with aristocracy, but, instead leverages tyranny.  If you do extend his sequence of degeneration into a loop, then the tyrant who takes over during chaotic times necessarily becomes a "theosophic" aristocrat. This may have been what he desired (and apparently gets), but not what he wants us to think: dialectical deception. (I thought of other possibilities for this and noted them at the end.)

Given that academia has such control over society and civilization, and that academicians are carefully filtered from the cream of the educated elite (in such a way that prevents the decay of its "aristocracy" into "timocracy" --and eventually democracy), it can easily hide the obvious historically-supported fact; that the education system descends from the original Academy's oligarchic society, preserves dialectic and didactic methods to suppress "free will" and is thus the opposite of democracy.  However, a recent internet search using the word "oligarchy" in the  context of "education" produced exactly four hits, and only one actually calls education oligarchic, but calls it "oligarchy" rather than "an oligarchy."  Oh my, the control is so complete such that only the poorly educated have a chance to be "in the know" (Working-class Hero, John Lennon).  I have experienced it myself; my own "current dialectic" based on a study Harvard's influence over New York's Occupy movement was, and still is, banned by all my usual outlets, and I suspect it gets unrealistically low search engine ratings.  Seriously, this implicates everybody; they ALL know.  You can scream it in their faces and they will understand--but less so a rock to the head, that tends to halt comprehension (but not cognition, unless they black out, which, in a violent way, helps show that CBT in the context of the Socratic Method and metacognitive programming is pure BS).

Afterthoughts about Plato's errors: Plato probably saw Alexander's father as an oligarch (as he "took over" Athens) and Alexander as the democrat (anarchist) who inherited it -- What is missing from Plato's sequence is that Aristotle (Plato's nemesis) was Alexander's tutor, and sent him to India (to make him "great") Aristotle was not innocent in this as he is said to have invented classical racism as part of A's education. If we want to further understand Plato's influences, this linear progression of decay can be theorized as a loop and thus "made correct," but the supporting hypothesis has to be "falsified" (Popper's best-known contribution).

Also, Plato could not have predicted the influence his writing would have, especially over 2500 years.  Perhaps this document merely shows oligarchy in terms of Alexander's father, and decay in terms of Alexander's democracy.  Alexander's difficulties were Aristotle's fault, the attempted expansion of Greece into India was so stressful that it made it vulnerable to Spartan attack and destroyed his family.  In the end, Aristotle got a "death sentence  as Socrates did, but left town instead of drinking poison.  (The "death sentence" oligarchic philosophers whine about was apparently nothing more than a very liberal "get out of town" ticket, and I doubt Socrates' hemlock was all that poisonous.)

Note about the dialectic/Socratic method and education: there is sometimes a perception of free will in education (but not in didactic) that defines perception as potential deception.  There is no truth, but only perception, because the reality of education is a desire for the synthesis of specific ideas, usually within the scope of the individual professor's worldview.

Liberation is personal, it means "quieting the voices." Perception is what we see, and in the case of academic education it is dialectical -- reality is that the perception is a deception (either rational reduction or individual worldview and can cannot possibly "truth").  Going beyond the reality that the deception is in control of perception means escaping the dialectic, that is to say, escaping the metacogntive programming, or, quite realistically, "quieting the voices."

Suppressing the "Current Dialectic: Occupy Critical Inquiry."  

  • OpEdNews was the first to, with long emails telling me how ignorant I am and telling me only Marx understood capital and the dialectic
  • DMOZ rejected it 
  • Daily Koz eventually blocked my account over anti-socratic viewsbut not my discussion about Isreal, Aaron Beck, and Metacognition, which was attacked by "troll bashers"
  • Wictionary "boss" deleted early drafts while pretending they didn't (breaking a good many wiki rules, and had to put it back)

Comments from FB draft release:
Like ·  · 
  • Seen by 3
  • Britannia Willow Anyway, it's just Plato's Idea, isn't it? All his thoughts head for the Idea. 
  • John Bessa all his thoughts, or forms, were in his head, Aristotle linked matter to observation, Plato was "making it up" but, using Socrates "information society," the Academy, was able to make it Western structure because the Academy survives today as Academia,the information Control society -- it is all synthesis, where Democracy is demon-ized as chaos when, in fact, it is the original tribal-political system, not just Athens' highly-successful system. This is the point of Sophocles' Oedipus, which pre-dated Socrates and Plato: Oedipus became the barbarian from OVER-civilization suggesting that Greeks believed that civilization is decay itself, which is what activist Aboriginals believe.,...See More
  • BTW, you can type into the form -- nothing happens

Given Britannia's post (from Korea), I wonder "what if there was no Academy? No Socrates, Plato, Aristotle? I think (as a phenomenologist) that the ("phenomic") result would be that an Academy would have been formed by others using similar techniques.  Support for this comes from the Confucian school that was so far away from Greece and culturally so different (filial-societal rather than individualist-egotist) yet formed a very similar culture base with a dialogue method that is sometimes called dialectical with far-reaching effects--and even frustrations--that parallel the West.

Then there is the question of Alexander the Great whom Plato apparently trashes as a democratic (anarchistic) degenerate --is the Forum of Athens the real Western Civilization as a natural evolution of the natural society?  The Aristocracy/Oligarchy is forced to accommodate natural society for fear of "cooking the goose that lays the golden eggs" even in the face of mechanization and now slavery-leveraging globalism.  At what point society has nothing to lose, it rebels violently with bourgeois support--a phenomena successfully noted by communists and other rebels who used (and still use) the dialectic to trick into thinking revolution is socialist when it is, in fact, Platonic, and they, as counter-revolutionary the middle class  bourgeoisie democrats, are eventually all killed along with millions of peasants.

If so, then, the great civilizer is in fact Alexander with his (hypothetical) attempt to pass power to the poor, perhaps by outlawing slavery (IF Stone's Trial of Socrates suggests this).  If this is correct, then civilization (for lack, now, of a better word) is about reducing rules rather than by creating them--just as Jesus when he denounced slavery while attempting to moderate the Zealots of his time by reducing the Jewish rule-set from 750+ to a handful.  He (the human rather than Son of God) could not have known he would create the most popular religion of all time using a message of Love, Forgiveness, and Fewer Rules: anarchism (which democracy in Plato's view).  Likewise Sophocles' described Oedipus' over-civilization as his path to barbarism when he killed his father and raped his mother; Athens was done with the dialectic long before Socrates and Plato were born.

Interesting is that Athenian democracy was at sea for a time; after a particular defeat to Sparta, only the Athenian navy was remained democratic, which is another problem for Plato.  Plato promotes his fascistic single-person control by saying every captain has to control the sailors when in fact, many successful vessels actually practised democracy including the famous Canadian racing-fishing schooner Bluenose.

Wiki reference:'s_five_regimes

The Snowden Effect: Uncle Tom is Dialectical

The people of the United States worked hard to shed its racism over the past 20-30 yrs to elect a Black president --twice-- in the face of an oligarchic Republican party proved in its ability to steal elections. But, in the end we got a war criminal, and the biggest threat to the constitution since slavery in the NSA's covert PRISM operation.

This is how it is dialectic -- we thought we were implementing our chosen and self-decided group destiny, but we dialectically arrived at place with a person so it is as if Plato chose him. The instrument and vehicle of this deception was the Harvard University, MIT pair. Aaron Schwartz was another dialectic victim through the highly unethical influneces of ethical leader Lessing -- our true, "liberal/progressive" enemy (what do we do now? -- no place to go but within)

Below is a link to my notes, which I am attempting organize while updating based on this on-going, exceedingly important event that is becoming "phenomic"

Link to Notes on Oddmuse (CLICK)

About the notes -- Searches on Snowden inevitably lead to Aaron Schwartz, who killed himself during his prosecution for attempting to "liberate" J-Store academica material.  He was mentored by Lessing, Harvard ethics leader -- perhaps the world ethics leader. While a socratic link from Lessing to Schwartz's death is hypothetical, the relationship adds yet another data point to the greater hypothesis that academia exists largely to assure that "revolutionary process" brings us right back to the point at which we started, and the dialectic process develops seemingly self-appointed mini-guards (from Aaron Beck), and now, perhaps even martyrs, such as Schwartz.  Here Lessing "chats" with Schwartz: Schwartz is definitely underaged, and Lessing's body langauge cannot be mistaken.