The Soviet System and Brainwashing by Dean Gotcher

A DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE,
DIALOGUING TO CONSENSUS,
OVER SOCIAL ISSUES,
IN A FACILITATED MEETING,
TO A PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME:
IS A SOVIET

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"' And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ‘Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.'" And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. And when the tempter came to him, he said, "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." But he answered and said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." Jesus said unto him, It is written again, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord they God, and him only shalt thou serve." Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

For the dialectic to work in a praxis environment it is necessary to have "a diverse group of people, dialoguing to consensus, over a social issue, in a facilitated meeting."

The dialectic is simply the coming together of two opposing or obverse ideals. It is done in a way which forces both ideals to compromise their original position for the sake of unity. The first stage, "Thesis," might be your position, the second stage, "Antithesis," might be someone else's position, different than yours, and the third stage "synthesis," would then be the new position held by both you and the other person for the sake of solving a problem.

I refer to this way of thinking as transformation because every position must be transformed into a new position when its obverse position comes along. "Let's agree to disagree," and "diversity in unity" are dialectic phrases.

Traditional thinking justifies its position with facts and is founded upon the verb "is" and the phrases "I know," "It is the law," and "It is written." Reality is located in the external i.e. God "I Am who I Am," parent, the laws of the land, the laws of nature, etc. Reality is always external and therefore one's accountability is always to a higher authority.

The dialectic, to "liberate" mankind from tradition, must take everyone through the antithesis stage called transition. In this stage, where thesis and antithesis meet, a bonding based on feelings, not facts (as in tradition) takes place. Empathy becomes the ruling or driving force. Thus transitional thinking justifies its position with feelings and is founded upon the phrases "I ought to be able to." Or "If it feels good, just do it." Reality is found in feelings and therefore one's accountability is always to one's feelings or someone else's feelings. This is the thinking and the justification of materialists, where all our senses directly correlate to something in the earthly environment and have no bearing with any environment outside of the temporal, i.e. heavenly. When such an environment (heavenly) is accepted it is always to be defined in such a way as to make harmony with the earthly environment possible. This is how dialectical thinking has come into the church. Compassion is good but it did not stop God from flooding the world, breaking up the tower of Babel, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, ordering the children of Israel to kill all the Canaanites, etc. When empathy supersedes God's will, it is self seeking, and is the work of iniquity.

"Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." Luke 13: 23, 28

The dialectic, to "Liberate" mankind from transition, from potential anarchy, must take everyone into the synthesis stage called transformation. In this stage, thesis and antithesis are united through justification or reasoning skills, called "Higher order thinking skills" (HOTS). Justification for unity of opposites becomes the ruling or driving force. Thus transformational thinking justifies its position with reasoning and is founded upon the words "potential" or "practical." Reality is found in reasoning and therefore one's accountability is always to one's reasoning or justification skills for the sake of harmony between opposites. Hegel stated that "Whatever is real is rational, and whatever is rational is real." Descartes stated "I think (rationalize) therefore I am."

The transition stage when used in the dialectic is a somewhat painful experience to go through. When opposites compromise their original positions for the sake of unity, and actively seek ways to justify it, they must be willing to justify the compromise they are making to their conscience. While compromise in the traditional way of thinking does not require the searing of one's conscience, since one is always given the right to hold to his principles i.e. majority rule, or the power of office, compromise in the transformational way of thinking requires the searing of one's conscience, since both parties must be willing to set aside their principles for the sake of the two or the group.

Praxis is a Greek word found in the New Testament, i.e. "Praxis Apostolos" or the "acts" or practice of the Apostles. It means to act out or practice to completion.

Therefore, according to the current formation of education, the work place, and politics in America and around the world, we are all to act out (role play) the dialectic until our conscience no longer bothers us when we compromise for the sake of any group of people who are themselves acting out or praxising the dialectic.

It is essential that a diverse group of people (two or more) be involved in the process. If everyone in the group has the same position or thesis (there is no antithesis), the conditions do not exist for the dialectic process to function. It is therefore necessary that someone be present in the group who has an obverse position or a different point of view.

To accomplish this the facilitator or facilitator assistants must make sure those present are not of the same mind. Through the use of sociometrics a group with faith in a higher authority can be divided and a group with faith in diversity can be developed.

People tend to gravitate toward the familiar. Traditional people tend to gravitate toward custom or higher authority ("That's the way we have always done it."). Transitional people tend to gravitate toward those who make them feel good or "ok" ("I'm OK, Your OK"). We tend to feel uncomfortable in strange territory, where there are no familiar points of reference.

With the intent to help people overcome this "flaw in mankind," social-psychologists have devised sociometric tools to help them identify those who have this tendency to unite with others of like faith. It makes it easier for them to remove individuals from the control of their familiar grouping and then distribute them out amongst unfamiliar groupings. Isolating people from their familiar structure of thought thus makes it easier for facilitators to get them to participate in the process of change.

Consensus means to come to agreement with feelings (not with facts). A diverse group of people always have facts which differ since it is the differing of facts which make them diverse. By getting everyone in the diverse group to soften up their loyalty to those facts which are offensive to each other, uniting for a common cause can be accomplished.

We all tend to be willing to put aside our differences when an act of God happens (a tornado, earthquake, etc.) There is a tendency to help others when they are in a life and death situation. Empathy or compassion is the word most often used.

By getting us to focus on solving a common problem the social-psychologist (facilitator) is able to get us to put aside, momentarily, our differences for the sake of group harmony. We then have to justify to our conscience and possibly to our group of common faith why we defied a fact or abandoned our position we originally held to before we went into the consensus building group meeting.

When one continues to participate in consensus they will find two things happening. First, it will become easier for them to justify their compromises. Then they will begin to avoid those who don't agree with their praxis of justification.

There is always a breakdown of communication between those who are facts-based (traditional praxis), and those who are justification-based (transformational praxis). How can those who believe in facts (absolutes) communicate with those who process facts away (relativity)? And how can those who are justifying facts away communicate with those who believe in facts?

If you are a traditional minded person you vote for a public official, say a school board member, because of the facts they believe in –what they say they believe is right and wrong. Then you hope they have a live and well conscience so they represent their position in the heat of political battle. What they represent in office, therefore, are the facts you voted them into office for in the first place―they are unpersuadable, not move from their position with feelings―they are non-influenceable despite feelings being in conflict with the facts.

But if they hold to the facts which prevent group consensus they will be martyred by the press and the public for preventing the solution to social problems. If they begin to practice compromise and participate to justification (higher order thinking skills) you have just lost your representation in that office―they are influenceable, easily move from their position with feelings―they are non-persuadable despite the facts revealing their feelings as false.

Therefore any taxation which comes out of consensus building is taxation without representation. Not only have we lost our vote, we have lost our sovereignty as well as or unalienable rights, which come from a higher uncompromised authority. The final product of consensus building is a seared conscience by all who participate, not only in politics but also in the classroom, in the work place, and even in the church.

By creating and then getting us to focus on social crisis, i.e. education crisis, work force crisis, political crisis, etc., social-psychologists are able to get us to participate in their dialectic world of consensus.

We have replaced God with mother earth, accountability to God with accountability to man, the worship of God with the worship of the creation, the Love of God with the love of pleasure. The dialectic process, which always defines things as becoming (even God), can see it no other way.

A facilitator is a social-psychologist, one trained in how the one (you) should function in the group (diverse group), and how the group should function to help you discover your "felt needs." Your felt needs are the area between what you say you believe and how you feel about or behave differently to what you believe, the belief-action dichotomy.

It is the objective of the diverse group to help each other to discover each others felt needs and then help each other collectively to resolve them. That is the Unity part of "Unity in diversity." This does not automatically happen and therefore requires the assistance of a facilitator.

The roles of the change facilitator or change agent (they serve different roles) is to keep the process of change continuing. This occupation requires training in communication skills and the understanding of how behavior can be changed. Satan is the master facilitator—"Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Kurt Lewin represented the master facilitator when he said "To understand something you must change it." Jesus is the master teacher—"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6.

For us to be delivered of this oppression which is overcoming our nation, first of all God says, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chr. 7:14. Secondly we need to remember that sovereignty and unalienable rights come from God and not man. Thirdly we need to be reeducated that we are a Constitutional Republic (rule by law) and not a democracy (rule by mob or mob leader).

Those who promote consensus building can never recognize the God of "I Am who I Am," can never recognize sovereignty or unalienable rights, and can never recognize a Constitutional Republic. To do so would mean judgment upon them, for they have committed acts of usurpation, fraud, and treason. The dialectic, like its master facilitator, always practices usurpation, fraud, and treason.

We have arrived here as a nation and a people because we have willingly allowed ourselves to be seduced, deceived and manipulated; because we have turned to man and not God for the solutions to our problems. Only by repenting of our sins, our dialectic ways of justification, and asking the Lord Jesus Christ to come into our lives can we be saved.

"By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

"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. … brainwashing." (Carl Rogers, as quoted in People Shapers, by Vance Packard, Bantam Books, 1977, reprint 1979)

"... 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)

"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Bennis wrote of Lewin's "Unfreezing, Changing, Refreezing" dialectic process and its use by the Communist Chinese for the purpose of brainwashing.

"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.