Washing the father's authority (the fear of judgment, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying the father, sinning against God, equated to Nationalism aka Fascism by globalists) from the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children—making them at-one-with one another and the world only. How the brainwashed respond to believers.

    The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of "unfreezing," in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of "readiness" to be influence; and (2) a process of "change," in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of "the people's standpoint" and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure.
   Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to "help" their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance.  Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image.

"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed.... many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) All "educators" are certified and schools accredited (including private and Christian schools, including universities and trade schools) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies."

"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) Remove the father's authority system from the classroom, i.e.,  remove 1) the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), 2) the blessing or rewarding of student who do things right and obey, 3) the chastening of students who do things wrong and/or disobey, that they might learn to do things right and/or obey, 4) the teacher discussing (at the teachers discretion) with students what must be done if they are to get things right, and 5) the casting out the student who disrespects, disregards, challenges, questions, attacks, etc., steps 1-5 and replace it with the "group grade," i.e., with a facilitator of 'change' "encouraging" the students to dialogue their opinions to a consensus, putting their consensus into praxis, i.e., into social action ("group action") and you 'change' the students from being individuals under parental/Godly restraint into a socialist, working for the "common good" aka common-ist cause. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Brainwashing:  The environmental condition of: (1) a diverse group of people (inclusive of the deviant), (2) dialoguing  their opinions (their love of pleasure, including the pleasure of approval and hate of restraint, i.e., their dissatisfaction with and/or resentment toward the father's/Father's authority system) to a (3) consensus (to a "feeling," i.e., a perception of "oneness") (4) over social issues (relationship, i.e., personal-community-environmental issues), (5) in a facilitated (psychotherapy) meeting, (6) to a predetermined outcome (that outcome being the negation of the Patriarchal paradigm, i.e., patricide, the "negation of negation," i.e. the negation of parental/Godly restraint upon sensuousness and human pleasure, thereby engendering or 'liberating' nirvana, utopia, socialist harmony and worldly peace, etc,., a sense of oneness with self and the world), (7) for the purpose of "change" (heresy, incest, common-ism, democratization, conscietization, habitualization, synergism, etc., i.e. a "new" Heresiarchal order of the world which emerges as the negation of a "negative," judgmental, authoritarian God, i.e. the "old" patriarchal, top-down, above-below, right-wrong order of the world in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of "the people," i.e., in the way they relate with themselves, others, and the world).  The diverse group of people is not necessarily the difference in race or religious views but the difference in paradigms within the room (patriarch, matriarch, and heresiarch paradigms, i.e. righteousness, sensuousness, and seduction, deception, and manipulation paradigms), with "several" participants "who were further along in reforming" (programed in the art craft of seduction, deception, and manipulation) than others.  Dialoguing opinions negates preaching and teaching, replacing belief with opinion, facts and truth with theory, categorical imperatives with hypotheticals, absolutes with relativity, certainty with ambiguity, God above with man below, spiritual with flesh, sovereignty with fraternity, etc. (Discussion and dialogue are not the same.)  Consensus—the sensuous (the corporal, the carnal, the body, the flesh and the world) united in the 'moment' as "one"—establishes the "means" and the "end" (the drive and purpose) of the meeting upon human nature, i.e. materialism, i.e. survival and approval (fear of the loss of life, i.e. loss of pleasure, and the lose of the respect, i.e., the love, approval, or affirmation of men), incorporated in the thoughts and the actions of all participants.  Over social issues cuts off any transcendent (individualistic, sovereignty, "private convictions") control of the means to resolve the conflict or crisis.  The facilitator guides (manipulates) the "discussion," inhibiting and blocking preaching and teaching of "right and wrong," focusing upon everyone's "feelings" and thoughts (which are subject to the feelings, i.e., the crisis of the 'moment' and the desire for the approval from others) making "change" easy.  The pre-determined outcome is the use (praxis) of the dialectical (consensus) process in identifying and resolving problems, negating the system of righteousness (faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system) in the individual and in society in the process in the process. Liberals are always willing to "work" with conservatives if thy can get (manipulate) the conservative into dialogue, i.e., into using the consensus process to resolve problems (conflicts), resulting in the liberal having their way, i.e., producing their outcome, i.e., socialism.

"New facts and values have to be accepted as an action-ideology ["theory and practice"], involving that particular, frequently non-conscious system of values which guides conduct—the way I really feel—the super-ego." "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  Human Relations in Curriculum Change is a cookbook for humans (for the cooking of humans).

The facilitator is trained in how to control the group environment and produce the desired outcome through the blocking off of "inappropriate information" (facts or truth, i.e., right-wrong based questions and answers), i.e. unacceptable questions and answers which cause group disharmony and social division, i.e. facts (right-wrong) based questions initiated by those with a patriarchal paradigm, and facts (right-wrong) based answers given by those with a patriarchal paradigm with the intent of sustaining their outcome, the retention of the patriarchal paradigm as a means for resolving crisis, while introducing "appropriate information," ("feelings," i.e., opinion based questions and answers), i.e. acceptable questions and answers which allow freedom of feelings of dissatisfaction toward authority, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, to be expressed without fear of reprimand, with questions incorporating the feelings and thoughts (their desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint) of all participants, i.e. their opinions, theories, etc. (expressing a collective resentment, i.e. a "full partnership" of "dissatisfaction," towards the patriarchal paradigm). Thereby, through the use of brainwashing, the facilitated group experiences the praxis of circumventing the use of the patriarchal paradigm in defining and resolving problems (solving social crisis), pulling all participants into a Heresiarchal outcome, i.e. the negation of the patriarchal paradigm, washing from the brain of all participants the patriarchal paradigm, replacing a negative authoritative outcome with a positive social outcome (replacing spiritual with flesh, the conscience with the super-ego).  In this way humanism replaces "super-humanism," i.e. science replaces religion, the Heresiarchal paradigm replaces the patriarchal paradigm as the means to a desired end, world permissiveness. Instead of killing the patriarch and his followers, creating social resistance, by drawing him and his followers into dialogue, he and they "kill" themselves instead, washing their brains (and therefore their actions and therefore the world) of the patriarchal way of thinking and acting by their participation in the consensus process.

"How can a situation be brought about which would permanently change social interactions?"  "To bring about change, [the old constellation of] forces have to be upset."  "Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions."  "Group decision facilitates change."  (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"Before effective plans for change can be made the present state of affairs must be defined as accurately as possible . . . . [in other words] what are the forces which are keeping our methods in the present ‘groove'?" "Driving forces are those forces or factors affecting a situation which are "pushing" in a particular direction; they tend to initiate a change and keep it going.  Restraining forces may be likened to walls or barriers.  They only prevent or retard movement toward them."  "When we have determined the nature of forces which are affecting the present state of affairs we can think more clearly in selecting the forces or factors which should be modified if the conditions are to change in the direction we desire . . . our task then becomes either to increase the total strength of the driving forces for change or to decrease the total strength of forces opposing change or both."  "The component forces can be modified in the following way:  (1) reducing or removing the forces; (2) strengthening or adding forces; (3) changing the direction of the forces." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne  Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  [The latter option "changing the direction of the forces" is the direction brainwashing takes requiring a three step process of "Unfreezing, Changing, and Refreezing" the person through the use of group pressure.]  "Whenever change is planned one must make sure that the new condition will be stable.  We need to develop in our analysis as clear a picture as possible of the forces which will exist when the new condition is achieved." (ibid.)  [The new condition will continue if the restraining force has been overcome.  The restraining force will not "push it back" to the old position providing careful planning has been made to insure that the forces which support the new condition are stable.  If change is to be sustained conditions will need to be such that desire for change will continue.] "The method which we have discussed here is a general method which can be applied to any problem of changing human behavior.  It supplies a framework for problem solving . . . the method can be applied to problems of changing the curriculum, changing pupil behavior, school-community relations, administrative problems, etc." (ibid.) Warren Bennis wrote of Kurt Lewin's "Unfreezing, Changing, Refreezing" dialectic process and its use by the Communist Chinese for the purpose of brainwashing. This is the same procedure and the same steps used in a facilitated meeting (being used in your community) as explained above.

            The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of "unfreezing," in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of "readiness" to be influence; and (2) a process of "change," in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of "the people's standpoint" and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure.

            Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to "help" their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance.  Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image.

            . . . Once this process of self of self re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others.

The Chinese have drawn on their cultural sensitivity to the nuances of interpersonal relationships to put together some highly effective but well-known techniques of indoctrination.  Their sophistication about the importance of the small group as a mediator of opinions and attitudes has led to some highly effective techniques of destroying group solidarity, as in the case of the POW's and of using groups as a mechanism of changing attitudes, as in the political prisons."

Source:  Interpersonal Dynamics:  Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, ed.  Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele; The Dorsey Press, 1964.  pp. 462ff, 474.

Warren Bennis and Edgar Schein studied the Communist's Chinese brainwashing techniques (getting solders to 'change' their paradigm, i.e., their way of feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with themselves, others, and the world, as well as responding toward authority) in order to apply them in the American classroom. "Bloom's Taxonomies," by which all teachers are certified and all schools are accredited today, are based upon the same brainwashing techniques which were used, and are still being used by the Communist Chinese today, in order to 'change' the way their students feel, think, and act toward traditional authority (nationalism, i.e., individualism, under God), questioning, challenging, disobeying, defying it (instead of honoring, respecting, and obeying it), negating it by"build relationship" upon their own (collective) "self interests" instead, using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus in the "classroom" (in the "group grade" classroom) in order to discover, initiate, and sustain "common-ism"—instead of insisting upon everyone doing right and not wrong according to their parent's, teacher's, boss's, God's will, i.e., obeying their commands and rules as given and accepting their facts and truth as is, by faith.

Bloom wrote (regarding how Communist brainwashing techniques, i.e., washing respect for traditional authority from the student's brain, are to be applied in the "group grade" classroom):

"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed.... many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "The public-private status of cognitive vs. affective behaviors is deeply rooted in the Judaeo-Christian religion and is a value highly cherished in the democratic traditions of the Western world."  "Perhaps a reopening of the entire question would help us to see more clearly the boundaries between education and indoctrination, and the simple dichotomy expressed above between cognitive and affective behavior would no longer seem as real as the rather glib separation of the two suggests." "Education opens up possibilities for free choice and individual decisions."  "Indoctrination, on the other hand, is viewed as reducing the possibilities of free choice and decision." (Bloom's Taxonomies, Cognitive and Affective Domain)

Irvin Yalom, in his book "Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy" explained in detail how best to apply the process of brainwashing, i.e., the process of 'change' in the classroom:

"Without exception, patients enter group therapy with the history of a highly unsatisfactory experience in their first and most important group—their primary family [the traditional home]."

"What better way to help the patient [the child/the student] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [to the facilitator]? The therapist [the facilitator] is the living personification of all parental images [takes the place of the parent].  Group therapists [facilitators] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group [the children/the students] to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist [the facilitator], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the child/the student] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient [the child/the student] changes the past by reconstituting it." 

In the group not only must the individual strive for autonomy but the leader must be willing to allow him to do so. … an individual's behavior cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of his environmental press.  …one member's behavior is not understandable out of context of the entire group. …there is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members.  … few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance.  To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance.  Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority. One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views in the service of denial. The ‘third force' in psychology … which emphasized a holistic, humanistic concept of the person, provided impetus and form to the encounter group … The therapist assists the patient to clarify the nature of the imagined danger and then … to detoxify, to disconfirm the reality of this danger. By shifting the group's attention from ‘then-and-there' to ‘here-and-now' material, he performs a service to the group … focusing the group upon itself.  Members must develop a feeling of mutual trust and respect and must come to value the group as an important means of meeting their personal needs. Once a member realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself.  Patients should be encouraged to take risks in the group; such behavior change results in positive feedback and reinforcement and encourages further risk-taking.  Members learn about the impact of their behavior on the feelings of other members. …a patient might, with further change, outgrow … his spouse … unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse.  (Irvin Yalom,  Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

As the great social-psychologist (psychotherapist), i.e., facilitator of 'change,' i.e., seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of children/men and women, Carl Rogers stated: "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to disintegrate a man's personality structure, dissolving his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and making him dependent on another." He called it "brainwashing." (Carl Rogers, as quoted in People Shapers, by Vance Packard, Bantam Books, 1977, reprint 1979)

Rogers wrote: "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., dialoguing our feelings (our carnal desires of the 'moment') to a feeling of oneness ('discovering' through dialogue the common carnal desires that we can all agree on, thereby affirming ourselves, and working together, as one, in fulfilling them, we establish our carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., ourselves over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his/His restraints)], and why negative doesn't' [the father's/Father's authority to 1) give us commands and rules which go counter to and therefore restrain our carnal desires of the 'moment,' 2) reward us or bless us when we do what is right and obey, 3) chasten us when we do wrong and disobey, and 4) cast out those who disrespect i.e. who question and/or challenge his/His authority, i.e., who reject his/His restraints]... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled [the manipulated] though they are following a code much more scrupulously [more government regulations and oversight (sight based management)] than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement—there's no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

Four steps to produce a consensus outcome:

1.  The individuals in the group first attempt to establish a patriarchal paradigm, based upon who knows how to solve the problem at hand:

"In the first phase various members of the group quickly attempt to establish their customary places in the leadership hierarchy." (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

2.  The facilitator circumvents the patriarchal paradigm by frustrating those who attempt to establish it, i.e. those attempting to "gain control" of the meeting in their concern of solve the problem. The facilitator achieve frustration by "recognizing" but no responding favorably to "knowing" questions and answers ("What do you know?"  "I know.") while asking with interest "feeling" and "thinking" questions ("How do you feel?" "What do you think?") and then showing respect and enthusiasm for "I feel" and "I think" responses.  This effectively moves the meeting onto a "shifting" foundation of opinions, and away from a solid foundation of facts.  In this way facts or truths are treated with indifference as if they were opinions and opinions are treated with respect as if they were facts.  The role of the facilitator is to re-focus the people in the group from simply solving the problem the "old fashioned way" to resolving it only through group cohesiveness.

"Next comes a period of frustration and conflict brought about by the leader's steadfast rejection of the concept of peck order and the authoritarian atmosphere in which the concept of peck order is rooted." (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

3.  The group begins to focus on itself in the "Here-and-Now." Through the facilitators ability to manipulation the environment, through the use of group dynamics & cognitive dissonance, time (perceived as being wasted by "knowing" people, patriarchs) presses the participants into focusing on the problem which needs to be solved.  The group now begins to mock the patriarchs, the authoritarians, who "insist" on their way and are "interfering" with those in the group solving the problem at hand.

"The third phase sees the development of cohesiveness among the members of the group, accompanied by a certain amount of complacency and smugness." (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

4.  The group learns the group task roles and group building and maintenance roles which are necessary to accomplish the project at hand (addressed below), and the group also learns to identify and reject individual roles which interfere with group cohesiveness and are perceived as jeopardizing the project.

"In the fourth phase the members retain the group-centeredness and sensitivities which characterized the third phase, but they develop also a sense of purpose and urgency which makes the group potentially an effective social instrument."  (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Elements necessary to convert a traditional mind into a transformational mind: Brainwashing.

Facilitate meeting:  open-ended, non-directed, offended by any closed worldview.

Non-judgmental environment:  free to be spontaneous.  Be positive, not negative.

Dialogue:  express thoughts and feelings on a social issue.

Social issue:  attended to natural/man made problems/events which (might) affect everyone.

Diversity:  experience tolerating differences for the sake of solving a common problem.

Consensus:  conceding to those things which everyone can embrace. Experiencing the "gratification" of developing unity out of diversity.

"... the group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions" (Kurt Lewin Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. 1948)

"Feelings of not belonging can be forestalled by making everyone feel welcome and wanted from the very beginning."  "It is probable that the individual who does not belong will act in ways not conducive to good group action."  "The best approach is to help him feel that he does belong and that he is wanted, whether or not his ideas are similar to those of the group."  "Give him a ‘we' feeling if possible, and avoid any ‘you vs. us' attitude by word or gesture."  "For re-education seems to be increased whenever a strong we-feeling is created."  (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"If the individual complies merely from fear of punishment rather than through the dictates of his free will and conscience, the new set of values he is expected to accept does not assume in him the position of super-ego, and his re-education therefore remains unrealized." Kurt Lewin (ibid)

Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change

THE RIGHT GROUP SIZE for "soviet-delphi-brainwashing" to work:  "The size of group should be the smallest group in which it is possible to have represented at functional level all the socialization and achievement skills required for the particular learning activity at hand."  "To large a group duplicates skills . . . to small a group leaves gaps of competency."  "At the present stage of our understanding, we may guess that for such a task as creative thinking for the purpose of planning an experiment (in which a wide range of social skills is required to keep the problem in front of the group and to build on all the suggestions offered and to have a sufficient range of ideas to begin with) a group from four to eight may be found necessary."  "The specific goal is not an achievement goal per se but is rather a socialization goal which must be reached before the achievement goal can be adequately facilitated." The relationship between group and individual action should be such that the individual perceives his out-of-group action as the resumption of a task set in the group and interrupted by the ending of the preceding group meeting."

Using a theory of "human motivation," a facilitator is able to change the purpose and method of education while changing a person's paradigm.  Curriculum change is just a subtle way of saying paradigm shift. Motivation, according to this theory, is based on "needs satisfaction."  The use of environmental forces can be used to "augment", encourage, or "reduce," discourage, specific behavior. Through the use of group recognition or depreciation (group dynamics) each individual learns quickly what behavior is accepted and which is not. 

Though the fusing of  "dynamic psychology" with "applied anthropology and sociology" (socio-psychology) in problem solving situations a laboratory type condition, organizational change can be developed and utilized to fulfill Marx's and Freud's dream of creating a humanistic, non-patriarchal, dialectic, materialistic, based society.

According to Douglas McGregor, changes in  three aspects of personality, in knowledge, "philosophy", and skill, (value outlook) "must be accomplished if teachers or principals or parents or students are to change their conduct."   Kurt Lewin saw the re-education process as "a correct sequence of steps, correct timing, and a correct combination of individual and group treatments." Without cultural changes in personnel,  "reasonable" practices and theories in the school system will be resisted and rejected as "absurd and impractical."  Therefore before cultural change can take place some form of "mapping and estimating the strength of 'all' forces supporting and 'all' forces resisting a given change in the school program" must be identified.

A change in the relationship between "leadership" and the led (authority/national vs.. democratic/globalist system) depends upon the environment developed for the purpose of needs satisfaction. By making the object need satisfaction, in other words mankind and his desires, rather than obedience toward authority, participants shift their way of thinking from absolutes and sovereignty to relativism/humanism/socialism.

According to Douglas McGregor "1. All human behavior is directed toward the satisfaction of needs, 2. the individual will change his established ways of behaving for one of two reasons: to gain increased need satisfaction or to avoid decreased need satisfaction, and 3. 'augmentation' in the possibilities of needs satisfaction" by a patriarchal figure "an easy and natural method" must be replaced by and environment where participants are given an opportunity to satisfy need "though their own efforts ...  neither simple nor easy" to "induce behavior change."

Kurt Lewin saw three ways re-education (brainwashing) effected an individual: "It changes his cognitive structure, the way he sees the physical and social worlds, including all his facts, concepts, beliefs,. and expectations." "It modifies his valences and values, ... his attractions and aversions to groups and group standards, his feelings in regard to status differences, and his reactions to sources of approval or disapproval."  In other words, before brainwashing, a person thinks as an individual, respects authority and approval depends upon knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing what is right.  After brainwashing a person  thinks "group think," disrespects authority, and resents right, wrong thinking in favor of ambiguous, situational standards.  Thirdly brainwashing (re-education) "affects motoric action, involving the degree of the individual's control over his physical and social movements"  according to Lewin.  Thus the focus upon the Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor domains in education, business, and government today.  What a person thinks, how he thinks, and how he behaves around change.

Lewin saw that "Social action no less than physical action is steered by perception," what seems to be.  He believed that "incorrect stereotypes (prejudices) are functionally equivalent to wrong concepts (theories)."  In other words, that black and white, right and wrong, antithesis thinking people think incorrectly.  "A change in action-ideology, a real acceptance of a changed set of facts and values, a change in the perceived social world----all three are but different expressions of the same process," This is the effect of brainwashing where one's actions are in agreement with his desires and inclinations, where one values what he accepts as reality, where the social world is not over and against him but he is at one with it.

As Lewin put it "If the individual complies merely from fear of punishment rather than through the dictates of his free will and conscience, the new set of values he is expected to accept does not assume in him the position of super-ego, and his re-education therefore remains unrealized."  The success of brainwashing depends upon a person willing participation in the new set of values.  The flesh, the imagination and social approval must all be realized, rationalized, harmonized, and actualized for the process to be successful. 

Lewin asks "how can free acceptance of a new system of values (Marxism) be brought about?" "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group [when] a strong we-feeling is created, [by all experiencing] the same difficulties, and speaks the same language." When "the new system of values and beliefs dominates the individual's perception [and] is linked with the acceptance of a specific group, a particular role, a definite source of authority as a new points of reference," the individual is manipulated into a new world mindset. Individual "resistance" can be overcome by the "acceptance of new facts or values and acceptance of certain groups or roles."

"'Group decision,'" has been used for the most part with small groups and ... rests fundamentally upon the psychological concept of decision rather than upon a concept of gradual accommodation. The essence of the technique lies in the achieving of" group decision action.

According to Kurt Lewin culture is an "equilibrium in movement" and by simply changing the "constellation of forces" and taking "steps  to bring about the permanence of the new situation through self-regulation on the new level," all the individuals in the group will shift loyalty from the old system to the new system (from traditional, didactic thinking to transformational, dialectic thinking; capitalism/ nationalism to communism/globalism.)

Removal of counterforces (negative forces) is essential if "stationary quasi-equilibrium" (an established traditional culture) is to be destabilized to the point where change can be initiated and permanent change established.  Kurt Lewin saw "changing as a Three-step Procedure: Unfreezing, Moving, and [re] Freezing of a Level." "'Catharsis' seems to be necessary... to bring about deliberately an emotional stir-up" to "remove" prejudice and self-righteousness (religious beliefs and established cultural, local, and national principles.)

"The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: uncritical obedience to the father and elders, pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, inhibition of spontaneity and emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "The prototypic 'liberal' is . . . an individual who actively seeks progressive social change, who can be militantly critical (though not necessarily totally rejective) of the present status quo," "One of the primary functions of these [matter‑of‑fact] questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety." Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality

"Religion, especially the Protestant Christian tradition, has permeated our culture with the concept that man is basically sinful, and only by something approaching a miracle can his sinful nature be negated." "I have little sympathy with the rather prevalent concept that man is basically irrational, and that his impulses, if not controlled, will lead to destruction of others and self." "We know how to disintegrate a man's personality structure, dissolving his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and making him dependent on another. … brainwashing." Carl Rogers On becoming a person

"Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose."  P.O.W. Major David F. MacGhee responding to brainwashing attempts (replacing a didactic paradigm with a dialectical paradigm in praxis) by the North Korean , January 19th, 1953

Role Playing Techniques

"Religion and science can be kept apart... in 'role playing.'"
"Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right."

J. L. Moreno

"...we have described roleplaying as diagnostic method but it can also  be used as 'role therapy' to improve the relations between the members of a group."  "... the origins of my work go back to a primitive religion and my objectives were the setting up and promoting of a new cultural order." "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality."  "I could well imagine a world of a reversed order, opposite to ours, in which ethical suicide of people after 30 or 35 as a religious technique or countering overpopulation is just as natural as birth control has become in our culture.  In that society the love of life would be carried to its extreme. 'Make space for the unborn, make space for the newborn, for everyone born, Every time a new baby is born make space for  him by taking the life of an old man or an old woman." J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive? The Father of Role Playing.

As I tried the sociometric system first on the universe and on the concept of God, its first manifesto was a revolutionary religion, a change of the idea of the universe and the idea of God.  The god of Jesus was further extended, the son 'withered away' until nothing was left except the universal creativity of the Godhead and only one commandment: To each according to what he is (an all-inclusive acceptance of the individual 'as he is. ibid

The following analysis assumes that the task of the discussion group is to select, define and solve common problems. The roles are identified in relation to functions of facilitation and coordination of group problem-solving activities. Each member may of course enact more than one role in any given unit of participation and a wide range of roles in successive participations. Any or all of these roles may be played at times by the group 'leader' as well as by various members."  Kenneth Benne  Human Relations in Curriculum Change


Initiator-contributor Suggests or proposes
Information seeker Asks for clarification of information and facts
Opinion seeker Asks for clarification values
Information giver Offers "authoritative" facts
Opinion Giver States belief or opinion
Elaborator Spells out suggestions
Coordinator Shows or clarifies relationships
Orienter Defines position
Evaluator-critic Subjects the group's accomplishments to some standard
Procedural technician Expedites group movement
RECORDER Writes down the "group memory"


Encourager Praises, agrees with and accepts
Harmonizer Mediates differences
Compromisers Offers compromise as an example
Gate-keeper and expediter Keeps communication open-facilitator
Standard setter or ego ideal Expresses standards for the group
Follower Spells out suggestions
OBSERVER Keeps records of group process-body language

The following roles (The "Individual" Roles) are of disapproval, they are attributes of the patriarchal paradigm.  From the child's eye view the authority figure would be seen as a aggressor when he chastens the child for performing their natural carnal inclinations, a blocker when the parent prevent the child from doing what is natural and a "right", recognition seeker when the parent insists the child be silent so the parent can be heard, a self-confessor when the parent seeks the child's understanding when the parent does not have time to "relate" with the child, etc.  See Diaprax Article "A Cookbook For Humans" for a detailed breakdown of all these roles.  The are the roles which the patriarch must abdicate if the dialectical paradigm is to gain control of the individual's soul and rule the world.  These are the roles those who find themselves in an inductive reasoning environment will be pressured to drop if they hope to be participants in the new world order.


Aggressor Disapproves of others' views
Blocker Negativistic and resistant, disagreeing and opposing
Recognition-seeker Calls attention to himself
Self-confessor Expresses personal, non-group "feelings," "ideology"
Playboy Makes display
Dominator Asserts authority
Help-seeker Calls forth "sympathy" from others, expects the "luke-warm" to come to their assistance.
Special interest-pleaser Speaks for others (small businessmen, grass roots, housewives, etc.)

You can see why students are learning less facts.  "Less is more" we are told.  Less teaching of facts (deductive reasoning) allows more time for socialist brainwashing (inductive reasoning). Private schools and home schooling material is not exempt from these programs.

In the following example of inductive reasoning used in a classroom setting, you can see the effect collective discourse has upon all participants.  Any categorical imperative, a moral command which is unquestionable and universal, (deductive reasoning) when brought into discourse (inductive reasoning) results in the abdication of the persons "religious foundation."  "Thus saith the Lord" plus discourse equals abdication of patriarchal paradigm.  This was the pattern of thought which was the Un-American activity of the 50's. Most Americans did not understand the effect of inductive reasoning had upon social issues back then. Just as few understand today.  That moment is long past. The ramifications were immense.

"… the moral point of view can only be realized under conditions of communication that ensure that everyone tests the acceptability of a norm, implemented in a general practice, also from the perspective of his own understanding of himself and of the world, in this way the categorical imperative receives a discourse-theoretical interpretation in which its place is taken by the discourse principle (D), according to which only those norms can claim validity that could meet with the agreement of all those concerned in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse. … the collapse of its religious foundation ... "  Jürgen Habermas 1998 Communicative Ethics The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory.

How to brainwash:

"Change in organization [change in a persons paradigm] can be derived from the overlapping between play behavior [human relations and social approval—Eros] and barrier behavior [principles of right and wrong—patriarchal paradigm]. To be governed by two strong goals [to hold to ones principles, to obey God/parent/etc. and social approval: keep relations with those you have something to gain from who hold a different view] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism [truth vs. feelings; principles vs. acceptance: cognitive dissonance, Heb 7]. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [confusion, patricide]. Also, a certain disorganization [cognitive dissonance] should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads [confusion, destabilization].  It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective [either the parent (barrier) or the child (play) ends up ruling—patriarch & order or patricide & incest; pleasure has to counteract obedience, which requires self justification, a rational praxis, or obedience has to counteract pleasure, which requires denying pleasure, denying self, a "non-rational" praxis—faith. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6]." Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression Kurt Lewin, McGraw Hill

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult."  (Kurt   Lewin; A Dynamic Theory of Personality, 1935)  In other words the parent punishes the child ("induced field of force of an adult") for seeking something in nature, something which would "naturally" satisfy the child's nature (an "object which in itself attracts the child") which the parent has forbidden ("forbidden object"), thus causing standards of restraint against human nature ("negative valence").  When the children submits to the parent (when the adolescent submits to the patriarch, when the  proletariat submit to the bourgeoisie) and their commands, the children's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept their parent's paradigm (the adolescent's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept the patriarch's paradigm, the proletariat's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept the bourgeoisie's paradigm) with its rules over human nature through its control of natural resources.  When the children eventually become adults, they praxis their parent's paradigm, and expect and demand the parent's praxis in the community, causing division, alienation, and therefore hostilities in the community, especially towards those with  liberalizing carnal natures—socialists, globalists, environmentalists, i.e. all those who facilitate to a consensus, all those who praxis a dialectical paradigm.

The solution according to Lewin was "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears."  If an environment could be constructed ("If you build it they will come.") in which decisions could be made with freedom of mind and behavior, with no fear of reprisal ("this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child") the paradigm of the parent, of the bourgeoisie, of the patriarch, of God would be negated along with his rules of "proper" conduct ("the negative valence also disappears.")—no longer recognized as viable—thereby annihilating the traditional home with its patriarchal environment and thus "Fear of God is dead."   The humanist "right of the child"—Eros and "incest"—thus negates (commits "patricide") the God given right of the parent—"trust and obey."  The facilitator finds the child's "will" and the parent's "will," and then gets both to focus on the "will" they have in common.  By doing so the parent will "willingly" negate any "will" above him and the child; your "representative" will "willingly" negate any "constituent's will" for the "will" of the subcommittee which arrives at consensus, etc. This units all on the "child within," whom we all love—in our carnal nature. We therefore, "willingly," rally around our common Eros—consensus. "Can't you feel the warmth."  Children naturally want to be hugged, not chastened. Get rid of the chastening and we can all get a big hug, as well as give one. This process even works in the "Church." 

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2007-2017