Walden 2, Prevention or Intervention. From Nowhere and Utopia. What’s the point? The Objective, The Purpose !

Not this Walden

Nor This.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden

But Walden 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two

But there was, I think, a better reason why more and more people began to read the book. The world was beginning to face problems of an entirely new order of magnitude-the exhaustion of resources, the pollution of the environment, overpopulation, and the possibility of a nuclear holocaust, to mention only four. Physical and biological technologies could, of course, help. We could find new sources of energy and make better use of those we had. The world could feed itself by growing more nutritious grains and eating grain rather than meat. More reliable methods of contraception could keep the population within bounds. Impregnable defenses could make a nuclear war impossible. But that would happen only if human behavior changed, and how it could be changed was still an unanswered question. How were people to be induced to use new forms of energy, to eat grain rather than meat, and to limit the size of their families; and how were atomic stockpiles to be kept out of the hands of desperate leaders? From time to time policy makers in high places have been urged to pay more attention to the behavioral sciences. The National Research Council, the operative arm of the National Academy of Sciences, made one such proposal a number of years ago, pointing out that useful “insights in policy formulation” had been developed. But it implied that the chief role of the behavioral sciences was to collect facts and insisted, possibly to reassure policy makers who might be alarmed by the ambitions of scientists, that “knowledge is no substitute for wisdom or common sense in making decisions.” Science would get the facts but Congress or the President would make the decisions-with wisdom and common sense. vii It is true that when the behavioral sciences have gone beyond the collection of facts to recommend courses of action and have done so by predicting consequences, they have not been too helpful. Not all economists agree, for example, on how an increase or reduction in taxes or a change in interest rates will affect business, prices, or unemployment, and political scientists are no more likely to agree on the consequences of domestic or international policies. In anthropology, sociology, and psychology the preferred formulations are those that do not dictate action. A thoroughgoing developmentalism, for example, almost denies the possibility of effective action. Applied psychology is usually a mixture of science and common sense, and Freud regarded therapy as a minor contribution of psychoanalysis.
B. F. SKINNER January, 1976
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/george-protection-or-free-trade

Chapter I
INTRODUCTORY.
NEAR the window by which I write, a great bull is tethered by a ring in his nose. Grazing round and round he has wound his rope about the stake until now he stands a close prisoner, tantalized by rich grass he cannot reach, unable even to toss his head to rid him of the flies that cluster on his shoulders. Now and again he struggles vainly, and then, after pitiful bellowings, relapses into silent misery.
This bull, a very type of massive strength, who, because he has not wit enough to see how he might be free, suffers want in sight of plenty, and is helplessly preyed upon by weaker creatures, seems to me no unfit emblem of the working masses.

Embodied energy cost of opportunity cost. Which would be a true metric of decision making where resource constraints involve mutually exclusive resource investment decisions. #GrubStreetJournal #HenryGeorge #EnergyEconomics #SingleLandTax #Proudhon

Chapter 3 (Sheep)
. We set out across the field to the south, skirting a fairly large flock of sheep. The sheep were kept together by a single length of string, carrying occasional bits of cloth like a kite-tail, and supported on poles stuck into the ground to form a square fold. Rogers commented on this insubstantial arrangement. ‘We wanted an expanse of cropped grass in our front yard,” Frazier explained, “but it’s too close to the buildings for a regular sheep pasture. It’s used a great deal by the children. In fact, we all use it as a sort of lawn. By the way9′-he turned particularly to Castle and me-“do you remember Veblen’s analysis of the lawn in the Theory of the Leisure Class?” “I do, indeed,” said Castle. “It was supposed to represent a bit of choice but conspicuously unconsumed pasture.” Castle’s diction was always precise, but occasionally, as in this instance, he burlesqued himself with added delicacy. “That’s right,” said Frazier, with a slight smile. “Well, this is our lawn. But we consume it. Indirectly, of course -through our sheep. And the advantage is that it doesn’t consume us. Have you ever pushed a lawn mower? The stupidest machine ever invented-for one of the stupidest of purposes. But I digress. We solved our problem with a portable electric fence which could be used to move our flock of sheep about the lawn like a gigantic modng machine, but leaving most of it free at any time. At night the sheep are taken across the brook to the main fold. But we soon found that the sheep kept to the enclosure and quite clear of the fence, which didn’t need to be electrified. So we substituted a piece of string, which is easier to move around.” “What about the new lambs?” Barbara asked, turning her head at a slight angle and looking at Frazier from the comers of her eyes. “They stray,” Frazier conceded, “but they cause no trouble and soon learn to keep with the flock. The curious thing is-you will be interested in this, Burris-the curious thing is that most of these sheep have never been shocked by the fence. Most of them were born after we took the wire away. It has become a tradition among our sheep never to approach string. The lambs acquire it from their elders, whose judgment they never question!’ “It’s fortunate that sheep don’t talk,” said Castle. “One of them would be sure to ask ‘Why?’ The Philosophical Lambkin.” “And some day a Skeptical Lambkin would put his nose on the string and nothing would happen and the whole sheepfold would be shaken to its very foundations,” I added. “And after him, the stampede!” said Casde. “I should have told you,” said Frazier soberly, “that no small part of the force of tradition is due to the quiet creature you see yonder.” He pointed to a beautiful sheep dog, which was watching us from a respectful distance. “We call him the Bishop.”

WUHAN AND HIS DOG, PARODY ONE MAN AND HIS DOG
Charles and Pet are returning from a salt collecting expedition when they meet two other travelers, who become very ill. They take them to a nearby settlement in an old army camp. The community there is run like a police state where eugenics, euthanasia and religious fervor all hold sway. The community there are led by a charismatic leader called Max Kershaw and his female second in command Joy Dunne. Pet is fearful having seen their farming workers march back from work in the fields, that they may not be allowed leave, whilst Charles is summoned to address the

Survivors First and Last Episodes. The Beginning(#FourthHorseman) Middle(#Chosen) and End (#Passover) #Pesach 19-27 April 2019, There will be loud wailing throughout the #WashingtonConsensus . #CovidPurpose a Rockerfeller Eugenics Crime against humanity. @financialeyes @JoeBlob20 #CovidPurpose @ClarkeMicah #ConquestofDough @wiki_ballot

‘We are grateful for your kindness,” I said to Frazier, 4f not only in asking us to visit Walden Two but in giving us so much of your time. I’m afraid it’s something of an imposition.’ “On the contrary,” said Frazier. “I’m fully paid for talking with you. Two labor-credits are allowed each day for taking charge of guests of Walden Two. I can use only one of them, but it’s a bargain even so, because I’m more than fairly paid by your company.” “Labor-credits?” I said. “I’m sorry. I had forgotten. Labor-credits are a sort of money. But they’re not coins or bills-just entries in a ledger. All goods and services are free, as you saw in the dining room this evening. Each of us pays for what he uses with twelve hundred labor-credits each year-say, four credits for each workday. We change the value according to the needs of the community. At two hours of work per credit-an eight-hour day-we could operate at a handsome profit. We’re satisfied to keep just a shade beyond breaking even. The profit system is bad even when the worker gets the profits, because the strain of overwork isn’t relieved by even a large reward. All we ask is to make expenses, with a slight margin of safety; we adjust the value of the labor-credit accordingly. At present it’s about one hour of work per credit.” “Your members work only four hours a day?” I said. There was an overtone of outraged virtue in my voice, as if I had asked if they were all adulterous. “On the average,” Frazier replied casually.

“A credit system also makes it possible to evaluate a job in terms of the willingness of the members to undertake it. After all, a man isn’t doing more or less than his share because of the time he puts in; it’s what he’s doing that counts. So we simply assign different credit values to different kinds of work, and adjust them from time to time on the basis of demand. Bellamy suggested the principle in Looking Backward.” “An unpleasant job like cleaning sewers has a high value, I suppose,” I said. “Exactly. Somewhere around one and a half credits per hour. The sewer man works a little over two hours a day. Pleasanter jobs have lower values-say point seven or point eight. That means five hours a day, or even more. Working in the flower gardens has a very low value-point one. No one makes a living at it, but many people like to spend a little time that way, and we give them credit. In the long run, when the values have been adjusted, all kinds of work are equally desirable. If they weren’t, there would be a demand for the more desirable, and the credit value would be changed. Once in a while we manipulate a preference, if some job seems to be avoided without cause.” “I suppose you put phonographs in your dormitories which repeat ‘I like to work in sewers. Sewers are lots of fun,’ ” said Castle. “No, Walden Two isn’t that kind of brave new world,” said Frazier. “We don’t propagandize. That’s a basic principle. I don’t deny that it would be possible. We could make the heaviest work appear most honorable and desirable. Something of the sort has always been done by well-organized governments-to facilitate the recruiting of armies, for example. But not here. You may say that we propagandize ail labor, if you like, but I see no objection to that. If we can make work pleasanter by proper training, why shouldn’t we? But I digress.”

Avoid Propaganda accept critical of your own means to achieve an understanding of Why intended ends are not achieved


Where is the Protest Movement against this Unelected Corona “public-private partnership”?The same philanthropic foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Soros, et al) which are the unspoken architects of the “Great Reset” and “Global Governance” are also involved in (generously) financing Climate Change activism, the Extinction Rebellion, the World Social Forum, Black Lives Matters, LGBT, et al.

What this means is that the grassroots of these social movements are often misled and betrayed by their leaders who are routinely coopted by a handful of corporate foundations.The World Social Forum (WSF), which is commemorating its 21st anniversary brings together committed anti-globalization activists from all over the World. But who controls the WSF? From the outset in January 2001, it was (initially) funded by the Ford Foundation.It’s what you call “manufactured dissent” (far more insidious than Herman-Chomsky’s “manufactured consent”).The objective of the financial elites “has been to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Manufacturing Dissent, Global Research, 2010)In the words of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation (1966-1979):“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of governmentThe Protest movement against the Great Reset which constitutes a “Global Coup d’état” requires a process of Worldwide mobilization:.”There can be no meaningful mass movement when dissent is generously funded by those same corporate interests [WEF, Gates, Ford, et al] which are the target of the protest movement”.

Gatekeepers , Foundations and Democracy.Usefull Idiot School.

.
Robert Schumann Piano Quintet in E-flat major, Op. 44 – 1st mov.


Chapter 27 ,

Federating other Waldens, participation and change from within of the Embedded paradigm.

“A sort of United Communities?)

p.215 the Real Estate problem.

‘That sort of compound-interest growth always runs into the problem of crowding,” I said. “You will have to start your communities farther and farther apart if they are also to subdivide freely.” “But that will be possible.” “YOU may not be able to get the land, at least as rapidly as you get the people.” “The real estate problem of a large-scale expansion is interesting,” said Frazier fondly. We don’t use a great deal of land per person as agricultural areas go, but you’re quite right, we may run into trouble. Farm land is usually passed on from one generation to another. Farmers don’t like to sell and seldom are in sufficiently desperate need to do so. We might be forced into offering exorbitant prices, and that would slow down our expansion. But by the time a shortage of land threatens us in any locality, we’ll be in a position to exert pressure. If we buy up half the farms which do business in a particular town, we control the town. The feed dealers, hardware stores, and farm machinery salesmen depend on us. We can put them out of business or control them through our trade. The real estate values in the town can be manipulated at will, and the town itself gradually wiped out. We can always use secondhand brick and lumber. Then we can make the area very uncomfortable for non-cooperative landowners, because they have lost their channels of supply and distribution. In the long run any increase in the value of the land to us will mean a decrease in the value to anyone else. It’s a very different case from the usual real estate boom. We shan’t worry about a few stubborn holdouts. We don’t need all the land!’ “Oh, ho! Oh, ho!” cried Castle. “SO you aren’t making war! I submit that no monopolist ever had a more ruthless program!”
p.216.
Frazier was embarrassed. He had ‘been carried away by his dreams, and Castle had caught him off guard. “It will all depend,” he stammered, “on how the program is carried out. We wouldn’t deal unfairly with anyone.” “Wait a minute. Wait a minute!” cried Castle. “That’s what the Nazis said! Hider wasn’t going to deal unfairly with Poland. Eliminating several million undesirables was all for her greater glory, you remember. The zealot always thinks he knows what’s fair, and justifies his aggression accordingly. But ask your feed dealer if he likes the help you’re going to give him.” “He could join us,” said Frazier. “But maybe he doesn’t want to join you. Maybe he just wants to run a successful little feed store which served the farms you have gobbled up and collectivized.” “In such a case we’ll simply have to do the best we can-for our conscience’ sake as well as to avoid bad public relations,” said Frazier. ‘The man has tied himself up with a moribund competitive society. All we can do is make his personal demise as ~ainless as possible, unless he’s intelligent enough to adjust to the new order!’ “New order!” cried Castle. ‘That’s another familiar name for the ‘improvement’ of people who get in your way.” Castle was bouncing in his chair. He seemed to feel that he had found Frazier’s weak point at last, and he could scarcely contain himself. ~Gzier was taking his jibes with growing resentment. “And I’ll bet you have designs on the political ma- chinery too,” Castle continued. “You wouldn’t always be satisfied with voting the Walden Ticket. You’d want to get the offices yourself, and you’d be strong enough to do it.”

‘Yes, I must admit you’re right. But what’s wrong with that? As soon as we’re in the majority in any locality, we shall exercise our rights under a democratic form of government and take control.” ‘But you have several times suggested that you have little faith in democracy,” Castle said. “I will do more than suggest, if you like,” said Frazier body. “But I am speaking of practical affairs, such as the recovery of taxes in the form of useful services. We have every intention of stepping into democratic politics for purposes of that sort as soon as possible. By reorganizing the local township and county governments we could reduce taxes, recover our own taxes in salaries by putting our own people in office, and at the same time raise the county to our own standards. The school system would naturally fall into our hands, and we might be able to adapt some of the schools to our own use and hence avoid the double taxation of private education. Who could object to that?” “Almost anyone,” said Castle, with unabating excitement. “And the fact that they’d object in vain proves how vicious the system is.” “It’s the will of the majority, though,” said Frazier. “And while I recognize that that’s a form of despotism, we must use it temporarily to achieve a better govemment for all.” “Before you know it you’ll have the Ethiopians wearing shoes!” cried Castle. “0 brave new world, indeed!” Frazier scowled. ”I’ve been called a Fascist before,” he said quietly. “I’ll bet you have!” Castle growled. “It’s a convenient way to dispose of any attempt to improve upon a laissez-faire democracy,” Frazier continued in the same quiet voice. “And it’s a convenient way to describe a form of gov- emment, too, I should say,” said Castle, with less excitement. He was obviously annoyed that Frazier was unwilling to shout. ‘What’s your answer?” ‘I can see no similarity whatsoever between Walden Two and the gangsterdom of a Mussolini or Hitler,” said Frazier. “But you’ve admitted that it’s antidemocratic,” Castle à insisted. “The people have no voice- “The people have all the voice they have any need for. They can accept or protest-and much more effectively than in a democracy, let me add. And we all share equally in the common wealth, which is the intention but not the achievement of the democratic program. Anyone born into Walden Two has a right to any place among us for which he can demonstrate the necessary talent or ability. There are no hereditary preferments of any sort. What you are complaining about is our undemocratic procedure outside the community, and I agree with you that it’s despicable. I wish it were possible to act toward the world as we act toward each other. But the world insists that things be done in a different way!’ “What about your elite? Isn’t that a fascist device?” said Castle. “Isn’t it true that your Planners and Managers exercise a sort of control which is denied to the common member?” “But only because that control is necessary for the proper functioning of the community. Certainly our elite do not command a disproportionate share of the wealth of the community; on the contrary, they work rather harder, I should say, for what they get. ‘A Manager’s lot is not a happy one.’ And in the end the Planner or Manager is demoted to simple citizenship. Temporarily, they have power, in the sense that they run things-but it’s limited. They can’t compel anyone to obey, for example. A Manager must make a job desirable. He has no slave labor at his command, for our members choose their own work. His power is scarcely worthy of the name. What he has, instead, is a job to be done. Scarcely a privileged class, to my way of thinking.” “There’s another point of similarity, though,” said Castle. “The successful communities of the past-and I still think comparisons are relevant-have usually had a strong figure at the head. Frequently the community has survived only as long as that leader. No matter what the constitutional structure of your society may be, it’s quite possible that you are operating efficiently only because your government is in effect a dictatorship. Your members may be conforming out of submission to a dominating figure, or loyal to a hero, or simple mesmerism, for that matter. And 2 at’s characteristic of Fascism, perhaps more than anything else.” “But who’s the dictator here?” said Frazier with what seemed like unbelievable naivete. “Why, you, of course,” said Castle. 4417i ‘Yes, you were the primum mobile, weren’t you?” Frazier smiled. “I was? Well, I suppose you could say I gave the first push, but I’m not pushing now. There is no pushing, that’s the point of the whole thing. Set it up right, and it will run bv itself.” “Mr. Castle has decided that you are the Midget in the Machine,” I said, “and that all the levers and gears we’ve been looking at during the past few days are so much window dressing.” “And I run it all by personal magnetism?” “I wasn’t entirely serious,” said Castle. He was annoyed, but I could not decide whether he resented my reference or felt that his advantage was slipping. “Have you seen anyone ‘Heil Frazier’ hereabouts?” said Frazier. “Have you seen any monogrammed F’s on our walls or furniture or silver? Have you seen a new Mein Kampf in our library? In fact, have you heard anyone even so much as mention me? After all, you don’t believe in telepathy, do you? Even Hitler had to come into contact with his people somehow, directly and through symbolic devices and customs. Where’s the machinery of my dictatorship?” “As a matter of fact,” I said, “I ran into a woman this afternoon who had some difficulty in placing you when I mentioned your name.” Frazier smiled broadly, and I wondered again whether Mrs. Olson had been planted in my path. “This is a world without heroes,” he said quietly but with great finality. ‘We have got beyond all that.” ‘Then you’ve really created something new under the sun,” I said, and Frazier nodded quietly. “Can you think of a single period of history which wasn’t dominated by a great figure?” I turned to Castle, who was probably the most capable historian among us, but he merely shook his head absently. “I know there’s a modem theory that history can be written without emphasizing personal exploits -the history of ideas, of political philosophies, of movements, and so on. But look how strongly the principle of personal leadership has survived in our own time. This is the century of Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin. How can you possibly hope to dispense with so ubiquitous a feature of successful government?” “A dominant figure in Walden Two is quite unthinkable,” said Frazier. “The culture which has emerged from our experiments doesn’t require strong leadership. On the contrary, it contains several checks and guarantees against it. As I explained before, no one in Walden Two ever acts for the benefit of anyone else except as the agent of the community. Personal favoritism, like personal gratitude, has been destroyed by our cultural engineers. No one is ever in debt to any figure, or any group short of the whole community. That’s almost inevitable in a society in which economic preferment is lacking. It’s impossible elsewhere. ‘We deliberately conceal the planning and managerial machinery to further the same end. I doubt whether there are half a dozen members, aside from the Managers, who can correctly name all six Planners. The Managers are known to the members because they have a more direct responsibility, but they’re more likely to ‘be looked upon as servants than masters, although we strive for a neutral attitude. “For the same reason,” Frazier continued, “we discourage any sense of history. The founding of Walden Two is never recalled publicly by anyone who took part in it. No distinction of seniority is recognized. It’s very bad taste to refer to oneself as an ‘early member.’ Give Steve and Mary a week to learn the ropes and you won’t be able to tell them from the old-timers. And all personal contibutions are either suppressed altogether or made anonymous. A simple historical log of the community is kept by the Legal Manager, but it’s not consulted by anyone except Planners and Managers who need information.” ‘”But why go to all that trouble?” said Castle. ‘{Not all the great figures of history have been malevolent dictators. To allow an outstanding figure to emerge isn’t necessarily to create a despot. Is there anything wrong with a personal figure?” ‘You’re slipping, Mr. Castle,” said Frazier. “A moment ago it was I who was the Fascist. Yes, there’s a great deal wrong with personal figures of any sort. After all, what’s the function of the leader~of the hero? Have you ever thought that through? Isn’t it to piece out an inadequate science of government? In a pre-scientific society the best the common man can do is pin his faith on a leader and give him his support, trusting in his benevolence against the misuse of the delegated power and in his wisdom to govern justly and to make war successfully. It’s the only possible course when government remains an art. “In the world at large we seldom vote for a principle or a given state of affairs. We vote for a man who pretends to believe in that principle or promises to achieve that state. We don’t want a man, we want a condition of peace and plenty~or, it may be, war and want-but we must vote for a man. The leader or hero supplements a faulty science. That’s his first function-to use his head and heart where science fails. We have no need for him here. Our Planners act ~erfectly well in practically complete anonymity. 7> “But the hero has another function- Frazier continued. ‘To rally support, to accumulate power. It is the peculiar and extraordinary function of the hero-despot. The military, economic, and religious powers in the state are pledged to him through loyalty or submissiveness. A Napoleon could retain a substantial power of this sort even after being thoroughly despoiled by h’ is enemies. ” The state is power, and the hero is the state!’ What a faulty political design! It’s true that many states wouldn’t have come into existence except through the efforts of a leader. The structure is in that sense natural-but always in early forms of government. Here we have advanced beyond the need for personal figures either as specialists or as devices for holding power. “No, Mr. Castle. A society which functions for the good of all cannot tolerate the emergence of individual figures. The leader principle has always failed in the long run. On the other hand, a society without heroes has an almost fabulous strength. It’s high time that somebody gave it a try.” “Isn’t the hero useful in inspiring emulation?” I said. “I can see why you don’t want a child to imitate any one adult, but can you really carry through without heroes? What about nonpolitical leaders? Great athletes, for example?” “We value skill and strength. But we don’t value, and we certainly don’t emphasize, personal triumph. That’s not only unnecessary in a cooperative culture, it’s dangerous. Our leaders aren’t the men who can defeat the rest of us in battle, and we don’t encourage that pattern elsewhere. We have no boxing or wrestling, and no games between teams, except chessmen! Our heroes, if you can call them that, are those who dive with exceeding grace, or polevault at a high setting of the bar. Their achievements are triumphs over nature or over themselves, and they’re exactly on a par with our artists and musicians, our dressmakers, our cattle breeders. We don’t keep them anonymous because we couldn’t, and of course our youngsters imitate them and choose their temporary heroes. But we discourage hero worship as much as possible. It’s a bad motive because it usually means an unwise choice of goals.” Frazier went to the door again as several people passed by. He called to someone. “Will you tell Mr. and Mrs. Winton that I’d like to see them when they can spare a moment?” he said. He returned to us with an uncertain step. ”I should think a hero-less Walden Two would suffer by comparison when your young people learn about the great heroes of history,” I said. “We don’t teach history,” said Frazier. ‘We don’t keep our young people ignorant of it, any more than we keep them ignorant of mycology, or any other subject. They may read all the history they like. But we don’t regard it as essential in their education. We don’t turn them in that direction and not many take it!” ‘But history!” Castle protested. “The history of our country-of the civilization of which we are all a part. How can you neglect anything so important?” ‘You’re begging the question,” said Frazier. “Important for what?” ‘Why for the proper education of-a man o culture!’ “You’re still begging the question.” ‘Well-” said Castle, who seemed to be unprepared for this turn of affairs, “tor perspective, for a detached view.” “Does history give perspective? You might advise a man to go down by the river to see Walden Two in perspective, but he wouldn’t see it at all from there. How do we know that distant events are seen more clearly?” “That’s pretty strong,” I said. “It’s generally admitted that time brings a balanced judgment, a better sense of propor tion!’ ‘By falsifying the facts! Any single historical event is too complex to be adequately known by anyone. It tran- scends all the intellectual capacities of men. Our practice is to wait until a sufficient number of details have been forgotten. Of course things seem simpler then! Our memories work that way; we retain the facts which are easiest to think about. “And that, by the way,” Frazier continued, “is another count against the hero-leader-he misrepresents history. The hero, my dear Mr. Castle, is a device which the historian has taken over from the layman. He uses it because he has no scientific vocabulary or technique for dealing with the real facts of history-the opinions, emotions, attitudes; the wishes, plans, schemes; the habits of men. He can’t talk about them, and so he talks about heroes. But how misleading that is! How inevitable that personal characteristics and private affairs be mixed with the hero type!” Frazier hitched himself up in his chair in a gross gesture of getting control of himself. “But we’re etting away from the point,” he went on. “I don’t care ow well historical facts can be ‘known from afar. Is it important to know them at all? I submit that history never even comes dose to repeating itself. Even if we had reliable information about the past, we couldn’t find a case similar enough to justify inferences about the present or immediate future. We can make no real use of history as a current guide. We make a false use of it-an emotive use of it-often enough. No one denies that.” ”I can’t believe you’re serious,” said Castle. “Are you saying that you gain no perspective-I mean, no detached opinion-from a sense of history?” “I mean that and more. Nothing confuses our evaluation of the present more than a sense of history-unless it’s a sense of destiny. Your Hitlers are the men who use history to real advantage. It’s exactly what they need. It obfuscates every attempt to get a clear appreciation of the present. “Race, family, ancestor worship-these are the handmaidens of history, and we should have learned to beware of them by now. What we give our young people in Walden Two is a grasp of the current forces which a culture must deal with. None of your myths, none of your heroes~no history, no destiny-simply the Nowi The present is the thing. It’s the only thing we can deal with, anyway, in a scientific way. But we’ve got a long way from the dictator. Have I satisfied you that I have no personal ambitions, Mr. Castle?”

The Revolution Betrayed. Make 1984 fiction again. Was it fiction? Theory of Oligarchical Collectivism and the revolution betrayed compared. Is the EUssr Soviet. According to the late, Christopher Story, Yes! It most certainly is.

28
“ like a colt from a piece of paper in the wind.”

“The final social structure we’re working toward must wait for those who have had a full Walden Two heritage. They will come, never fear, and the rest of us will pass on to a well-deserved oblivion-the pots that were marred in making.”

29.

‘Mephistophelian’?”
‘A modem, mechanized, managerial Machiavelli’. An artist in power,” “whose greatest art is to conceal art. The silent despot.”

I can see, you’ve blocked every path through which man was to struggle upward toward salvation. Intelligence, initiative-you have filled their places with a sort of degraded instinct, engineered compulsion. Walden Two is a marvel of efficient coordination-as efficient as an anthill!” “Replacing intelligence with instinct-” muttered Frazier.

“It’s a little late to be proving that a behavioral technology is well advanced. How can you deny it? Many of its methods and techniques are really as old as the hills. Look at their frightful misuse in the hands of the Nazis! And what about the techniques of the psychological clinic? What about education? Or religion? Or practical politics? Or advertising and salesmanship? Erin them all together and you have a sort of rule-of-thumb technology of vast power. No, Mr. Castle, the science is there for the asking. But its techniques and methods are in the wrong hands-they are used for personal aggrandizement in a competitive world or, in the case of the psychologist and educator, for futilely corrective purposes. My question is, have you the courage to take up and wield the science of behavior for the good of mankind? You answer that you would dump it in the ocean!” “I’d want to take it out of the hands of the politicians and advertisers and salesmen, too.” (‘And the psychologists and educators? You see, Mr. Castle, you can’t have that kind of cake. The fact is, we not only can control human behavior, we must. But who’s to do it, and what’s to be done?” “So long as a trace of personal freedom survives, I’ll stick to my position,” said Castle, very much out of countenance. “Isn’t it time we talked about freedom?” I said. “We parted a day or so ago on an agreement to let the question of freedom ring. It’s time to answer, don’t you think?” ‘My answer is simple enough,” said Frazier. “I deny that freedom exists at all. I must deny it-or my program would be absurd. You can’t have a science about a subject matter which hops capriciously about. Perhaps we can never prove that man isn’t free; it’s an assumption. But the increasing success of a science of behavior makes it more and more plausible.”

Free will[edit]
Aquinas argues that there is no contradiction between God’s providence and human free will:
… just as by moving natural causes [God] does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
— Summa, I., Q.83, art.1.
Aquinas argues that God offers man both a prevenient grace to enable him to perform supernaturally good works, and cooperative grace within the same. The relation of prevenient grace to voluntariness has been the subject of further debate; the position known here as “Thomist” was originated by Domingo Báñez[98] and says that God gives an additional grace (the “efficient grace”) to the predestined which makes them accept, while Luis de Molina held that God distributes grace according to a middle knowledge, and man can accept it without a different grace. Molinism is a school that is part of Thomism in the general sense (it originated in commentaries to Aquinas), yet it must be born in mind that, here, Thomism and Molinism oppose each other. (The question has been declared undecided by the Holy See.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination
29.
Positive reinforcement.

“Now that we know how positive reinforcement works and whv negative doesn’t,” he said at last, “we can be more deliberate, and hence more successful, in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That’s the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement-there’s no restraint and no revolt. By a careful cultural design, we control not the final behavior,
p.250
“Even so, it’s important that the people feel they’ve chosen the government they want,” said Castle. “On the contrary, that’s the worst of it. Voting is a device for blaming conditions on the people. The people aren’t rulers, they’re scapegoats. And they file to the polls every so often to renew their right to the title.”
CH 34.
THE DISTURBANCE on the lawn grew noisier as we came down the hill from the Throne. The sheep were baaing, the Bishop was barking savagely, and from time to time someone shouted. As we came round the end of the main building, we saw that one of the sheep had escaped from the portable fold. The Bishop was using encircling tactics to drive it back, but the clothmarked string was apparently equally formidable from either side, and whenever the sheep approached the fold, it veered off on a new path of escape. In the excitement, the rest of the flock had pressed into the far comer and other sheep were being forced through the string. Several men and women had formed a ring to keep them together. Everyone seemed to be waiting for a figure who was calmly approaching from the pasture across the brook. I found myself drawn into the emergency, but Frazier grasped my arm and we stopped at some distance. <l It doesn’t work, even with sheep, you see,” he said. ‘What doesn’t?” “Punishment. Negative reinforcement. The threat of pain. It’s a primitive principle of control. So long as we keep the fence electrified, we have no trouble-provided the needs of the sheep are satisfied. But if we relent, trouble is bound to arise sooner or later.” I was jolted by this detachment. Frazier was obviously much more concerned about the principle involved than about the escaped sheep. “Society isn’t likely to convert to positive reinforcement in the control of its sheep,” I said impatiently. “It couldn’t,” he replied seriously. “It couldn’t convert because it’s not raising sheep for the good of the sheep. It has no net positive reinforcement to offer. Nothing short of an insurmountable fence or frequent punishment will control the exploited.”
‘The string works pretty well. There must be something to be said for punishment!’ “It would scarcely work at all except for the Bishop. And the Bishop is not controlled by punishment. A sheep dog has a strong inclination to herd sheep-by definition. The Bishop wants to keep our sheep in their fold-it’s his life. And we feed and shelter him and arrange for the propagation of his kind because he wants to do what we want done. It’s like the cat in the grocery store-both the cat and the grocer want mice killed. It’s a very satisfying sort of symbiosis!’

“The cooperation of man and dog is very different from the slavery of man and beast,” said Frazier. ‘When will the society of man and man be classed with the former instead of the latter?”

#Milquetoast Media , #CovidPurpose rinse and repeat. #5G #5g #FiveGee #Covid19 symptom and not cause. 5G electromagnetic warfare. #QuinineSulphate #BioChemistry #ElectroChemistryCovid19 Corona Virus cover story for electromagnetic control Grid. @financialeyes @JoeBlob20 @ClarkeMicah

35.
Frazier had claimed some innovations in behavioral techniques which I wanted to know more about, but I could imagine a potent technology composed of the principles already used by politicians, educators, priests, advertisers, and psychologists. The techniques of controlling human behavior were obvious enough. The trouble was, they were in the hands of the wrong people-or of feeble repairmen. Frazier had not only correctly evaluated this situation but had done something about it. I was not ready to accept his educational practices as unquestionably the best. Frazier himself still regarded them as experimental. But they were at least well along toward a crucial test, which was more than could be said for their counterparts in the world at large. Their potency had already been too clearly demonstrated elsewhere in their misuse.

I do not say that John or Jonathan will realize all this; but such is the character of that morrow which mere lapse of time can never make to dawn. The light which puts out our eyes is darkness to us. Only that day dawns to which we are awake. There is more day to dawn. The sun is but a morning-star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden
Walden Pond (/ˈwɔːldən/; first published in 1854 as Walden Pond; or, Life in the Woods) is a book by American transcendentalist writer Henry David Thoreau. The text is a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings. The work is part personal declaration of independence, social experiment, voyage of spiritual discovery, satire, and—to some degree—a manual for self-reliance.[2]

1985, 8, 5-14 No. 1 (Spring)

News from Nowhere, 1984

B. F. Skinner
Harvard University

My name is Blair,” he said. “You are Burris?” I said I was. “You are the official historian of WaldenTwo – am I right?”
“Well, not official. Mr. Frazier doesn’t think much of history.”
“But unofficially,” he said, “you must keep some kind of record.” I admitted that I did. “Good. That’s enough. I am hoping to join Walden Two. I have an appointment with the Admissions Committee this morning. I’ll tell them most of what they want to know, but there is one thing I prefer to keep to myself. Yet I feel it ought to be on the record. May I ask you to keep a confidence?” I said I saw no reason why I should not. “Good. The fact is that in order to join Walden Two I have had to kill a man.”
“Oh, wait!” I said. “That’s not fair. I’m not a therapist or priest – you had no right to ask me to keep that kind of confidence.” I was quite angry.
He laughed. “It’s not quite the way it sounds.” He drew out his wallet and started to take something from it. But then, holding one corner of the wallet by thumb and forefinger, he let it fall open. It looked a little like the skin of a small animal. “I shall enjoy throwing that away,” he said. Then he took a clipping from the wallet and handed it to me. On it he had written “Times, London, January 22, 1950.” It began: “DEATH OF GEORGE ORWELL. Eric Arthur Blair, better known to millions as George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, died yesterday of tuberculosis ….”
I stared at the man across the table.
“You are George Orwell?”
“No!” he said, laughing. “I was. But, you see (he pointed to the clipping), I’ve killed him. A body was found missing from another ward in the hospital. I had left. I learned that kind of trick in the SpanishWar.” [Page 5][Page 6]
“You faked your death? But why?”
“Orwell was an unhappy man.A bitter man. Have you read ‘Such Were the Joys’-about his frightful schooling? Have you read Down and Out in Paris or Keep theAspidistra Flying – how awful it was to be poor? Have you read Animal Farm or Nineteen Eighty-Four – the specter of the totalitarian state? He had no hope. No reason to live.”
“And so you killed him. But why come here?”
“I read your book, and I saw something that I thought you and Frazier had missed. I came to tell you how to do a better job, but I like what I see and I’ve decided to stay, if you’ll take me. I was looking for a chance to live a happy life, and I may have found it. So here I am. And now I have another favor to ask.” I looked at him, a bit worried. “Take me to your leader.”
One day Frazier was having tea with a child when Blair came up waving a magazine.
“Look at this,” he said. “Somebody is giving us some help.” He would not have broken in so impolitely if Frazier had been talking with an older person, and Frazier was annoyed. He turned back to the child.
“Pulchrum in parvo,” Blair said, insisting upon Frazier’s attention.
Frazier was doubly annoyed. Latin again. He took the magazine, glanced at it, and handed it back. “Or, as the rest of us would say, ‘Small is beautiful.'”
“Right,” said Blair. “You must read it.” It was a review of Schumacher’s little book on the advantages of systems of moderate size, and the so-called intermediate technologies he was inventing for use in the Third World. I happened to be with Blair when Frazier met us the next day.
“Communities,” he said, speaking very carefully, “have always been multum in parvo, if not pulchrum.” (I suspect he had been looking in a Latin dictionary.) “They are miniature states. They must be small if they are to be experimental. Where else is one to start who is not the head of a [Page 11] government, religion, or industry? Where has any science started, or any art or music? The trick is to stay small. Walden Two works because it is small. Cities need police forces just because they are big, because face-to-face control of decent personal behavior is impossible. Why be nice to any one in a big city?Why not do shabby work if your next job will come from an ad in the Yellow Pages? Nothing but an organized punitive system will replace face-to-face censure and criticism, and nothing at all can replace commendation and gratitude.”

1986, 9, 129-132 No. 1 (Spring)

In Response
News from Now-Here, 1986: A Response to
“News from Nowhere, 1984”
Comunidad Los Horcones
Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico
Like Frazier, our favorite theme is the following: “A Walden Two community can solve most of the problems the world faces today. We can design, here and now, a society that maintains a friendly, productive, and enjoyable life.” At Los Horcones, we believe that there is a chance of building a new culture and that the [Page 132] present culture will not destroy us. Since the culture has produced the science of physics, chemistry, biology, and behavior (“behaviorology” as Los Horcones calls it),we are sure that it eventually will discover effective strategies for how to use all these sciences for people, not against them. We believe that there is enough time. If there isn’t, nothing will change for Los Horcones.

What Is the Limiting Factor? Capital as Power

Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan. Capital As Power. Power in the Blood of the earth.

Usury Hells Fuel and Mans oppressor.

Globalisation Un-Entangled. (A FOUND POEM, CIPHER OF GLOBALISM )

World Premiere Performance of Bourgeois resolution. A poem in Three Voices for added 4th part Harmony.

VALUE IS A NUMERICAL RELATION. Alexander Del Mar, The science of Money. #TheGrubStreetJournal #GrubStreetJournal #ConquestofDough

Second Thoughts on James Burnham George Orwell #GrubStreetJournal #GeorgeOrwell

Perplexity, Divergent Problems, Philisophical loose ends.

Pelagianism, Free Will Determinism #ActualFantasy #156 #GrubStreetJournal

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2022/03/04/223-trading-with-the-common-enemy/comment-page-1/#comment-29521
Share:

Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.