This writing describes a conflict over NPOV starting on the anarcho-capitalism talk page, and, because of this conflict, focuses a discussion of hate and its adaption to the changes that we have seen in modern society, directly onto Libertarianism, which is said to be the dominant political presence on the Wikipedia. I believe that there are clues here to questions about the global society that has formed in the post-apartheid world, which, of course is globalism, and is seen by many, including myself, to be hypocritical because of its reliance resource exploitation. My key area of interest here is in the psychological layers of the operators of this new world society. I believe that the players in this conflict give us most of the information we need to understand present-day problems, and to help model a resolution. The WP is something more than a microcosm; it is a layer above the society, just as Constructivists describe a community of knowledge above a healthy natural soceity. This global society is, of course, neither a community nor healthy!
Censorship of critical POV of anarcho-capitalism in relation to emotional communication isolation
My critical writing about anarcho-capitalism that on the article's discussion page included some humor that was taken the wrong way. But with everything truly funny there is a grain of truth that, in this case, is became framed in threats and lies.
In short, I was accused of KKK-level "hate" by "Knight of BAAWA" for my wish to see critical inquiry of anarcho-capitalism--at which point the gloves came off. But with careful reading I began to feel the sympathy of the therapist as I realized that my critic was describing me as himself.
What was initially meant as humor was taken hook-line-and-sinker by my critic in ways reminiscent to me of the late US president Richard Nixon's well-known and purely-paranoid deletion of "the tapes."
I have to decide now whether I want to pursue my criticism of anarcho-capitalism; is it a fight I want to choose? The WP is not my home; my home page is. I try to steer people to the wv, or better, steer them to outside channels for discussion for the purpose of keeping the lines of communication open, and also to keep from running a-foul of WP's conflicting rules against what it, and it alone, refers to as "original research."
Article Talk Pages
Wikipedia has a policy that talk pages are used to discuss improvements to the article, not to rant and spew hate. Please refrain from posting personal rants and vandalism on talk pages, as you did to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. It has been reverted, just as someone going to Martin Luther King Jr's talk page and writing "KKK all the way" would be reverted. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Original deleted material from the article
I think it should go without saying that many have pointed out that the gap between anarchism (if it even exists as an "-ism"), and capitalism should prevent the real-world manifestation of something called Anarcho-capitalism!
I have never met an anarchist who supports a completely free market, and I have met many capitalists who do. My first introduction to the term was by a free-market capitalist (still in high school) who in now way described himself as an anarchist; he was applying anarchy as a term to further extend the term free in free-market capitalism. Anarchy was only about to become a popular trend with the arrival of the second British invasion--the Sex Pistols.
The most common anarchist truism is that "property is robbery," where Capital, obviously, hinges on the sanctity of property, as does Libertarianism as presented by, say, Ron Paul. This is quite a gap that can only be presented as a contradiction, or possibly a paradox. To make the article valid from a purely logical standpoint, the topic has to be presented in the context of its supporters, as their ability to conceive such a contradictory system may only be because they are completely detached from the functioning systems we all share in human society. --John Bessa (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My (emotional) response:
Anarcho-capitalism is simply an abstracted concept, and not a culture or race. Therefore your comparison of me to the KKK is both absurd and an action of hate in of itself .
I am deeply upset by your comparison of my desire to see POV respected the anarcho-capitalism page to the KKK, whom I fought, literally, for two decades of my life as a White Rastafarian. (I now promote reconciliation having known several former Klansmen, and learned that they, for the most part, are valid humans like the rest of us.) It is you who are the hater by using accusations of hate to censor valid discussion about an abstracted idea that in no way represents a culture or race. It is becoming proved that hate is in fact a function of missing neurological constructs that facilitate empathy.
This action of yours is an example of creep: as a virus does, you have adapted to the host that it attacks. You can no longer through classical hate, such as through racism because of our successes in fighting racism (which includes Apartheid), so you leverage anti-hate for your purposes of hate. Hate for you simply a weapon you use as leverage to gain imagined resources. Your misconceived strategy results from a lack of underlying conceptual facilities that also prevent you from grasping horrendous level of hypocrisy of your attack against my desire to see both sides of Anarcho-capitalism represented!
While this statement of yours has upset me (no doubt warranting mediation), it actually helps me greatly. My area of research is your precise type of hypocrisy, and if you have any remaining functioning facilities you will grok that you need to cease your attack immediately -- but you won't! What will happen is that you will become a become research topic in of yourself. And this is significant to me as I am lacking a subject with your particular missing facilities with respect to your particular political beliefs.
So, all in all, I really need to thank you for the information you have provided me that I can use to attempt to demonstrate a neurological cause for hate. I should also mention that I am collecting valid material that has been censored from the Wikimedia sphere and posting it as a refugee of censorship; giving valid information refugee status. (No doubt this writing will be in that category as you will censor it automatically!)
Again, I thank you deeply!--John Bessa (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
BAWAA's response: "blaming the victim"
Playing the victim won't work. You violated the cited wikipolicy. Further infractions will result in you being reported. And seriously: that you said that ancaps have aspergers is enough to demonstrate your utter hypocrisy regarding "hate". - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
My conciliatory response
The underlying neurology of hate is caused by an inability of a "hater" to feel the effects of his actions on others, and also an inability to see the long-term consequences of his actions, especially in that his actions may come back to him in the long-run. When he does realize this, he reverts to a state of paranoia.
His inability to feel the feelings of others is caused when one specific empathic facility is missing generally thought of as mirror neurons. And his inability to see the long-term results of his actions, one of which may be pay-back for his misdeeds, is caused by another missing facility, currently thought of as spindle neurons. The condition of these missing neurons is generally thought of as aspergers; but you are right, the newer concept of an emotional communication disorder is the far better terminology for those whose emotional communicaiton isolation results in the suffering of others.
Let me ask you honestly, and I seriously mean honestly in the most genuine sense, does this describe you? If so, it may explain your venomous attack against me and my purely logical POV that states is that capital and anarchy are so far apart as to have no common ground, and hence the is extreme criticism by anarchists for anything resembling a mixture of the two violently-opposed economic beliefs.
I will retract the aspergers statement, if that makes you feel better, though I believe that your sensitivity to the statement is telling. In fact, I believe that the fact that your attack specifically mentions my statement is confirmation of the connection, or lack of connection--in the neural sense.
If I retract the Aspergers statement, would you be willing to continue this discussion from the purely economic and political perspective?--John Bessa (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "Knight of BAAWA" has closed communication
That, in the political sense, is the first act of war--is that where he is at?
Parting Script--my last posting on "Knight of BAAWA's" talk page
As much as I would like to learn about you, especially wrt to your connection to something so disconnected as anarcho-capitalism, (which I see as an extreme extension of libertarianism as IF Stone describes it, and is hence very important to me), I will no longer edit your talk page except to give you updates as to my comments about our "conflict" as I write about it either on my talk page, or in my research material elsewhere.
As you most likely know, your writing is not protected by the intellectual property laws--that I assume you support--as it was written under the nearly-anarchist GDFL. I feel a responsibility to tell you that I will very likely use your writing will very likely become research material, especially your threat to "tell on me."--John Bessa (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Anarcho-capital battle continues
My material continues to be deleted from the anarcho-capital discussion page, this time by "RepublicanJacobite."
Intolerance for POV: The sky is green
In the Wikipedia as it is today, one can argue that the sky is green. Another can say "that is absurd, the sky is blue." The green-sky advocate, being so misconceived, will doubtlessly delete the blue-sky advocate's material initiating an edit war. The blue-sky advocate, being sane, will probably react emotionally, and then abandon the edit war realizing that only bad can come of this. But then he, under the stress of anticipation of conflict, may look out the window to check to see if the sky is in fact blue -- and then report it is blue, and hence be guilty of original research!
If the edit war were to continue, the onus would be on the blue-sky advocate to challenge the green-sky advocate to show evidence of a blue sky because, as it happens, we live in form of anarcho-capitalism were individualism is so over-extended that the mutual fairness necessary for knowledge construction (what builds the WP) is missing.
What "ancaps" may not realize:
- The Austrian School has won as we live in a free global market
- Our world is in rapidly increasing downward environmental spiral resulting from the successes of capitalization
The blue-sky analogy is this:
- Anarchy is anti-property,
- Capital holds property sacred
Anarchy vs Capital
Anarchists draw the line between "need and greed," with a desire to see synergistic sharing, and capital draws the line between rich and poor using the oligarchic model (in the West at least) provided by Plato's Republic.
At very least, the first paragraph of the article should contain citations! And the criticism section should start with this blue-sky statement.
All information is valid including the interaction I had with a "Knight of BAAWA," which you may want to look at on my talk page as it is telling. "Knight of BAAWA" claims to be an "ancap," but he is no anarchist--that is certain. His primary strategies are censorship and the manipulation of the authorities. If "Knight of BAAWA" is typical enough of proponents of anarcho-capital, or "ancaps," to represent the anarcho-capital proposal, then, for me, his statements stand as strong evidence for my above statements.
In WP terms, this article may be an advocacy page for anarcho-capitalism meant to help "ancaps" organize and develop their strategies. This use for the anarcho-capital article may be enforced by organized intolerance for critical inquiry. Material on "Knight of BAAWA's" talk page leads me to believe that anarcho-capital is so different from other political schools that a probable majority of people may see it as "off the wall." The topic--that is anarcho-capital's very nature--may itself be a barrier the necessary organization of critical inquiry information for the article. --John Bessa (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Threat from "RepublicanJacobite"
Note: I have to assume that he has administrative privilege as his is able to read my contributions, so this is going to be a difficult situation -- but it may change WP.
Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Reagan Youth for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Talk pages do not exist as a forum for your ranting, reminiscing, leaving personal messages, insults, etc. They exist for the purpose of discussing article improvement. Please stop! RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
My Response on "RepublicanJacobite's" Talk page
From Wikipedia:TALK: "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages"
I would say that direct eye-witness experience with the topic, especially when there it disputes sources, fits the above criteria from the TALK page.
I believe that your comment on my Talk has to do with NPOV on the anarcho-capitalism page. What you do not realize is that you forcing me to bring this NPOV issue forward by pursuing me with false accusations and threats. This situation WILL have to go to mediation, and I believe I, or we, will win.--John Bessa (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Material removed from the anarchism/anarcho-capitalism page by BAAWA as "ranting"
Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is an article that compares anarchy and anarcho-capitalism in a discussion style. There have been unsuccessful attempts to have it removed; inquiry very likely makes anarcho-capitalists uncomfortable, to say the very least. While I cannot say exactly why, the desire by anarcho-capitalsists, and with them, Libertarians, to make themselves appear to be anarchists is extremely intriguing to me. My interest has increased factors in the aftermath of this determined attack by apparent anarcho-capitalists!
Below is he material that "BAAWA" removed.
Getting a grasp on terms and meanings
I imagine that this page exists as a "refuge" for the those attempting to edit the criticism section of anarcho-capitalism. It should suffice to say that I have not seen anything so void of NPOV anywhere in Wikidom! Minor edits to improve the page layout are reverted as vandalism!
One really has to ask why it is so important to discuss at such lengths an nearly indistinguishable belief that many people may know as industrial anarchy.
My guess is that there is a desire by some who are Libertarian to disguise themselves as Anarchists; I have no clue why they would want to do this, but perhaps I will learn. Proof of this is an edit on Will Durant's article that said that he was the headmaster of an anarchist K-12 school, where the link for anarchy led to the Libertarianism article. In fact, this very deceit is what brought me to the topics of anarchy here on WP, though my studies of constructivism alongside Kropotkin, made me think that the "anarchists may have been right all along." My present research is to attempt to understand why anarchy became so violent, as with the Bonnot Gang.
What I am proposing is a standardization of meanings of terms with consensus, that in turn is set in concrete, so that topology of related political and philosophical schools can mapped. But I also want to propose that the really viscous of the anarcho-capitalists be brought to heel!
By way of background, I got a good view of anarchy during my period as a housing-rights advocate on the Lower East Side of New York during the 1980s when the real estate interests in cooperation with the City Corporation of NY set fire to nearly every building in the Lower East Side. I was a Rasta music fan at the time, and rubbed shoulders with the anarchist punks (but not hard core skin heads) and collaborated with them politically. The notable punk band was Reagan Youth.
My discussion proposal is simply to attempt to create a standard upon which strategies for Libertarian and anarchist information can be developed and constructed into meaningful articles that, most importantly, are free of biased POV!
My experiences so far with anarcho-capitalism are documented here and here. To help the situation I have created an idea called blue-sky analogy: someone being forced cite something as obvious as the sky being blue, goes outside to make sure that it is still blue, only to return to the WP to be accused of original research! Obviously the analogy is that anarcho-capitalism is such an obvious oxymoron that we should not really have to cite why it is. But the fact that it is such an oxymoron needs to be noted in the criticism section of the article about it, and I think we also need to wonder why it exists and seems so important as to take up so much time and cause so much conflict.
RepublicanJacobite's last edit on this page
I would prefer that you not leave any further messages on my talk page. I will, in turn, not be leaving any messages here. If we have anything to discuss, it will be on article talk pages. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I see no point in even posting to talk pages as you will delete my writing. Talk will be where you will be cannot delete material, by your own choice.--John Bessa (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
And his comment in the revision:
I asked you politely not to leave messages here
OK, now what?
Writing about BAAWA and RepublicanJacobite
BAAWA and RepublicanJacobite leave telling information about themselves on their pages as to their mental states. Discussion pages are full of complaints by other editors about abusive statements by both of them to others, and RepublicanJacobite actually leaves these complaints on his Talk page"
Please note, this writing is not about me, even though I have edited the Emma Goldman discussion page extensively.
BAAWA uses anti-hate as a vehicle for his hate
BAAWA spews hate disguised as anti-hate, which is believe to be a recent adaption by people who hate (or feel an need to use hate) to the successes of the very types of anti-hate movements that I worked with in my lifetime, which would include the isolation of Apartheid South Africa. (I suppose I see hate as an entity in of itself supported by an underlying neurological dysfunction -- but that is not why I am writing here.) This is an example of creep in its most extreme form: viral adaption of hate to continue its hate within the modern culture that defines hate as its key problem.
Clues about the psychology of hate
BAAWA's hate leads to paranoia, or is it his paranoia that causes his hate?
BAAWA's actions against other editors seem to be incited by paranoia; I found these words on his talk page stating how he feels that so many people want to hurt him and other "ancaps," as he calls himself:
Nihilo 01 says:
Knight of BAAWA answers:
I believe that BAAWA's paranoia and his attacks are linked in a chicken-and-egg relationship; but the reality of life is that, while people who attack may suffer from paranoia that can be relieved therapeutically through genuinely forgiving interaction, the precipitating actions of hate are purposeful, and the therapeutic effects of genuine emotional communication will probably be short-lived. The paranoia itself seems to be a means to an end; through a state of nearly psychotic paranoia, anything can be justified to get resources. In a job situation or in a national conflict the object of hate it is gain tangible resources: money or territory. The question in this conflict is "what resources are to be gained by dominating a digital, and hence virtual community?" BAAWA and RepublicanJacobite fall into Aaron Beck's category of "self-appointed mini-guards" that Beck describes in is Prisoners of Hate. But again, we have to ask "what resources are to be gained by dominating a web collaboration through intimidation?" Is it possible that BAAWA, RepublicanJacobite, and many other using the Internet suffer from misconceptions that are so deep that these people cannot grasp the simple basic truth about digital society: the only benefits are positive. One cannot rob a bank of its money nor a nation of its resources through web discussion. Despite the Internet's digital and hence non-emotional nature, resources developed on the Web come nearly purely trough collaboration, which is based on emotional communication, and uses the emotional communication neurons that form the basis of empathy.
With the available recent material about empathy and its underlying constructs, I have been able to model behavior with alarming success; I write about this on my Empathy Model wiki. My present job is with the Census Bureau; it embodies all the worst aspects of our present economy: workde desperation, workforce churning, and continual stream of lies from its management levels--not to mention its exceedingly inefficient strategies to take America's head count! I was able to predict oppressive and disloyal behaviors by two assistant managers, and reverse them in the case of the worst of the two: successful therapy! Unfortunately the therapy may have been reversed when this manager was demoted as a result of this short "tangle" with me! (So certainly in terms of the WP, I am very confident that this issue will be resolved through mediation. Resolution is important to me because of wide-ranging political implications that I describe below.)
What is interesting from the political perspective is that BAAWA associates his hate with the political freedom of his group, what he calls "ancaps," as if the political freedoms of others do not matter. Here the paranoia that compels him to attack is mixed with politics in a way that is very familiar: the argument by the American South to rebel from the North over the issues of the South's slavery. I have seen two references with respect to this: one in a book about BF Skinner, and the other in IF Stone's Trial of Socrates. I am in the midst of reading IF Stone's book as part of my Neoism section for my Capital Structure: A Cheat Sheet, for the barely-started section called Neoism, where I describe Neoism as the first modernism, which in the writing is the first departure from the natural tribal structure that humans inherited from nature (Darwin), and the beginning of modernist or capital man.
From IF Stone I get a conflicting description of Plato's school along with Libertarianism:
- its contradictory relationship with freedom,
- its similarity with modern Libertarian contradictions,
- IF Stone's admission that he is Libertarian,
- and his description of Libertarianism as sometimes meaning the freedom to take away the freedoms of others, such as in the slavery of the American South during the mid-1800s.
And all in one paragraph!
By inventing the oligarchy, Plato modeled the system that the Romans would absorb along (with other aspects of Greek culture) to create their governance system of fascism. He modeled it after the Spartan system, and was a Spartan ally living in Athens while the two cities fought; he was a traitor, yet he was confused as to why Athenians hated him so much.
Study of Aristotle opens another can of worms: he presents two distinct versions of humanity that cannot, I believe, exist in the same human: openness and bias. Aristotle is said to have added observation to Science and fairness to justice, but he is also said to have convinced Alexander the Great, his pupil, that Persians, and others, were not people but objects to be cut down (from the WP). Could this be what is really meant by objectivism?
This situation coincides with my writing because I am looking for a psychological description of Capital; BAAWA and RepublicanJacobite are not only providing this for me, but are actually forcing me to document and publicize the events simply to protect myself from their attacks against my material--what I would call book burning, or pure fascism. The most interesting component of the entire conflict is BAAWA's accusation of me being like the KKK--a fascist! This fact is in-of-itself is so important to my understanding of hate, that its experience is well worth the stress that accompanies the conflict.