WILL WESTERN CIVILIZATION'S FREEDOM SURVIVE?

How the Westbury High School Rebels
Houston, Texas, classes of 1962-1965

Saved Western Civilization from Extinction"

Another Pretty True Texas Story

by
A Westbury High School Boy

 

Annotated Contents 

1. Series Introduction (and Home page): Will Western Civilization's Freedom Survive? Essays from the Heartland on How to make it Do So
2. Author's Message: This missive describes ETM TRT SHOM's purposes and goals developed and pursued during the past nearly four decades, and now established herein for the rest of the twenty-first century
3. Dedication
4. Part I: A Regret
5. Part I: Eden, Guadalcanal, a Westbury Rebel, and La Bahia Road; From 1838 to 2014
6. “Part I: Navy Corpsmen: Tribute to a Westbury Hero”
7. "Part II: (beginning) The Westbury Rebel's Meaning to Me," or "The First Play from Scrimmage in the Westbury vs Bellaire Fifty Year Rivalry"
8. "Part II: (conclusion) What Happened at the End of the 1962 Westbury vs. Austin Football Game?"
9. “Part II: Entertainment in the 1960s”
10. "Part III: The Good Rebel in Most of Us (beginning); For What Do Good Rebels Fight and Die?"
11. "Part III: The Good Rebel in Most of Us (continued); Competitions, Challenges, and Making Things Right"
12. "Part III: The Good Rebel in Most of Us (conclusion); Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels"
13. "Part IV: Westbury Rebel Management of Really Serious Troublemakers in (and from) the Global"
14. "Part IV: Master of the Lake; The Great Peking Duck and Yorkshire Terrier Battle; or, A Scientifically acceptable Anecdotal Example for the Study of Visceralness in Fighting"
15. “Part V: Turn the World Right Side Up: Theory and Application for Depowering Psychopaths, BS Managers gone Berzerk (Bad Rebels), and the National to International Institutions they Manage"
    
16. "Part VI: Series Conclusion; Semper Fi; Tribute"
17. "Part VI: Series Conclusion; Combat: The Animal Self Unleashed; A Docudrama"
18. "Part VI: Series Conclusion; The Last Flashback"
19. "Appendix A: OPED regarding Board Removal of Westbury High School's Historic Mascot, the Rebel"
20. "Appendix B: The Genghis Khan of Psychotherapy; Behavioral Therapy and its Reformation, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy"
21. Appendix C: Glossary
22. Appendix D: Reprinting the Preface from the "Whackomole" Book

 

Preface to this Part III (conclusion)

This is another section, somewhat like the neurobiology of human ontology component (in previous "Part III continued"), that requires some interpretation from me before one tries to read it.

 

Thought Models

When teaching helping professionals how to use our trauma management model, which focuses upon trauma’s individual and systemic etiologies (to be found located in human ontological aspects of brain functioning) in lieu of its individual/systemic symptoms (behaviors), I had to learn something new, and develop the same: another language. The professionals and licensing paraphernalia of the time (1970s-1990s) were quickly becoming Nosotropically attentive if not outright declarative, as through Behaviorally influenced political power they were mandated as so. That means that facility licensure procedures directed remedies to focus on observable behaviors and to directly address them as the presenting problems. Because our approach was the opposite of that focus, we had much explaining to do. We had to provide a new schema for perceiving how the human consciousness affected by trauma worked. That was a challenge. And, the lessons learned were incorporated into educational programs for professionals desiring to adopt our approach to clinical treatment and management.

A class of professionals (as students learning or entertaining transition to our Etiotropically-directed clinical/management model) would come from myriad educational, theological, psychological, and to include personal belief backgrounds. It would not be uncommon in a class of fifty individuals to have thirty differing views of the human consciousness and its capacities presented during the discussions. The same was true of training the professional personnel hired to facilitate our multi-tiered model in clinical settings.

Subsequently, I spent much of my early clinical management life learning the details of those differing views so that our model's trainers and literature could interact more efficaciously with those professionals, our students. To that end, I learned about "thought constructs" or "thought models" (for want of having other modifiers), each consisting often of a distinct epistemology, evolving philosophy, logic and methods that  governed how the individual saw both themselves and other people, and thus also how to best help them. Because perceiving life in "thought models" is not an ordinary conceptionalization of it, and which the mainstream reader peruses even at least sometimes — studying the subject can be akin to trying to evaluate a big plate of spaghetti, with sauce — I've added into this preface overview its origin (of thought model conceptualizations) for me and why I consider it important enough to include in this conclusion to the "Part III The Good Rebel in Most of Us."

It was most common for these challenges to present on a continuum. A Freudian psychiatrist trained in psychoanalytic theory might hold down one end of it, with a protestant fundamentalist or charismatic pastor presenting at the other end. In between might and usually did present Behaviorists; Cognitive Behaviorists (Behaviorism's reformation); Person Centered Therapists specializing in Group Therapy facilitations; Catholic and other denominational priest with masters or doctorates in Divinity; Alcoholism and Drug Abuse counselors steeped in the Twelve Step programs; Licensed Professional Counselors and Social Workers as advocates of Reality and Rational Emotive Therapies, and some with family systems specialties; and numerous psychotherapists also having personal recovery experiences in the co-dependency models attending such self-help programs as Al Anon, Adult Children of Alcoholics, and other conventions related to the address of more direct, say, eating and sexual disorders, in both instances doing too much of it. Clinical Psychologists of most varieties and persuasions participated frequently, and then less so a couple of Muslim counselors; a Buddhist every once in a while; lots of psychiatric nurses and some Rabbis; and some lawyers, judges and crisis managers, to include members of military styled managements. In their own merits, all were extremely intelligent and very well educated people, and etc. All retained an expertise in the symptom- or also called Nosotropically-focused perspective of PTSD and were licensed from within their respective disciplines to practice within the  culture. Their helping activities included models of thought and belief regarding the constitutions of people who had existed and inspired relief for decades, centuries and then even over thousands of years, and for millions of followers.

My job required interpreting these various so called thought constructs and bringing them through the training in our model in a homogeneous manner; meaning so that they could all get along (where doable), not to mention tolerate what I had to say. Importantly for achieving that task, if I knew that a particular construct or system of thought logic was not going to workout with the approach I was teaching, I could explain the why of that so that a student would not have to waste his or her time going in our direction. They could exit early on and avoid the known conflict and the challenge, if they so desired. Out of a whole of twenty-five hundred class attendees, none did.

Doing this for over thirty and going on forty years, I developed a language and knowledge base which identified thought construct collisions or conflicts before they occurred. Hence, I also learned how to, where possible, head off such crashes. To me, the inability to stave off conflicts that led to major catastrophes as has occurred throughout history has resulted in no small part from these, again, so called in this essay thought models/constructs or differing ways of seeing and addressing people.

I've written this "Pretty True Texas Stories" series from that background and perspective. In particular, I've applied that epistemology to this next section using some of the referenced language. 

Please forgive me for bringing, should it be the case, something to you that you may not understand, and I may not be able to explain as I would prefer, given prospectively, my shortfall in talking to your particular background and experience that I may yet to have studied.

Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels, and
How to Strengthen the Former against the Latter

Vitya (Victor) Andreyevich Kravchenko was born on the night of the Yekaterinoslov Railway Workers' strike in 1905, Russia. His father, a strike organizer escaping death administered by the Tsar's mounted saber-wielding Cossacks, made it home that night to cherish his son's beginning. In the emotional moments that followed, and while the new baby lay between his mother and father, the latter gave his son a forever loved title: "The Rebel." Living up to the iconic nickname, he would help his family through the chaoses of WWI, the 1917 Revolution, anarchy, civil war, the famine of 1921, and then become a Communist Youth member, and finally with zeal, join the Communist party of Russsia in 1929.  That history, which is chronicled in the 1946 book I Chose Freedom, takes the reader through power struggles within Bolshevism, Leninism and Stalinism, and then shows the young man's evolution, following advanced education as an engineer and then military service, into diplomatic prominent life. After the Lenin-era of the Revolution, and as one of the Soviet's new internal managers of the production elements of its apparatus, Kravchenko, trying to determine what's right and then doing his human best to bring that about in virtually intolerable situations, experiences as both an administrator and victim of, and then fighting rebel within, their implementations: the Ukrainian forced collectives; regular political purging (1930-1933); heinously contrived millions-killing famines; then "super purging" — mass murder attended by conversion of fifteen million adult citizens into Soviet slave labor (the prototype for the Nazi's extermination machinery) by the government (through 1936-1939) and reaching thirty millions, including ten million children ages thirteen to seventeen by the mid-1940s;  and changing alliances of the Soviet Union through WWII and until 1944. It is in that last year of the war that this Russian rebel would escape from that dehumanizing Soviet system where it had been intertwined with America through its Lend-Lease program.

Most influencing to me, this particular Russian, when no others on the world scene would even approach the truths now evident, told us of the dramatic loss being incurred in and to national (USSR) management and the population as a consequence of the very management shortfalls I've considered in this paper. No other author exposed as much fact as did he. Better than that, if anyone epitomizes the seriousness of the concept of good verses bad rebeling differentiations and distinctions, which I have highlighted as the primary themes of this three-set essay, it would be Victor Kravchenko. As a rebel from birth trying desperately to retain and thus honor its moral beginnings, he lived the harshly difficult lessons-to-be-learned regarding good vs. bad rebels. May you — and all aspirants of American-styled freedom — not have to learn the same as hard as did he. Hence, why I have drawn much from his efforts and included reference to them in this essay.

Introduction: From Conflict to Danger to Congruent Resolution

Given defining relationships that have existed between rebels and their causes, the differences between a good and bad rebel, as in the differences in causes, go to the heart of those matters that when not addressed by a people, result in cataclysmic happenings: because of their differences, causes clash and, thus, so do the rebels representing them. That is, when those distinctions, some of which Samuel Huntington identifies as "civilizational fault-lines" at the global level, are not assiduously addressed in a timely manner — they are allowed to break their containing boundaries and pour across their former constraints, the world degenerates into an acute level of survival where it experiences lot's of death and other catastrophe like we had in the twentieth century.

Due to the portentousness of recurrence, then, emotional pain from memory has attended the rebel identifier when rebels fought, physically or other for their particular causes. Continuing as a sequela, that pain, then, spawns intellectual conflict which presents on multiple levels of being and interaction, some of which is necessarily defensive. To give one  and, as well, a predominant example of that pain-turned-into-abstractional disparateness, fighting-versus-Pacifism ideological, philosophical, theistic and methodological conflicts influence perception and understanding of rebel value. Those thought tug-of-wars are discussed earlier at the beginning of this Part III and then again in greater depth in Part IV of the series.

Those influences upon rebel qualification are attended by others. 

To take an example of one — this time from within the English/American lexicon, as Alice discovered in Wonderland some words seem to have different meanings, particularly for different situations and at different times. In the early 1960s, which marked the centennial of the American Civil War, the Confederacy’s Rebel was still valued by a polity as representing elements of a loved culture. The rebel fought for and thus was seen as protecting that culture. The Confederacy's rebel was honored by the remains of that society for about a century, but while those formerly retaining the valued memories died away, and changing demographics took their tolls on political perspective. Fifty years later (following the centennial) that same South's Rebel was stigmatized by additional changes in social perspective.

I think that denigration naturally had to happen as citizens once institutionally denied recognition as people became increasingly recognized as such, placing opprobrium, then, on the polity having imposed the now illegal differentiations in the first place. Albeit much naturalness was involved in those changes, I also think an imposed measure of hype added to the thought model contests and then exploitation by and through application of an invader modality — again referring to Huntington's completely, if not irreconcilably different, thus "clashing" civilizations — has made the changes sometimes procede in the wrong directions. That modality is described below.

Another rebel qualifier has held that winning and losing of revolutions determines who was worthwhile and who was not. I think, though, that there's more to the differences between good and bad rebels than just who wins, which adage has plagued the definition since its inception. It has presented hand-in-hand with the parallel notion that the party in the revolution that was the winner was right, an idea holding that the one that comes out on top writes the history and forms the public, historical and usually biased perspective about the winning and losing sides, at least until the revisionists and re revisionists perspectives get their turns at telling the story.

Victor Hugo would weigh in on the subject of moral differences between rebels. His notion of that which inevitably determined who was good or bad in those rebelling capacities was whether or not social progress had been made as a result of the particular effort, referring, for one, to the risings at barricades, and then the ever-complex contrivances coming from the lesser aspects of man, and which I thought were symbolized by their long-time extensions into the Parisian sewers. He had this fight within himself, that is, determining good from bad rebels, between 1832 and eventually the publication in 1862 of the novel, Les Miserables,  that chronicled his thinking. France, 1852, and according to Robert Tombs, was a good place to try to figure these complexities out. From my understandings of the French, they still have not.

One notion regarding the moral quality of the rebel posits that rebels exist only as those attempting to overthrow a current authority or government. So if the government is bad, as it turns out in history, then the rebel is likely good. The  opposite of course, and which we don't see very often, if the authority was good, then history paints the rebel as bad.

I'm well aware that the "good" and "bad" rebel qualifiers are excluded also in moral relativism applications that attend evaluating conflicts that particularly come from cultures formerly thought of as led by what have been termed over the last four centuries, “Noble Savages.” In that usage of words, for a while it has become popular by those attempting to avoid the European-, Russian-, Mongolian-, Chinese-, Japanese-, some religiopolitical organizations- and a couple of islander-colonizers' mistakes to refrain from applying one's own morals to competing groups. They are thought of as just different. Understandable. Thus, in that light, rebels, too, have become thought of as the same: all honorable kinds of folks fighting for various versions and perspectives of right and wrong. Thanks, also, to Star Trek's The Next Generation's Prime Directive: when exploring, invading, visiting or just passing through interstellar space, never interfere with how the misguided, even if they are morally corrupt, manage themselves.

Attending those processes and arguments, and then exploiting them, a pre WWII and then Cold War-initiated take-over mentality — a subject of this Part III's conclusion — replete with a cause and methodology invaded during the mid-twentieth century western culture in its entirety, the goal of which was to bring it down; to destroy the whole thing, not just America's South. "It" refers to all thought models spawed out of the American Bill of Rights noticed in the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution. Convolutedly wrapped up in that invasive and ever inimical force, which had its origins in Eastern Europe, the word “rebel” again took on different meanings, which then got wings from the myriad rebel activities struggling within the global.

Hence, with all those factors influencing the Rebel's image, controversy abounds. And, it has since become a hallmark of and in the Westbury Rebel mascot identity conflict ongoing for several decades at the ending of the twentieth century. That same conflict, particularly when it leads to war, proceeds as well not in just a few students and educational professionals living and working in southwest Houston, Texas, but the populations doing the same throughout that state, the hemisphere, and in those comprising the entirety of the world.

But nearly all of those views, including those created within the context provided by relativists, I think end the analysis, leaving the good versus bad rebel often-only-felt-intuitively concept without serious qualitative understanding, if not adjudication. So let's give it some, and with a little absolutism, or as much as we can bring to this matter, and do so through the application of a theme that from the perspective of my culture, which has been the original America. It is different from the one being viewed through the lens screwed onto the history camera’s aperturatic face in the early goings of the twenty-first century.

I will endeavor to tell this story by aligning and attaching where appropriate those rebel qualifiers to and within the additional thought constructs that I think cause the need for the moral modifiers in the first place. Moreover, I've highlighted what I believe has become the most aggressively dangerous thought model that has ever existed, and is still being applied in the current era.

The word "dangerous" is not hyperbole. The referenced threatening model comes on in full view of its target polity, albeit almost as if the targets are also blinded by the incursion; puts its members as if to sleep — or into the traumatized states of individual and collective shock, which then manifest behaviorally as denial that an attack is even ongoing — so that they are vulnerable to the eventual and most hostile and physical elements of the assault; turns otherwise good reasoning and intelligent peoples from that polity against themselves, and even their country, until both the attacked and the country are no more, or nearly so. I've given the referenced model a name which has come from my world of managing trauma and perpetrators of it, as this often difficult-to-identify hegemon apparently needed one, not being addressed yet as a subject for study in either peer review or general literature, other than through legitimately vociferous clamorings — at least as presented at the beginnings of the assaults, but to diminish in sound and fury as they succumb — of  prey.

So let me summarize this essay's thesis. Despite the fairly myriad notions that cloud definitional lines pertaining to the rebel concept, I think there are significant, as in measurable, differences between good and bad rebels. In exploring those dileneations, I've discovered that a relationship of consequence exists between rebels depending in great part on the thought models that they support, which then support them in the performance of their activities, and emphasizing in this essay within the context of a management model that, as referenced, is not only dangerous, but sometimes is also very difficult to stop its onslaught, once it has targeted a polity, nation, or civilization's management of itself. I'll summarily reference at the conclusion of this piece how to up-end the deleterious effects of that invader modality, and which I asseverate to be so portentously harmful to the world. Please, know that as one who, as a rule, generally disavoys moral relativism as a global management methodology, I write this essay from within a full awareness that I am biased toward the good rebel and, consequently, the methodologies and other thinking constructions which instantiate the obviously perdurable need for its, also ever-enduring, existence.

Ontologically vs. Behavioral-to-Systemically Focused Rebels; and Power

Ontologically-Focused Rebels

Starting with the notion of good rebels, they think ontologically, first, when contemplating a polity, themselves included. That is, they declaim and then defend the right to fairly unfettered existence for and of those determined to be legitimately comprising their civilization. "The right to fairly unfettered existence" has been simplified by Tocqueville in his summary of Americans in 1831. They are "Englishmen who've (finally - my parenthetical) been left alone." "Legitimacy's determination" has been fought for in and adjudicated by several historic events. They include the legacies handed down from Britain: the outcomes of its millennia long and continuous ebb-and-flow-stripping of hierarchically structured monarchial- or aristocratic-power structures, hundreds of years of common law development, representative government, and the struggles between Protestantism and Catholicism. That start was then advanced by the Americans in their late eighteenth and mid nineteenth centuries, respectively, through the Declaration of Independence-Revolution/Constitution-formation and Civil War; recognition at the beginnings of the twentieth century, through the Nineteenth Amendment (to the US Constitution) of women as equals, or at least on paper; and followed by a further definition of the meaning of equality via the civil rights battles and related laws passed a hundred-plus years later (subsequent to the referenced Civil War). 

Once that legitimacy, or right to being a person was institutionally established, it carried with it an interpretation under the US Constitution of an administrative balance that differentiated between behavior and state, and which emphasized control, when adverse, of the former (behavior) and to honor (as opposed to controlling) the latter (state). "State" in this discussion is comprised of identity, being, conscience, and the brain's creative capacities to establish and then assign meaning to those phenomena. (Of course, regardless of social recognition/legality, human state is going to function accordingly anyway, even if the legally minded don't know about or understand it.) In that focus, behavior interprets out as acceptable, or otherwise not-to-be controlled, until it intrudes upon state, either one's own (when also deemed socially detrimental) or somebody else's. So in this kind of management system, the members of that polity can do lots of things, like thinking and roaming around without concern that they have anyone with whom to check in or to otherwise get approval from to do that conjuring and traveling.

Americans consider that managerial construct — as in epistemologically so, and which consists of both an idea about what people are like and method for interacting with them — to be freedom.  Good rebels are the people who created that approach and who are now responsible for keeping it that way. Extant good rebels, referring to "keeping it that way," is so because the ontological-focused revolution started by America during the Enlightenment (eighteenth century) is an ongoing revolution against other world thought models that did not and still do not account for the focus on human essence as the primary civilizational management value to promote and defend.

Behavioral-to-Systemically Focused Rebels

Instead of viewing the environment like their counterpart good rebels see it, that is, accepting what and how people are (as in existentially so), some people organize Behaviorally and Systemically, first, when defending or otherwise advancing a particular notion about how things, to include people, ought to or ought not be.  That means, as simplified here, that the viewer looks through the lens, and often with a preformatted schematic of what's right and wrong (Behavioral), or supposed to be or not, and without limiting his view to just one person, but out into his entire world, generalizing the group's interrelated parts into one whole (Systemic). He, then, is an appraiser or judge of conduct of it as comprised by its intellectual surroundings and how they should be constructed. He interacts with that environment invariably with a stringent sense that what's wrong can and should be corrected, and that it is one of his purposes in life to make it that way. Although not my choice of how to think, that's ok for consideration in this exposition, as in tolerably different, so far. A culture may benefit from such thinkers when they don't get overwhelmingly carried away with implementation.

Because that Behavioral-to-System-focused (acronistically in this essay represented by “BS”) model is short on built-in breaks against misuse or abuse — which fail-safes are considered below — some people-managers who use the approach do, however, take it TOO far. That is, they get carried away with success attending their progresses, which includes expansion of their influences upon others perceived as requiring the guidance. Feeding upon that fortune, the insights derived from exploitation of their acquisitions of growing domains of influence or just increasing control due to the guidance, and adding the pile-on effect by like-mindeds joining the expanding force (advocates for the approved edification/change) or as they say in their sister clinical camps, positive reinforcements, pave the road to power.

Power within the Ontological and Behavioral-to-Systems (BS) Management Models

Power is, as referenced in this article, about desiring, pursuing, acquiring, wielding, exploiting, and becoming enamored by, relational influence. Respectively, then, they/it produce a force which presents within the Ontological and Behavioral-to-Systems (BS) management models as its own challenging event or mechanism to be identified, understood and, if lucky, rationally managed, sidestepped, or where necessary (having negative managerial consequences that must be overcome) and possible, intervened upon. The primary problem with power, the contests for it, and its contributions to leadership direction and stability, of course, are that — within the always-limited time frame allotted to do the job — they divert management's focus from its stated raison d'être: to serve those being managed. Both the presentation and the degree of destructive influence on/interference with leadership duty to the populace are different, however, in each approach.

The ontologically managed system's design, as well as has been its implentations (most of the time), were and are cornerstoned on diffusing power and its varied influences. In America, power is distributed between several functionings, which then offset each other's bids for ascendency. The functionings recognize the difficulties inherent to group versus individual interests. The hope, and as has pretty much been the case so far: the offsets produce an outcome that, overall, ensures (or is supposed to) individual human ontology's protections, which then has the effect of strengthening the collective's ongoingness, albeit the latter influence appears (to the BS imbued existing within the effort) to advance somewhat more slowly than would its Behavioral-to-Systemic counterpart, if it were allowed to be in charge.

Kravchenko (1946) documents — from within the most maturely advanced secular BS implementation so far — the NKVD's (Soviet Secret police) interference with factory, plant and entire regions' productions. Facing the challenges inherent to survival, management takes care of itself, first, at the expense of/to the whole. That inevitable outcome of the Behavioral-to-Systemic model's application of power makes the logical pillar upon which that system is supposed to stand, weak. And, from my view, destined to fail. Neither the BSers nor the poor people to whom the model was sold, or who were just overrun, ever had, or have, a chance — once BSer power takes control.The rest of this section considers why.

Because power is not of physically observable properties, I've viewed it (from a trauma management perspective) metaphorically. Not presenting linerially, say like a singularly directed air flow comprising one whirlwind, but instead like a counter-clockwise twisting-contracting force within a larger, most always external, ever-expanding and oppositely-rotating (clockwise) manifestation, power both adds to and corrupts, the latter trope capturing what occurs if the force's development is not at least somewhat controlled. "Corrupts" used here refers to a failure to function as intended, say as opposed to abrogating a universal or even just a local moral/legal code.

Hence, a graphic imagery-based gist of BS modeled power: it operates simultaneously and radically both centripetally and centrifugally, respectively, here to spin its influences both inwardly (toward its core) and outwardly (in its external and expanding bands) at the same times. The outer force often consists of new, freshly imbued, and then due a lot to naïveté, fairly manageable believers (in the method and cause) who aspire to be a part of the happening/event/organization/maybe-revolution-of-sorts, or a full out one, even. The inner oscillation encompasses bastions of longevity and the once most dedicateds, but who become during modality maturation tired, worn- and burned-out, apparently from performing the more dastardly duties attending BS cause-implementation.

This leadership has even been described (The Great Terror; Conquest; 2007; p113-114 quoting Pyatakov and Lenin) as dead  in appearance ("dead men on furlough" from Vladimir), thought and absence of elan. Reflecting those apparent downers, the inner graphic of this imagery is also rotated counter (to the outer loop or band), which demonstrates different conformities with (i.e., the leadership on the inside doesn't comply with) overall cause-ideals-and-principles otherwise proclaimed in the various manifestos and declaimed routinely by the leadership's spokespersons. Culmination: both the appearance and actual occurrence of individual and systematic managerial hypocracy. Emulating a dynamo-righting-gyro, the counter-rotating innards also keep the polity-enveloping operation (as zeal from the newbie fresh moves the BS apparatus over the fuller population and culture being taken) from wobbling off its tracks, or at least appearing to have not become unhinged.

People spinkle or, in some programs, pour into this fray through the outer bands, and then via combinations of work, serendipity, other fates, experience and happenstance of contrivance, evolve toward the differently rotating and contracting, center. It is often viewed hierarchically, too, and from within the sometimes appearing-to-be thoughtfully ordered melee, as the top.

Despite the appearance of contradiction, the countervailing rotations support the merged Behavioral-to-Systemic logic by strengthening, through balance, the users' both inner conquerors’ (centripetal - as in increasingly inner psychologically myopic focuses upon and ascensions to control) and sometimes or even often rapidly growing numbers of followers' beliefs (centrifugally) regarding rightness, or  better yet righteousness of their cause, having one effect of making the BS model (in the clinches) much easier to implement, as self critical thinking is first tapered down, and then as one reaches the ever contracting managerial innards, all the way off. A second consequence: with no accountability checks being imposed from the managees (as occurs in the ontological model), the BS program may even — through confusion of direction, obfuscation of plans,  bureaucratic inertia, and general incompetence — extend its operational duration and despite the ongoing calamity-in-the-making.

Another benefit of the twin counter rotations is systemic psychological stability, no matter that that being stabilized is, oxymoronically and ironically, degeneration. Portentously descending chaos-to-be comes packaged as order in a chartreused-colored (connoting BS character) plastic-wrap, which is then coated with a politically-correct, albeit shadier, veneer, all of which sparkling shininess gives its following faith in the management mess that is, and inexoribly is-to-be. As a collective, but ever-deteriorating whole, the BS members involved then both believe in themselves and at the same time through hardening dedication, help its leadership at the interior, or at (as viewed from within either management stratification) the hierarchically structured top, to tighten controls against prospects for failure, even when those prospects may include diminishment of themselves. That is, the "tightening" might even consist of sacrifice of those same components which (people who) have brought the BS model to its current stature. (If not shot, hanged, or beheaded outright) the entire (sacrificial) event, say for an awful but real example (once and still even as I type these words now count for scores of millions of the world's citizenry) a lifetime in the GULAG, can almost seem — in hindsight pondering why and how one even (to mean miraculously) got through it — spiritual, and if likely not that, at least surreal. Hmmm . . . Assuming they would have anything left with which to do any seeming. And only ten percent of those entering such places ever get out of them.

When things are going well (for BS power managers), all of this dual-weedeater-pruning-like maintenance is done relatively harmoniously — to mean dissent-extermination (culling, exiling, excommunicating, killing) requirements are balanced against ever-needed interests in maintaining system ongoingness. As the collective-based philosophical and methodological Western compatibles' application of the ever-schmoozing idiom went while observing the BS model's otherwise horrific enforcements of power in other parts of the world, "One has to break some eggs to make an omelet." And, I guess that's OK until the yoke being combined — sautéd/fried/scrambled — and devoured comes from the core of that cliché-using, so insensitively-/heinously-inane, and dangerously frivolous, intellect.

More than all that, BS applications of its power also make it more facile just to tell, while holding a hammer over their heads or torch under their butts, meaning the managees’ — the segment of the populace requiring the proposed change — what to do and how to do it (application of the BS model). That's as opposed to employing the ontological counter where power is systematically checked by divided authority and implementation rules that reinforce individual ontology: find out who that populace is, what it wants, and then try to bring that about; and stay popular the whole time.

Adding fuel to the easier approach’s (the BS’s) engine-driving fire, seeing one's plan embraced by those it absorbs, or just rolls over,  or burns up, sustains implementer imbuedness, as if the effort is preordained, blessed by a supra-natural  force, or just secularly destined — say for example, due to the rotation of the planets — to catapult the believer/proponent into the truest, as in most adamant, state of near criminal, or at least socially harmful delusional narcissism. The BS model’s implementer concludes that he or she was born to lead, rule, command or otherwise, just be on top. And always remember, when mounting the Behaviorist-to-Systemicist leadership horse, new BSers never forget to wear spurs, the inherent enforcers of power applied in and to their always-guaranteed-to-destroy-nearly-everything (including itself and its governed) management modality.

Thus, the more power one has, albeit the swirling bronco-busting-like psychological ride can present the referenced (BS) leadership with a challenge, the more successful and also enjoyable crusading can be and  maybe even conquering, too, one can do, making the whole affair a positive experience. Ascended to that level of self satisfaction/contentment/happiness, some Behaviorists would call that process actualization, or at least until a significant number of affected innocents finally start complaining; if they live long enough to do so, of course.

Noting, parenthetically, this story-teller's prejudices, although not generally supportive of the conquering component, I'm not averse to all crusades. I think some elements of crusading are a good thing, sometimes. Particularly where program design and engineering honor individual ontology over instantiation of a collective counterpart, they (crusades) can invigorate creativity.

Ensuring that that activist-based advancer-of-change complies with this particular construct's or polity's (other Behaviorists and their Systemically-based compeers) rules for thinking, the BS imbued evaluates for the  politics of the challenge — what kind of thought is- or is-not-allowed, or what's cool or not so, and how that perception of popularity, acceptability, integralness, or lack of is either manipulatable, or in some way exploitable, always focused upon answering how to turn a crisis of one's own or in particular someone else's good luck or the opposite, misfortune, into the BS observer's referenced political power.  As it grows, the actor-for-change is getting stronger and the task easier, which positives will support the quest, even make it addictive, or the like. As scarcity of and thus competition for it enhance the process, eventually, for some, grabbiness for that power becomes the all — as it often does within the Behaviorally-to-Systemic-focused approach to social management.

When it does, just about anything that gets one there goes, which in turn accelerates the BS modality into the more popularly recognized-in-the-minimum-as-hegemonically, if not violently aggressive political platforms. Putting that concept into the form of the most representative trope or adage, we could just say that power's acquisition is Fascistly supported by "the end justifies the means" modality, "Fascism" being the managerial delineation of the win-at-all- or no-matter-the-costs epistemology of the thought construct. Because some "means" crush innocents, in this culture we generally don't agree with the  Fascist-underpinned concept. Inevitably, however, such is the formulation of force and thought both initiating and then making up in continuance the ideological boss of the bad rebel, as well as that rebel, himself.

Eric Blair, later George Orwell, writes in one of his books, nineteen eighty-four, about power's growth into the is-just-about-everything category, but absent the "just about." It becomes the antagonists' prime motivation for the creation, maintenance and expanding of its parameters for aggrandizement. Power then rules by stamping out, not just controlling, the centrality of individual consciousness. In this thesis, I've called that targeted composition human ontology. The original motivators of the BSers, seeing people's mental (thinking, feeling, and let's not exclude the newly downtrodden spiritual) internals as requiring change or transformation, is replaced or upgraded to the next BS level by the competitive zealotry of the new authority. At that stage of BS development, everything is ok in the new world where morals, compassion, love, and feelings have no meaning, and thus get less play. They are even banned. Moreover, reality, itself, doesn't even have a place any longer, as it is squashed, to mean obliterated by philosophical shooting-the-breeze-kinds of manipulators and other spurs-wearing enforcers, who apparently are born for the job. They certainly get off to it in the book (1984).

Although Orwell's work was dramatically told in novel form, and thus got and continues to get lots of attention, it was provided, I think, as a dystopian (far out futuristic) work which, according to my take on Kravchenko's published just three years earlier, produced only a small percentage of drama when compared to the latter's (I Chose Freedom) non fiction rendition of the same kind of system. In other words, read the horror of and in Kravchenko's 1946 testimony of the truth of the matured Behavioral-to-System model as applied first in the USSR, and Orwell's work, then, just looks like a tame fictionalization.

Ontological and BS Power's Significance to Trauma Management (when strategically applied to end criminal political violence).

The management recommendations summarized/referenced below (see "Conclusion: Can Anybody Do Anything to Stop this Kind of Invasion, or Plague-like Under-Growth, by mostly BS inspired Bad Rebels?"), and then detailed in Part V of this series, require a diffused power model that recognizes and supports maintenance of celebrated status of individual human ontology. Attempts to implement those recommendations into a Behavioral-to-Systemic (and particularly mature) modeled system will fail; guardians of BS power will not allow it to exist. Because: Restoration of individual identity will lead to restoration of original or base collective identity, which prospects then threaten the behavioral and subsequent identity change being imposed by BSers. However, the referenced recommendations when strategically implemented into an ontologically operated system where power is diffused CAN strengthen it against overrun by contiguous BS power-controlled/-managed polities and their high powered politics.

Moreover, power-focused social managements divert an individual from identity exploration with existential-based introspection. It's not going to happen, even with application of the rigorous structure (designed to head off such systemic interferences) offered here (below and in Part V). Analogously, trying to do restoration of identity work in a BS power-controlled environment would be akin to providing the same response to a woman who is living with a battering perpetrator. She has to be made safe from that whirlwind, first. BS cults are much worse in that they are comprised of myriad intellectual — at least — woman- and man-beaters, as well as a good share of BSers wearing other kinds of spurs.

Behavioral Elements' Influences upon the BS Modality

Albeit proponents of Behavioral-to-Systemic thought models train and induce others to become — thus, these proponents produce — bad rebels, they are not necessarily really "bad" people, at least all the time. Where some may be biogenetically flawed, as is considered in the next Part IV (section on psychopaths, also called "PPs") of this work, the biggest problem for them all and which propels their political expansions (fortunes, i.e. to make others adapt their thought methods), is the model itself. In this representation, those proponents, in order to stifle debate and criticism, thus accelerate imbuedness, have latched on to the concept of science (see The Genghis Khan of Psychotherapy: One Origin of Behavioral Therapy and its Reformation — Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, also "CBT" by Jesse W. Collins II) as the stanchion that supports its advocates' beliefs in the approach. That means, in the short version, that Behaviorists determined at one point in their model's development that if you couldn't see some aspect of that which is to be studied, people for example, then it didn't happen. Or putting it another way, unseeable things are not counted because they can't be objectively (validated by third party disinterested viewers) substantiated.

Intellectual supporters (e.g., say a particular segment of academia) of that science-based model as used by the Behaviorists as a confidence-builder would reduce their claims from always knowing-what-they-were-doing while reforming the world (into its managers' own or more accurately reflected 'hoped-for" images), to just trying to remain in the discussion without too much embarrassment, as the ending of the twentieth and beginnings of the twenty-first centuries produced a countervailing molecular-oriented knowledge base related to brain functioning. That new knowledge base, providing a different concept of science from that offered by Pavlov and Skinner’s followers (again, see the Genghis Khan essay), was showing that there was much more to the human consciousness than the tap tap tapping of synaptic learning theory the behaviorists had been proffering for the previous sixty years during their reign: controlling the world's views of how we think, logically, that is. But being resilient, that is, thinking quickly so as not to lose its power (funding) centers, the Behaviorists discovered molecular learning, too, opining that the most important secret to understanding of how the human being advanced himself lay within the passing of the charge that flowed from sensory neurons and then through the synapse that connected it to the neuronal motor counterpart. That was it, they've (the BSers) surmised.

But as Nobel laureate Eric Kandel would frame for them over the same period and highlighted in his most recent (2012) work, The Age of Insight: the quest to understand the unconscious in art, mind and brain, the sensory-to-motor exchange in molecular learning was but a fragment of the brain's integrative functionings. The big picture regarding learning would have it that the brain was a creativity machine. Understanding that part of its functioning would open intellectual and theoretical doors imposed upon by the BSers to the understanding of human ontology, or essence, where the real definition of being human would find its locus.

No matter the challenges to their science regarding how we all function, the ontological variables which are the engine of identity and being have been and still are thrown out of the Behaviorists' version of their scientific model. Kandel has even opined that the model for scientific study is, itself, likely to be changed in order to accommodate the influences of molecular neurobiology. Interimly, and regrettably for us commoners, because human ontology or essence is not  viewable, not to mention being discredited by some scientific parameters for implementing this logic, it (human ontology) too, still doesn't count in the bigger appraisal by those yet fully informed Behaviorists' and systems advocates' determinations of their political understandings. The implementers of that model continue even in these changing times to press their views regarding their claims to intellectual management ascendency. Coincidentally(?), that happenstance allows, shores up, enhances the confidence for those employing the BS modality as a control method of social management, to continue employment of that methodology.

During the Behaviorists' appraisals of the polity or say, a society formed by yet-to-be-Behaviorally-streamlined ordinary people, if the behaviors viewed don't look so good, particularly when they quantify individuals by statistical analysis into Behaviorally observable categories of critical valuation, then objectively screening out of ontology or the essence of such people is followed by the observer-screeners' filling in that essence (making it up for the possibly misperceived ordinaries), and usually as not, given the Behavioral analysis, so valuable as well. That group (the objective observer screeners), too, because the model is notorious for supporting the guessing of what's in people's minds — as opposed to listening carefully to actually find out what’s in them — and then basing policy upon the guesswork, is missing the point of the human condition it is endeavoring to manage or sometimes even conquer, and then lead on into hoped-for everlasting, but not always attained, happiness, or in the cases of the bigger utopia-creation aspirations, euphoria.

According to Melanie Phillips’ latest work expressed in Guardian Angel, those aspirations include constructing, after having demolished the current method of managements in charge of Western thought, a “heaven” right here “on earth.” We can thank two more Brits ─ Tim Rice and Andrew Webber ─ for consolidating in their musical, Evita, that spin through the character of the singing Che Guevera when he elucidates for his audience the meaning of the term “politics.” It is, at least as reflected thematically in this contribution to entertainment, “the art of the possible.”

Dedicated Behavioral-focused socio-political managers, which in this essay’s worst prospects become bad rebels, are operating out of a skewed logic: a flawed methodology which because it doesn't get or evaluate for the entire picture, is pitted from its epistemological inception against the more laidback and personally-already-satisfieds of the world who do. Or at least as for those in America, and before anybody  gets to the argument stages, debate conference tables, and then finally meeting the Behaviorist-to-Systems thought model's culling-killing requirements which almost always attend the big movements, at least near their endings.

And, no matter that that shortcoming of the BS thought model or construct has been interpreted for everyone myriad times over the same numbers of generations, people who yet don't understand these differences and thus natural conflicts can and do wander into such programs never knowing what's going to happen to or otherwise know what will be expected of them, or after having been in the program for while, what hit them, psychologically speaking. It is easy for such people to become part of BS schemolas. Enjoining the individual to the BS model’s collective, mind, they operate a little bit, or sometimes a lot, like cults. The joiners or members are controlled by the referenced psychological force otherwise noted in this essay as the Behaviorist-to-Systemic thought model. That thought model control produces bad rebels.

From this view as well as in actuality, these new members and now implementers of the thought model are not necessarily flawed themselves, no matter how much they may look that way. And these join-upers may come from honored backgrounds replete with the character to aspire to and follow an ethical code, meaning to watch one's self and make sure that he or she does not, while overarching one's intellect, arch too far over the top, at least for a while. But no matter that special strength found in some individuals who've adopted the BS platform, the model is, depending on the assiduity with which it is applied, all powerful and will sweep even the ethical away and into the coming catastrophe. Again for emphasis, the thought model's construction, its skewed logic that denies individual human ontology or essence, is, once established, the primary problem.

Systemic Hysterics

"Well. Why does that problem-based view of BS narrowness have to carry with it such an ominous forecast for its long-term or fuller application to groups (peoples)? I mean, what's wrong with a little absolutism stringently built into a group-based Behavioral management device gone haywire? And, besides, who says it has to be such a bad thing?"

Well, for one, Le Bon. In 1896, he says about crowds, which characteristics also fit BS modeled systems:

"It will be remarked that among the special characteristics of crowds there are several - such as impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgment and of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of the sentiments, and others besides- which are almost always observed in beings belonging to inferior forms of evolution-in women, savages and children, for instance."

Except for his examples, which during the last century have all been forgiven their apparent (as interpreted by that French systems expert) evolutionary shortfalls, particularly since women got the right to vote in 1919 America, and movies and books about savages and the anti-colonial movement gave them, too, new class statuses ─ and children are still children, which doesn’t seem to be an evolutionary thing to me ─ Le Bon nevertheless does a good job of highlighting the behavioral characteristics of groups going bad.

Where Le Bon was fairly caught up with movements like the French Reign of Terror, the chaos attending the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, their wars and other person-centered catastrophes (more on Le Bon and some others like him, later), I had my own laboratories for watching systems act strangely. Chemical Dependency and Psychological Trauma Family Treatment facilities: nine of them under my direct management plus another seventeen initiated through consultation design, foundational training and start up implementation into psychiatric hospitals. Inevitably, the lessons learned from the address of those client trauma relationships and their managements would be extended to organizations and communities as a whole. Given that my job required making such groups turn out right instead of just chronicling observations for posterity, I studied — for purposes of influencing a constructively positive outcome within those environments (meaning I was paid to get people, both individuals and groups, well, not just study their shortfalls or unlucky moments) — clinical, industrial, community/national/civilizational managements, worked assiduously with, and theorized formally about traumatized systems, usually adversely profoundly affected by something. Aside from the mainstay pathological drug/alcohol use as a social perpetrator of trauma, the work enjoyed focused upon such groups and prospective remedies as psychopathically run Fascists; the Soviets, which was the same thing; local community gang interactions, strategies and applications; American Republic with its Bill of Rights defending individual existence; ontologically-/existentially- vs. BS-focused and managed theocracies with attendant secular and non secular contesting thought models; tribalism; totalism; totalitarianism; most other isms as they struggled from 5th century BCE Athenia to and through the various reformations and Enlightenments, and modernists and post-modernists, and then attempts by currents to sunder or resuscitate some or all of them depending on extant statuses and followings (believers). Throughout that extracurricular effort, I incorporated the views sustained in working with emotional pain, denial or delusion in response to perpetrator-based aggressive behavior-influencing illnesses and systemic management models' gone kaput as natural outcomes of the various invasions and attacks. Whether in clinical settings, organizations, local communities or the world in general, the influences of abuse on individuals and systems was, except in surface analyses, the same.

Within the context of this paper's focus on good versus bad rebels, group managements, all by themselves, have their play as issues for study, evaluation and prejudice. Where I've addressed those subjects in considerable detail in clinical and organizational management work/writings and in other venues, in this one, I'm throwing a wider albeit more generally interpretive loop that encompasses some public management discussion within the historical context pertaining to state-to-multinational-to-civilizational management models. My take on these matters, then, blends Etiotropically-based ("etiology-" as opposed to symptomotology-focused) trauma management and supervising/teaching perspectives with the referenced more globally-oriented nation management histories as I understand them.

In that regard, then, here (in this section) is a synopsis, summary, outline of what I think is important about collective-based group management processes, and not just as occurs in every day crowd activity, but in well planned and scrupulously managed efforts, and then as those subjects pertain to good and bad rebelling. Systematically speaking, the crowd or group is encumbered at individual (intrapsychically), interactional (as in relationships existing between only two people), and systemically (the confluence of everybody in the group’s trying to experience life and accordingly to relate as one) by projection of trauma-depreciated sundrances to/of existential elements of identity (pertaining to the ongoing or not aspects of either the individual, primary relationship, or systems involved), thus lesser thoughts of and feelings about and from each unit (derivative of the three stratifications) onto something or someone else. That real defense, which refers to actually thinking that the entity is seeing those negatives in something other than where they truly exist, leaves the posited negatives unaddressed, at least straightforwardly so.

That failure establishes the fuel for inevitable decline in the functionings of the preponderance of participants at eventually all of the referenced strata/levels, no matter that everything seems to go well at the beginning, particularly when introduced to the model, say for example, during college. Starting out, the experience can provide states of (experience of) inclusiveness; increased feelings of control through input; a sense of self-efficacy, to mean the experience of so called empowerment; building trust in others; a hope for more epiphany-styled creative level decision making; the wonderment of watching freedom of expression gone positive; an inflated view of a member's substantiability of and by size or increasing age (a group has more numbers than one plus a few aged, so a belonger naturally feels a little bigger and maybe even wiser with some borrowed longevity); and comfort.

But when the systemic decline begins, which often attends group traumatizing scenarios, the place ends up like Lord of the Flies. The obvious hysteria attending the decline is accelerated by systemic negative synergism — represented by a sum where its force is greater than the total of all the group's parts. Negative synergism is the systemic pathology's blood flow, carrying collective decompensation to ever-spiralling new lows. In systems-based clinical therapy, the death spiral has been called an "irresistable run" — there seems to be no stopping the pending crash. A new chant, then, from those who survive is for somebody to be in charge (return to or reapplication of the old hierarchically-structured individual responsibility and accountability model), but hopefully in the West at least with a recognition of the importance of individual human rights, etc; this latter component being available to those fortunate enough to have studied the individual vs. systemic interests-balancing management principles inherent to the U.S. Constitution.

Others, as did the management of the USSR during its history, learned quickly and several times that a central autocratic thread was required to run from top to bottom within that born-/bound-to-degenerate and designed-to-always-predominate-over-individual-interests collective approach in order to hold that once social/group interactive-based system together. "Otherwise," said (as reported by Robert Conquest; 1967; 1990; 2007; in the Great Terror) even Stalin's victims of the only early 1930s purges (they hadn't yet gotten to the more mature, i.e., better organized, onslaughts of the second half of the 1930s, all of the 1940s and early 50s), "the whole thing (meaning the 'Revolution') would fall apart." And adding a Russian moreover, "Things could become dangerous." also said even some remaining and known-for-their-bravories Trotskyites, a once (1920s) fairly staunch Stalin-oppositionist group, just before they were sent off, too, with the first ten million Kulaks (Ukranian and Caucuses peasant but once property owning farmers), in this unfortunate instance (1930-1933) apparently for good.  Here, "for good" means "forever;" and "sent off" means "murdered."

In Robert Tombs' Introduction to Les Miserables (Clothbound Classics version translating the title as The Wretched), he emphasizes Victor Hugo's mid-nineteenth century take on the moral (good and bad) differences of the rebel/revolutionary class — that which would comprise those heroes manning the barricades in his novel — in 1848, France. In his notes from the period, Hugo, referring to the rebels presenting at the beginnings of that year's revolution, and then again near its conclusion in the summer of the same annum, said:

They were, in some circumstances, the ‘noble and worthy people’, but they could be ‘perverted and misled’ by extremists and turned into a destructive and anarchic mob. During the February Revolution they had been ‘ardent, good, generous, full of respectful love for every noble thing’, but by June ‘the same people’ had become ‘bitter, discontented, unjust, suspicious’, some of them ‘dreaming of pillage, massacre and arson’. They had been demoralized, he thought, by ‘inactivity, laziness, organized fecklessness … Handouts that corrupt the heart rather than wages that satisfy it.’

Here are a few characteristics of groups, albeit when traumatized can be called system symptoms (generalized), giving the whole matter a medical rather than, say, legal rights spin. They are taken from Guerrilla, Terrorism or Asymmetric Warfare's Pathogenesis and Cure (Jesse W. Collins II); 1991; 2003; 2010; Chapter Three "Individual and Systemic Symptoms" as they may present in open, nationally- and democratically-managed units. There are more; but this should be enough to convey the concept that "there's trouble you can count on" (presenting) when managing a democratic "River City-" -like environment subsequent to disruptive influences like war.

26. perfidy

27. expressions of will asundered

28. dramatic lessening of regard for mission meaning

29. premature abandonment of the mission

30. repeated castigation of individual, unit and national selves

31. ever questioning, without answers, the meaning and purpose of the war and themselves within it

32. inability to adjudicate traitors

In more closed systems — mature as compared to a start-up BS implementation, e.g., found trying to take root in an ontologically-run environment — trauma's individual and systemic symptoms can be considerably more brutal. For getting to the point of that exposé, I recommend, again, and again, that seriously dedicated problem-solvers not fool around with this very important part of the story; see all of Kravchencho, 1946. Moreover, if during the last half of the twentieth century you happened to have been a fighting individualist who was rebelling against the West's  concurrence (see American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character; 2013; Diana West) with the implementation (between 1917-1991) of the Convergence doctrine — its proponents argued that collectivism-management of the Soviet type would eventually merge naturally with the US Bill of Rights approach to balancing the various interests of individuals with and within the group's — then you'll learn without equivocation, if you don't know already (for sure) what you were fighting both for and against.

Currently, or at least till this period in history, the best proven protection against the multi-tier and more aggressive elements of the projection and systemic symptoms-causing phenomena has been honest, or straightforward, or maybe still better said unencumbered address of the so called negatives, which is always challenging of individual, relationship and group self-perceptions, and thus, also, are always emotionally painful to do. That social defense against collective hysterics comes in the form, of course and again referring to management of the more aggressive consequences, application of Bill of Rights-undergirded civil and criminal law, and freedom of expression, the latter intendedly protected by the First Ammendment to the earlier referenced US Constitution. The former focus upon the application of law is designed, configured and perdurably adapted to prevent social decision making from stemming out of and thus being controlled by the referenced crippled morass of confusion and distortions inherent to the crowd pain-projection-through-both-internally- and externally-manifested-synergistically-degenerative-thought-/behavior phenomenon.

Albeit yet unproven, some protective theories, considered with a little detail later, hold that the entire morose part of that destructive mass can be lifted above itself through simple hallucination, also called fantasy, wishful thinking, and sometimes even concerted denial of reality (none of which are necessarily always ALL bad). Although this latter protection appears at the onset, frivolous, it nevertheless is not, as it provides the principal natural resource for the economy of the collective's followers. They produce the program's livelihood with psychologically influencing  (conceptualizations/abstractions for retension in the consciousness as opposed to bricks-and-mortar-asset-based) variables. For example, socialist systems have been notorious for their inabilities to create and store wealth adequately for the entire citizenry, but are hailed for their members'/leaderships' formulations of creative rationalization that encouages multitudes to not just comply with, but to participate in the acquisition through expropriation of others' properties in order to compensate for the collective's theoretical and methodological shortfalls.

Aside from those referenced mainstays of law, debate and both individual and collective constructive dissociation, Western society or cultural managements have enjoyed (or suffered) many additional ways of trying to address the also referenced systemic negatives. They’ve included religions, entertainments, philosophies, ideas about the influences of economic variables, concepts of both justice and injustice management, violence, drugs, a sort of and actual cannibalization of themselves, some lesser stressful (than eating other people) Machiavellianism from time to time; individual, group and media-based psychotherapies, and a blend of all, or significant elements of all, of the above.

Now. About the Westbury Rebel and its relationship to these hysterically-affected group management efforts/models. In the end of not just contemplation, but attempts to make a better world as well; and, regarding what can go right or wrong with social group management courtesy of the nineteenth, twentieth, and now twenty-first centuries, the matter and its solution turn on the concept of Deviationism. It is an old collective's canonic-like capital offense, which in its either actuality or just suspicion, has through enforcement cost humanity many of its lives. In the form of a mantra supported by ever-tightening concentrically debilitating-to-a-point-of-catastrophic-implosion behavioral controls, the "No Deviation!" — from the particular cause's narrative — chant imposes both the conscious's motivating terror and unconscious's conforming impulse the collective's hysterics use to run its show. Deviation, then, operates/functions against the deteriorating system's, or near the end, cult's, both natural and promulgated laws required to sustain such programs' haggardly portentious continuations.

Within the paradigm of anti-Fascist/-cult theory and operations, the identical twin of Deviationism and as well leading legal charge upon presentation, staunch Individualism, becomes rigorous Rebelism in the same (Fascist-/cultic-based) group program going berzerk. And, Rebelism is celebrated in places like America when not, also, hysterically manipulated, or more simply just done-away-with, by the so called — as coined by the philosopher historian, Alexis de Tocqueville — "tyranny of the majority." Individualism, also required to become a more pronounced Rebelism when the collective gets truly carried away, provides the bulwark,  the pylon, the force of resistance, the fighting balance against the referenced and feared civilization's systemic propensity to self destruct. It is the rebel who first stands up against the swirlingly-gone-mad hystericals comprising the systemic hurricane.  Hence, Rebelism, which will for a while at least culminate in individual sacrifice and loss of social prestige — and as represented symbolically in the, now post (as of January, 2014), Westbury Rebel icon — can be a very good thing, particularly as a counter collective antagonist for keeping us all, otherwise, alive.

One purpose of these rebel essays is to introduce at the general management (more widely informed component of a voting polity) level another or additional means of strengthening civilizations' capacities to save themselves from such things as internally-generated or externally attacking cult dominations that are acting out hysterically: i.e., the subject of this section. I'll do that for this essay toward it's end and in another part of the series, "V". For now, the message from this effort is and will be that there's more available to survival against such groups gone-, or about to go-, amuck (and then taking the rest of us with them) than just law enforcement, awareness through open expression, and manipulation of a bunch of poor traumatized citizens' abstractions regarding what we are all doing here, and how to go about it.

Back to the BSers

Down-the-road- or Hereafter-styled-utopianisms like Marxism, (John) Knoxism (Christian protestant Behaviorism by seventeenth century Celts), unreformed Catholicism (now, or at least currently, reformed) and Islamism (a not yetter — depends on the language medium; for example, it demonstrates and proselytizes its reformation when presenting to its competitors in English, but maintains its original Behaviorism-to-Systemic non secularism approach when presented in Arabic to its primary Dar al Islams), which supplied, and still do where "not yet" reformed, ready-made plans that incorporate this kind of undefended thinking (i.e., Behavioral-to-Systemic-based), fit irrefragably into the always attendant "get-it-done-at-all-or-no-matter-the-human-cost" Behavioral- and Systems-based thought logic. There is little or almost no individual ontological thinking-feeling-intuitive component that can present to defend — through the experience of attendant and with the inherent warning qualities of emotional pain that something may be or likely is wrong — the user or implementer against the model's always-reinforcing dictates coming from and returning to, as in hamster circular treadmill operational functioning, the abstract of consciousness. The BS model resides in that abstraction, again not just in the individual bad rebel, but in the confluence of abstractions hosting the bad rebel polity as a whole. And if it does in one, two or  several people who comprise the group's movement, then the ontologically-based cannot remain a part of the overall and now changing thinking apparatus; the simpletons who feel correcting or defensive pain, or maybe compassion for the trounced, get ostracized, as in formally excommunicated. Moreover, where so undefended, causes which underpin the methods for achieving the ends become the everything, even to the extent that lots of regular persons who are not into those or any other such political crusades are morphed, in the  eyes of those crusaders, into nothing. That phenomenon constitutes the most serious beginning of the bad rebel.

Despite those referenced negatives, Behavioral-to-Systems aggregates have a place in the management world. For example, the model holds up well on contested beaches like Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Okinawa and Normandy; the combatized jungles of Peleliu, Saipan, and Vietnam; and the frozen mountains and deep snow-blanketed forests of Chosin, Korea and Bastogne. In fact, one of my Drill Instructors in Marine Corps boot camp was one (a BSer) way back in 1964. Then I would, too, upon return from a tour in theater, adopt the model as a trainer of new Marines (within the newly reactivated 5th Marine, also honored as "the Iwo", Division) heading into the continuation of the Southeastern Asia conflict between my after years 1966-1968. That kind of stringent or also  said rigid or maybe goal-focused-oriented thought model can then propel individuals confronted by very difficult situations, like war, into becoming extraordinary persons who achieve what otherwise appear to be impossible feats.

To take another positive application of Behaviorism, in organizational development models, management-by-objectives, a spin-off of Behaviorism, allows people operating within organizations to objectify the process for evaluation of tasks and their achievements (or not) provide a sense of fairness to the critical dimension of management. The clarification of what is to be accomplished and then evaluating only for that strengthens certitude for those who need and want to know what is expected of them. Out of that distinction comes the so called arms-length transactions between employer and employee, which in turn gives credibility to management judgment, helping to establish parameters or other boundaries for people otherwise spending much time together, and where fusion-of so called human aspects of the interactions might encumber or otherwise detract from their working in concert for a common cause. Performance of duties that lead to the achievement of well structured goals and objectives makes for congruency within interactions, or is supposed to.

A problem as I've come to understand it, though, is that almost nobody can sustain over full (life) periods that kind of living experience and particularly forever, as it becomes virtually and so called inhuman in meeting its implementations' demands. The users adapt their organizational management tools for business or those implementing social programs by leaving the rigorous structure at the office, factory, or bureaucracies, hopefully. That is again for emphasis, Behaviorism doesn't give human ontology room to breathe, and thus thrive. So those so called human needs are met in other environs: churches, synagogues, mosques, entertainment, dating, marriage, child rearing and love, sports and other competitions, art, music and outings with friends.

Operating in the global, as a world management device, is different. When that Behavioral-to-System psychic force is engineered to take over those individual spirits by those aspiring to impose their wills on non-combatant ordinaries, who usually don't deserve it by the way, then all hell presents for the innocents (the takeoverees), as going against that application or force is nearly impossible once it gets rolling in the public management sector.

Staunch (and really well educated) Behaviorists, whether secular or non, argue for a different interpretation of what's best for humankind and its consciousness. Taking an example from the non secular application, the tenets of Islam posit that strict adherence  to its rules for administering its both religious  and political components (actually only one component when totalized) of its program lead to true freedom in the experience of human essence.  Hurriyah, the Arabic term for freedom, is experienced when one follows the admonitions of Allah as transcribed or otherwise embodied in their founding documents, the Sunnah (including the Koran, Shariah, al hadith, and some of the biographies of their prophet, also called "the Messenger"), and as has been studied and interpreted by those in charge of Islam's jurisprudence, the Ulema. It is a group of historic imams who've translated what the Sunnah means so that the masses of Islam are not confused by the program's many policies, procedures and directives. The more strict adherence, by following the directions of that body of work, leads to a form of "perfect slavery" to the deity (as coined originally in 1240AD by the "Greatest Sufi Master," Ibn Arabi and his predecessor Sufi scholar Al Qushayri 1072AD) in this instance Allah (thanks to Dr.  Andrew Bostom — Shariah versus Freedom pgs. 53-54 — from which that profound perspective on differences in meanings of "freedom" between the West and Islam is presented).

The thought and behavioral "submission," which is what the word Islam means, supplants the chaos, which spawns from the creativeness parsed into productiveness by entropy of the phenomenon being measured, that can and in the Islamic model's reasoning, result from indulgence of what the West thinks of and defines as human ontology or essence (of being human). As viewed from the non-secular Islam in this usage, that Western concept of freedom — perpetual spontaneity of being in the pursuit of being and individual essence — actually diverts the individual and thus the soul (as always, your choice: Hebraic, Hellenic, or Oriental) into a state of non-freedom, as it may and usually is, when not functioning in compliance with Islam's behavioral dictates (meaning to do what the deity says as presented in the program's documentation and then be saved from the vagaries stemming out of a human ontology, or essence gone wild).

Thanks also to Islam for providing this example of the differences in thought constructs that are destined to clash unless or until one or the other caves on its logic. And for at least some groups, which may feel left out of this example, Islam of course is not the only  user  of the Behaviorism-to-Systemism (BS) methodology for helping one's self and others to  strengthen human state, and particularly or even when it doesn't want to be strengthened. Protestantism, Catholicism, and Buddhism have all used aspects of the BS model to advance themselves and similar versions to Islam's, albeit with a different abstraction for the definition of their deity, of the meaning of freedom through their respective programs. However, they, following numerous wars over the last millennium and much death emanating from the "extermination" component of the contiguous thought models, have reformed some of their doctrines, at least those elements that make them psychologically and physically hegemonous. Thanks to American ontology-based thinkers spawned out of the enlightenment and its emigration (primarily from Scotland) to this land for helping with that overall reformation by separating out the demand elements of their programs from always trying to control through  government the full polity's notions about Being, the Heavens, and how to best get there.

Lenin's adoption of Marx's intendedly secular works (regarding similarities in thought constructs, I think, but incidentally to this essay, that the socially administered collective and its doctrine sub for a deity in serious Socialism) have most obviously been reformed in places to cut  back that model's requirement of application of some of the killing components of their advancing tactics. But, like Islam still is today, the fairly rigorousers of the socialists' model do not accept the concept of the importance of individual human ontology as the driving force around and from which to manage both an identity and its collective manifestation within a society. And I've no doubt that without adequate doctrinal auto-advancement-breaking influences, the current slow-down in the application of murder as the Behavioral-proselytizing component of and used by the encroaching polity will only be briefly experienced over this next couple of hundred or even more years. Although recently — the last several decades of the past fuller century — they've switched to the very (but more passively so) aggressive systems-based consciousness-raising and –management. Hoping that I'm not prescient, I think the Reds' more violent implementers of change, also bad rebels, are not done.

Out of the System Component of the BS Model comes Systemic Declarative Consciousness-Determination: Psychics and Takeover Politics

Systemic declarative consciousness-determination of a polity — as opposed to appraising it through scholarly inquiry and interrogatory of its unmanipulated base — contrives to make the targeted group Be something in particular as different from what it once was, and through surreptitious means. The process, a lesser manipulative form, has always been around since leaders of those entities first gave speeches to their followers. Pericles is recognized as one of the best at valid shaping of the consciousness of systems of people, in his case the democracy managing Athenia. And of course, that is in part what politics is about in an ontologically-based or -run society — political persuasion. But in 1896, and thereafter influencing social studies, the  process got some lifting air under its wings from the work of Gustave le Bon, the author of The Crowd: a Study of the Popular Mind. It dealt with the psychological formations of crowds in their both conscious and unconscious structures.

Although not intended for the purposes used twenty-five years later, it is argued that Le Bon's work was fundamental in the shaping of systems management by the National Socialist, Fascist and Stalinist governments of, respectively, the 1920s through mid-1940s managements of the German, Italian and Russian-to-Soviet peoples. Those well-known methods of polity (again, as in system) manipulation by strong rhetoric, immutable belief in the cause, suppression/repression of ontological elements of human psychology/spirituality, Supremacist philosophy, propagandizing, intimidation of expression and control of information flow have then been added to, starting in the 1920s, and then taking off in the 1960s by some Eastern thought and what became known as New Age thinkings.

That latter idea, narrowly described here, is that individuals hankering for change in their collective peoples' environment can bring that about in mass by simply concentrating individual thought on how they wanted it to be and then focusing all discipline of so called psychic energy into selling (through declarative consciousness raising methods) that desire to the crowd. Adding a couple or three or three hundred sharers of the psychic declaration — and don't forget to expunge the unbelievers from this séance — and you've nearly got yourself a movement. Manipulative devices operating in parallel like psychological shaming of those holding perspectives not commensurate with the psychic ploy (more detail in Part IV of this series) became one of the most effective tools for determining a system's consciousness desired by the manipulators. That consciousness, when combined with the Behavioral configuration referenced in this essay, became the systemic component of the Behaviorism-to-Systemism device methodology coined in  this work about good and bad rebels.

That systemic declarative consciousness-determining method acts for the Behaviorist, who is otherwise dedicated to changing his world, like a bunch of auto-machetes cutting through the jungle path so that the safari can proceed unencumbered by the obstacles attending differences in individual human essence. Using a battlefield analogy, the declarative consciousness-determining method is the artillery, air and naval bombardments of the beaches and otherwise well defended terrain to be taken by the invasion force. Declarative consciousness-determining is to the Behaviorist's change model what the shock and awe bombardment in March, 2003, was to the beginning of that season's Iraqi War.

Regrettably for those who intend primarily to exploit the model's strengths, they are attended by some weaknesses. For example, declarative consciousness-determination forms the underpinning of the split in human consciousness referenced during the era of this writing as the "double think" outcome inherently attending the group think methodology. It is responsible for the oft noted hypocrisy of its advocates; they opine publically the more altruistic, at least in appearance, themes of the declarative consciousness-determinations, and live privately as the selfish or at least self-first-based individuals railed against in and by the collective determinism's psychic force. Hence, the foundation of double think which almost always attends the Behavioral-to-Systemic modality's proponents: bad rebels.

That so called psychic model has not just been used for taking power in political arenas. Napoleon Hill rediscovered it, through interviews of the extra economically successful, during the beginnings of the twentieth century and showed how it could be applied to any effort for the achievement of its success and in particular, economic and business achievement, but for Hill always ethically: to mean without attendant deceptive manipulation. Then, in the late 1970s while attending an Alcoholism Professional Education Conference in Austin, Texas, I would listen to the keynote speaker, a nationally renowned psychologist deliver his address straight from the pages of Hill's famous depression area book's (Think and Grow Rich, 1937) introduction, and doing so without missing a point, and also unfortunately without attribution.

Positive application of the less offensive aspects of the declarative-system model began to be implemented in and by the psychological professions during the later quadrant of the twentieth century, and by giving it a simple name: visualization. Athletes were taught how to see, attended, of course, by the rules for concentration-sending of the psychic force into the brain's supra-stratosphere, their future performances of excellence in their current consciousnesses. Picking up on that success and its repeated presentation in mainstream aspects of the society, i.e., sports competition, positive-thinking enthusiasts added the use of that force into their milieu of success-motivation affirmation techniques, which puts the thought model right back where it started at the beginnings of the twentieth  century, and as Hill would explain as then adopted by Robber  Barons of old. Importantly, none of these  more fame-chasing and money-making success applications were trying to bring down civilizations as their new adapters from the later twentieth and early twenty-first century have apparently applied the model to aid in meeting the more nefarious ends.

Those aspects of the catapulted psychic aberration might not be so bad were it not for the extremely dangerous aspects of it. Both individuals and collectives so possessed will hypothesize invulnerability to bad things happening just through declaration. For example, the notion of gun free areas is intended to sanctify a space where everyone can be safe without concern for things like protection and paranoia invading the consciousness of participants. Proponents believe that that psychically conjured wish will stave off harm.

Same with terrorism. Just think it away.  Fontova Humbarto describes this spiritual power applied at its zenith as he recounts certain African militia leaders liaised with Cuban guerrillas. That leadership would use various kinds of water, either taken internally or applied as in sprinkling, combined with some magic chants that would make the so blessed impervious to mid-1960s ammunition. If the live rounds broke through the psychically conjured protective-to-be phenomenon, then it was always determined that these sadder cases had not worked the program properly.

In America during the terrorism years, an entire federal government administration helped its citizens by applying the model to foreign policy management, but with a slight twist. Be nice, non-arrogant and empathic with those declaring that they would destroy America, and nobody'll bother us.

This latter psychic application can be witnessed by the collective's attempts to make the model come out right. For example, an event can happen in one part of the world; and, then members of the cult chant the exact same words  eventually as shibboleths,  throughout the rest of it, and as if a mantra, or in earlier twenty-first century terms the "narrative," and at their opposition: us non-cult aligned ordinaries. Symptomatically, the chanters' eyes seem to glaze over (when one can see them), thus presenting on television as pallor-faced and hyped zombie-like lip-syncers trying to emulate live people.

Speaking even further to the BSer's more active zombie-like mind — because it is so hard for ordinaries to grasp —  as well in its use of declarative consciousness-based psychic political ploys, Nadezhda Konstantinova (Vladimir Lenin's widow) ran into it while mistakenly arguing against Joseph Stalin at the beginning of the 1935-1938 purge, eventually termed by Robert Conquest (1967, 2007) The Great Terror, the same name becoming the title of his landmark book. The once esteemed wife of the first leader in this collective was not a Stalin fan, and in January of 1935 was causing the new premier or secretary general considerable problems as he was attempting to do away with his, thus from his view the people's, adversaries. But unlike the others, he didn't think he could get by with simply killing her. So he moved to have the group currently in charge declare Mrs. Lenin to not be herself. They would find some other woman to fill the role of Lenin's widow, now eleven years after Vladimir's demise. Declarative consciousness would rule in that instance with Stalin's timely adapting declamation: "Yes. The Party can do anything!"

Deitizing it, Sayyid Qutb took (takes) the psychic-political model to its non-secular pinnacle. Through his oratory, a little bit of it eloquent, in Milestones, written while in jail in the 1950s in Egypt, he admonishes Muslims in fundamentalism's approach to religious belief as no preacher I witnessed in the same and also slightly earlier (late 1940s as I was getting started apprising these kinds of things) periods, even in our historic East Texas Assembly of God, Pentecostal, Baptists, and later-to-be just Charismatic Sunday morning presentations of the Word. He repeatedly makes the case that Islam is itself a divine ongoing and immutable act of Allah whereby its members are inextricably linked to that heavenly direction, making it occur as inspired by that one true God, in this case of course, his. (And regrettably for the rest of us, he allows, thus the Brothers' Islamic resurgence allow, no others.) 

Their mission is to free the world's peoples from their slavery to other men (democracies, dictatorships, communism, socialism, tribes and other monarchies), their rule and even themselves (their sinning frailties), not to mention worshipping false gods like Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha and Indian livestock (cattle) for example, until the entire world is functioning in a harmony characterized by direct freedom to be with the Creator, Islam's, that again, is. I guess to our benefit or remorseful regret, Qutb and now the entire Brothers network feel obligated to insist that that freedom be passed on to the rest of us unenlightened kafrs: people who hang-on through ignorance to their own community’s management models.   

That extraordinary piece, when confabbed with his (Qutb’s) multivolume work also produced in prison before he was finally hanged — almost on the same day that I returned from a tour of duty in Southeast Asia (1966) —  has been one of the cornerstones, in conjunction with the start-up efforts of Hassan Al Banna and, to a lesser degree the current Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi, for rousing in this eighty-five years the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide to the new Brotherhood's reclamation of an otherwise decaying Islam. It had occurred for the several hundred years just prior to 1928, coinciding with the final failure of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. Make no mistake, nobody better applies the system-declarative psychic model, and for us Westerners most assuredly more threateningly, than Sayyid Qutb. Should you want to understand the core of this psychic strength and how it works first in one's mind, and then expands or spins into the umma or host and its institutions, as exemplified in this religio-political-social-takeover context, Milestones will give you that view without an utterance of equivocation.

If you don't have a desire to dig or otherwise explore that far, just think of the model's steadfast progression across humanity in the latter twentieth and twenty-first centuries as an USA Midwestern spring rough weather front line roaring across the near center of the continent. But instead of just thunder, lightning, wind and hail, in their stead or in conjunction with them are coming myriad tornadoes, appearing along that advancing line asymmetrically to destroy the landscape and all within like so many Hiroshima-level nuclear explosions. The swirling cyclones are, in this analogy, the consequences of the formulation of thought that makes each participant who follows the system's dictates, and no matter the Muslim nay-sayers who've tried to change Islam into a lesser aggressive collection of thought constructs during its degenerative period, a force of super natural destruction targeted at all that appears as opposition, to include those peaceful elements of the umma who would just like to get along with everybody else.

Systemic declarative consciousness-determination is the art of harnessing the power of collectively engineered and harmonized psychic disturbance. Bad rebels thrive both on and in its application.

Trumping Behavioral-to-Systemic Carried-Awayism

Leaving the psychic thinkers' contributions and influences, socialists and some others provide excellent examples of the systemic side of the conflicts resulting from this polarization brought about by differences between ontological and Behavioral focuses. Non cause-oriented ordinary folks who just like to do simple things e.g., fish, play cards, dominos, golf or baseball, work in their gardens, embroidery lace or learn quilt-making, do their jobs, love their families, read enjoyable and meaningful books, and listen the same to such music during leisure time, can even get in the way (because they don't readily join up  with the crowd) of Machiavelli- and Qutb-styled and always-systemically-plugged-in kinds of thinkers. Crusaders or sublime surrenderers need pretty much everyone to participate, otherwise the crusade imposing the change (which usually consists of tightened behavioral controls for making a society better, or at least more malleable by the bigger thinkers' management devices) may appear unsupported, which appearance is threatening to the movement. It loses its political efficacy. Thereafter, the ordinaries become from the fired-ups' perspectives, lesser-, if not eventually, non-persons; or as some cults would asseverate: sinners, apostates, reactionaries, blasphemers, counter-revolutionaries, some kind of phobics, deviationists, and even a few outright defamers. That cult control dictum makes it appropriate for these innocents to become targets (for removal) of the big thinkers' implementations of otherwise unsolicited change.

It is not ─ which is one of the salients of this essay ─ just evil Fuhrers and other psycho-sociopaths (considered in more detail in Part IV of this series) that cause all this. It's the nature of the thinking model, albeit it is often initiated somewhere in its history and then facilitated with considerable contributions along its path by the psychos of the planet, that is the primary culprit. No matter; their administrators become the bad rebels. Hence and simplifying why they are modified in this essay that way, to mean "bad." Viewing and treating some people as nothing, and even more dramatically removing them from the inputters' class, isn't good management, unless one's goal is just to destroy or conquer something; or everything, when Behaviorism-extrapolated-to-and-then-merged-with-Systemism — also called at maturity, collective Totalism, or for another slant, Tribalism — gets carried away.

Parenthetically, some bad rebels may be salvageable if you can get to them early. That is, if regular, to mean non criminally invasive, people remain in the unrestrained Behaviorist's construct for a long time, they eventually become the model, and thus are almost lost, as in forever. Not only, then, is the model warped, but the personages become that way, too. Taking an example from popular art, such was the undoing of the otherwise honorable Javer, who you'll no doubt remember as being the proponent of following only the legal dictates of the law in Les Miserables. He was alleged to be missing some things regarding his understandings of the  human consciousness and how it functioned, which is what the book, musical and show were about.

When it comes to defending or otherwise fighting within these two expectedly (meaning naturally) clashing managerial notions, the good rebel can only fight defensively, because that is the configuration of his model's epistemology. It asserts, for example, "Let everyone be as they are, except when their behaviors become harmful." Miscalculations due to things like pathognomonic perceptions are formally restricted from application in this theory.

That is, psychopathologies that project or transfer one's inner sense of worthlessness onto others generally, and in this usage specifically onto the referenced ordinaries, i.e., those who are or may be otherwise just minding their own business, can cause the so more rigidly deranged to always see the need for personal change (actually of themselves) in the personages of other human beings, instead of seeing it where it may truly lie, within the Behavioral-reformer's self that requires the defense-projection. The subsequent ideology at maturity, Totalism-/Tribalism-based Behaviorism, has no methodological defense against that outcome, other than through application of some cognitive disclaimers sometimes called ethics — they only monitor themselves, which selves-serving shortfall produces a managerial equivalent of oxymoronism: bullet train-like and naturally hegemonic nihilism-to-chaos.

Although it still happens, that kind of hysterics is systematically, say in the American culture, precluded, or is supposed to be, by the implementation rules attending our constitutions and laws that govern the land. They stop the hysterics, meaning quixotic and ever-capricious crowd projection-based kinds of thought, like that which operated France's Reign of Terror during one of its revolutions, from using those methods (again, the hysterics that attend mob- and collective Behaviorism-like thinking) to quash or otherwise squash individual essences into oblivion. Through America's current (or once upon a time) constitutionally formatted legal doctrine (e.g. the Bill of Rights as it influences the laws of the land) and its enforcements (the various levels of courts), those covenants preempt invasions by Behaviorist-to-Systemicists upon and into individual human essence. Or at least, again, they are supposed to. In terms of priorities under the referenced Bill of Rights-styled government, human essence, through protection by good rebels, trumps Behavioral carried-awayism, or out-of-control application of its surmises about the evolution of the world's psychologies and how that interpretive outcome is supposed to go.

The bad rebel's management construction, on the other hand, is innately or let's also say endogenously offensive. Again, it is hegemonic. It looks at its surroundings and the people in them and determines that behaviors not acceptable to the viewer represent the polity's essence, which in the big scheme of things is not always true. So that estimate(s) of individual and collective ontology (of other people) — when it doesn't comport with, or otherwise come up to the standards underpinning, the Behaviorist's view — has to be changed.

Behaviorism's Implementation Requires that Somebody Either Knows what He or She is Doing, or at least is able to act like they do, which is a Role of Higher Education as periodically administered by Bad Rebels within the Behaviorism-to-Systems’ Paradigm.

Smart people who study others, have figured those things (that is, how to get the perceived not-so-brights to do what the thinking-of-themselves-to-be-intellectually-evolved want) out, from which figuring is where they draw their authorities (albeit non seculars blend that "draw" with and from the Almighty's revelations, other or like epiphanies or psychoses, and such) for imposing their notions of right or correct ways of being onto others and the subsequent change required to keep the faith (with either or both the secularists' and non-secular Behaviorists'-to-Systemists' notions).

Imperatively, that educational pillar of Behaviorism — where the evolved tell those not how to do things — although helpful for a little while, doesn't carry the social management panacea their proponents hope for. However, before getting into  what goes wrong, and that then making me look that way, too, because education is such a naturally rewarding element of life, let me explain that I love and admire the effects of education on the individual and their groups when it inspires goodness, wrapped in caring, with a ribbon of  humility tied  just right with a bow to starburst its great gift to us all. I love educators and their product, but as contributors of hard — often even gifted — work and talent; not as the rulers of the universe.

Now for the bad view. As noted earlier, one of the great initiates of Behaviorism in America, B.F. Skinner, and in one of his last televised interviews, expressed his considerable disappointment in education as a or even the primary remedy for what ails the human consciousness. Adding to that capitulation, academe's schools of Behavioral Science have repeatedly studied the hierarchical elements of the relationship of education to the capacity of humans to help others in the psychological treatment arena. That literature, considered as we say to meet the criteria of good science, show unequivocally that hierarchical (most educated on top and the lessers so at the bottom) relationship to be converse to that underlying the Behavioral political world management theory. The greater the education and licensing levels, the less efficacious the clinician is in facilitating psychological wellness. Importantly, but incidental to that body of information, my experience in training such people has  shown that although the higher educational and skills development variables may be concluded in the literature to detract from treatment efficacy, that many higher ups on the education totem pole still have the capacity to care deeply for patients, which caring is, in my experience of managing multiple facility treatment entities, the requisite criterion (more so than education and skills) for bringing about profoundly real positive, as in meaningful, life wellness for those in need and being helped.

Nevertheless, Behaviorists keep managing by passing on hierarchically, as if that is the primary if not only means of helping, or trying to, their erudition to the masses, no matter that for some reason it just doesn't stick. Professor Stephen Hicks, in his three hour documentary (2006) exploring the relationship between Nietzsche's work and the rise, support and management by the Nazis in early-to-mid twentieth century Germany, didn't just tear into intellectual elitism's transition to a supremacy management doctrine, and how it led to nearly one hundred million deaths worldwide, but he also showed that the greats of science and philosophy from Europe, six of them Nobel laureates, and to include, although passing on a little early, the stellar German philosopher Hegel, would support the beginnings of that horrifying collective transition. When it came to public problem solving, education didn't do a very good job for a host of folks.

In America, Michael Ledeen makes the same point recently, emphasizing that pre both WWI and WWII, Europe, and highlighting Germany were able to draw upon the finest of all academic effort, treatise and objectivity for the application of science, and particularly as applied in the study and then management of people. Then topping this list of that era's brilliants was Austria’s finest academes, who on a single March, 1938, spring weekend said at the start of it, on Friday, that nobody from that edified Austrian community would support the German Nazi party, and that all ethnicities were safe in that finely staffed academic mountain top of Europe.

By the time the Fuhrer's weekend visit was over on Monday in that pretty city, however, these always acknowledged-to-be the most enlightened of thinkers had fired all the Jews at University (equaling about  half the faculty), only because they WERE Jews. By November 19 of the same year, they were seriously on their ways to being fully gone, with not only academia's not providing them  with a  defense against the coming mass extinction effort, but  by collaborating with the killing machine which would take it a  few, albeit unfathomable-to-the-ordinary-human-mind, steps past systematic employment discrimination. Hail Mary full of  Grace; or blessed be the Westbury Rebel; save us  from the trained but always blowing-in-the-winds-of-change abstractionist (lost-in-cortextual-space academes), of which the intellectual leadership of the Continent (Europe) is still comprised. Moreover, that blob or collective hollow man narcissistic being  has trans-gravitated across the Atlantic during the fifty year period of the Westbury Rebel and established, hopefully only temporarily, a rotten occupancy in the dark days of America's twenty-first century beginnings. It follows Europe’s suit, heading us (Americans), too, inexorably into that degenerate way of academic supremacism, emphasizing as opposed to just healthy elitist (meaning naturally prideful of one's strivings to do well within his or her chosen field, discipline or endeavor) thought about  one's self and constituents.

Drawing from collected essays from inside Academia today, Mary Grabar (Exiled, 2013) highlights for us how academia got into it's current state of management by collective prejudice and bigotry, and worse, the shutting out of opposition (now having to be thought of as counter-revolutionists) views through the (New, Hard, Uppity-Elitist or just different from the old liberals) Left's control of research and scholarship projects and ideological discrimination in hiring practices. Through a complete series of articles, Walter Williams has brilliantly shown how the same phenomena turns intellect to rot.

“You mean decay?” Narcissism embedded in the abstract cannibalizes the whole. And of course, the war horse communist-turned-conservative-think-tanker-head and unintimidatable David Horowitz, who understands the innards of that degeneracy's effects on freedom, fights that collective mental illness with all the character he can bring to the battle. It is simply a struggle, not just for the freedom to shoot the breeze in the tower with arrogance-piercing honesty-tipped ammunition, but for the survival of the species.

Providing the central pillar for the Behaviorism-to-Systemism's onslaught — the same academia-gone-deranged that gives the Behaviorism-to-Systemism thought model its non sequitur but very popular elan in the twenty first century is the identical inner force that contributed to the sundering of Russia, eastern Europe and the whole of the Continent between that horrific turn of the twentieth century and its climatic WWII (1945) and Cold War (1991) conclusions. The Left's academic contributors, collectively speaking, again, and this time with unrestrained ferocity of malice, is squeezing out the old America's individual ontological-based reality and replacing it with a hierarchically structured intellectual supremacist influence upon, and thus fostering of, collective degeneracy. All this thanks to the newbie thinkers who've come into the culture since its rabid advance of and into ever-deepening inanity begun in the 1960s.

Inane? Sure. Because we've, that is, the world, has done this many times before, and always lost big from it. I mean, what kind of IQ is required to keep herding unfortunates off the cliffs, just for the sake of hyping one’s or a group’s mental failure at becoming a real person or people.

Robert Lifton and Jacob Lindy, along with a grand entourage of other psychiatrists from the West and then supported by those clinicians surviving the death of the Soviet Union and its control of Eastern Europe (1945-1991), document in their book Beyond Invisible Walls: The Psychological Legacy of Soviet Trauma the takeover of vast cultures of the both individual and collective minds. And they don't just show what happened to the lay polity, or ordinary masses, but how the Behavioral-to-Systems take-over model (my term; Lifton uses “Totalism”) affected, and was even implemented by, the institutions representing the psychological helping organizations; those who were in charge of righting the traumatizing wrongs were the wrongdoers in the first place.

The best way to do that, at least at the jump, was to implement an overarching policy that the individual, particularly as linked to its ontological and mostly unconscious counterpart, didn't exist at all. Therein Freud's writings about that unconscious were banned from publication so that academes couldn't even read — from the near (1929) start of Stalinization of the Bolshevik’s groundbreaking work in mass terror (actually getting off the ground as a world, to mean accepted as civilizational, class management model in 1905) — about opposing theories regarding the depth of the individual human consciousness. That banishment of thought lasted a full sixty years until 1989.

Psychodynamic inquiries into the mind were stigmatized and replaced with Behavioral and other models that represented the systemic authority's values, perspectives and prejudices, not the patients sitting in the therapists' facilities. Worse, merging clinical application with government hierarchical managerial control of the population, the use of psychiatric pharmacological and other invasive models were notoriously applied by agents of the state to suppress any investigation by the population and even the therapists, themselves, into those selves, unless they were interpreted to define all problems within the collective's authorized directives for viewing the human consciousness and how it most naturally functions.

Why have bad rebels been so successful in the school house, which advance then spawns a rollover into a polity’s leadership? Marx redefined for the abstract world hosted by theoreticians the oft used term, freedom, as a function of erudition, to mean learning and accepting the current new view of how to do things, which he happened to have made up. The more one understands his perspective, the freer he or she is. So if you've read all these doctrines in the right books, agreed with them (as many did because  they were promoted as scientific), and maybe even adopted them as your  own reality, then you'll be free, mostly because you've gotten the most current big picture that without, you never had a chance. Do it right, and you can even go out and murder people who yet have not, and feel righteous about it. Now, that capacity for intellectual acumen turned culler-of-lessers exemplifies REAL freedom, according to that fellow and his academically disordered followers. What's not to become dedicated to, about that?

As that spiral of non performance, meaning too many people are dying, and not just metaphorically as in becoming slaves but also to real death from violence too early, loses control, the Behaviorists-to-Systemist blame the management shortfall on the managees. When not doing as told, they are rationalized (at least in the back rooms not accessible to open story-tellers) to be just a bunch of unedified, recalcitrant and irresponsible members of the public, mostly in the South, and particularly if they are from Texas.

It's not that, however. The problem lies within the design and engineering of the Behaviorist's learning, teaching and management modality. It's inadequate for doing the job; during its objectification exercises, their model doesn't account, and thus manage for, the whole of who we are. And that failure then leads the simple elitist into the great dangerous territory of both individual and collective delusion. As Plato and Dr. Woodrow Wilson, the latter being president of Princeton University, pointed out, academia — and then just writers who were discovering the economic or cult-creationism fruits of contrarian expression through Behavioral-to-System analylsis of the masses — had the inherent right, albeit not the American Constitutional one, to, by virtue of intellectual mental supremacy, ascend, often through media-journalistic merger, to the fourth power of government, sort of like divine managers. "Divine" means that they argued that their work not be constrained by petty agreements for employment, as Americans had stipulated in their personnel management contracts with ruler/leader-aspirants. They would have to follow the laws of the land as did the commoners who needed the managing, and no matter those intervening infuences on the new deities' mental health shortfalls: deeply imbedded self absorption set to flights of fantasitic creativity/imagination otherwise sold as socially aware literature.

Fred Siegel tells that story rivetingly, and I thought also risibly, well in his 2014 book, Revolt Against the Masses. He emphasizes how the Left's intellectual leadership from its inception (as liberals) argued for professional discretion in the management of the people's interests. The common man was just not up to it.

Not new. In Plato's The Republic, the early author and thinker opined that for even divinely-evolving kings to be successful, they would have to come, or otherwise be educated to emerge, from the philosopher class, making them perfect, albeit a little removed, managers for and of the non educateds. Divinity and slavery together again, albeit this time through education.

A Core of Intellect

But those proponents of the academe supremacy doctrines don't hold up in practical competition with their human ontologically focused management counterparts. As John Adams analogized this principle in his comparison of the two values, heart and furniture of the mind, real, or maybe it would be appropriate to call it supra intellectual strength, is drawn from the homogenation of the human capacities to not just  follow a particular paradigm of logic out to its inth, as does an academe when he or she has the opportunity to think about the question fully, but to along the way draw upon and thus be measurably influenced by the heart, which is another term for the essence or ontological composition of the human consciousness. In this instance, that essence can include the learned abilities to exact from one's being an understanding of all that is valuable to that Self, whether manifested as only a single  person's development of and love for a plot of land, an empire created from one's spirit, an immutable belief in God, the performance of one's duties to the best of his or her abilities, or the capacity to care for the uncareable; to aspire to know and be what greater-than means, and simultaneously know the same about the wonders of humility during negotiations with, and of, failure and loss; unlike the renown Mssrs. Lenin and Muhammed — two of the greatest Behaviorists-to-Systemicists designers of  all time — who would argue that music presents interference with their approaches to managing the soul, ontologically managed minds can swell with strands of music's uplifting influences upon the core of Being; to relish in the expression and appreciation of art, immersion into the intricacies of nature, and participation in the completeness of spirit; to be resilient when confronted with fear, terror and horror; to unravel hate through the experience, expression and then dissipation, even, of embarrassment, shame, anger, rage and sorrow; and to be found by and to find love with happiness, amazement, and joy; to intuit the entire universe, or just one's backyard; to change or to accept, at a point of introspective metamorphous when and as it becomes one's solitary challenge; to embrace an honorable quest, then follow it; and, to become with the ease of dignity, more or less, as the glass of one's life, respectively, fills or empties. 

From that essence; from that human ontological basis of being; from that heart produced by humankind; and emphasizing not-power, derives the foundations of a lasting civilization. Human ontology produces its cornerstones: honesty, integrity, truth, valor, perseverance for understanding, honor, creativity in the pursuit and consequent expression of wisdom, love and the capacities for some of us to fight for all that is good within or for those endearments we hold in such high regard. Therein, and as different from only partial learning participation by compelled or coercive dictates, which are hallmarks of the Behavioral-to-Systemic-gone-amuck paradigm, learning within the ontologically-based model occurs from spontaneity of desire where the whole of unrestrained creativity strives to respond to that spark, then embrace the ensuing fire of and for that individual life.  Those foundations of the heart — not the Behaviorists' objectification of consciousness, ever organically attended by the nearly always-obfuscation of its pursuit of power — are the driving forces of real intellect. They provide it with purpose, a meaning for life that transcends temporal gains otherwise acquired through a competition for power, and most often at another's expense.

Human essence stops out-of-control Behaviorism-to-Systemism in its otherwise perpetually accelerating tracks. When abstractions, i.e., big plans for the masses, venture too far over the top, overarching those concerns for preferences attending individuality, then human ontology functions, or is supposed to where still in existence, to send its signals to the Behaviorist-to-systems managers; "Something's wrong here!" Stopping the onslaught is the down deep message, which is followed by truer, meaning more profound, analysis. Large scale cult-management effects can be avoided. The arm-banned decorated brown and black shirts, and their skinhead descendants — whose only mission during debate is to surreptitiously thwart the congruency that is expected to attend honest expression, and without which the marshaling and supremacist ideology undergirding the Behaviorism-to-Systemism methodology would eventually just collapse — can be corralled early on.

Best yet, where power, due to rigorous and perpetual competition for it can be fleeting, human essence endures. That is the foundation upon which a civilization must stake itself, if a goal is to avoid extinction. To take one example, America did that with its Bill of Rights. To sustain that endurance, to extend life to that heart, that essence of humankind, so that civilization's people may survive, is the purpose for which the good rebel dedicates himself. And that is why he or she is "good."

Attempts to change another's, as opposed to focusing upon one's own, ontology, essence, or state, identity or existential aspects of self means that somebody has, or is likely, to get clobbered. Such contrived and notably misguided efforts are tampering with or trampling upon deep stuff, often perceived eventually by the existentialist as worth fighting for or over. And, existentialists don't fight over many things. So they'll get pretty mad when finally aroused, like they did following Pearl Harbor and then again upon the crashing down of the World Trade Center in New York City. In other words, if the bad rebel or essence-reformer crosses that line defended by the good rebel, which for almost all of us is somewhere in there (most or at least many human psyches) to be called upon — the delimitation being the composition of individual identity that fits that particular organism — then somebody is likely, or almost assuredly, going to get hurt.

That harm, which occurred in hundreds of millions of people's lives during just the twentieth century alone, can sometimes be avoided if the differences between the ontological and behavioral thought models are confronted before the antagonists get to the killing stages of their ideologies' implementations. Hence, ontologically inspired good rebels are learning to intellectually fight their bad rebel offenders from the aggressive thinkings before everyone degenerates to the rougher stages of the conflicts. Hopefully, that is.

So this subsection has contemplated why some rebels are thought of as "good," and others are considered as "bad." From  inception — the good rebel’s management modality pertaining to these subjects being protected by the United States of America's Constitution — most early Westburians, plus their constituents who comprised the other high schoolers coming from across the America of the 1940s and continuing until at least the mid 1960s, are therefore good rebels. There is no doubt that the American high schools following those periods have produced lots of good rebels, too; but with the distinction being that they — from a statistical correlation analysis (meaning empirical) perspective — have been probably harder to find since the bottom fell out  of thinking. Albeit typical for my passage through life, the going south in popularity of that special activity — thinking — happened just as I was wanting to do some of it.

Example of Good and Bad Rebels

During a televised interview, the author of Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky, and about thirty years after completing his onsite Masters Internship under Chicago's Frank Nitti, reported that he wished to be remembered as a rebel. That's all he really wanted regarding the polity's recollections of his life. But because of his method and teachings to achieve political power at pretty much all costs — he demonstrated no affinity for or allegiance to the ongoing health of the system, itself, particularly those elements that ironically supported the expression of his desires and methods for rebelizing — he wouldn't achieve the positive remembrance he understandably desired. That is, win or lose, the methods must existentially support trust of the interactive process between peoples; and the methods must never destroy that trust in those interactions, as did and does his approach. Thus, I concluded that Alinsky was a bad rebel.

"Bad" meant that he sundered belief in the expectations of people for generally-applied honesty and thus the profundity attending prospects of achieving goodness in their interchanges, despite the conflicts that attended them. Goodness was not the goal, but rather getting his way was, which he opined would provide such good for an underrepresented group. Worse; destruction of those existential-level system tenets sends the opponents in to a disordered option: physical conflict for problem solving, or as some would surmise, anarchy and nihilism. I doubt that Alinsky, because he believed humankind would emerge or at least evolve out of such moralizing concepts, would have thought that someday the Rebel, which again for emphasis was what he wanted to be remembered as, could be not-good: to mean in simpler terms for this essay, bad.

Not what he expected; and, I also doubt that he would have been aware that there was a difference, which, too, is (lack of awareness or conscience) a problem for bad rebels. Some are clueless as to the havoc they wreak, remaining that way not just through the pathological-to-blind transfer of all that has gone caput within themselves and onto the poor souls of the targeted polity being conquered, but by asseverating that they, as the gifted, have risen above, by virtue of their studies and good academic works, or just reading the right things, or maybe having just attended the right schools, the intellectual understandings and capacities of those being managed; honesty, truth, honor, other precious elements of character and a few existentially-based, as in required for everyone's continued existence, morals being damned along the way.

And that explains the true gift of Alinsky to the world, which is summarized at the very beginning of his book: Lucifer was the first rebel. He should have written it "The first bad rebel."

Why?! He takes on, and then loses in match-ups of principles to, the always human ontology/essence-honoring Bill of Rights embedded at the beginning of the US Constitution. He argues that his cause, which is his view of what management should be like, is so valuable that it behooves its advocates to stealthily work within the protections accorded for that ontology/essence to overturn them, in the process shifting the premier value from the system that lays the golden egg, subordinating it to the cause. That great value of richness metaphorically depicted in the "gold" imagery, is not just about wealth represented by economic value produced by a more unrestrained individual creativity, and then opportunity for its practical expression, but more intrinsically the problem-solving capacities of a system spawned and then managed by individual freedom (ala the Bill of Rights) and the attendant requirement of responsible, to mean here mandated honesty-based, implementation. It constantly designs to balance conflict that naturally evolves between individuals and the system in which they each do their best thing.

And, Alinksy's deceptive model for overturn is one, in its closed-shut lid upon human ontology's expression, that has no golden egg-laying apparatus for producing either eco wealth or human differences problem-solving richness, except in illusory, or better said hoped-for fantasy. Hence, that author's logic, which is exposed in its ostensible application in contest during the Westbury Rebel era, is self-cannibalizing; or in clinical terms, always self-destructively pathognomonic. Bad rebels fight so hard—as in myopically — for their causes, that they throw away the bigger view, the value of the ontological-honoring system that has given them the freedom of their contrarian views to exist in the first place. Pathology: if the Alinsky-engineered and bad rebel-managed system wins, it also, and as well regrettably everything else that presents as goodness, loses. It will die.

Alinsky's gift? The opportunity during our time, and just as did our parents and theirs fought against Lenin, Stalin, the Fuhrer, and Uncle Mao to battle openly, and this time within our homeland, against another test of the American effort to define the human consciousness at its essence, in the process hallmarking its value  — its worthiness for which to struggle. But I'm sure some of our constituents would just as soon have sent that particular gift back to sender, and avoid the contest/hassle.

Pre Cromwellian Puritans brought their — not coincidentally, "purist" — version of the BS modality to America's northeastern coastline at the beginnings of the seventeenth century. It stuck. Although adapted to meet changing popularity requirements — the non secular focus on diety was conformed to (camoulflaged by) a secular bent to and upon education as the model's new dynamo — that ever-conquesting part of the American world and experience continues to this day/century to impose its reality on the rest of not just America, but the entire planet. Oliver Cromwell, his hegemony-for-righteous-rightness cohorts, and those who've attempted to model his leadership principles, are great examples of equally, and also, great, bad rebels.

Another lacking in rebel-goodness would be Che Guevara. In my  view, he was a bad rebel because he believed, and engaged, in the killing-for-political-shock-effect of innocents in order to achieve the power he and his associates or management group sought. One of that bad rebel's thought-by-some-to-be-cool slogans was "Kill them first. Then we have the trial." Being cool when bringing about the death of others, in the reality (as contra to video games, TV, movies and other entertainments) of the blood-to-human-carnage aspects of the experience — particularly when presenting in mass — is not, as one walks among the bodies, cool. And it never will be no matter the spins put on it by pathognomonic-to-criminal-narcissists, cowards and fools.

An  example of a good rebel, that is, someone who would fight for the right for individuals to be a free people as defined by the ontological man and woman, and with all that that notion would entail to include defending them against the Alinskies, Cromwells, Guevaras and other carnivores of the world, would be those personnel comprising the United States of America's armed forces, and two former SEALS turned, near the end of their fully heroic lives, civilian. They were Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty. Thanks be to providence for that group of good rebels. They must have all been from Westbury High School, or some branch thereof in free America; or don't you think?

Victor Kravchenko was a good rebel. Despite his dedication to his love, Maxim Gorky's brand of humanistic communism, and which would never abandon him even until his macabre death in 1966, we could use more like him, especially when required to fight for freedom in the trenches. Vitya: tough as nails.

Conclusion: What Can be Done?

Can Anybody Do Anything to Stop this Kind of Invasion, or Plague-like Under-/Over-Growth by mostly BS inspired Bad Rebels?

Sure. But, although valuable to the overall struggle, you can't stop the BS modality just with management by rational/cognitive and traditional Western reasoning kinds of approaches used to fight non cult-type (e.g., non-psycho-caused and -based) ordinary villainous adversaries. The Prophets’-, Marxs’-, Lenins'-, Uncles Maos'-, Hos' and Pos', and Qutbs'-styled thinkers have interpreted out that kind of thought (logic) long before it ever gets to the podiums or conference tables. Their Western civilization-undermining arguments are promising followers not only the gold at the end of the rainbow in the bright unblemished sky on the other side of the clouds, particularly storm-carrying ones, but the capacity to create their own wondrous never-ending happiness made from that high thin air, spiritual or erudite evolvement, or through the philosophically authorized grabbing of other people's property, and to feel ecstatically righteous in the inevitable Stalinistically-/Zawahirilly-supported, to mean inexorably mass murder-induced formation of the fantasy. All under the aegis of socially devined justice. That is, participants kill inadequates or unluckies when they can't demonstrate that they strongly believe in the movement's slogans and leadership's divinity properly enough — always use the right words during even casual conversations while expressing yourself with the BSing movements' comrads or Brothers, sharpening the skills level for the once euphemistically-termed politically correct, but now just group-psychopathically-imposing, implementation.

On the other side of that moisture-producing cloud, and down here on that part of earth yet secured by the takeoverers, we rationals are trying to sell not just what appears to be, but quite frequently actually is, mud, and without any cogent psychic spins, other than, of course, that periodically, rain is good for farmers.To overcome or survive in that contest, it takes something special if one wants to avoid having to risk all on a reality-inducing 1683 Gates of Vienna-styled dramatic ending for one side or the other. And the rational/cognitive social learning and teaching model — where you figure out the truth and then tell it to other peoples along with what they are doing wrong, and then how to instead do right — rarely holds up once the big BS-driven, Enlightenment-destroying onslaught gets going. Here's what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said about the efficaciousness of these kinds of hoped-for, as in openness-based, light-shedding or -spreading,  humankind-saving discussions/conversations.

"Once I used to hope that experience of life could be handed on from nation to nation, and from one person to another, but now I am beginning to have doubts of this." (From Chapter 1's heading in, and thanks to, Diana West's American Betrayal; 2013)

Viewing the world's psycho-manmade-calamities from that of this trauma management approach, which involves interdicting thought model clashes before they occur, and undoing them when they already have, the Behavioral-to-Systems thought model before it is applied with its near-concluding force component, which is what I've described as naturally inevitable in this essay, is both the first and final societal functions responsible for the cause of repeating catastrophic death and property destruction that attends the kind of aggression that leads to and occurs during war. It is what causes otherwise innocent people to die prematurely, and — again, in my view as someone who wants and tries to head these harmful life events off — unnecessarily. As history has shown repeatedly, the elements required to bring that upheaval and ruination about do not just start with the explosions. They begin with the Behavioral-to-Systems evaluator/manipulator's attempts to conform the world into what that person or group cannot do for himself, herself or themselves. However, no matter the both perceived and real threats, you good rebels, that is those of you who fight against these horrible and sometimes unseen, or at least undefined until now forces, will be glad to know that the seemingly indomitable Behavioral-to-Systems thought model for which your adversarial counterparts, bad rebels, fight, has an Achilles Heel.

It comes in two parts. Albeit, a weak third is presented at the end of this section, but not with much confidence, thus hope for its success, as it represents the West's currently most popular approach for addressing cultural, even civilizational, and in particular, thought-model differences.

BS-Countervailing Approach Number One — Rated "Much needed and Good"

First, the well-known standard bête noir of most stealth-based BS takeover campaigns. It is the willingness and determination of a polity to, even though it only slows the BS avalanche down a little bit, express their differing views, and to fight for truth and their ideals as many champions of the value of standing-up-to-bullies and -delusion exclaim (and of which I am a fan). That good stand-up-and-fight model though, albeit necessary for survival, depends upon considerable eloquent, if not great, rhetoric in order to "wake up" the apparently sleeping constituencies to which the exclamations are directed; to ask the thought-to-be-timid or -reserved to stand and fight the BS model's invasively transforming incursions upon reality. Supporting that hegemonic, and sometimes tsunamically blanketing psychological warfare-instigated wave, those incursions most always include mass denial by members of the attacked polity of the coming danger, which is also and often referred to as the head-in-the-sand — and particularly when attended by the most egregious Stockholm Syndrome's traitorous-like presentations/manifestations — effect. Hence, the oft-referenced sleeping from which most counter-BS exclamations are trying to wake the so encumbered up. And, that waking may come so late that the delay likely increases the real risk of being able to survive not just ontologically (as in being able to keep a polity's psychological freedom to Be), but at all, in this instance to remain physically alive, as well.

Moreover, that delay makes it more necessary in the crunch — when a people have,  speaking euphemistically, "slept" for quite a while: which seems to be more dignified than calling a polity's psychological denial (of invasive change that causes prospective harm), or attempts to not become adversely influenced by what appears to be a rashly over reactive fringe, or willful blindness, or even more directly, cowardice — to fight with life-destroying tools rather than just life-respecting and -ensuring words. If applied in time, those words, albeit because of their uncomfortable confrontation of frightening prospects, might have prevented the appearing-to-be inevitable tragedy from occurring, as reflected by mass premature and violent death. But, no matter the difficulties, risks and high stakes inherent in that delayed action model when applied alone, here's to those heroes who provide that stand-stalwart exclamatory rhetoric, reasoning and courage on a daily basis; who fight that battle of survival by encouraging and requesting others to stand up and weigh in the same and along side of our valiant, albeit late, orators, Paul Revere-warning kinds of private citizens, Thomas Paine-styled writers/spokesmen, Larry Grathwohl American-trenches-fighting heroes, and other good rebels.

BS-Countervailing Approach Number Two — Rated "Popular; but Superficial; NOT Unlikely-to-Succeed, although it would be Nice if it Could" 

Here is the second — and, albeit highly (Westernly) popular, most unlikely-to-succeed — prospect for ending the BS modality. Like that old bearded, sardonic and almost bitter Russian quoted above, it is not one for which I hold out much hope. Running into it during his stay in America, the superficiality sent him back home, probably scratching his head while wondering what he had run into. It is the Cognitive Behavioral (CB) or didactic educational model (quick expression print, television and etc.,) most influencing of the masses today, at least in America.

Generally speaking, clinical professionals, media and the public may learn on their own that relationships based on guessing what's in others' minds, as in telling those others what they are really thinking and often only for the purpose of beating down their hopes and aspirations for a reasonable encounter with life, is isolatingly pathognomonic (disordered) for the viewer, not to mention degeneratively victimizing of the observed. That is, it ends the standard (as in supposed-to-be) two-way relationship by extending a conduit, as akin, say, to an invisible vacuum cleaner or dryer-exhaust hose, for inculcating always in singularly half-duplex (but never allowing receiver reciprocation) mode prospective pathology of the viewer onto and then into the mind of the viewee.  Once that interactional pathy developes, the viewer or seer in the BS supremacists' swamp is really only having a relationship with him or herself; and the viewee becomes both a repository for, and thereafter thus is enshrouded in, if not sometimes completely controlled by, the former's mental health problems.

Learning in that BS-engineered society doesn't really get passed on, as Solzhenitsyn had hoped for, because it has been convoluted by incongrutity attending governance by mass BS-created, individual identity-stripping, cortex-driven-abstractionists-adoring hystericals. None of them are having so called REAL communications that are supposed to attend, again, so called REAL relationships, for example, where people listen to and hear each other, because the ever-filling and being-stired pot containing all this abuse serves as an ever-continuous molt of diversion from the main, whatever the intended subject was or is.

Those educated hysterics, collectively assembled as if fused by nature, are producing a pseudo-intellectual mask that the Oz-like employ from behind their curtains to imitate learning, obfuscate the BS-cause of contrivedly-induced nihilism's brand of chaos, and make its believers believe that they are progressively going forward, when they in fact are taking themselves and a bunch of others straight backwards into cataclysmic failure, which almost always in the end is considerably worse than the experience of Hell. At least it seems that way when you hear the screams¹ of the targets and count the deceased generated by the more emphatic controls imposed during their less popular social construction adventures. 

Moreover, although professionals — using psychotherapists as the example, because they provide the culture's leadership in such matters — often believe that because they are licensed to read minds (lawyers, media, and a bunch of self-help enthusiastic commentators do it a lot even though not licensed), they must be capable of it; they are not. Even if they are fairly good at their guesswork, sometimes, eventually they learn, if lucky, that they are isolating themselves from the patient, client or target, which isolation functions as a defense against discovery of professional-to-personal psychopathology, often again, a hyped expression of narcissism or something similar, at least. And it can get worse as regulars in large numbers adopt the mistake. When the media and then public emulate that professional failure, few people are allowed autonomy of identity, and the system itself finally corrodes. Inevitably, it has to implode.

But who knows? Maybe civilization (all of them) will get a break, and use its didactically-implemented CB teaching model to learn itself out of the BS mire before it finally overwhelms, again. Probably not. However, if someone, say a CB-oriented manager, e.g., television (TV) health show producer, could get a media psychotherapist to say "Nobody does that anymore (reading minds)," and then turn that statement into a hip (cool and popular) adage, replete with increasing viewer ratings — making it a long-term hit — then the BS model might lose one of its pillars. Without that capacity to send woeful self pain tipped with a little other-minds-penetrating delusion somewhere else, what's the use of developing the Behavioral-to-Systemic thought model described in this essay? Without that guesswork, then nothing related to thought logic would hold the whole collective-to-crowd-to-mob-based pathological projection thing together, not even superficially thinking — because large associations of them have been intimidated or otherwise suckered into joining the BSers' parade — academes. After that crumbling, then that'd be that for the long-term influence of the BSers, presupposing, or maybe hoping, that this century's prime users of the BS model, that is, hard Leftists, rabid Islamists, and other group Helter Skelterists, watch and believe in TV's (including the Web's) health-based psychological wellness programs.

So you see, the negative or one-of-little-hope view of the pop-problem-solving method is not necessarily without supporting rationale.

BS-Countervailing Approach Number Three — Rated "Best; Supportive of 'One' (in this subsection); and to Come (present)"

Third, and in the era of the Westbury rebel, a contravening methodology has developed that can take advantage, some of it unconsciously so, of the Behaviorism-to-System management thought model's vulnerabilities. It is new, now only thirty-five years old, and provides the impetus for not just this article, but the entire Westbury Rebel series of articles. It explains why I see the management world and even history itself differently: that is, from a trauma management (epistemologically Etiotropic) perspective.

Because loss of individual and collective identities caused by the Behavioral-to-system invasion simultaneously erodes both individual and systemic wills to fight — they, the losses to both the identities and wills, are connected underneath the span of collective conscious thought — reconciliation of those losses restores that identity and will at individual levels, which, in turn, restrengthens its systemic (community) counterparts as well. More specifically, applying the restoration effort strategically and to the most damaged incremental components of the attacked culture, say, for example, the destruction of combatants' identities of those men and women who've just fought your pre-emptive- and often proxy-styled wars for you, and particularly to do the same for the innocent civilian survivors of violent terrorist-styled attacks, shall have rippling strengthening effects on both identity and will of the targeted/attacked polity as it wholly exists.

Iterating an important feature of this additional and more specific restoration/restrengthening-of-identity and -will to fight for survival approach: we don't have to wait for, nor rely upon, effective wake-up calls, which may, as in pretty much always, be slow in coming to the rescue. But best of all, an additional postulate of the incremental identity-/will-restoration processes asseverates that those restorations intervene upon the Behavioral-to-System's weakest element of its otherwise thought to be formidable structure — in-mass projection of the BS users' inner experiences of self worthlessness onto innocents — is thereafter blocked by the restoration, thus precluding the otherwise planned transforming of the target by the collectively obfuscated, but nevertheless criminally, insane. An administrator of that intervention can expect implosion of the attackers' pathognomonic self-loathing-to-aggressiveness eventually to and upon itself, which ends the BS thought model's power, threat and, inevitably, very existence.

In foreign policy lexicon between 1947 and 1991, the strategic elements of that intervention theory and methodology, enunciated by George Kennan, was called Containment. It worked against the Soviets and world communism in general. And it still is working in some places. But there's a big difference in this referenced trauma management approach from the Containment model's management of the Cold War. Using the noted trauma management theory and method (as emphatically distinguished from general "counseling"), we don't and won't have to rely, as we did with Containment, upon mutually assured destruction (MAD) by world-obliterating weaponry's never-ending face-offs to achieve the trauma management model's successful intervening application. 

That more preempting-styled armament for shattering trauma-induced individual and collective, as in massive — or even killer — denial, which is what fighting-styled rhetoric is also designed to overcome, is detailed for the public view in Part V (of this Pretty True Texas Stories series); it is entitled "Turn the World Right-Side Up; Theory and Application for Depowering Psychopaths, their Followers, and the National to International Institutions They Manage;"  not yet posted (3-30-13); and as included in this series; How the Westbury High School Rebels, classes of 1962-1965, Saved Western Civilization from  Extinction. The professional perspective of the same has been offered in the online Etiotropic Trauma Management Tutorial and supporting texts under the heading Strategic Human Ontological Management (SHOM) for over two decades.

Summary

For now, at the end of this qualitative consideration of otherwise very subjective subject matter, that is, regarding what's to be done with the Big Brother-mindeds and like psychos of the planet, and as goes most such analytical endeavor — in this essay to mean at least hoped-for-logical-explorations — here in Texas, there are two brackets of thought that when viewed alongside each other both simplify and summarize the differences between good and bad rebels. Firstly, bad rebels fight for a kind of freedom that requires repeated and heartfelt surrendering (to mean complete submission to the particular ideo-narrative) on almost an hourly to at least daily basis, and to the correct or approved somebody- or something-else, or just waiting hypnotically in perpetuity for a sense of serenity to overtake them when the also right day comes — that is, either when all the exploiters are properly, as in righteously, blamed and finally done-away-with, or when reaching the designated Hereafter. In contrast and as de Tocqueville exclaimed in wonderment after observing it in 1831, to instantiate the freedom fought for by good rebels, we only have to watch our corks to see if we got a bite. Secondly and as promised to rid this article of any hidden bias, good rebels think like me. And bad rebels, particularly those from Thug City, Illinois, Red Cuba, Cromwellian (northeast) America, and places like those, don't appear to think at all, or to mean independently so. They, instead, just apotheosize their aggression-rationalizing abstractions, give and follow orders, create intellectual hystericals for political exploitation, hallucinate-for-success, raile at selfishly over-productive individualists and decadently phobic kafrs (sometimes the same things), and devour.

That is, if we let them get away with it. And as the Texas Confederate veteran, Ethan Edwards (in The Searchers), upon returning from the American Civil War would repeatedly remind us while searching the Greater Comanche nation for his only remaining family member, his abducted niece, "That'll be the day" in this Good Rebel country.

A New Trope for Life

So now we can conclude this pretty true Texas story by adding a third trope to the world's first two major categorizations of human beings coming out of this last half century, hallmarked by what is now in the year 2014, the post Westbury Rebel Era management modality. They each begin with one commonality, that the world is comprised of two kinds of people.

Firstly and as always the leader: "There are those who see the glass half full; and then there are those who see the same container, half empty."

Secondly, "There are those who watch TV; and then there are thems who are on TV."

Thirdly, and fairly new, but nevertheless now available to us for all time: "There are good rebels; and then, there are bad ones."

 

 Notes

Footnote #1; in his book Witness, Wittiker Chambers describes the turning point for a former communist believer who reported the following while living in Moscow during the infamous 1930s. "One night, he heard screams." Those "five words", as Mr. Chambers would emphasize, referred to that program's implementation of purge activity by their model's still dedicateds. The screams were of and from children pulled from their parents, spouses separated from each other, loved ones taken from their homes, and of those unlucky enough to be removed to the Gulag, or just put to death. 

 

Annotated Contents 

1. Series Introduction (and Home page): Will Western Civilization's Freedom Survive? Essays from the Heartland on How to make it Do So
2. Author's Message: This missive describes ETM TRT SHOM's purposes and goals developed and pursued during the past nearly four decades, and now established herein for the rest of the twenty-first century
3. Dedication
4. Part I: A Regret
5. Part I: Eden, Guadalcanal, a Westbury Rebel, and La Bahia Road; From 1838 to 2014
6. “Part I: Navy Corpsmen: Tribute to a Westbury Hero”
7. "Part II: (beginning) The Westbury Rebel's Meaning to Me," or "The First Play from Scrimmage in the Westbury vs Bellaire Fifty Year Rivalry"
8. "Part II: (conclusion) What Happened at the End of the 1962 Westbury vs. Austin Football Game?"
9. “Part II: Entertainment in the 1960s”
10. "Part III: The Good Rebel in Most of Us (beginning); For What Do Good Rebels Fight and Die?"
11. "Part III: The Good Rebel in Most of Us (continued); Competitions, Challenges, and Making Things Right"
12. "Part III: The Good Rebel in Most of Us (conclusion); Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels"
13. "Part IV: Westbury Rebel Management of Really Serious Troublemakers in (and from) the Global"
14. "Part IV: Master of the Lake; The Great Peking Duck and Yorkshire Terrier Battle; or, A Scientifically acceptable Anecdotal Example for the Study of Visceralness in Fighting"
15. “Part V: Turn the World Right Side Up: Theory and Application for Depowering Psychopaths, BS Managers gone Berzerk (Bad Rebels), and the National to International Institutions they Manage"
    
16. "Part VI: Series Conclusion; Semper Fi; Tribute"
17. "Part VI: Series Conclusion; Combat: The Animal Self Unleashed; A Docudrama"
18. "Part VI: Series Conclusion; The Last Flashback"
19. "Appendix A: OPED regarding Board Removal of Westbury High School's Historic Mascot, the Rebel"
20. "Appendix B: The Genghis Khan of Psychotherapy; Behavioral Therapy and its Reformation, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy"
21. Appendix C: Glossary
22. Appendix D: Reprinting the Preface from the "Whackomole" Book