UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM
June 25, 2008
It was years ago, but the picture is still in my mind. The newlyweds in the apartment across from mine had a disaster. The toilet was overflowing and they didn’t know what to do. Melvin was mopping and dumping buckets of water into the bathtub. Elaine was sobbing and at the same time mopping as fast as she could, but it was of little use so long as the flooding continued. The caretaker’s wife heard the commotion and came to the rescue. She didn’t grab a mop and pitch in on the cleanup. She didn’t scream and sob in frustration. She knew what to do and how to do it. She shut off the water. A little bit of knowledge did the trick. She knew what caused the flooding and how to stop it. SHE UNDERSTOOD THE SYSTEM.
We are in a comparable mess. Our congress, legislatures, schools, judges and presidents have promoted, tolerated, or ignorantly supported legislation, judicial decisions, and executive orders that are destroying Constitutional government, national sovereignty, prosperity, and personal responsibility. They are flooding and smothering the country with rules, regulations, obligations, prohibitions, policies, requirements, taxes, orders, drugs, and aliens. Informed people know we have huge problems. Many are working to clean up the mess, but it keeps growing. It is long past the time when we need to do more than mop and sob. But what to do?
One of the major problems is that too few of those who want to correct the situation understand THE SYSTEM. Every time they make a bit of progress mopping up in one area, other situations demand attention and exhaust their efforts. There seems to be no permanent cleansing, no way to shut off the overflow. Obviously we are losing control of our government and our own social, economic, political, psychological and educational environments.
We are losing control to a class of vainbrains who believe world events should be predictable and all collective behavior scientifically controllable. They call themselves “social scientists.” Installing a world STSTEM controllable by social scientists or sociologists is their goal, and achievement of this goal is called “reform.” Government by social scientists is called sociocracy. Sociocrats believe sociocracy is the ideal and final form of government for the entire world. Once their goal is achieved, these vainbrains expect the world to be a happy, peaceful science laboratory. They see themselves as benefactors of humanity.
So think about it. When sociology is accepted as scientific, freedom is doomed. We become herds of laboratory animals. We have a ruling class demanding obedience to its policies, laws and decrees. Whatever they promote is represented as scientifically valid. Sociologists are actually getting away with such nonsense. Educators, judges, legislators, and other elected officials are cooperating. Even those who once had good intentions often vote for or support sociocratic legislation because they do not want to be accused of being “unscientific.”
The “reform” has been gradual. It is seldom expedient to install elements of the SYSTEM with sudden changes. In an article titled, “Psychology As A Means Of Promoting Human Welfare,” in the December, 1969 issue of AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, George A Miller of Rockefeller University explained to other psychologists how to proceed with their “reform.” He wrote, “I recognize that you do not need complete authority over a social organization in order to reform it. The important thing is not to control the system, but to understand it. Someone who has a valid conception of the system as a whole can often introduce relatively minor changes that have extensive consequences throughout the entire organization.”
That advice was not meant for us, but no matter. We can remember it, and try harder to understand the SOCIOCRATIC SYSTEM. And we can share and use our knowledge to make our own minor changes that might have extensive consequences.
One of the first things to understand is that the SYSTEM cares nothing for individuals. It always forms and works on groups. Wassily Leontief, Russian-born input/output Nobel Prize winning analyst for the SYSTEM, revealed the reason for this. He explained, “It is true, of course, that individual transactions, like individual atoms and molecules, are far too numerous for observation and description in detail. But it is possible, as with physical particles, to reduce them to some kind of order by classifying and aggregating them into groups.”
So you see, we are being classified and aggregated into groups so social scientists can manage our behavior more successfully. For convenience and to convey meaning I will shorten CLassifying and AGgregating to the word, “clag.” It is a rather obscure word which means a clot or a mass of sticky adhesive matter. It seems fitting.
Clagging techniques have been highly developed. Saul Alinsky, for example, was an expert clagger. He taught community organizers how to stimulate and use controversy to form activist groups: (1) Find a grievance (2) Seek out and train leaders. (3) Confront those with power by methods that gain public notice.
Literally millions of people have already been clagged into sociologically-controlled groups so the SYSTEM can better understand and use them.
Now I will share my impression of how social scientists cooperate with each other to make changes directed toward the goal of world sociocracy. Then I will give you a recent example of how sociocracy works in action.
The sociocrats do not have to do much original thinking because Auguste Comte gave instructions in his Positive Philosophy, System of Positive Polity and Catechism of Positive Religion before he died in 1857. Then in 1888 Edward Bellamy wrote a futuristic novel, Looking Backward, which was a fictionalized version of sociocracy in the year 2000. It was emotionally stimulating to many readers. It, and its sequel EQUALITY, provided a great deal of practical instruction on how to set up the SYSTEM.
Another book that has been useful to the sociocrats was The Theory Of Games And Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern which was published in 1944. Game theory explains various confrontational strategies. Success is the motivating ideal and goal. The strategies depend on the fact that no principles other than success are involved in decision making. Religion and morals are totally eliminated. (See “Mind Games”)
In the following explanation of how sociocracy brings about change I will include four major types of social scientists: (1) Sociologists (2) Political scientists (3) Economists (4) Social psychologists. All are necessary to the sociocracy, and they work in harmony. Each type follows a dominant idea that tells followers what to support and what not to support. (1) The dominant idea of the sociologists is social problems. They seek, find and create problems, write reports, clag people into opposing groups, and then present themselves as loving problem solvers. (2) The dominant idea of political scientists is power. (3) The dominant idea of the economists is profit and success. (4) The dominant idea of social psychologists is behavior control.
Sociologists and economists appear to be on opposite sides of political issues. The sociological view is generally favored by liberals and Democrats. The economists appear to be on the business, conservative, or Republican side. When the games begin the sociologists suggest problems and identify a particular group as victims of what they call “social injustice.” With the help of the political scientists they devise and promote legislation, often unconstitutional, which they claim will solve problems. However, liberals and Democrats are seldom able to get the legislation through Congress or state legislatures. They need conservative cooperation.
The conservatives will not cooperate until the political scientists find a way to write the legislation giving a profit to favored businesses. Try to think of any social programs that do not benefit some favored business group. When they can make a profit, conservatives cooperate and the legislation gets passed. The social scientists run the show and the legislators finally cooperate.
It is exactly as Lester Ward wrote in Applied Sociology, which was published in 1905:
“It must not be supposed that such legislation can be conducted to any considerable extent in the open sessions of legislative bodies. These will doubtless need to be maintained, and every new law should be finally adopted by a vote of such bodies, but more and more this will become merely a formal way of putting the final sanction of society on decisions that have been carefully worked out in what may be called the sociological laboratory.”
Meanwhile social psychologists work on ideas to get public participation and make the changes palatable to the public. The scenario is essentially the same time after time. This is a very necessary part of they SYSTEM. Harvard sociologists and psychologists have learned that the best ways to get people to accept change is to find ways for them to participate in making the change.
One of the best examples of this sociocratic scenario was its use in bringing about forced busing. The initial clagging for forced busing was done on the basis of race. Sociological “research” and reports claimed black students would learn better if they mingled daily with white students. Busing was chosen as a way to bring this about. Forget both blacks and whites as individuals. Sociocracy does not care about individuals or their comfort.
For the most part neither blacks nor whites wanted to leave their neighborhood schools, and legislators did not want to pass laws which might cause them to lose elections. What to do? The following from an article, “Each Year A Brand New Bunch of Fellows” in the March/April, 1970 issue of IBM’s THINK tells us what actually was done:
“Back in 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson expressed concern over the widening chasm between government and young leaders. He asked some of the best minds around what to do about it, and one of the ideas--it came from John W. Gardner, then president of the Carnegie Corporation--really grabbed LBJ's imagination. The idea was to search about for young people who showed outstanding career promise in business, the professions, scholarship, journalism, local civic leadership, and bring them to Washington to learn about government's problems by working as personal staff assistants to Cabinet officers and White House advisers . . .
“Now, as never before, the landscape is dotted with young leaders in local government and private industry who know how to engage federal government as a partner--how to use central government for local progress--because they have worked both sides of the street . . .
“Take for example, an adventure cooked up by Lelewer at HEW and his counterpart at the Department of Justice, David Miller, whose Fellowship year of 1968-69 straddled the Johnson and Nixon Administrations.
“We decided, recalls Lelewer. . .’to provide some new insights into the problems of school desegregation’. . .They arranged to visit school districts threatened with cutoff of federal education funds. . .
“The fellows talked with teachers and parents, black and white, and with elected officials, some of whom had lost reelection as reprisal for appearing to cooperate with Federal officials . . .
"When our talks got really frank, we found that what they wanted was a court order, getting a federal judge to say, 'You can't do this, and you've got to do that.' Then they felt they could achieve school desegregation. . .and still get re-elected.”
So they decided the federal judges had to do the dirty work. After all, they would not lose their positions because of their decisions as might be the case with legislators. The next problem for the busing crowd was to be sure the federal judges involved made the right sociological decision when cases were brought before them. Here is how that problem was solved:
“About 20 federal district judges from around the country are meeting in Washington, D. C. this weekend in closed sessions to discuss school desegregation cases and how to handle them. At least three of those invited are among judges now involved in desegregation litigation . . .
“The seminar is being held at the Federal Judicial Center, the research and training arm of the federal judiciary, but is being run by the Institute of Judicial Administration, a private organization at New York University.” MILWAUKEE JOURNAL , October 4, 1975.
So, you see, the decisions in the cases were made before they came to court and before evidence of any kind had been presented. It was game playing and role playing of the most deceitful kind. In the MILWAUKEE SENTINEL of June 29, 1978 Milwaukee Judge John Reynolds was quoted as admitting, "I am just one little judge in a mammoth social experiment going on around the country."
What an insult to all parents and children! They were made part of a sociological experiment without being aware of its existence. The judges did not rule according to law, they played the game and followed the script. They got away with it! That proved that federal judges could be used in many other situations. As George A Miller wrote, a relatively minor change had extensive consequences throughout the SYSTEM.
But where were the businessmen? Many of them were parents. One would think they would lend a hand to other parents who did not want their children to be kidnapped and sent away on a daily basis to be indoctrinated by strangers. One would be wrong. Before busing came to Milwaukee the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce had prepared packets for all major Milwaukee businesses with instructions on how to prepare their employees to accept the changes. This activity might be called applied political science.
The social psychology went into high gear after Judge Reynolds’ order. John A Gronouski was brought in as the special master. There were committees of 100, teacher workshops, charter schools, grants to schools for accepting students from distant areas, specialty schools, etc., etc., --all set up to make the sociocracy seem nicey nice rather than wantonly wicked.
Realize there is not and never has been such thing as social science. It is only a a point-of-view, not a science. While one could study and teach social history as part of a history curriculum, this should not be referred to as science. And a social history course ought to include information about sociological goals, methods, devices and deceptions.
You expect the sociocrats to play fair? Forget it. They don’t play fair! They won’t play fair! What can we do? The only sensible answer is to shut off the flood. There are lots of minor and major changes that might be made.
If you are a student, do not major in sociology or take sociology courses.
If you are a sociology teacher begin to teach social history rather than sociological groupism and futurism.
Do not allow sociology courses to be a requirement for entry into any occupation or profession.
Do not allow sociology courses to be essential for college graduation in any major.
Do not allow sociologists to be accepted in court as expert scientific witnesses.
Do not allow sociological testimony before legislative bodies to be given more credence than that of informed citizens who choose to testify.
If you are a parent of grade or high school students advise them and their friends to avoid sociology and to learn to recognize sociological influences in other classes.
Rename “social services” by calling them, “special services.”
Instead of saying “social workers,” say “special services workers.”
Discontinue government grants for sociological projects and education.
Discontinue tax exemptions for foundation support of social “sciences.”
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Resign from any group you have joined which claims to speak for you.
Don’t think you need group approval for every move you make.
Understand the sociocratic SYSTEM and learn as much as you can about it to make the clean up work in your own area of interest more effective.