Subject:  Make no mistake about it ...
BiO Spiritualism Newsletter  
Helping our customers help themselves
March 2012
in this issue
The Givens
(counter) Action #1 of 8:
Russia is dead, long live the Department of Health and Human Services
Chapter 19 continues--like America--down the path to Voluntary Totalitarianism ...
Who is going to be the first man on the noom?
New Customers
Quick Links



Greetings Customers


... Contemporary Psychology is an enemy of the people.


... that is ... individuals are running up against a glass ceiling ... or rather ... a concrete ceiling (pun intended) constructed by America's Social Engineers; a ceiling that prevents the individual from going higher and higher and ... Yes ... even higher still up-into-happiness' upper plateaus and hence T.H.E.Y are blocking individuals from the "pursuit of happiness".


Consequently--since the "pursuit of happiness" is in our country's Declaration of Independence as an explicitly identified right-of-man--all Government Institutions that add bricks and mortar to that concrete ceiling should be declared unamerican and dismantled over a three year period.  (Premise 0 or rather Hypothesis Ho: Speaking of years, give the Bureaucratic Mentality--that is, the Government BM's--a quaternary and they will steal the crown jewels*.)**






*By crown jewels I mean all the objective value within our country's government from the literal to the abstract--that is, from the collectively owned 10,000 tonnes of gold in our country's fort knoxes to our individually owned political valuables of life, liberty and the pursuit-of-happiness as same are promised protection (from thugs) by our government (of laws not men) ...
**Breaking News: our Government is becoming the thug.

The Givens:

Premise 1:  a free market and a free mind are corollaries


Premise 2:  a free market means separation of economics and state.


Premise 3:  happiness exists in degrees.


Premise 4:  happiness depends on freedom and dignity.


Premise 5:  UnAmerican is NOT an anti-concept.  That is, politically--that is, pro the American Declaration of Independence--individualism is right and good, and pro the best American philosopher ever (Ayn Rand)--collectivism is wrong and bad (and eventually evil)


Premise 6: If the United States Government is going to insist on denying ever more freedom to its individuals and is going to spend those same individuals money on Institutions that help T.H.E.M BM's in T.H.E.I.R denying-freedom quest then ... then ... IF the peoples don't do anything about it ... then the peoples gets what they deserves.


Premise 7: If Premise 6 wins out then individuals who are NOT doing what they absolutely love--career wise or even job wise as the patron of their own arts (i.e. moi) wise--have no choice: they have to go Galt.


Premise 8: Gary Dean Deering is the exception to Premise 7 because he "has already went Galt in 1997".


Premise 9: If you don't want to be poor, destitute and happy ignore aoa (and/or t-i-c sentiment herein).


Premise 10: If however you still think you can be evermore richly fulfilled and happIER then continue fighting for your evermore freedom and evermore happiness until your dying day--evermore... 'ah ranting and 'ah Raven--Evermore.

PS Premise: Stay tuned after today's programme for tomorrow's to see how you too can consciously climb to the top of Galt's mountain and carry down that fountain of youth for your own self's pleasure, enjoyment and who knows perhaps be part of the longed for breakthrough in longevity efforts all old people dream about. (Well, maybe not all, but, for sure, some.)





(counter)Action #1(of 8)  


Since the (office of the) Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States of America is the leader and commander-in-chief of all the Government's Social Engineers (and other BM's inside and outside the government) it should be the (next) first such Government Institution to go. That is:


Continue to build the [separation of economics and state]free market base.




Russia is dead, long live the Department of Health and Human Services.



By contemporary psychology I mean the psychology view that is supported and funded by a country's government.


Back in the (20th century, post World War II) cold war days with Russia there was a "Russian mentality" inside the USSR that supported a "scientific" view of psychology build on social theories (socialism, communism, fascism) that claim the group, the community, the collective is the source of all good and the individual ego the source of all evil.


The USSR as a country collapsed and was dissolved in 1991.


Today in my country (our country) the "scientific" view currently supported and funded by the United States Government is that which is totally and completely outlined in this book:


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General, Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], Center for Mental Health Services [CMHS], National Institutes of Health [NIH], National Institute of Mental health [NIMH], 1999.


This book has this ISBN: 0-16-050300-0 and also has a companion booklet that is same title as the big book but is labeled, Executive Summary. The Executive Summary is just reprinted portions of the main book and carries the same ISBN as the main book and is a synopis or condensed version of the main book. The main book is the book (the Social Engineer's Bible) and the Executive Summary is the CliffsNotes for it


This book is ... "[the] first Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health ..." as stated in the introductory Message from Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services at the book's beginning.


She also reminds us that "The U.S. Congress declared the 1990s the Decade of the Brain" ... and that ... "This [book, qua] seminal report provides us with an opportunity to dispel the myths and stigma surrounding mental illness." (And by "mental illness" she most definitely does NOT mean what I mean by it: "your sustained impairment to you maintaining cognitive contact with reality".  And the implications of my definition are: if you are maintaining cognitive contact with reality and are alledged to have "mental illness" then the allegation is false.  Now, you may have value-conflict-problems in the sense of those described by the famous psychology writer Thomas S. Szasz, M.D. (The Myth of Mental Illness, Harper and Roe, 1974) but you do not have mental illness problems in the sense defined by another great psychology writer and definer of mental health (the unobstructed capacity for reality bound cognitive functioning) and mental illness (the sustained impairment of that capacity) Dr. Nathaniel Branden (The Psychology of Self Esteem, Nash, 1969).


In my book (pun intended) mental illness and mental health are "psychological" topics--in contradistinction to say Mechanical Engineering topics or Astronomy topics--and since the very title of this first book from our government is titled Mental Heath it is for sure the government's view AND DEFINITION of what "they" think "scientific" psychology is.


For my complete background on this see Yes link above in Greetings.


For the more pertinent for our purposes here part see the Chapter 19 exerpts (minus footnotes and endnotes) from the Yes book serialized below.


Chapter 19: Will Cognitive Neuroscience become the new bureaucratic control tool of the 21st Century?


Give a Cognitive Neuroscientist a brain and a Government Grant to force his or her view of psychology down our throats and he/she'll inch his/her way towards making it impossible for the mind that that brain is a part of to understand the following. (Or, that is, they are your neurons and what you do with them is up to you.)


The following is an example of what I chose to do with mine.


The United States Government has officially endorsed Cognitive Neuroscience as the State's Psychology, and along with it has made "A Call To Action" for all "scientists" to stitch together an epistemological web proving themselves correct. By so doing the Government is in effect saying "... [we the government] will give you all the [grant] money you need to do this". That is, to "prove" that Cognitive Neuroscience--not Biocentric Psychology as guided by Objectivism philosophy--is the explainer of human psychology.


But what if Cognitive Neuroscience as explainor--we the people can and do ask--is to real psychology what a TV repair man's "description" of a television's ampere current flows and voltages and inductances and ohmic-resistance values are to "explaining" the "Mary Tyler Moore Show" during which the TV repair guy measured them. If he did this and then also took these electrical measurements during "Seinfeld" [or substitute any two of your top ten favorite TV shows] and offered us an ampere and voltage and ohmic "explanation" of these TV shows we would ... laugh ... really really loudly.


But the Bureaucratic Government doesn't care. Their goal isn't to explain mental health and mental illness, but rather it is to control and social engineer each and every one of us into some god-awful kind of sheepish group wondering the wilderness looking for a shepherd to lead us.


You doubt this?


On p. 57 of its document: "Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General", the United States Government writes:


Progress in understanding depression and schizophrenia offers exciting examples of how findings from different disciplines of the mental health field have many common threads (Andreasen, N.C., 1997: Linking mind and brain in the study of mental illnesses: A project for a scientific psychopathology, Science, 275, 1586-1593). Despite the differences in terminology and methodology, the results from different disciplines have converged to paint a vivid picture of the nature of the fundamental defects and the regions of the brain that underlie these defects. Even in the case of depression and schizophrenia, there is much to be uncovered about etiology, yet the mental health field is seen as poised "to use the power of multiple disciplines." The disciplines are urged [by who?] to link together the study of the mind and the brain in the search for understanding mental health and mental illness (Andreasen, 1997. [Oh! Andreasen is who, but why him or her get to urge? And isn't this Government report "urging" by citing this reference?]).


This linkage [what linkage?] already has been cemented [by whom?] between cognitive psychology [the psychology of Immanuel Kant's philosophy of Kan't Know], behavioral neurology [that substitutes "behavior of neurons" for "behavior of animals" in Skinnerian, et al. Behaviorism], computer science [which views man as a super-duper Artificially Intelligent Android built by the super-duperist computer scientist in the universe-i.e. [g.o.d, that is, genetics or determinism] ... ], and neuroscience [which is physiology ... not psychology, but... physiology of the brain]. These disciplines have knit together [a rat's nest? ... ] the field of "cognitive neuroscience" (Kosslyn, S. M., & Shin, L. M., 1992, The status of cognitive neuroscience, Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 2, 146-149)


On p. 21 this same Government Report states, "...integrative neuroscience and molecular genetics present some of the most exciting basic research opportunities in medical science." This is said on p. 21 under Number 1 of its Action Plan for Mental Health in the new millennium; this first course of action is:


Continue to Build the [cognitive neuro]Science Base.


This explicit endorsement of "cognitive neuroscience" as the integrator for Mental Health and Mental illness as same relate to The Science of Psychology is precisely that: explicit. One of the few areas in which t.h.e.y are explicit.


One wonders, why?


Why here and not everywhere?


Is it that t.h.e.y have to be explicit somewhere so that their fellow "scientists" can get the message?


Yes, because: if t.h.e.i.r fellows don't get the message, t.h.e.y don't get the funds.


If you (you, qua reader, not me qua yu, but you qua you) still believe that the linkage between the Bureaucratic Minds within the Government and their flunky scientists from the country's ivoriest ivory towers isn't real, then .... then .... then I do not know what to say ... other than ... that which follows.


Prior to the 1970's few people knew that Doctor Burrhus Frederic Skinner--the renowned American Behaviorist Psychologist--predicted that he could and would fill up America first--and the whole world eventually--with human beings who did not need either freedom or dignity in their everyday lives. He did not say what he was going to use as replacement for these two fundamental needs of autonomous human beings, he simply said he was going to do away with them.


Then in 1971 with the first publication of his book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity"--a book openly acknowledged to have been bought and paid for by the United States Government via the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Grant number K6-MH-21, 775-01--Dr. Skinner told all of us explicitly what his plans were for autonomous man and how he and his cohorts were going to kill him off.


One cannot say, "we" did not believe him, that "we" did not take him seriously because Beyond Freedom and Dignity was touted as " of the most important happenings in 20th-century psychology..." quoting an excerpt from its own cover. The same cover that reminded us that Dr. Skinner's previous book, Walden Two, was a million copy best seller.


The NIMH today--a Behaviorist [in the anti-volition, anti-freedom, anti-dignity, anti-autonomous man sense of the term] Sympathetic Institution--is stronger now than it was in Skinner's day and it continues to grow stronger. And the scary fact is, it grew stronger in the shadow of one of the strongest intellectual defenses of freedom ever presented to the reasoning world.



[continued below]




Chapter 19 continues--like America--down the path to Voluntary Totalitarianism ...  


In 1957 with the first publication of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand said she was going to stop the mystic, collectivist, altruistic, machine--that is, the anti-autonomous man machine--then running the world.  She said she'd do this by filling up the world with people who were so selfish--so individually selfish, so Objectivismly selfish--that they would not tolerate the likes of those who preached people didn't have any kind of needs of consciousness, let alone no fundamental, basic need of consciousness such as the need for freedom.


If freedom isn't a legitimate human need why do we value it so deeply?


Are we born valuing it or as we develop and grow older do we learn the reasons why we should (hence, do) value it?


The answer to this depends on how we interpret the meaning of the philosopher's assertion that human beings are born tabula rasa, that is, are born as a blank-slate. Is it as BiO Spiritualism interprets it--that is, as the way in which BiO Spiritualism paraphrases Biocentric Psychology: our survival needs are innate not learned and our to-be-developed blank slate capacities to satisfy those needs are programmed by us in our non-omniscient volitional choices as we act and re-act to the world in which we live OR is it as Behaviorism and all other non-need-psychology schools of thought interpret it: our blank-slate human needs have to be learned and hence they are not innate and our innate human capacities to satisfy our helter-skelter needs are programmed by the environment and/or genetics as we flailingly re-act to the world in which we have to propagate our gene pool.


The difference here is critical and it forms one cornerstone of what can be called "psycho-hermeneutics" (as in interpreting your own psychology rather than relying on someone else to do it for you) and the beginnings of a truly New Spiritualism. A spiritualism that cares about precision and being right (needs are not learned, they are discovered). A spiritualism that worships non-contradiction and cares about truth (learning how to properly exercise our capacities to satisfy our needs is what is learn-able). A spiritualism that starts by saying that truth and falsehood are not the same thing. That truth--as Aristotle said--must be preferred. And by implication, the false must be--not de-ferred, but--dis-valued. How much preferred and how much dis-valued is part of the subject matter of psycho-hermeneutics as already presented in Chapter 17 (e.g., when the skin deep Skinnerians say man has no depth--no soul/no consciousness--they are ... no right, that is, they are wrong).


For an example of truth vs. false consider that in Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism freedom is a human need. In Behaviorism it is not. Both of these positions cannot be true. In Behaviorism--the alleged "science" of psychology as proclaimed by the mainstream American intellectuals of the last century--not only is freedom not a human need, but neither is dignity. Contrast this with the psychology of the early Objectivist, Dr. Nathaniel Branden. As an Objectivist he accepts that freedom is a basic human need, and as a (life-centered, Biocentric) psychologist he argues so also is dignity [i.e. authentic self-esteem] a human need. He "preaches" that freedom and dignity are such basic human needs that without them we are not human beings. Dr. Branden's first major book on psychology: The Psychology of Self Esteem is totally and completely dedicated to teaching developing man how to become dignified--that is, authentically self-valuing--man. This book was published the same year an American explorer stepped on the moon and it is an intricate study and blueprint for man--the explorer--to follow as he discovers how to create and build his autonomous self out of nature's raw materials.


We all have the raw materials. As did all humans before us.


But "we" are here and now, so one question for us as modern day men and women is: Can we achieve autonomy (be self ruling in the self functions: TFAJ) in spite of the culture we live in? That is to say, that is the question for those of us who value autonomy. For those "others" who dis-value autonomy...for T.H.E.M. the question is: How can I do my part to help the Behaviorist's and their friends kill off autonomous man? Is sending them my tax money to support their research good enough or should I do more?


The second question in the foregoing could very easily be one of the follow up questions that T.H.E.Y. ask themselves. But it isn't the only one to be asked. There are many other better questions that "they" could ask themselves but do not. Some of these better questions are: what is freedom? Where does it come from? Is it guaranteed to individuals or does it depend on some kind of action on the individuals part? Is freedom valuable or is the valuing of it merely a conditioned--associationally "learned" in the Skinnerian-Pavlovian dog sense--response and consequently human beings can just as easily "learn" to dis-value it? For correct answers to these kinds of "better" questions we have to turn to the Objectivists, who, as a group of professional intellectuals, have become--not by default, but by choice--the intellectual guardians of freedom in America (and by default, on the planet).


One such Objectivist is Dr. Peikoff who some thirteen years after Dr. Branden wrote the definitive psychological primer on how to become dignified man, Dr. Peikoff published his first book "The Ominous Parallels. The End of Freedom in America".  In this book Dr. Peikoff--the intellectual heir to Ayn Rand's Objectivism following her unfortunate, sad death this same year--meticulously traced and identified for the whole world to see, the philosophical roots beneath and hence the cause of the German Nazis who initiated World War II and killed off freedom in a way never seen before. With this book Dr. Peikoff predicted that freedom in America was going to die by forces similar to those inhabiting the inner-conflicted ideologues--the Social Democrats--of Germany's Weimar Republic following World War I. The Social Democrats of that era thought they could integrate the nonintegrable, that is, they thought they were exempt from the laws of consciousness and as such that they could do the impossible. They of course didn't come out and say directly, "We think we can do the impossible", rather they "predicted" they could by implying they could. They implied they could integrate Marxism and Capitalism by integrating Capitalism's methods into Marxism's ideals. In essence "they" said: "Let's promote Marxism by using the Capitalists. Capitalistic man isn't very bright when it comes to [a sheep's view of] ethics so he should be pretty easy to control. We'll use his productive superiority to promote our ideology." As a result--of trying to integrate the nonintegrable--the (German) Weimarcians made themselves and their country along with them ineffectual obstacles to the (Nazi) thugs who eventually took over Germany. The thugs and their accomplices then, took over Germany by predicting that they and their social designers could design and produce what nobody else could: a square circle society. Then, these Nazi thugs and their sympathizer thugs proceeded to show the world what a real "square circle" looks like, and how to build one.


If one believed in God, which I no longer do, but if one did, it is here that one would stand erect, look up while throwing one's hands skyward and say: "thank god for America".


And Americans.


Today is a day in the first year of the first century following all of last century's dire predictions.


And where do we stand?


In this, the first year of the first century following Dr. Skinner's prediction and efforts to destroy autonomous man as well as all the voluminous anti-Skinnerian by-products of numerous Ayn Rand disciple-authors--including the Herculean efforts of the still fighting Dr. Peikoff--we stand where freedom stands every day of its life: on the edge of the precipice of apathy and mental laziness. In the face of this--that is in the colloquial sense of a "in your face" attitude--the President of the United States of America in his year 2000 budget has authorized--unopposed in a silence of meekness and moral cowardice that can be heard around the world--the President has authorized Government agencies to dole out five billion dollars per year (to start and because of the nature of the bureaucratic mind to escalate every year per year thereafter) to Dr. Skinner's followers and sympathizers for them to use in putting the final touches on what Skinner had started--albeit not originated--and envisioned: a totally planned, socially engineered society completely devoid of autonomous men and women.


If you think my last sentence is excessively long, wait until you live under the kind of engineered society you might have to live under if the "collectivists" achieve their utopian dreams of a ruled, dictated, totally controlled "society".


Along with the irrefutable fact of the [Five Billion Dollar] Government Grant to Behaviorist sympathizers it appears quite possible that three other things are just as true. One, George Orwell will end up being off by no more than 100 years in his prediction made in the 1940's that "1984" would be the year totalitarianism takes over America. Two: if Objectivism and Biocentric Psychology do not explicitly embrace each other and/or if enough of us don't embrace both of them--or some very close relatives thereof--for ourselves, then you, me and everybody will be double speaking "doublespeak" well before the occurrence of the Centennial celebration of "1984". A "celebration" that is being planned right now by your wannabe social engineers and social designer-controllers. And three: Dr. Peikoff succeeded (almost single handedly albeit with a little help from his friends) in warding off a Weimarcian society in America while at the same time inadvertently providing the Behaviorists, Cognitive Psychologist-Neurologists and all bureaucratic minds EVERYWHERE (thanks to the Internet) a reverse blueprint to follow as they work to bring to fruition their "utopian" view--updated and "modernized" out of necessity--of an America ruled by a VOLUNTARY TOTALITARIANISM.


Voluntary totalitarianism is pure Democracy's ultimate, inevitable, inescapable, "logical" end.


Your success at becoming autonomous man is our only defense against it.




 [concluded in next issue]








 Final PS Premise/Question and wips answer:


Who is going to be the first man on the noom?


Answer: In all probability, based on what we know today, the most likely answer probably will be: a women.


That is, "noom", qua attention grabber word is simply "moon" spelled backwards with the whole sentence/question meaning:


Who--excluding Methusala and all such other Biblical names--is going to be the first real, actual (authenticated) person to reach the age of 130?


ˇ  New Customers 
As of this time BiO Spiritualism Counseling Centers are only available online.
If you feel you need more than "sounding board" advice as same is afforded you via BiO Spiritualism's Online processes (including the multiple benefits you can get for $$$ FREE $$$ from just reading the content in`s BiO Spiritualism and Gary's Venns websides) you are best advised to seek out a therapist with whom you can establish a rapport and get some serious psychological (that is, psychological as in Selfishness Training) work done.  
For some insight on how you can help yourself manage this aspect of your growth and development go here and click on the "How to choose a therapist" article.

            The Triple Crown Affair - Book 1 Secret WHITE SHEET iif Formulas for The Kentucky Derby: Kindle Version
Kindle version



Increase your excitement, decrease your boredom.





Increase your joy, decrease your guilt.





Increase your selfishness, decrease your greed.




that is, travel the Enlightened, Reason-paved-road to authentic FUN.


Fun is GOOD.




Here for:  IN COLOR & PRINTABLE Pdf Version 


            BiO Spiritualism, The New Millennia Spiritualism:
Yes. (Is BiO Spiritualism the answer?)



Increase your intelligence, decrease your naiveté.





Increase your joy, decrease your guilt.





Increase your selfishness, decrease your greed.








that is, travel the Enlightened, Reason-paved-road to authentic Happiness.


Yes. (Is BiO Spiritualism the answer?)Yes Book is now available for Kindle:
Buy BiO Spiritualism's Yes book today at RaIse Books' online store or on  Spread the word about the new, Third Millenium Spiritualism by picking up an extra copy for family and friends! BiO Spiritualism, qua integration of Objectivism AND Biocentric Psychology IN-THE-PERSON, is infinitely scalable so as to provide for the equivalent of 7,003,136,453 (and counting) individual "sects". (Starting with US of A's 313,254,234 individuals.)
(09:18 UTC ((EST+5) or (EDT+4)) Mar 27, 2012)
$150 Value for FREE 
  $150 Value for $$$ FREE $$$$ when you become a beta tester:
Agree to be a Beta Tester of BiO Spiritualism's new online process called Reflect'ology and receive 3 FREE additional rounds--each a $50 value--redeemable at any time for a year from the end of your Beta Tester round. To be a beta tester requires you to go to and after you have registered order the eM.One product under BiO Spiritualism Products, enter a problem or two you desire help with and then start the process by returning it to my email address. Initially you pay $10 for the $10 eM.One and then later you pay $40 for the $40 eM.Three and then when you return your feedback, critiquing what you did, did not like about the process and/or suggestions on how you think it would be better, your $50 will be refunded to you and your name noted for your 3 FREE Rounds in the future. So take advantage of this offer that is limited to this development time before the Reflect'ology Process gets finalized.
Offer Expires: When Reflect'ology Process is Finalized