Council on Foreign Relations.

Dean Gotcher

Skipping its history, which is available to read on the internet, the CFR is in praxis:

1.  A diverse group of people (which must include the deviant, i.e., the disenfranchised),
2.  dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (affirmation),
3.  over personal-social issues,
4.  in a facilitated meeting,
5.  to a pre-determined outcome—that all thoughts and actions are to be carried out with (start over with 1. above), ad nauseum.

All national, ideological, religious, and local control is transcended (negated) in dialogue (you have to suspend established commands, rules, facts, and truth, as upon a cross in order to initiate and sustain dialogue, i.e., in order to not "hurt" other peoples "feelings"; responsibility, risk, and recognition of private, as in convictions, property, business are set aside in dialogue; you must be "positive" and not "negative" in dialogue, setting aside commands, rules, facts, and truth which is "negative" in order to allow peoples carnal desires, which are "positive" to be shared), uniting everyone upon their common carnal desires ("self interests") of the 'moment,' which makes everyone subject to the world only. Bringing all institutions into the process (1-5) transforms them into a "public-private partnership" where that which was private ("Mine. Not yours.") is now taken captive to the "self interest" of "the public" ("We"), i.e., under the control, i.e., seduction, deception, and manipulation of the socialist engineer, i.e., psychologist, i.e., group psychotherapist, i.e., facilitator of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxist using the soviet, brainwashing, "safe zone/space/place," i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus pattern described above). This is the same pattern as the soviet, which failed in many regards due to its goal of achieving an ideological end, i.e., communism by establishing ridged commands and rules instead of simply doing the process and letting human-ism, common-ism, internationalism, globalism manifest itself "naturally" i.e., via. the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the facilitator of 'change.' This is the same pattern being used in education, i.e., in the "group grade" classroom ("Bloom's Taxonomies"), in the workplace (TQM), in government ("bipartisanship"), in the U.N., and in the "church" ("Church Growth"), negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong,, disobeying, sinning in the process—so all can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be a humanist, socialist, liberal, globalist, common-ist with impunity, i.e., be WOKE.

"A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter [in a discussion] people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative." "The purpose of dialogue is to reveal the incoherence in our thought ... genuine and creative collective consciousness." "What is essential here [in the consensus process] is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

"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." "'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., our "self" 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)

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2019