Kurt Lewin:
"force field analysis," "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing," and "group dynamics,"
The Art Craft of Seduction, Deception, and Manipulation.
by
Dean Gotcher
Brainwashing, i.e., washing the brain of the father's/Father's authority system contains these three elements, 1) "force field analysis," i.e., finding out who, in a meeting, are "positive," i.e., in harmony with (affirming) the child's carnal nature ("human nature"), i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which the world (the situation) stimulates (which the facilitator of 'change' manipulates—by changing communication from the discussion of facts and truth to the dialoguing of opinions, i.e., "feelings"), and who are "negative," i.e., supportive of the father's/Father's authority, demanding that things be done right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, in order to accentuate the "positive" and negate the "negative," 2) "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing," i.e., creating an "open-ended" (we can talk about anything without being judged or put down), "non-directive" (no one is telling you what to say, you can share whatever is on your mind, i.e., how you "feel" and what you "think," without fear of reprisal) environment (meeting), where everyone can dialogue their opinions to a consensus, where everyone can "feel good" about (affirm) the outcome, and 3) "group dynamics," i.e., the desire for approval from "the group," i.e., affirmation, pressures the participants to abandon and turn against established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., i.e., the father's/Father's authority, which is "negate," "divisive," hateful, etc., i.e., that gets in the way of "building relationships," i.e., "group harmony," i.e., that hurts peoples "feelings." Thanks to the work done by Kurt Lewin, with his development of "force field analysis," "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing," and "group dynamics," which are used to 'change' how people think and act in group settings, men like Carl Rogers could write the following:
"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." "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 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)
1). "force field analysis"—finding out where along the continuum or spectrum of 'change' your child resides (or you, your spouse, senator, etc., resides, the same process works in the workplace, government, church, etc., as well) in the 'moment,' in order to predict whether your child will be willing to 'change' in a given situation in the future, i.e., whether he is to be trusted, i.e., is "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e., tolerant of deviancy ('compromise'), letting "feelings," i.e., 'change,' i.e., deviance have its way or whether he is not to be trusted, i.e., is "intolerant of ambiguity," i.e., intolerant of deviancy, i.e., is 'judgmental," i.e., "prejudiced" against 'change,' insisting upon doing right and not wrong according to standards which he has been taught in the past, insists upon applying them in the present and future, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., deviancy; in other words, "force field analysis" grades your child along a spectrum or continuum of whether he is more 'loyal' to the commands, rules, facts, and truth (which you taught him) that restrains him, i.e., which are "alien" to his nature, inhibiting or blocking him from satisfying his carnal desires of the 'moment,' with him accepting your authority to chasten him for disobeying or for doing wrong, along with him accepting your authority to cast out those who disregard, disrespect, question, challenge, defy and/or attack your authority as a parent (a system or way of feeling, thinking, acting and relating with self, others, and the world as well as responding to authority, i.e., having faith in, honoring, and obeying authority, known as a Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. the father's/Father's authority system of doing right and not wrong, i.e., an "either-or" system, rewarding those who obey and/or do things right, chastening those who do wrong and/or disobey, and casting out those who insist upon doing wrong, i.e., who disrespect and defy authority, in order to initiate and sustain the "old" world order of "top-down" authority—according to those possessed with the dialectic process of 'change,' a "negative force field," inhibiting or blocking 'change') or whether your child is more 'loyal' to those who's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with themselves, others, and the world are in line with his own carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., "self interests," desiring pleasure and resenting restraint as he does, i.e., resenting that system which inhibits or blocks him from having the pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, fearing the pain of not only missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' which both he and they, i.e., "the group" desire, but also missing out on the pleasure which comes from their approval of him, i.e., fearing being rejected by them if he holds them accountable to a "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting, i.e., "hurting their feelings"—tell a friend or someone you want as a friend, what they are doing, or are thinking about doing, is wrong, something they really want to do, and see how relationship is going—with the child from then on progressively moving in the direction of desiring approval from "the group," i.e., doing what "the group" (and he) wants to do rather than doing right and "not wrong" according to pre-learned commands, rules, facts, and truth of the "past," i.e., "justifying himself, i.e., 'justifying' his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' by receiving approval, i.e., affirmation from other children of like desires and dissatisfactions," finding "common-ism" with them, therefore "building relationship with them based upon 'self interests' which he finds he has in common with them" (a system or way of feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with self, others, and the world, as well as responding to authority, i.e., disregarding, questioning, challenging, disrespecting, disobeying, defying, dishonoring, and/or attacking authority, known as a Heresiarchal Paradigm, where the child's carnal system of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain becomes the focus of life, i.e., where the child's "freedom" of expression is "tolerated," know as a Matriarchal Paradigm, allowing the child to begin the process of 'change,' then with the "help," i.e., the "encouragement" of a facilitator of 'change,' transforming his way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating with himself, others, and the world, as well as how he responds to authority, i.e., i.e., disregarding, questioning, challenging, disrespecting, disobeying, defying, dishonoring, and/or attacking authority, learning to use dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification,'" in order to 'justify' his carnal desires of the 'moment,' along with the carnal desires of others, becoming "at-one-with" them, i.e., uniting himself with them, and them with him, according to the desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., "self interests" they have in common in the 'moment,' establishing his and their "new" way of thinking and acting, i.e., his and their "new" world order [replacing the father's "top-down" authority system with the facilitator of 'change's' system of "equality," "helping" the children 'liberate' themselves from their parent's authority] over and therefore against the Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e., when children, 'driven' by pleasure, are able to 'justify' their "lust" for pleasure, making the 'purpose' of life the augmentation of pleasure, they are able, through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification,'" to 'justify' the praxis or social action of negating the Patriarchal paradigm, i.e., removing "right-wrong," "either-or" thinking from their lives and the lives of others, i.e., "annihilating" that system which engenders pain, i.e., that system which inhibits or blocks them and others from having the pleasures they desire in the 'moment,' i.e., the idea or "logic" of the Heresiarch Paradigm being: if children, who are naturally 'driven' by pleasure, are able to 'justify' their desire for pleasure, then the augmentation of pleasure becomes the 'purpose' of life, requiring the negation of those who insist upon the child doing right and not wrong according to their standards, inhibiting or blocking pleasure, i.e., inhabiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., in brief, augmenting pleasure requires negating any authority system which inhibits or blocks it—this is a "positive force field" according to those who embrace the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e., when you dialogue your opinion, i.e., your feelings and thoughts, i.e., your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with others, or when you refuse to participate instead, preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, without question, i.e., without question authority, and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith [with "Why" being asked in response to facts and truth, for more information instead of being asked in response to commands and rules, to question authority], you reveal your preferred "force field" of the 'moment,' i.e., where you reside on the spectrum or continuum of 'change' in the 'moment,' your movement in one direction or the other, i.e., whether you are willing to 'compromise' your standards in the current situation [to be silent in the midst of 'compromise' is to 'compromise,' i.e., to be silent in the midst of 'change' is to consent to 'change'], for the sake of initiating and sustaining relationship with others, or you are unwilling to, i.e.,refuse to 'compromise' your standards, i.e., are willing to loose relationship with others because doing right and not wrong, i.e., obedience to authority is more important to you than their approval and "doing your own thing," determines your worth or value, i.e., your, or your child's, grade for the day—being graded along the spectrum of 'change,' according to your adaptability to 'change,' your willingness to 'compromise' your principles for the sake of "the group," engendering "social-ist" harmony and "world-ly" peace is what the "group grade," i.e., "National" testing, i.e., "force field analysis" is all about),
2). "unfreezing, moving, refreezing," i.e., through the use of dialogue —with you sharing your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment with others, and them doing the same with you in a "non-judgmental," non-"preachy- teachy" environment, i.e., in an anti-patriarchal or facilitated (manipulated) environment (dialogue is based upon feelings, discussion is based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth, by adding feelings (your opinion) to a discussion you turn discussion into dialogue, negating commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., negating doing right and not wrong as an outcome, resulting in the outcome being based upon feelings, i.e., your (and others) carnal desires (opinions) of the 'moment' instead—the father's authority system is found in, and thus can be supported in a discussion but is not found in, and therefore can not be supported in a dialogue, i.e., by your participation in dialogue, you abdicate the father's/Father's authority system, negating your right to hold anyone accountable for doing "wrong" in the end, just don't be the low man on the totem pole, with "rightsizing" removing you for the "good" of "the group," i.e., "the people,"
3). and "group dynamics"—created by your desire to relate with others who you like, are drawn to, or have something to gain in the relationship or because of it, engendering in you a willingness to compromise, i.e., to set aside or deny the father's/Father's standards because of your desire for their approval, i.e., "self preservation," with them "affirming" your (and their) desire for pleasure (for the things of the world) and dissatisfaction with restraint (with the father's/Father's authority system), i.e., affirming your and their "self interest" which you and they have in common,
4). engendering a "consensus"—common-ism, i.e., a "feeling" or "perception" of "oneness"—putting consensus, i.e., "the group's" common desire for pleasure and common dissatisfaction with restraint (which are "feelings"), into "group," social, or community action, with everyone working together as "a team" on a community project—praxis, in order to (as in "new" world order)
5). engendering globalism—a combination of capitalism and socialism where "self-interest" is not isolated from "the collective interests of 'the people'" or usurping it, as capitalism by itself does, but is instead united with "the collective interest of 'the people" (what is a perception), i.e., the "community of interest," i.e., that which is "of and for self and 'the people,'" called communitarianism, i.e., "public-private partnership," where private (that which is nobody's business) goes into partnership with public (that which is everybody's business), thus sacrificing private upon the alter of public interest without knowing it, doing so for the "common good" of "the people" (a perception). Are we really this stupid?—treating a facilitator of 'change' as a god and those who follow him as saints, entrusting our children, our spouse, our business, our land, and even our very own souls to them (as two "children" did in the garden in Eden). There is nothing new under the sun.
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2017, 2019