the Wakefield Doctrine

‘ello and welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Special Edition! The Royal Wedding, aka … (cue the music Mr. B!)

We are the world
We are the children  rogers
We are the ones who make a brighter day ( and provided you follow our rules, you will benefit ) 
So let’s start giving ( starting with you, then the person next to you, you know, like in church )
There’s a choice we’re making ( yeah, like any one of us would think independently )
We’re saving our own lives ( well, mine at least, we most likely will get to you later )
It’s true we’ll make a better day ( because we will force you to conform )
Just you and me ( and the other rogers into a semi-organised herd ).

Now I am certain the blogosphere is totally all cranked up on the wedding thing over there in Merry Ole!  ( Great Britain,  national motto: ‘we used to do this thing, to execute people committing crimes against the Throne, you may have heard of it…hang, draw and quarter…( be a great name for a rock band)? ¹

But thats not important right now!
What is important is (that) this is the day to embrace your rogerian aspect. The Ceremony!   The Rites!   The Tradition!!   Royalty!   Commoners!! (er, make that commoners).  We will say, in all due respect, if we had not already discovered the rogerian personality types in the Wakefield Doctrine, then we would  owe the world media, (print and TV and internet), we would owe them big time. Without having a cool name, like roger for this aspect of the human personality, we still would have been confronted with the personality type. Just  like Issac Newton (had to) confront the apple that hit him on the head ( …‘why?!! why me!?! I was just sitting here, why did the apple single out me to hit on the head?…what an evil apple tree!…there should be a law against apples hitting me on the head! )  Seriously, if we did not already know that this very specifically talented personality type already existed, we would have had to toil for a way to identify the reason why it was that some people ( estimates are that 66% of the ‘adult’ population is comprised of rogers, predominately rogerian (..hey! shut the fuck up, I’m just about to nail this rogerian cutie…don’t blow my fuckin cover!)
In any event, we are fortunate in that we do have the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ) and therefore we do know who makes up the ridiculously large viewing audience for this here Wedding here (on TV). Not only do we know that the audience is primarily of the rogerian persuasion, but the Doctrine tells us why. 
So in rogerian-favored bullet-point, here is what the Wakefield Doctrine tells us about the billion or so “people” watching the Wedding:

• first and foremost rogers are watching because everyone is watching
• hey, this is a Royal Wedding and if there is anything rogers respect, it is royalty
• Pomp and/or Circumstance, rogers just love ceremony
• fabulous clothing and piles of food that could feed a small African nation for a day and a half
• there is history and easily traced genealogy
• it is a global herd event, rogers can hear the lowing of rogers from around the globe ( “…Μουου…Mo’uu…M>click<uuu… “)

We should all take the day off from work or school or family or emergency surgery or Tax Audits or making love and raise our adoring eyes to the East, where, by now,Mr. & Mrs Prince Whoever are pulling the royal sedan over at the Ye Ole Cockey Lockey Motel and Inne ( …’Bangers and Mash every Thursday’! ) for the evening before beginning a life together. God Bless the Queen and them!

1 ) To be hanged, drawn and quartered was the penalty in England for men guilty of high treason. The convicted were fastened to a wooden hurdlewhich was dragged by horse to the place of execution. Once there, they were ritually hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded and quartered (chopped into four pieces). As a warning against further dissent, these remains were often displayed at prominent places, such as London Bridge. For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were burnt at the stake  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_hanged,_drawn_and_quartered)

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )

There is a unspoken assumption, at least in the current Western cultures, that it is the responsibility of the individual to acquire learning and information and knowledge, in order that they may improve their position in society, and enjoy a better quality life. In the majority of modern nations, the State exhorts all, young and old alike (but mostly the young) to avail themselves of education and learning and positions itself as a partner in the process. But upon anything more than a cursory examination of  what the established sector of society offers as ‘Public Education’, all you find is indoctrination, training for a life of consumerism. What the State is trying to pass off as  public education is nothing but preparation (to a level that resembles brainwashing) to be good citizens of the corpocracy. The approbation to the individual to better themselves, with the underlying assumption that, ‘To thine own self be true’ has come to be replaced with modern day Milo Minderbinders telling us, ‘whats good for the Corporations is good for America’.

Now Regular Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine are sitting back in their chairs and saying one of three things,

1. …”well they seem to have a bit of a bee in their bonnet at the Doctrine, quite unlike them to get so mainstream, hope they can pull it off”
2. …yeah, sure I know that they want us to believe that they are being serious in this discussion, but it is blatantly a trick, and who do they think we are that we don’t see through their misconceptions
3. …wtf!  alright, I’m in this for 29 seconds, there better be a payoff! at least a good video……(fuck)

Rest assured, this is the Wakefield Doctrine, and the statement that opens this Post is an accurate assessment of (a part) of the world today. So what does the Doctrine have to offer to make this Post worth the time you have spent reading it?
Well, if you have been following along in the last few Posts, you have seen a near-vociferous discussion centered on describing the three personality types with single words, ‘descriptors’. The purpose of finding the right ‘descriptor’ for clarks and for scotts and for rogers, is straight out of clarkville, i.e. an effort to find a symbol, a word, a meaning that all three can agree upon; we say it is ‘straight out of clarksville’ because it is obviously an attempt to share something among three people, something all can agree upon.

In any event, the Doctrine would have saved us the trouble. It tells us that each of the three personality types lay claim to one (of three aspects of life) and any effort by one to infringe upon the purview of the other is met with furious anger! To put it in simple terms:

• clarks think and clarks create, if you try to tell them that they are wrong or incorrect or (even worse) not good enough in their creations….watch out
• scotts act and live in the here and now, if you try to imply that they need to improve so that they might act better or need to reflect on their actions so that they may live a better life….get back
• rogers feel and rogers communicate, if you try to take away or in any way limit the power of rogers to establish and celebrate the rules that create society…they will gather great armies and come down from the mountains

So, all this and the corporacy in one Post? Yeah, we seemed to have written ourselves way the hell out into the middle of the metaphorical prairie. 
…quick and simple then,  clearly the corporacy is rogerian and (you might be surprised) ‘to thine ownself be true’ is the scottian element (though William S was so rogerian)  and clarks?   lets leave that to the Comment section, yo.

(never realized how good the bass line in this song is!)

Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clark, scotts and rogers )

You shoulda called in last night!¹
We had a very interesting and, at times provocative discussion with RCoyne, DownSprings glenn and DS#1 on line and live! 

The (discussion) began with the roger being asked why he persisted in efforts to get a collaborative project started over at his blog,  the Scatter Muffin, in the latest  Post.  He did not have a particularly good explanation, which, only naturally, caused the question to be asked by glenn and me, “Why the hell did you ignore both of our Comments’? This prompted a fairly technical discussion of the nature and practical (and theoretical) application of  rogerian expressions.  Both DownSpring glenn and I were interested in finding out if rogers used rogerian expressions as a form of aggressive strategy. RCoyne, he be sayin, “No!”

The Topic (of the Show) then shifted to finding out if  RCoyne knew the ‘meaning’ of the vacuum cleaner that formed the focus of his recent dream/Post topic. glenn attempted the gestalt strategy of asking him to speak for the appliance,  ‘zo now, mine little chicken and dumplings, I vant you to be zee vacuum cleaner!’ 
But to no avail. (Like DS#1 before him), our Progenitor went into extreme oversight-mode and mum was the damn word. Now at about this point in the Show, DS#1 joined the fray and, as is true of her kind (clarklike female), she instantly assimilated both the content and the context of the conversation. Of course, before you could consider one answer,  the topic moved on to the question, ‘What is the Achilles Hell of  clark/scotts/rogers‘. ( Now, we wuz treadin terra incognita, y’all)

The discussion became even more technical and before you could say ‘delusional-compensatory life-coping construct’,  the Progenitor roger and both DownSprings were totally gangin up on yours truly.

Keep in mind, these are the people at and around the Wakefield Doctrine back when it was still the theory of clarks and scotts and rogers, hell even before that. But they could give as good as they could take, even when the notion of a single descriptor ( of clarks, scotts and rogers) was put into the conversation. I mentioned, in passing a mere rhetorical filigree, if you will, that it would be useful to understand just why it was true that:

• clarks are crazy
• scotts are stupid
• rogers are dumb 

Since Ms. AKH was unable to get in on the fun, lets ask her the question: is the above assignment of descriptions valid, or what? glenn made the excellent (and obvious) point that as descriptive terms go, these are considered by most to be “..really, quite pejorative. Most people will react to the connotations that are inextricably attached to these words, their use is fairly problematic“²

1) the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Live call-in show, nothing less than the coolest concept in the otherwise lame-intensive world of blogs, blog writing and blog readers

2) yeah I understand your reaction, you are right, that is the same DownSpring glenn who, like a profane  Eskimo, has 73 different words for Fuck, but pretty much likes to just use the word ‘Fuck’.