I do a quick work it out here, I am not interested in Trump nor his kind nor those who adopt his methods per se, but I was curious about the following excerpt from Scott Dilbert as it relates to this post:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128776840091/trump-engineers-an-[Enemy Image]-Linguistic-Kill-Shot-for-fiorina

Re: “Bonus Thought: Trump seems to be about systems that improve his odds in a variety of ways, as opposed to moonshot-like goals. My book [Scott Adams] explains how to improve your odds the same way”.

I am reviewing an article about Scott’s work. I don’t observe Scott using Trump’s means (system/strategy) nor goals (ends) to achieve his values. I notice Scott using Voluntarist and peaceful individualist respectful systems AND goals, so far as I have looked into this…

A brief excerpt [with my guesses as to what Scott is referring]:

“But it was only having a[n] [immediate feedback] system [means/strategies to connect and express his core needs/values], rather than having [too distant, contradictory and out of control ends] goals, that enabled him to ultimately be successful.”

When I look at Dilbert Creator Scott Adams On Why Big Goals Are For Losers | Fast Company | Business + Innovation–I do NOT observe controlling others (via the tyranny of the obligation and elephant with the gun in the room) as Scott’s system/strategy, but I do observe that as being Trumps.

Ref: http://m.fastcompany.com/3030518/bottom-line/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-on-why-Big-[all or nothing] Goals-are-for-Losers

Re: “…Trump seems to be about systems that improve his odds in a variety of ways,”

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate Enemy Imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

See “Foundation of Mass Mind Control”
“Ebola: why hasn’t a pandemic ever started in Brooklyn?”
Both articles by Jon Rappoport

In The Second Sin Thomas Szasz wrote, “Man is the animal that speaks. Understanding language is the key to understanding man; and the control of language, to the control of man.” Alfred Korzybski, founder of General Semantics indicated that, “Those who control symbols control humanity.”
Slavespeak [what I will call Violent Communication] is ALL language [***most especially INTERNAL***] that [IS DESIGNED] to put an individual at a disadvantage in relation to [***HIMSELF, his creativity***] others and to the world in general. Slavespeak would seem to occur in too many domains of human endeavor such as referred to here and in my Improv writings with Relief and Solutions Here and Here and perhaps [assuredly so] as it relates to Trump’s Enemy Image Language Skills etc..

Re: What is alive in me and makes my life better, and is doable by me is this regarding:

As Adams sees it: “Goal-oriented people exist in a state of continuous Pre-Success Failure at best [Unmet needs/values and unsuccessful or contradictory ends and means strategies], and permanent failure at worst if things never work out.

Systems people [people who build to build, not people who build systems[1]] succeed every time they apply their systems [strategies to support needs/values means and means and ends*], in the sense that they did what they intended to do.”

Scott Adams then reveals his personal system [Strategies] he used to achieve success [and I speculate to fuel his Optimism by *Mourning mini unmet needs by perhaps Progressing via Incremental Improvement and Prototyping and thus freeing him to back off and make it possible to have fun reinvest his energy and inspiration to be able to learn, plan, practice and Celebrate his met mini needs continously…which compound]

“My system of creating something the public [many other individuals may want without initiating coercion i.e. peacefully in harmony] wants and reproducing it in large quantities nearly guaranteed a string of failures. By design, all of my efforts [energy focused on my strategies] were long shots [so distant I could not get goal].

Had I been goal-oriented [distant ends fixated] instead of system-oriented [enjoying and learning via my needs/values, means and strategies], I imagine I would have given up after the first several failures. It would have felt like banging my head against a brick wall.

Adams doesn’t hold back in detailing these failures [what’s behind the feedback and since the Progress is Incremental he could recover from an Improvement set back]. He’s very forthright about the mistakes [Sweet Learning Pain instead of deadening debilitating pain] he made and the lessons he learned (the “be a [mini] failure” credo may now make more sense). [Making it possible to be response able and or Boundless makes more sense to me].

I realize it relates and is personally relevant to first standing in a position of freedom. Dreaming about what I want. And then comparing that to my life. Then getting rid of what does not fit my first position. This changes the dynamic so I am not giving up things, I am clearing myself to live my strategy and goals. This is a paraphrased Starting from Zero technique from Harry Browne’s How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.

I have added elements of Marshall Rosenberg’s Non Violent Communication; Darrell Beckers NVC merged with the Trivium Method i.e. Voluntary Communication; and Ike Lasaters free 3rd chair Mediateyourlife.com Maps and Tables on my Samsung Note 4 and Dennis Lee Wilson’s PIIP.

The caveat here is NVC provides a way to process making Requests and have a possible way to hear the value behind the no from oneself and others. And is a way of processing Jeffrey Tucker’s Steps to a better life which is about understanding and respecting methodological individualism of individuals choice preferences…but then what?

Is there anything you can do that you have Direct Alternatives for? So that when you are making requests they are indeed just that and not veiled Demands, Deserve, Diagnosis of pathology, and Denial of Response Ability?

And I realize the above relates to Have I given consideration to the following question or the following in the form of a question?

Harry Browne: How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World



What **IS* the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM that Voluntary Groups of any size–two people or more–need to agree upon, in order to live together peacefully and productively?* by Dennis Lee Wilson


[1]Is there a difference between those who seek to build a system, and those who only seek to build?

“Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it.”~ Mikhail Bakunin

Freedom Has No “System”–Challenge the premise. THERE IS NO “WE”!

Need I convert others? If you are petitioning (the following speaks to what that looks like so you will recognize it) then you have fallen for one and usually multiple Traps pointed out by Harry Browne…it is how many individuals sacrifice and loose their own freedom when it is not neccessary.

The following is about methodological individualism and spontaneous ORDER and the power of that phenomena. The HIFFIUFW by HB is the how to recognize the traps and alternatives flow with that on many levels.



Transition down the rabbit hole.

Finally, I have come back here having heard a schoolsucks podcast by Darrell Becker on NVC. And have since transcribed and re arranged portions of it that pertain.

Paraphrased: I saw NVC and Trivium (in addition see Covenant of Unanimous Consent and How I Found Freedom and Unfree World Direct Alternatives and Starting From Zero Technique, Casey’s Fresh Starts, Phyla, Tucker’s Steps to a better life and Mcelroy’s The Art of Being Free and my soon to come Samsung Note 4 with Mediate your life maps, tables and demos) as tools. I was hoping other people would see these things as tools. Meaning there’s an individual and very specific application whenever you’re dealing with a tool.

A tool is something that’s designed by the person who’s using it and then it’s applied **and then things happen….** [ and boy did things happen] [Here we go this is the transition segway between the Covenant and practicing NVC]:

…I depart from traditional NVC by not calling values needs to people who are not trained in NVC. [I soon realized this prior to this podcast. Many get triggered by the word needs] [These steps completed my release where he and now I use the 4 D’s to translate visceral meaning much like the faux feeling translation].

compassionateinteractions.com › resources
Faux feelings imply that someone is doing something to you and often connote wrongness or blame

I translate 4 D’s into likely values and desires, which are the motives behind the utilization of any of the four D’s so that I can then from there take it down a notch so I’m not then feeling the tension that happens or I would say the tension that happens automatically when I’m getting a demand [instead of a request], when I’m getting an unrequested diagnosis [of an evaluation] of myself when I’m receiving Deserve [Carrot or Stick ] oriented language when I’m hearing a Denial of Responsibility [ response ability]. That could be a lot of tension. I translate that. I translate those things into saying oh I see that Demand is a method of delivering a specific request. The request shows me what they’re after. That UnRequested Diagnosis is them attempting to understand me by putting a label on me. That’s the thing. So I see their quest for understanding.

And I do not use the following script for someone that I don’t have a really deep tight connection with. I’m never going to be saying traditional NVC, when you do this, I feel this, because my need for this is not being met,  would you be willing to do this so my need for this can be met?  That can be very easily interpreted both as a Demand and Diagnosis because the other person can interpret this: when you do this I feel this, now you’re responsible for my feelings and that is one of the subject to touch on [and consider] See needs confused with strategies.  See abundance of strategies. See direct alternatives. Talking points].

Who’s responsible for one’s own feelings and what about cause and effect? [You can be stimulated by another but ultimately it’s how you translate it (method) and what you do with it.]

I’m starting with the Trivium [see my additions] method  and ending with the Trivium method all the time. I’m always taking in the grammar input and doing my definition work and always subjecting it to some degree of a logical analysis process and I’m always looking through the lens of the *rhetorical triangle that’s going to be a departure from your traditional NVC teaching…

Definition: *Rhetorical Triangle: This is an explicit use of the knowledge and understanding of all the relevant factors (including internal and external applications of the OFNR and the 4D’s) impacting the Author of a Message and the Audience who receives the Message. Surrounding the Rhetorical Triangle is the circle called Context (see Contextual Circle).

See Practical Definitions – Voluntary Communication by Darrell Becker

…I am always going to be looking at objective [ ] in addition to subjective [.] I realize that there’s a variable of getting it wrong in the realm of the subjective that I could get it wrong in my interpretation of someone else’s emotions or what motivates them. I could also get it wrong for myself I could be missing a key component. I certainly do some work periodically. I mean we all get to do some work in our private life to enhance our skill with these things. I could get it wrong about what I’m feeling sometimes or what motivates me. What motivates my feelings. If I’m only looking at a surface level of things of just frustration I  could be missing a deeper thing underneath that which would be sadness or grief or something such as anxiety. So those would be the departures of where I’m going as I’m trying to build something that is essentially using both objective and subjective qualities to try to understand what the purpose is  of my actions of my communications so they could get somewhere. So I have a tangible goal in mind.  I try to communicate that goal to whoever it is that I’m speaking with or writing to. I try  be clear about all these things. I have written down here to isolate, what are the claims? what are the concerns? what actions are being advocated by whom? Those are not traditional nvc things. You don’t normally write those things down. That would be where I differ…

20 minutes into this is what I transcribed, excerpted and paraphrased except for a very interesting intro

See the below to get introduction and full meaning please


I transcribed the following after Darrell Becker is introduced and makes an introduction:
Here he answers Gnostic Media Productions claims and concerns…

…There are very important concerns and claims made by other people regarding their own interactions with proponents of non-violent communication that’s very important and real I think that it’s real. I would say concerns that I brought up by people who are encountering other people using these skill sets and what I’m advocating personally is very different or I would say at least slightly different to sometimes even radically different from what many NVC users are doing so that’s my little intro to this whole thing

Interviewer: can you just give it a little bit when when you say somewhat different to radically different like when we look at the traditional NVC model or I hate to call it a script but I did see a lot of people simply trying to use it as kind of this ad lib script originally and I’m not saying that everybody that I encounter that uses NVC doing that today but when you talk about you were departure where we’re going to get into it more as the production goes on but just a preview it what would be the nature of your departure from traditional non violent communication

Darrell Becker: okay to summarize: it would be an emphasis upon internal application i.e. silent. It would be an emphasis on my Own Equilibrium. To try to speak in I statements when I’m using these tools. I’m using it just to gain a good stance emotionally. I’m using them to potentially enhance my own Trivium ( input or grammar, logic process and rhetoric or application) which is the other part. The objective.

So a lot of NVC in the way it’s generally taught is huge amounts towards emotional literacy towards identifying feelings that are going on especially other people’s feelings. To identify the motives that cause those feelings such as values and desires and they call them needs.

Now that being said as best as I could at that time I realize I did not post what NVC is about.

The Language of Nonviolence

When words come from the heart, they break through barriers and elicit compassion, says Marshall B. Rosenberg


Watch “FULL – Nonviolent Communication Workshop – Marshall Rosenberg (2000) (Multi Subtitles)” on YouTube


Should and Have To

These two words represent two distinct judgments we make. But both of these judgments trigger our fight-flight-freeze reaction which then disconnects us from our real feelings and needs. Hopefully this video will help you see through these judgments to the honest feelings and needs that underlie those judgments within yourself

The Principles: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyK_qsP–FAR0dIpx2F5NLEM7y-TTEVOF

Wow: More Breakthrus For Me

I am Listening to

(Very Brief Breakthrus)

In a prior Work-It-Out on Diaspora, I had missed The Basics and Principles of NVC Youtubes that I posted above. They are are so succinct and cover so much ground that I highly recommend them.



 Back to Here