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!)