Hegel, Marx, and Freud:
Negating the Father's Authority, 'Liberating' the Children of Disobedience, Creating a World of 'Change,' i.e. a World of Abomination


Dean Gotcher

"Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination. The foundation on which the man [the child] of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the carnal nature of the child]; the foundation has to be recovered." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Georg Hegel: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

Karl Marx: "Once the earthly family [with the family submitting to the father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly [Holy]  family [with the Son and those following Him submitting to His Heavenly Father's authority], the former [the earthly family] must be destroyed [Vernunft, annihilated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

Sigmund Freud: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer exercises his authority over the family]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)

Immanuel Kant can be added to this list.

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4

Hegel, Marx, and Freud were all about the negation of the father's/Father's authority system, 'liberating' children from their parent's (the earthly father's authority) and man from God's (the Heavenly Father's authority). The Berlin wall did not come down because Communism was defeated. It came down because Communism, in the form of Transformational Marxism, i.e., psychotherapy, i.e., facilitated meetings, succeeded. As Stalin was taking Marxism into a ridged father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, i.e., Traditional (hard line) Marxism, Transformational Marxist were working to synthesis Marx with Freud (first in Germany and then, beginning in the 30's in the USA), using "group psychotherapy," i.e., the "group grade," i.e., i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., the "building of relationships upon common self interest"—common-ism—in the classroom, workplace, government, and even in the "church" to overcome (negate) the affect of the traditional (middle-class) family, with its "top-down," "do right, not wrong," "obey me-or else" father's authority system was having upon the children—which was engendering nationalism (potential Fascism).

The missing link: "As the Frankfurt School [a group of Marxist's who came to the United States in the 30's] wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx' [who killed the Fathers in society], they 'found the missing link in Freud' [who killed the Father in the child]." (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) While Marx killed the Fathers in society, the Father's authority kept reappearing in society, i.e. in the next generation (see Lenin's speech). Therefore Freud (psychology) was needed to kill (negate) the Father's authority in the children, so that when they grew up they would not bring the Father's authority into society with them, preventing 'change.'

"Freud noted that patricide and incest [the children killing the father so they could have sensual (sexual) relationship with the mother and with one another, i.e., praxis abomination without having a guilty conscience] are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)  There is no such thing as a "Christian psychologist." No one can have faith in God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ and be a psychotherapist. The  praxis of psychology, i.e. the use of dialogue to arrive at the 'truth,' negates it, making all who participate "of the world" only, even when done in the name of the Lord—doing as Satan did in the garden, deceiving all who come under their influence.

The spiritual ramifications: "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit [the woman declaring that God's tree was everyone's tree, as Karl Marx, following in doctrine, believed the King's horse was everyone's horse, as Rousseau believed the earth belonged to no one and its fruit to everyone, over and against "the earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof," with man (made in God's image) having dominion over it, according to His will, i.e. under God]; and his book [Norman O. Brown's book, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History] cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader." (Source: the March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz, an article written by Mike Connor) Connor wrote "But Brown believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin [taking that which is not yours to take, i.e. the father's/Father's family, property, business, etc., and using it for your own pleasure, negating Him and His authority over you and it]namely, that alienation [sovereignty and private property, i.e. "My family, property, business, not your family, property, business," i.e., "My Garden. Not yours"] would be overcome, and the return of the repressed ["equality," i.e. common-ism, i.e. globalism] completed, rendering problems of sin permanently moot." Sin, redefined as man alienating himself from himself, the world, and nature, being caused by him loving and obeying God, i.e. making the family, land, and business subject to His will, with man overcoming alienation through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., self 'justification' makes sin before God "moot." "Sin is the estrangement of man from man." (Leonard Wheat Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) "Every form of objectification [faith in and obedience to parent or God, above "human nature"] results in alienation." "God [faith in and obedience to God] is thus the anthropological source of alienation." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)].")

In his book, You Shall Be As Gods, Erick Fromm wrote: "In the process of history man gives birth to himself [delivers himself from God's authority]. He becomes what he potentially is [of his own flesh only], and he attains what the serpent [the master facilitator of 'change']the symbol of wisdom and rebellion—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself ." (Erick Fromm, You Shall Be As Gods) "Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God. Humanism elevates man to the rank of God. Tillich's message is that God is man, mankind, humanity. Tillichian salvation is a symbol, a symbol for becoming ultimately concerned about humanity [concerned about the relationship between the children, with the facilitator of 'change' guiding and directing the children in his ways negating the relationship between the Father and his children, with the Father guiding and directing his children in his ways]salvation in an "eternal" present [with no consideration of the eternal consequences of one's thoughts and actions]. The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God [this is a Gnostic construct from with dialectic 'reasoning' is derived]. This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual [man's sinful nature becomes the way of life]. One reason Tillich is unwilling to openly disavow religion [keep his position in public office or as "pastor" in the "church"] is that he must be accepted as a theologian in order to formulate and gain acceptance of an imaginative Grand Synthesis of theology and philosophy. Tillich is actually directing an apologetic humanistic message to a Christian audience. He is telling those Christians who can hear that they can accept humanism without relinquishing Christianity if they will accept man as the true meaning of God." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) Fromm wrote: "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "Man is free from all ties binding him to spiritual authorities, but this very freedom leaves him alone and anxious, overwhelms him with a feeling of his own individual insignificance and powerlessness." Fromm believed that man could "not take the last logical step, to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being who is alone in the world, but who [with the aid of the facilitator of 'change'] can feel at home in it if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx) "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Herbert Marcuse wrote: "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man [beginning with the Father's authority over his children] can ever be redeemed by freedom [the child doing what comes naturally to him], then the 'original sin' must be committed again [in a "group" setting, in consensus, making decisions of right and wrong through the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. how the children feel and what they think in the given 'moment,' i.e. without their Father's authority]: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge [think for ourselves according to our carnal feelings] in order to fall back into the state of innocence [as the child was before the Father's first command and threat of chastening for disobedience].'" (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

Karl Marx wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism [the act of questioning authority, i.e. dialoguing opinions, critical thinking] must set up a sinful world ["human nature"] in its own home." "Critical Criticism [the child's urges and impulses to question, challenge, and strike out against, i.e. negate parental authority when it gets in his way, i.e. negate anything or anyone who blocks his "natural inclination" to become at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment', to where he can from then on thinking and acting according to "human nature" only)] is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

In other words, "human nature," i.e. the child's carnal sinful nature, i.e. the child expressing (dialoguing) his opinion, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks" (engendered by the child's lascivious urges and impulses of the 'moment,' his here-and-now desires to be at-one-with the world around him, in pleasure, i.e. be approved by his peers, his "equals," of the same carnal desires, so that he can attain the same) challenging his Father's commands and authority, must become accepted in the home (in the classroom) environment if society is to be 'changed,' i.e. become freed of Godly restraint, condemnation, and the "guilty conscience" (freed of the issue of righteousness), become freed from anything which and anyone who inhibits 'change.' "What better way to help the patient [the student, the worker, the elected official, the spouse, etc.] recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact [role-play] ancient feelings [animosities] toward parents [his boss, his constituents, his spouse] in his current relationship to the therapist? The therapist [the facilitator of 'change'] is the living personification of all parental images [superseding all traditional "top-down" authority figures]. Group therapists [facilitators of 'change'] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions [preach and teach the truth to be accepted as given, i.e. by faith], they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources [to dialogue their opinions to 'discover' the "truth," i.e. to embrace the ideology that the answers to lifes problems come from within themselves and amongst themselves, i.e. to accept "human nature" "as is"]. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation [role-playing civil disobedience in the classroom]. He [the child, the worker, the representative, the spouse, etc.] 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 [no longer being subordinate to parents, having a fear of God and a "guilty consciences" for disobedience] he once occupied. … the patient changes the past by reconstituting it." " . . . a patient might, with further change, outgrow . . . his spouse . . . unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse [the "church" might, with further 'change,' outgrow the Lord Himself, unless concomitant changes occur in the Lord]." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

In this way (through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) the child's "human nature" is exposed and 'liberated' from his Father's authority, i.e. the child's repressed desires are revealed (as in the garden in Eden, the woman's desire to "touch" the 'forbidden' tree) and freed from his Father's way of thinking and acting, i.e. that we are accountable for our carnal thoughts and actions, (that we will die for "lusting" after our carnal "human nature" which naturally draws us to the world) that we are accountable to a higher authority than our natural urges and impulses (accountable as the child is to his Father, so we are to God) which obstructs socialist harmony and worldly peace, which obstructs the child's urges and impulses to kill, tear down, and destroy anything which (or anyone who) gets in his way of approaching and augmenting pleasure and avoiding and attenuating pain, i.e. being "human," all being done in the name of "freedom," i.e. in the name of Democracy. "Freedom" being the child freed from the Father's authority, freed from being made in his Father's image, freed from the fear of judgment and death for his natural desires, urges, and impulses, freed to fulfill his carnal nature, i.e. freed to be himself again, as we was before his Father's first command and threat of chastening for disobedience. Transparency is not that those who seduce, deceive, and manipulate their "victim," as Satan did in the garden, explain their evil intent and method, but is rather their helping the child 'discover,' i.e. make transparent, his repressed desires (in the woman's case seducing her to share her desire to "touch" the tree) and expose his fear which restrained him from attaining it (in the woman's case the fear of God, of "lest ye die"), then freeing him from the fear (in the woman's case deceiving her into believing that she would not die, i.e. "you won't die") so that he can do that which he desires, i.e. obeying that which is natural over and against that He who is supernatural (in the woman's case being manipulated into "eating of the 'forbidden' fruit," freeing herself, in her thoughts and actions, from God's authority), with other's in the "group," cheering him on in his praxis of 'change,' i.e. casting off his Father's authority, helping him 'realize' his carnal deed (praxis) more easily and the quickly.

"Leadership" today is holding the door open for thugs (children of rebellion and revolution, those who are 'justified' in themselves, i.e. who have no "guilty conscience" in killing, destroying, and tearing down anything and anyone who restrains their "human nature," who condemn abomination) to enter the house in mass to where the citizens can no longer defend themselves, i.e. to shut the door to sustain their "old" world order of right-wrong thinking and acting, to where, once and for all, the nations of the world can be 'liberated' from sovereignty, freed from the unalienable rights given to them by God. If you are not walking in the Lord you can not withstand this blitzkrieg of the enemy. "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [independence under God, liberty in the Lord] in the face of apparent group unanimity;" "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) "In the area of human relations, individual and group process becomes the curriculum [the paradigm]." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change] "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:3, 5, 6

Karl Marx knew the gospel message (its affect upon the soul of man, restraining him from his carnal human nature, setting him apart to serve the Lord) and set out to negate its (and the Lord's) presence in the thoughts and actions of men. First you have to clearly identify what it is you want to destroy. Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the believer, the man of faith in God] also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ [remember this is Karl Marx who wrote this]. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply [the believer, having faith in the Word of God, spreads the gospel message around the world, no matter what it cost him (and those who listen to and follow him) in putting aside the pleasures of this life to serve the Lord]." "It is not sensuality which is presented ..., but mysteries, adventures, obstacles, fears, dangers, and especially the attraction of what is forbidden [by preaching against man's sinful nature, his "natural inclination" to become at-one-with the things of this world in pleasure, his "sensuality" which comes naturally to all men, "human nature" (which according to Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Georg Hegel, and all who follow their "logic," is normal) is 'irrationally' being denied and rejected by the believer who refuses to see it as being the "norm"—the dialectic "logic" being: if sin ("lust," abomination which comes naturally to man, i.e. does not have to be preached and taught) is normal then belief (faith in the Lord which has to be preached and taught) is abnormal and must be treated as such. If the dialoguing opinions 'liberates' the flesh (sensuousness) from the preaching and teaching of Godly restraint (righteousness) then education, government, the workplace, the home, and even the "church" most move from the preaching and teaching of truth, of doctrine, i.e. of the Father's commands (of the law of faith), to be accepted as given, by faith, to the dialoguing of men's (and children's) opinions, how they "feel" and what they "think" in the given 'moment' of 'change']." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)  Marx's argument with the Hegelian "right" was that they set up "mysteries, adventures, obstacles, etc.," as the catalyst of 'change' when for Marx 'change' was already present in the child's, i.e., man's natural defiance toward authority which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks him from satisfying his carnal desires of the 'moment.'  It is in this defiance to authority, according to Karl Marx, that society, i.e., socialist society is initiated and sustained.

Karl Marx knew of the importance of 'change': "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways [we all have our position on how the world "ought" to be run, i.e. according to our needs, i.e. making others subject to our needs (our position, given to us by a higher authority than ourselves, is ridged, i.e. not easily 'changed,' while our opinion , which is based upon our feelings and thoughts, is easily adaptable to 'change' in the "light" of the environment, i.e. according to the situation)], the objective however, is change [initiate and sustain the 'change' process, i.e. the consensus process initiating and sustaining the dialoguing of opinions to come to the "truth" of the 'moment,' so that no one position can ever restrain man's (the facilitator of 'change's') carnal "human nature."]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Satan knows that by getting the "church" to dialogue its opinions of God's Word, he won't ever have to hear God's Word again, as Jesus preached and taught it to him, i.e. "It is written ....", condemning him for his disobedience.

"Freud [and] Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression. Under the conditions of repression [the Father's authority] the essence of being lies in the unconscious [where man's "lust" for the things of the world still resides in his "feelings" and "thoughts" but he can not express them through his body, i.e. actualize them, for fear of punishment]." "Psychoanalysis, mysticism, Freud, Hegel, and Marx – the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen." "Common to all of them is a mode of consciousness that can be called the dialectic imagination [where man is free of the Father's authority, where the "imagination of his heart can be evil continuously," i.e. why God flooded the world and will come again to judge and consume it with fire]." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic, and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered." "Infants are absorbed in their own bodies; they are in love with themselves." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." "Life is of the body and only life creates value; all values are bodily values." "The true life of the body is also the life of the id." "In the id, says Freud, there is nothing corresponding to the act of negation." "The key to the nature of dialectical thinking may lie in psychoanalysis, more specifically in Freud's psychoanalysis of negation." "Freud saw that in the id there is no negation, only affirmation and eternity." "In the id there is nothing corresponding to the idea of time. A healthy human being, in whom ego and id were unified, would not live in time." "Only the abolition of guilt can abolish time [the "past," the Father's authority engendering a "guilty conscience," preventing the "present," i.e. man's "lusts" of the 'moment,' and the "future," i.e. a world freed of the Father's authority, where man can "lust" with no "guilty conscience," from becoming "one"—the "guilty conscience," i.e. the voice of the Father in the person preventing him from becoming "at-one-with" the world in abomination, i.e. as Sodom, i.e. "Equality" is sodomy]." "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Herbart Marcuse, explaining Freud's interpretation of history, wrote of how the children of disobedience, i.e. of abomination, who were driven out by the Father for their "polymorphously perverse behavior," united in consensus to not only "kill" the Father but to "eat" him as well, negating the Patriarchal Paradigm, the Father's "top-down" system of authority once and for all, in the thoughts and actions of the next generation, yet failed to do so because of the "guilty conscience," not negating the "top-down" system in the mind: "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan, which in turn deifies the assassinated father and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality ["social morality" as Rousseau's "civil government" (see below) which inhibits the process of 'change,' i.e. man becoming at-one-with himself and nature, according to his carnal nature]." "The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so is his restoration.... The crime against the reality principle [against the Fatherthe system of righteousness] is redeemed [undone] by the crime against the pleasure principle [by the children establishing rules over and against the children―restraining the system of sensuousness to maintain civilization, removing Eros, "pleasure," from the workplace to get work done, to cloth, feed, etc. all the children]: redemption thus cancels itself [the system of sensuousness is thwarted because of the 'guilty' conscience, the remnants of the system of righteousness, to keep the "old" social, "top-down" order in place (to get work done)]." "... according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities ["equality"] belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros [man's carnal nature of sensuousness, seeking "oneness," i.e. consensus with mankind and nature in the workplace] itself." Thus, according to Freud "... the origin of repression leads back to the origin of instinctual repression ... early childhood." "... the 'external restrictions' [the will of "higher authority"] which first the parents and then other societal agencies have imposed upon the individual 'interjected' into the ego [subjecting the child's will to the Father's will] and become its 'conscience'; henceforth, the sense of guilt permeates the mental life." "The id [the child's carnal nature] carries the memory traces of the dominion [the parent's chastening, i.e. fear of judgment] ... forward into every present future: it projects the past [the Father's will and the threat of judgment] into the future." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

By rejecting the authority of the Father, i.e. by refusing to recognize that "the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof," with God, driving "the children of disobedience" out of his garden, away from the tree of life, stating in essence "This is my garden, not your garden," Hegel, Marx, and Freud support Rousseau, who wrote: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) Thus, according to those possessed of dialectic 'reasoning,' evil does not reside in the hearts of men but in the social structure he finds himself living within. Deliver him from the "top-down" structure of right-wrong thinking and acting, restore him to his fleshy nature, and his "potential" to become pure man, made only of the flesh and the world, can become a 'reality.'

Hegel wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lust" for pleasure including the approval of men], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down" right-wrong way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) As J. L. Moreno stated it in his book Who Shall Survive?: "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality."

The Word of the Lord warns us: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17

"Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away." "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble." Proverbs 4:14-15, 18-19

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2013-2017