Freitag, 20. Januar 2017



This con is as false as a 3 US $ bank note. Silly kids believe it is genuine...

It is the same vicious plot of "color revolution", designed by the CIA hireling Gene Sharp, which ruined Yugoslavia, Libya, Ukraine (twice) and Syria and badly damaged Egypt, Kyrgizstan (three times), Tunesia and Georgia.

Wall St. banksters handsomely pay the anarcho-fascist rioters to destroy USA.

Freitag, 16. März 2012


Please read the truth about the systematical war crimes of the USA military:

“The Lone Gunman” of Kandahar Province? "The Dehumanization of the Enemy" Engrained in the Behavior of US Soldiers...

by Andy Dilks

Orwell Was Right Weblog

The official line for the atrocity carried out in Kandahar has now been clearly established: a US soldier went off base alone in the night and proceeded to kill 16 civilians in a nearby village before setting fire to the bodies. Condemned as “intentional murderers” by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the US government has announced the obligatory “rapid and thorough” investigation. Tensions were already inflamed over the burning of the Quran by American soldiers, and following on from the revelation of “kill teams” collecting body parts as “trophies” and the leaked footage of troops urinating on dead Afghans, there is much concern that the latest atrocity will escalate tensions and stretch even thinner an already fragile relationship between the occupying US Army and the local population.

The latest line from the US government on the killings has been to discuss at length the mental state of the gunman. Initially, he was described as being possibly “deranged” at the time of the shootings; then, it was stated that he had suffered a “mental breakdown”, yet another soldier from Fort Lewis-McChord (described by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes as “the most troubled base in the military”) to have buckled under the strain of warfare and gone on a killing spree (a considerably more common trait for US soldiers than their NATO allies).

It’s certainly plausible: on his fourth tour and allegedly undergoing marital problems, it doesn’t take a great stretch of the imagination to accept that this extreme outburst of violence may have been the result of insurmountable psychological pressures. Additional reports have since emerged pointing to a “traumatic brain injury”, although since this alleged injury he has had at least two health checks, including a mental health screening as part of his sniper training back in 2008, so the role this may have played in the killings is unclear.

So far, nothing seems out of the ordinary with this narrative – until you include the eyewitnesses.

According to PakTribune: “One Afghan father who said his children were killed in the shooting spree accused soldiers of later burning the bodies.” Reuters were told by witnesses that “a group of US soldiers” arrived at the village and were responsible for the killings. Resident Haji Samad said: “They (Americans) poured chemicals over their dead bodies and burned them … I saw that all 11 of my relatives were killed, including my children and grandchildren.” A neighbour, Agha Lala, added, “They were all drunk and shooting all over the place.”

The official response from the US came shortly after: “Based on the preliminary information we have this account is flatly wrong,’ the official said. ‘We believe one U.S. service member acted alone, not a group of U.S. soldiers.” No information has been provided to refute the testimony of the eyewitnesses, who also described shots being fired from several directions. As Afghan lawmaker Abdul Rahim Ayubi observed, “It is not possible for only one American soldier to come out of his base, kill a number of people far away, burn the bodies, go to another house and kill civilians there, then walk at least 2 kilometers and enter another house, kill civilians and burn them.” Local Panjwai councilman, Abdul Ghani, corroborated the unlikelihood of a single shooter, stating, “The villagers said they were hearing machine gun fire and pistol fire from different directions.”

But while objectively-speaking the evidence would point towards multiple shooters, once again the media has taken the pronouncements of unnamed “US officials” as gospel: the official line has been set in stone in print and on the news and the eyewitness accounts of drunken troops killing over a wider area, firing wildly and burning bodies has been expunged from the record. It is indicative of the culture of misinformation we live in that the US narrative is implicitly accepted as “the truth” despite the lack of corroborating evidence, their track record of deceptions and cover-ups and the obvious motivation to downplay the scale of the attacks in light of the other numerous atrocities carried out by US soldiers.

Despite the well-documented, deep-rooted culture of racism and violence within the US military towards the indigenous populations of the lands they occupy (as Iraq war veteran Kevin Baker has said, “When I was in the military, racism was a very vital tool for the military to encourage soldiers to hate the people that they’re occupying”), the PR machine continues its desperate drive to maintain the public image of the mission in Afghanistan as one of “nation building” and “winning hearts and minds”. Portraying these killings as an abberation – the acts of a single, disturbed soldier – is a crucial component of “damage limitation”.

The reality is that such atrocities have become engrained in the behaviour of many US soldiers, a product of the dehumanization of the enemy from the moment they enter boot camp to institutionalized racism throughout the ranks following deployment. As Kevin Baker observes, “If you look at these situations, they are not single acts of isolation. The Afghan kill team that was done by the US military out of Fort Worth, this situation, the desecration of the Qu’ran, the kill teams in Iraq. These are not isolated incidents; they are organic in the way the US military fights and it’s organic in the nature of imperialism.

(The article was published by: Global Research, March 14, 2012 - )

Mittwoch, 14. März 2012



I post the following petition as it appears at the web sites where you can sign it: and

Yours sincerely,


- - - - - -


Dear friends,

we have to try to avoid another tragedy (Libya-like) in Syria. For this aim, one of the actions that Peacelink ( has been trying – to show people’s dissent - is an international petition to governments and to international organizations to stop foreign military interference in Syria and to act for a goodwill mediation, such as the one from the Alba countries, the same countries that acted against the Nato war in Libya since March, BUT nobody supported them. As you know, in the case of Libya a group of fake Ngos acted for war, sending a letter to Obama and Ban ki Moon. We will do the opposite, we ask for No War.

The petition in few days received 40 endorsements by Italian associations, including an important Trade Union (the Fiom). We need endorsements from associations from various countries, before approaching the Un H.Rights council, the Sec Council members, the Arab League (also involving Arab communities) and individual govenments.

We ask you to circulate it, and sign (if you are an association or group), and spread the messgae. We ask you to use the petition towards “your” governments.


Syria NO WAR:Urgent Appeal to Stop Foreign Military Intervention in Syria and to restore human rights and respect for legality

We, the undersigned non-governmental, human rights, and humanitarian organizations, urge you to mobilize the United Nations and the international community to take immediate action to halt any foreign military intervention against Syria, and instead, to act in good faith for a true mediation. Time is of the essence. We ask to act in good faith in favor of a true and peaceful mediation.

Over the past few months we have observed a steadily increasing media campaign that presents a partial and unverified account of what is happening in Syria. The same thing occurred in the lead-up to foreign intervention in the case of Libya as well.

We know that there are violent clashes between government troops and the armed insurgents of the self-proclaimed “Syria Liberated Army” with bases in Turkey, near the Syrian border. And we know that such conflicts are provoking an enormous death toll among civilians as well. Innocent civilians are the first victims of every conflict. It therefore seems clear that in Syria both armed sides bear responsibilities.

But external military interference is absolutely not the way to protect civilians and human rights.


1) the proposed so-called “humanitarian military intervention” in Syria is by far the worst option and can claim no legitimacy whatsoever; protection of human rights is not obtained through armed intervention;

2) indeed, recent history shows that the inevitable results of foreign armed intervention are massive human rights violations, as in Libya;

3) smuggling weapons into an area of conflict only fuels a “civil” war and must be stopped;

4) the Libyan scenario must not be allowed to take place in Syria, i.e. a “no-fly zone” which turns into direct military intervention followed by massacres and massive human rights violations.


1) a ceasefire on both sides and neutral mediation between the parties: we remind that a proposal made by some Latin American countries from the Alba group seems to be welcomed also by the non-armed opposition

2) action to stop foreign military and political interference in Syria aimed at destabilizing the country (and possibly the entire region);

3) reinstatement of Syria into the Regional Block;

3) a halt to current sanctions which are harming civilians;

4) an international investigative mission by neutral countries and organizations to ascertain the truth about the conditions of life in Syria;
5) an investigation by neutral international observers into the accusations and news reports coming out of Syria and which at present it has not been possible to verify.

Dienstag, 27. Dezember 2011

James Joyce made it clear: The nature of social control is purely operant!

I place here the following little precious jewel from Joyce’s “Dubliners” as my New Year present to all friends of behaviorist socialism not only because it (being “happy end”-ed) makes a nice New Year’s story, but first and foremost because it clearly demonstrates that the forces which shape us as social animals are based exclusively on operant reinforcement (both positive and negative).

Joyce’s talent shows us clearly that all hopes and fears of his characters are nothing but the expectations of their counterparties’ actions and other social sanctions, and their behavior is shaped by its expected consequences. This short story depicts interpersonal relations and social life in general as a sort of chess game where no figure has overwhelming power and, moreover, sheer weakness and vulnerability can in skillful hands become a source of influence and power.

The world of Joyce’s “Dubliners” of the beginning of 20th century is very different from ours: “Dublin is such a small city: everyone knows everyone else’s business”, as one character laments. But exactly its parochial tightly-knit social fabric makes his characters humane and their everyday life filled with meaning, in contrast to the alienating modern world of the global tyranny of utterly criminal and anti-human capitalist mega-corporations where human beings are powerless and irrelevant. Capitalist mass-society is on its way to degenerate into the new Dark Age of computerised billionaires’ absolutism where human beings will have no more democratic liberties than chickens in some large-scale poultry factory.

And here is what the behaviorist-socialist alternative promises to give back to everyone who decides to join it: the dignity and social significance of a common “little” human being in his / her everyday life. And that is why grass-roots democracy should be parochial to be genuine, having no chances to be large-scale: this new world of behaviorist socialism should necessarily be small enough to allow every, even the weakest voice to be heard by the rest of us. This world should be quite different from the centralized “Brave New World” of total manipulation and surveillance the global empire of Western capitalism imposes upon us. It should be NOT the global concentration camp Uncle Sam builds for us, but a cozy home we build for ourselves.

Wishing a Happy New Year to all

but to the bunch of global thieves of the City of London and Wall Street, N.Y. and the pack of their hired global terrorists and mass-killers of Langley and Pentagon, VA.

Sincerely yours,


And now “complete and unabridged”


by James Joyce

Mrs Mooney was a butcher’s daughter. She was a woman who was quite able to keep things to herself: a determined woman. She had married her father’s foreman and opened a butcher’s shop near Spring Gardens. But as soon as his father-in-law was dead Mr Mooney began to go to the devil. He drunk, plundered the till, ran headlong into debt. It was no use making him take the pledge: he was sure to break out again a few days after. By fighting his wife in the presence of customers and by buying bad meat he ruined his business. One night he went for his wife with the cleaver and she had to sleep in a neighbour’s house.

After that they lived apart. She went to the priest and got a separation from him with care of the children. She would give him neither money nor food nor house-room; and so he was obliged to enlist himself as a sheriff’s man. He was a shabby stooped little drunkard with a white face and a white moustache and white eyebrows, pencilled above his little eyes, which were pink-veined and raw; and all day long he sat in the bailiff’s room, waiting to be put on job. Mrs Mooney, who had taken what remained of her money out of the butcher business and set up a boarding house in Hardwicke Street, was a big imposing woman. Her house had a floating population made up of tourists from Liverpool and the Isle of Man and, occasionally, artistes from the music halls. Its resident population was made up of clerks from the city. She governed the house cunningly and firmly, knew when to give credit, when to be stern and when to let things pass. All the resident young men spoke of her as The Madam.

Mrs Mooney’s young men paid fifteen shillings a week for board and lodgings (beer or stout at dinner excluded). They shared in common tastes and occupations and for this reason they were very chummy with one another. They discussed with one another the chances of favourites and outsiders. Jack Mooney, the Madam’s son, who was clerk to a commission agent in Fleet Street, had the reputation of being a hard case. He was fond of using soldiers’ obscenities: usually he came home in the small hours. When he met his friends he had always a good one to tell them and he was always sure to be on to a good thing - that is to say, a likely horse or a likely artiste. He was also handy with the mits and sang comic songs. On Sunday nights there would often be a reunion in Mrs Mooney’s front drawing-room. The misic-hall artistes would oblige; and Sheridan played waltzes and polkas and vamped accompaniments. Polly Mooney, the Madam’s daughter, would also sing. She sang:

“I’m a...naughty girl.
You needn’t sham:
You know I am.”

Polly was a slim girl of nineteen; she had light soft hair and a small full mouth. Her eyes, which were grey with a shade of green through them, had a habit of glancing upwards when she spoke with anyone, which made her look like a little perverse madonna. Mrs Mooney had first sent her daughter to be a typist in a corn-factor’s office but, as a disreputable sheriff’s man used to come every other day to the office, asking to be allowed to say a word to his daughter, she had taken her daughter home again and set her to do housework. As Polly was very lively the intention was to give her the run of the young men. Besides, young men like to feel that there is a young woman not very far away. Polly, of course, flirted with the young men but Mrs Mooney, who was a shrewd judge, knew that the young men were only passing the time away: none of them meant business. Things went on so for a long time and Mrs Mooney began to think of sending Polly back to typewriting when she noticed that something was going on between Polly and one of the young men. She watched the pair and kept her own counsel.

Polly knew that she was being watched, but still her mother’s persistent silence could not be misunderstood. There had been no open complicity between mother and daughter, no open understanding but, though people in the house began to talk of the affair, still Mrs Mooney did not intervene. Polly began to grow a little strange in her manner and the young man was evidently perturbed. At last, when she judged it to be the right moment, Mrs Mooney intervened. She dealt with moral problems as a cleaver deals with meat: and in this case she had made up her mind. It was a bright Sunday morning of early summer, promising heat, but with a fresh breeze blowing. All the windows of the boarding house were open and the lace curtains ballooned gently towards the street beneath the raised sashes. The belfry of George’s Church sent out constant peals and worshippers, singly or in groups, traversed the little circus before the church, revealing their purpose by their self-contained demeanour no less than by the little volumes in their gloved hands. Breakfast was over in the boarding house and the table of the breakfast-room was covered with plates on which lay yellow streaks of eggs with morsels of bacon-fat and bacon-rind. Mrs Mooney sat in the straw arm-chair and watched the servant Mary remove the breakfast things. She made Mary collect the crusts and pieces of broken bread to help to make Tuesday’s bread-pudding. When the table was cleared, the broken bread collected, the sugar and butter safe under lock and key, she began to reconstruct the interview which she had had the night before with Polly. Things were as she had suspected: she had been frank in her questions and Polly had been frank in her answers. Both had been somewhat awkward, of course. She had been made awkward by her not wishing to receive the news in too cavalier a fashion or to seem to have connived and Polly had been made awkward not merely because allusions of that kind always made her awkward but also because she did not wish it to be thought that in her wise innocence she had divined the intention behind her mother’s tolerance.

Mrs Mooney glanced instinctively at the little gilt clock on the mantelpiece as soon as she had become aware through her revery that the bells of George’s Church had stopped ringing. It was seventeen minutes past eleven: she would have lots of time to have the matter out with Mr Doran and then catch short twelve at Marlborough Street. She was sure she would win. To begin with she had all the weight of social opinion on her side: she was an outraged mother. She had allowed him to live beneath her roof, assuming that he was a man of honour, and he had simply abused her hospitality. He was thirty-four or thirty-five years of age, so that his youth could not be pleaded as his excuse; nor could ignorance be his excuse since he was a man who had seen something of the world. He had simply taken advantage of Polly’s youth and inexperience; that was evident. The question was: What reparation would he make?

There must be reparation made in such case. It is all very well for the man: he can go his ways as if nothing had happened, having had his moment of pleasure, but the girl has to bear the brunt. Some mothers would be content to patch up such an affair for a sum of money; she had known cases of it. But she would not do so. For her only one reparation could make up for the loss of her daughter’s honour: marriage.

She counted all her cards again before sending Mary up to Mr Doran’s room to say that she wished to speak with him. She felt sure she would win. He was a serious young man, not rakish or loud-voiced like the others. If it had been Mr Sheridan or Mr Meade or Bantam Lyons her task would have been much harder. She did not think he would face publicity. All the lodgers in the house knew something of the affair; details had been invented by some. Besides, he had been employed for thirteen years in a great Catholic wine-merchant’s office and publicity would mean for him, perhaps, the loss of his job. Whereas if he agreed all might be well. She knew he had a good screw for one thing and she suspected he had a bit of stuff put by.

Nearly the half-hour! She stood up and surveyed herself in the pier-glass. The decisive expression of her great florid face satisfied her and she thought of some mothers she knew who could not get their daughters off their hands.

Mr Doran was very anxious indeed this Sunday morning. He had made two attempts to shave but his hand had been so unsteady that he had been obliged to desist. Three days’ reddish beard fringed his jaws and every two or three minutes a mist gathered on his glasses so that he had to take them off and polish them with his pocket-handkerchief. The recollection of his confession of the night before was a cause of acute pain to him; the priest had drawn out every ridiculous detail of the affair and in the end had so magnified his sin that he was almost thankful at being afforded a loophole of reparation. The harm was done. What could he do now but marry her or run away? He could not brazen it out. The affair would be sure to be talked of and his employer would be certain to hear of it. Dublin is such a small city: everyone knows everyone else’s business. He felt his heart leap warmly in his throat as he heard in his excited imagination old Mr Leonard calling out in his rasping voice: “Send Mr Doran here, please.”

All his long years of service gone for nothing! All his industry and diligence thrown away! As a young man he had sown his wild oats, of course; he had boasted of his free-thinking and denied the existence of God to his companions in public-houses. But that was all passed and done with ... nearly. He still bought a copy of Reynolds’s newspaper every week but he attended to his religious duties and for nine-tenths of the year lived a regular life. He had money enough to settle down on; it was not that. But the family would look down on her. First of all there was her disreputable father and then her mother’s boarding house was beginning to get a certain fame. He had a notion that he was being had. He could imagine his friends talking of the affair and laughing. She was a little vulgar; sometimes she said “I seen” and “If I had’ve known.” But what would grammar matter if he really loved her? He could not make up his mind whether to like her or despise her for what she had done. Of course he had done it too. His instinct urged him to remain free, not to marry. Once you are married you are done for, it said.

While he was sitting helplessly on the side of the bed in shirt and trousers she tapped lightly at his door and entered. She told him all, that she had made a clean breast of it to her mother and that her mother would speak with him that morning. She cried and threw her arms round his neck, saying:

“O Bob! Bob! What am I to do? What am I to do at all?”

She would put an end to herself, she said.

He comforted her feebly, telling her not to cry, that it would be all right, never fear. He felt against his shirt the agitation of her bosom.

It was not altogether his fault that it had happened. He remembered well, with the curious patient memory of the celibate, the first casual caresses her dress, her breath, her fingers had given him. Then late one night as he was undressing for bed she had tapped at his door, timidly. She wanted to relight her candle at his for hers had been blown out by a gust. It was her bath night. She wore a loose open combing-jacket of printed flannel. Her white instep shone in the opening of her furry slippers and the blood glowed warmly behind her perfumed skin. From her hands and wrists too as she lit and steaded her candle a faint perfume arose.

On nights when he came in very late it was she who warmed up his dinner. He scarcely knew what he was eating feeling her beside him alone, at night, in the sleeping house. And her thoughtfulness! If the night was anyway cold or wet or windy there was sure to be a little tumbler of punch ready for him. Perhaps they could be happy together...

They used to go upstairs together on tiptoe, each with a candle, and on the third landing exchange reluctant good-nights. They used to kiss. He remembered well her eyes, the touch of her hand and his delirium...

But delirium passes. He echoed her phrase, applying it to himself: “What am I to do?” The instinct of the celibate warned him to hold back. But the sin was there; even his sense of honour told him that reparation must be made for such a sin.

While he was sitting with her on the side of the bed Mary came to the door and said the missus wanted to see him in the parlour. He stood up to put on his coat and waistcoat, more helpless than ever. When he was dressed he went over to her to comfort her. It would be all right, never fear. He left her crying on the bed and moaning softly: “O my God!”

Going down the stairs his glasses became so dimmed with moisture that he had to take them off and polish them. He longed to ascend through the roof and fly away to another country where he would never hear again of his trouble, and yet a force pushed him downstairs step by step. The implacable faces of his employer and of the Madam stared upon his discomfiture. On the last flight of stairs he passed Jack Mooney who was coming up from the pantry nursing two bottles of Bass. They saluted coldly; and the lover’s eyes rested for a second or two on a thick bulldog face and a pair of thick short arms. When he reached the foot of the staircase he glanced up and saw Jack regarding him from the door of the return-room.

Suddenly he remembered the night when one of the music-hall artistes, a little blond Londoner, had made a rather free allusion to Polly. The reunion had been almost broken up on account of Jack’s violence. Everyone tried to quiet him. The music-hall artiste, a little paler than usual, kept smiling and saying that there was no harm meant; but Jack kept shouting at him that if any fellow tried that sort of a game on with his sister he’d bloody well put his teeth down his throat, so he would.

Polly sat for a little time on the side of the bed, crying. Then she dried her eyes and went over to the looking-glass. She dipped the end of the towel in the water-jug and refreshed her eyes with the cool water. She looked at herself in profile and readjusted a hairpin above her ear. Then she went back to the bed again and sat at the foot. She regarded the pillows for a long time and the sight of them awakened in her mind secret, amiable memories. She rested the nape of her neck against the cool iron bed-rail and fell into a revery. There was no longer any perturbation visible on her face.

She waited on patiently, almost cheerfully, without alarm, her memories gradually giving place to hopes and visions of the future. Her hopes and visions were so intricate that she no longer saw the white pillows on which her gaze was fixed or remembered that she was waiting for anything.

At last she heard her mother calling. She started to her feet and ran to the banisters.

“Polly! Polly!”

“Yes, mamma?”

“Come down, dear. Mr Doran wants to speak to you.”

Then she remembered what she had been waiting for.

Freitag, 18. November 2011


Dear Eva,

I have some points to make and would greatly appreciate your comments. Therefore I do it with an open letter, not an e-mail which could be lost in the deluge of spam. I really “have no secrets” (Bob Dylan) and anyway our “best friends” in the CIA can read all e-mails they wish to.

First, I do enjoy translating into Russian and posting at my blog the articles of my choice from the „Correo del Orinoco International“. Thank you very much for your consent and approval. I do this translation work in a professional way, so that phrases which were botched in the English

(e.g.: „Here we are, 40 years later in the eye of the hurricane, in the middle of a peaceful and democratic revolution in which you aspiring cadets will have a very important role“ in the recently published article „A jogging Chavez advances towards 2012 reelection, reminisces“)

remain botched in a similar way in my translation into Russian.

Now, here is my request: please publish in the COI more translations into English of authentic Chavez speaking to the people, say, after audio files posted at the RNV site. I enjoy listening to his plain way of speaking - for example, his recent speech about his intention to launch the new Mission „Madres del Barrio“ containing the pun: „A socialist dare not be a machist, a socialist must be a feminist“. It is really good and Russians should get his authentic words. But it is far too much for me alone to try to make a transcript of some low-quality audio record in Spanish (where sometimes I cannot tell the words) and then to translate it into Russian.

The next point is political. You know that the West and USA in particular are growing more and more shameless, brutal and criminal in waging wars of aggression against independent states (the last example being the rape of Libya). Now the same gang of fascist thugs (USA-Israel-NATO) threatens Syria and Iran. I have no doubt that the same „humanitarian“ massacre is also being planned against Venezuela.

What I think could help to stop this imperialist state terrorism is mobilizing decent people of the World in a global grass-roots campaign „Yankee go home“ - the way the protesters against Vietnam war did it in the 1970-ies, when these words were adorning walls and fences all around the world. The same clear demand everywhere: „Yankee+NATO go home“, to counteract mass-media lies. It would be great if this proposal appears in COI.

And at last, the most important point: it concerns the things Marxists call „ideology“. For me (being a behaviorist-socialist) „ideology“ is nothing but empty talk, therefore I address here not „ideology“ but the behavior of people and the technology of modifying it (social engineering). I hope you could kindly put the following to the attention of Mr. Chavez:

I.m.h.o., his approach to dealing with the capitalists and all other enemies of socialism is more like that of late Mr. Allende of Chile than that of Mr. Castro of Cuba. This tolerant approach in emergency needs a lot of active and efficient support of his government by the people, as the horrible fate of the Unidad Popular and personally Mr. Allende demonstrated quite clearly.

I am afraid that such support is not secured by the present one-way relation between the Chavista government and the people which is somehow akin to the relation between Santa and kids. Certainly, oil revenues make it possible, but is the welfare state the same as the socialist society? I hate to tell you that it is not. As it was quite correctly expressed in the „Venceremos“:

„Sembraremos las tierras de gloria,

socialista sera el porvenir,

todos juntos seremos la historia:

a cumplir, a cumplir, a cumplir...“,

viable socialist society is everyone’s active participation, working and giving in/for/to the common new way of life, and this behavior should be actively reinforced (in the behaviorist meaning of this word) by the government.

Contrary to socialism, the welfare state means for the people to be passive recipients of dole and gifts distributed by the bureacracy. As it seems to me, it is what unfortunately happens in Venezuela now: poor individuals get handouts from Good Santa Chavez, go shopping and then crawl into the solitude of his/her cabin to munch arepas. And obviously it will be the same with the „Madres del Barrio“ benefits. OK, you can give poor single mothers money - but don’t forget that some of them are drunkards... and the money given will do no good to their kids.

Money benefits should be used only as a conditional reinforcer, as an incentive and reward for active socialist work for the good of the community (barrio) and the country as a whole. Socialist work should not be considered as „wage employment“ simply because its fruits go largely to those working! There can be a lot of useful community projects where socialist work can be applied, instead of hiring business contractors. Everyone can propose plenty of them, but nothing is being done because wage earning make people unwilling to work „for free“, so that there should be (at least initially) some extra incentive which can later be thinned out (this procedure of variable-rate reinforcement was studied in detail by Prof. B.F.Skinner).

This is the only way the operant framework of socialist society can be built. Behavior research established without any doubt that non-conditional reinforcement (i.e. handouts with no strings attached) is the most dangerous misunderstanding of socialism. It makes people passive, idle and expecting to get more - for nothing. It is the behavior science that proved that the „self-help“ view of socialism developed by Proudhon and Owen is practicable, whereas the Marxist blind faith in „class consciousness“ leads to utter failure and inevitable dead-end, as the Soviet experience has demonstrated.

You know, there is one thing kids need very much which we had in the Soviet Union. Namely, we had „Palaces of Young Pioneers“ (in big cities) and „Houses of Young Pioneers“ (local). It was the Soviet version of „Scouts“. You could go there every day after school and do all sorts of things - sports, mechanical and electric engineering, DX-radio, car driving, robotics, music, chemistry, biology (gardening, pets etc.), etc. under the tutelage of professionals who were paid a small salary. For us, kids, it was totally free.

It was many years ago and we had no computers, but now kids can (instead of playing moronic computer games) use them for many fascinating activities: searching through „Wikipedia“, making pen-friendships via e-mail with kids all around the world... certainly, under the guidance of knowledgeable instructors. I do not like the antieducationalist rhetorics of Ivan Illich, but he was right saying that kids need the opportunity and encouragement to explore the world, not the compulsory school „education“. This is what I believe should be done for all kids in Venezuela, and especially for the kids from poor families (certainly, after making sure that they are not hungry).

That’s all for today.

Yours very sincerely,

Alex (behaviorist-socialist)

Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2011


It was quite by chance that I found three months ago the following reference in a long "Google" searchlist:

Ulman, J. D. (1991). Toward a synthesis of Marx and Skinner. Behavior and Social Issues, 1(1), 57-70

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there is someone else who also thinks that behaviorism can and should be applied for the creation of socialist society. Therefore I contacted Dr. Ulman. Here is the short exchange of e-mails that followed:

"Mr. Jerome D.Ulman

Dept. of Special Education

Ball State University

Re.: Your article “Toward a Synthesis of Marx and Skinner” - copy request

Berlin, August 14th, 2011

Dear Mr. Ulman,

I was very pleased to discover by purest chance your aforementioned article on the Web. Unfortunately, all sites which supposedly contain it in full, are journal or database sites and require subscription for reading it. The best I could find on the Web is a summary of it, made by Mr. Jim Farmelant, together with his critique. Would you kindly send me your original article via e-mail as a .pdf or .doc file?

This article opened my eyes on the fact that I am actually “inventing a bicycle” - my, as I call it, “behaviorist socialism”. But I enjoyed realizing that I am not alone. Please do me a favour and look through my sites: in English (sorry, nothing new lately) and in Russian (I am a Russian).

A couple of lines to introduce myself. I graduated Moscow State University in biochemistry many years ago, but since moving to Germany in 1983 I work as a technical translator, a photographer and earlier as a construction team manager. That is the way the life goes... After 1990 I devoted much of my leisure time to find out what was wrong with the Soviet system and Marxism and why they failed.

In the course of my (re)search I came across Dr. Skinner’s writings via my old memories of what I was taught at the University about Dr. Pavlov and his dogs. I read actually everything the university and public libraries in Berlin have on the subject of behaviorism, and my further enquiries among German „psychologists“ convinced me that Skinner is either forgotten or „despised“. That is why I was so pleasantly surprised seeing the first reference on your work in a rather hostile article.

I would greatly appreciate your e-mail reply, with a copy of the requested (and/or some later article or essay of yours on the same subject) attached. It would be of big help and honour for me to remain in contact with you, because - frankly - I have many questions concerning Skinnerian behaviorism and the behaviorist technology of social engineering.

Yours very sincerely,


-- - - -- - -

Hello Alex,

It is indeed a pleasure to receive you request. Thank you for your kind words. Apparently, we have been following the same path (including travel to Cuba). A little about me: I have been interested for many years in relating Skinner and Marx. Just as you have discovered, the interpretations of both writers are so varied as to result in a large mass of confusion. Regarding Skinner, I consider myself a behaviorologist (please see the article I coauthored with Ernest Vargas on the International Society for Behaviorology website ( And as for Marxism, for the most part I follow the political perspective of Leon Trotsky. The most penetrating materialistic analysis that I have found of what happened to the Soviet Union is his book, Revolution Betrayed (available from You may also be interested in Fertile Ground: Che Guevara and Bolivia. In brief, this is my last year at Ball State University where I have been teaching for the last 36 years. In my retirement I look forward to continuing work on this project.

I have attached the article you requested along with a related book chapter titled "Marxist Theory and Behavior Therapy." I quickly scanned through your website and found it to be quite intriguing. Most striking for me were the viewpoints we share in common (especially concerning Skinner) along with the differences we have in how to go about making the world a nicer place for humanity. I would be delighted to remain in contact with you, Alex.

Most sincerely,


- - - -- - -

Mr. Jerome D.Ulman

Dept. of Special Education

Ball State University

Dear Jerry,

once again, many thanks for your kind reply. I hope not to abuse your time and readiness to stay in contact with me by bringing today the following to your attention:

1) Searching the English-language Wikipedia for “Behaviorology” results in an automatic redirection to the “Ethology” article which is about a totally different kettle of fish. (Please see the screenshot attached). I do not feel myself either authorised or competent enough to write on the subject of “Behaviorology”. Remember, I learned this word just a couple of days ago. Now I am ploughing through the saga of the recent battles of behaviorologists against “behavioral psychologists”, attached as references to the Wikipedia article on “Los Horcones”. Well, I hope you already have some text which could be easily adapted to post it as the still non-existent Wikipedia article on “Behaviorology”. As soon as it is posted, I can (if you wish) translate it into Russian and post it at the Russian-language Wikipedia.

2) The word “contingency” (of reinforcement) is still confusing for me, especially when I translate behaviorist texts (I posted translation into Russian of several fragments from books by Skinner at my Russian language site). I certainly could resort to writing “contingency” with russian letters, but it would be a dishonest trick which is far too often used by incompetent translators. This trick is also the plague of Russian science: it creates swarms of parrots repeating fashionable foreign words without “understanding the meaning”. Then, there is the following definition of “contingency” in “Behavior principles”, 3rd ed., by Charles B. Ferster & Stuart A. Culbertson, in the “Glossary”:

“Contingency of reinforcement: The circumstances under which a specified performance will or will not be followed by specified reinforcers. The contingency of reinforcement specifies the relationship between a peformance and its outcome.” Do you agree?

I translate “contingency of reinforcement” as FAKTOR PODKREPLENIJA, this Russian “factor” being a rather more general term than the English “factor”. It is more like German “Faktor” and “Umstand” = English “factor” AND “condition” but NOT the same as Russian USLOVIJE = English “condition”, as in “conditional reflex” = USLOVNYJ REFLEKS. I would greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions!

3) You know, Germany is a relatively cosy country - but the contingencies here are purely antisocial. I miss being again together with the people excited with the vision of socialism - like some (not all) Russians of my childhood - the short-lived Khrushchev era: Sputnik, Gagarin, development of Siberia and Central Asian Steppe... Later, at the University, I met some Chileans. They had the same precious, noble elan - which again was short-lived, smashed by the CIA & Pinochet.

I would like to participate in opening the eyes of the Chavistas on the enormous potential of radical behaviorism for building the “21st century socialism” they dream of. That would be an achievement to be extremely proud of. Without it the socialist experiment risks once again, this time in Venezuela, to end up in the dead alley of noncontingent reinforcement and compulsion. It is tragic that only capitalism makes use of contingent positive reinforcement - certainly, in its specifically vicious “sucker-punching” way.

So please let me know whether anyone (I mean, any behaviorologist) has any serious plans to start some behaviorology-flavoured project of the Sandinista-sandalista sort in Venezuela. I tried to contact Venezuelans (Chavistas) directly and via their Embassy in Berlin. Alas, the reply was always the notorious Latino “manana” and later no reply at all...

4) What I see differently from Skinner and you (“Synthesis of Marx and Skinner”, p. 14) is:

“Behaviorologists reject both the conscious and the unconscious as inner causal agents. Thus, "to increase a person's consciousness of the external world is simply to bring him under more sensitive control of that world as a source of stimulation" (Skinner, 1974, pp. 153-154).“

Well, operant behavior should be unconscious to proceed smoothly. Only when the actual situation does not fit the contingencies of some already „known“ operant response well enough, then „consciousness“ wakes up as the agent which makes men (or animals) to „procrastinate“ or to „reflect“, being in effect the time used for producing an operant „skeleton key“ which would eventually match the situation and „solve“ this non-habitual „problem“.

Therefore “to know” is actually “to be certain = to believe”. And “to think” is actualy “to be uncertain, i.e. NOT to know”. I believe here is the point which makes many people behaviorism haters: our “knowledge” DECREASES our “consciousness” of the reality of the world. If social manipulation or, as Guy Debord put it, “The Spectacle”, is performed professionally and follows the track of habits, we accept it as “natural” despite all its artificiality. But as soon as “consciousness” interferes (say, you suddenly get “thoughts” about lung cancer when seeing the fascinating cowboy image of a “Marlboro” ad), then the magic of the image disappears, the “knowledge” = “certainty” that “There Is No Alternative” (the notorious TINA of Mrs. Thatcher) is lost!

Now the bitter truth about society: this destructive nature of “thought” necessitates the society, in order NOT to be screwed up by “ideas”, to be divided into those who really (and conservatively) control the social environment and OTHERS (the majority) who only believe = “know” to be in control of it. This is the essence, the precondition of every sustainable society. Or, as George Orwell put it, “All animals are equal. But there are animals who are more equal than the others.” As soon as the contingencies of social life come under scrutiny, they are rejected, as a bank-note discovered to be bogus. The bloody Western mass-society exists only because it 1) is protected by mass-media from mass-criticism and 2) timely eradicates all alternatives.

As an elderly guy I would not object socialism to be a gerontocracy, i.e. the manipulation of young generations by the older ones. Actually it is the way it works in traditional societies. Or as someone said (I do not remember who): “Education is the warping of unsuspecting, immature minds into a meticulous system of superstitions.” But maybe you have a better (more egalitarian) solution of this Huxleyan “Brave New World” problem of socialist “cultural revolution” made by behavior control?

5) You have certainly noticed looking through my site that I am a passionate Marxism-basher... Therefore please allow me to discuss with you OTHER points - those which hopefully unite, NOT divide us. Namely, that the radical behaviorism (or behaviorology) is THE future of socialism and communism which can and should be put into practice. As an individual I am far too weak to make alone any noticeable progress in this direction. I would like to join forces with you and other behaviorologists - to promote our common ideals and pursue common aims.

With best regards,

Yours very sincerely



Dear Alexei,

On the contrary—your questions, requests, and suggestions are most welcome. I will be happy to address each one in order.

1. I would not be surprised what you find when you search the Internet using the term behaviorology. First, you are liable to encounter the names Lawrence Fraley and Stephen Ledoux. Along with Ernie and Julie Vargas, and me—among others, these two gentlemen were founders of The International Behaviorology Association in 1989. Over the next several years an irreconcilable difference of views emerged, largely concerning our relationship with the discipline of psychology. We all agreed that the fundamental difference between behaviorology and psychology is the positing of hypothetical agencies within the organism (e.g., attitudes, egos, etc.—those concepts that Skinner called explanatory fictions). Where we differed is in how we were to relate to psychology. Fraley and Ledoux were adamant that we must attack psychology as a pseudoscience, whereas the rest of us saw as our priority the building of a scientific community of behaviorologists to advance this new science. Eventually a schism developed and we ended up going our separate ways. The other group that identifies with behaviorology is, as you found, Los Horcones. This is a small behaviorally oriented commune in Mexico. In fact, in 1990, we held one of our conventions there. The scientific community we formed following the split is the International Society for Behaviorology. Your suggestion about posting an article on Wikipedia is an excellent one, something that we should have considered some time ago. Thank you for that and for the offer to translate in into Russian. However, it just so happens that we have a website on which is posted a brief article authored by Ernie Vargas and me that describes behaviorology. Moreover, one of our members, Aleksandr Federov, a faculty member a Novosibirsk University, translated it into Russian. This translation is also posted on our website: highly recommend that you read it. You will probably want to look at the rest of the website too. Meanwhile Ernie and I will look into the possibility of have the English version, or summary thereof, posted on Wikipedia.

2. Concerning the matter of translating the term contingency into Russian, please let me know if you have any questions or comments after reading the Russian translation of our article.

3. This section is somewhat of a challenge to address adequately without writing a long manuscript on the subject. I will try to be brief, combining my socialist and radical behavioral perspectives. First, I do not have much hope for your project of “opening the eyes of the Chavistas on the potential of radical behaviorism for building a 21st Century socialism in Venezuela. The primary reason being that Skinnerian science focuses largely on the variables that control the actions of individuals (but see below). A clear example of this focus in in Skinner’s book, Science and Human Behavior (which is free to download from the B. F. Skinner Foundation website:

I think you will also enjoy looking through this website. What Ernie an I have been working on lately is an exploration of what a school of heterodox economists—that is, institutional/evolutionary economics—have to offer for examining human behavioral phenomena behaviorologically at the institutional level of analysis. This is new work that we hope to eventually develop into a book. What interests me in particular is that among these evolutionary economists are some who are Marxist oriented to varying degree. In short, without a “macroscopic” perspective based on the science of behaviorology, I don’t think that radical behaviorism (today behaviorologists use the term behavioral materialism) will accomplish much in changing society. As you can probably guess, I am not a strong believer in the viability of piecemeal reform. But that’s just me speaking. Along this line of inquiry in developing a behaviorological “macroscope” is a concept that I have been working on for a long time--with Ernie’s invaluable collaboration: the macrocontingency, defined as the conjoint actions of two or more individuals under common contingency control. In analyzing institutional arrngements, macrocontingency relations function as "behavioral glue"—giving an institution coherence and endurance over long periods of time. My point here is that I believe an appropriate conceptual framework will be needed to approach the issue of a socialist experiment, one that is based on the science of behaviorology (i.e. the analysis of contingency and macrocontingency relations). Does that make sense?

4. I find that I cannot effectively reply to you comments in this section. Specifically, terms such as unconscious, procrastinate, believe, ideas, and the like are foreign to behaviorology; they are agency terms (explanatory fictions) that cannot account for human actions within a natural science framework. What is required to approach what you have shared in this section is a very thorough operant analysis of verbal behavior. I see that you listed Skinner’s (1957) book Verbal Behavior on your website. We consider that book his most important work. In it he deals with such phenomena as thinking, etc., but purely in term of verbal and mediating behavior under the control of contingency relations. I think it is here where we will need to resume our discussion of matters in this section.

5. When I consider your learning history I can readily understand why you are a “passionate Marxist-basher.” I take into account all of those years living under the dictatorship of Stalinist parasites and their privileged and lavish lifestyles obtained at the cost of the labor of Russian farmers and workers, a privileged caste resting on a grotesque caricature of Marxism. My candid opinion is that as a result you were horribly mis-educated politically—if you will forgive my boldness in saying so. I have been a revolutionary Marxist since 1975 and continue to be active politically, so I will leave for another day our discussion of Marxism. I do want to end here by pointing out that Ernie is not at all a Marxist, yet he and I have for many years been able to collaborate on our scientific writing in a most amicable way. With that in mind, I look forward to continuing my communication with you.

Best regards,


-- - -- - --

Jerome D. Ulman, Ph.D., BCBA-D

Graduate Program in Applied Behavior Analysis

Professor, Department of Special Education

Ball State University

Muncie, IN 47306

Dear Jerry,

First of all, please let me know the e-mail address of Mr. Alexander Fedorov at Novosibirsk State University. I need to get in contact with him directly before making any comments on his translation.

Second, my interests mainly follow pragmatic approach - NOT that of “fundamental science”, but that of humble engineering. I am interested in simple, primitive things which WORK, and that is why I consider myself a behaviorist, not a “cognitivist” or “marxist” with all their high-flown “theoretical” bla-bla-bla which never worked. I adore Skinner just because he managed, when experimenting with a rat, to see through the non-existent “learning curve” and find a real working thing - the operant - in its place.

The problem is that behaviorism nowadays is a pariah of “scientific community”, whereas cognitivism-mentalism attracts many bright people who discover interesting things despite the blinders of obligatory ideology, just like alchemists discovered alcohol, black powder, amalgams, acids etc. Therefore if there is a FACT, I won’t sacrifice it to the glory and purity of “THE theory”. If there ARE “terms such as unconscious, procrastinate, believe, ideas,“ which were and are used by billions, including such keen observers as Dickens, Flaubert, Turgenev etc., I will be with them, NOT with Prof. Skinner.

(Actually, his book „Verbal Behavior“ disappointed me. I started reading it in a hope to find there a clear refutation of Chomski’s „generative grammar“ and other structuralist nonsense. But I did not find it there. Hundreds of pages filled with obscure neologisms like „mand“ etc., and - sorry - nothing one can apply as a ready-to-use instrument of social engineering.)

In the meantime cognitivists get funds - both from governments and capitalists - and have to deliver. For example the fact I mentioned in my previous letter that “our “knowledge” DECREASES, not increases our “consciousness” of the reality of the world” they “explain” in their typical way of putting a label on it. The label in this particular case is “framing”. See, for example, Susan Fiske & Shelley Taylor, “Social Cognition”. This is really an interesting book; but what is needed is to see (and show others in a SIMPLE and convincing way) that this “framing” actually describes verbal operants and how they WORK. Just admit that verbal operants are constructed by mass-media, public relations, advertising agencies etc. using PREDOMINANTLY mentalist “explanatory fictions“ (as you brand them). Exactly these „fictions“ are very efficient operant tools of propaganda, but you wish to throw them overboard and forget about them...

The power of capitalism lies in its sophisticated manipulative use of positive operant reinforcement. (By the way, exactly this makes „proletarians“ as wage earners NON-revolutionary, quite contrary to marxists visions). Hence I see my task as a behaviorist-socialist in putting forward the socialism based not on „revolutionary“ compulsion and marxist thoroughly mentalist illusions like „class consciousness“, but on positive reinforcement.

Best regards,



As I sent my last e-mail two months ago and there was no reply whatsoever, the reasonable thing to suppose is that the whole affair is finished and the only thing remaining to be done is to draw the necessary conclusions. Here they are.

The fact that the whole (very successful and prolific) scientific carreer of Prof. Skinner was devoted to experiments with caged animals (mice, rats, pigeons etc.) made his attempts to build a bridge between behaviorism as the experimental science of animal behavior and the sociology of humans to result in an utter failure. Prof. Skinner was a genius of observing and manipulating the behavior of caged animals, but human society is by far more tricky business than operant training of small animals.

Skinner's understanding of human society ignores all conflicts and contradictions which are obvious for an unbiased observer exactly because he attempted to "scientifically reduce" the perplexity of "condition humaine" to unambigous experimental data of operant conditioning, obtained on pigeons locked in famous "Skinner's boxes".

It is a pity that (as I stated in my e-mails to Dr. Ulman) behaviorism did not attract a new generation of talented followers who could be able to take up further innovative development of skinnerian radical behaviorism. It seems that the attempt to achieve this under the contorted name of "behaviorology" which unfortunately smacks of "scientology" and similar rip-off-cult names can already be counted as a failure.

And the half-hearted attempt of Dr. Jerome Ulman to cross-breed his Skinnerian "pure behaviorology" with marxist dogmatics failed exactly because both these doctrines have proven their inability to see the conflicts of interests, the competition for reinforcement and the active struggle for influencing fellow human beings as the essence of social life and the meaning of life of every socialized individual.

In fact, Skinner imprinted radical behaviorism with his conservative and even absolutist views of human society, most akin to the Hobbesian "Leviathan". Exactly these views make his utopian novel "Walder Two" so dull and boring. Both for Hobbes and Skinner the essence of social life is imaginary harmony created by supreme force, be it Hobbesian "god-given" absolutist monarch or Skinnerian "Planners" practicing behavioral engineering. All conflicts are seen only as malfunctions of society, which is imagined to be nothing but a sort of a clockwork - to be repaired, cleaned, wound up and adjusted to function properly.

It is exactly this elitist totalitarian view of society as a bunch of passive alienated subjects which made Skinner's preaching of behavioral engineering so hated by all sorts of intellectuals, compelling them to reject the scientific principles of behaviorism and to embrace the bogus "science" of mentalism-cognitivism. Even the most keen observers of social life and institutions with all inherent conflicts and contradictions, such as Erving Goffman, saw no other alternative than to interprete and generalise their observations invariably in the vague idealistic terms of cognitivism.

Conflicts, rivalries and other dramatic situations which are the fabric of everyday operant interactions between individuals, make the attainment of paradisiac serenity on Earth an extremely complicated task. This reality was vividly depicted by Goffman, but his analysis is cast in the form of nebulous idealist allegories, epithets and metaphors of mentalism-cognitivism and should be reinterpreted in behaviorist terms. And the readiness to see human beings as they are and not as abstract carriers of mythical "class conscience" is the only way to use the scientific approach of radical behaviorism for the creation of the applied technology of social engineering which can serve as a fool-proof instrument of building the socialist society on the solid rock of operant behavior, NOT on the sand of abstract "ideas".

This point can be clearly demonstrated if we take for example the often-quoted concluding passage of Goffman's "The Underlife of a Public Institution":

"Without something to belong to, we have no stable self, and yet total commitment and attachment to any social unit implies a kind of selflessness. Our sense of being a person can come from being drawn into a wider social unit; our sense of selfhood can arise through the little ways in which we resist the pull. Our status is backed by the solid buildings of the world, while our sense of personal identity often resides in the cracks".

If we try to find out what sort of social reality is hidden behind Goffman's highly poetical abstractions, we can discover that they apply only to hierarchical institutions which are divided into rulers and their subjects, the privileged and the dispossessed, the oppressors and the oppressed, the exploiters and the exploited. Thus Goffman's "little ways" are nothing but the attempts of the oppressed and the exploited to reclaim their fair share of positive reinforcement or at least to obtain some illusory compensation for being confined in their "cracks". The so-called "underlife" is in essence the striving of the dispossessed for social justice, denied to them by the oppressive and exploitative hierarchical social order.

Reading just a couple of pages from the immortal "The Good Soldier Svejk" by Jaroslav Hasek (Yaroslav Hashek) gives a clear idea of how a common man can defy oppressive social order by mocking overcommitment to the duties imposed upon him, and by playing an innocent fool when threatened with punishment. Unfortunately this widely used strategy of passive resistance is of no help for creating the alternative, i.e. egalitarian and libertarian social order.

This quite obvious absence of egalitarian and libertarian habits and patterns of social behavior in hierarchical societies means the necessity of introducing them artificially in the course of cultural revolution which should accompany political revolution. But these habits and behavior patterns are actually chains and networks of operants! That is why only behaviorist socialism can put into practice the communist democracy proclaimed by Vladimir Lenin in chapter V of his famous "The State and the Revolution": "Every person should be fully enabled to participate in governing the state".

I have a very strange feeling when reading - again and again - this marvellous book which Lenin wrote on the eve of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. It gives the most clear-cut understanding of social revolution ... but puts forward - strictly following the marxist tradition - an utter fiction and figment of imagination: the so-called "proletariat" as the revolutionary protagonist. This ghostly "revolutionary proletariat" was most conspicuous by its NON-involvement in ALL successful social revolutions: the Bolshevik in Russia, the Maoist in China, the Castroist in Cuba etc. etc. Therefore I agree with Lenin in all points up to this traditionally marxist obsession with the "revolutionary proletariat". Every time I see this hollow phrase I want to replace it with something real, for example: "the exploited and the dispossessed victims of capitalism and imperialism in their grass-roots struggle against the oppressors and the privileged". Exactly this "lower classes" multifarious multitude was always the most revolutionary force in all anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist revolutions.

Ergo: behaviorist socialism is the urgently required application of scientific methods of behavioral engineering for the benefit of the revolutionary grass-roots struggle of "lower classes" for communism or - if you dislike this word - for the old good revolutionary "liberte, egalite, fraternite". It should be the OPPOSITE of the instrument of subjugating the mankind under the manipulative rule of some pretendedly "benevolent" tyranny of elitist "Planners" - be it globalist "Bilderberg" billionaires, technocratic bureacracy of the "new left", etc. etc. -, piously praised by Skinner in his "Walden Two".

This application of behavioral engineering which makes socialism genuinely scientific is urgent precisely because Western imperialists routinely and SUCCESSFULLY apply it now in their struggle AGAINST socialism. All so-called "colored revolutions" are NOT "of the people, by the people and for the people", but of the US imperialism, by the US imperialism and for the US imperialism. CIA is the true protagonist of all of these revolting pro-Western pro-capitalist "revolutions": from the first unsuccessful ones - 1953 in East Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia - to the latest imperialist bloodbath in Libya.