Curriculum is Paradigm:
changing the curriculum changes the paradigm.

Dean Gotcher

"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." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

Paradigms are political systems, i.e., forms of government. Curriculum directly affects, i.e., reinforces or resists paradigms, i.e., political systems, i.e., forms of government. For example: when you chasten, i.e., spank, correct, reprove, and/or rebuke a child—for doing wrong and/or for disobeying, in order to teach them to do right and obey—you are using a particular curriculum (method of instruction) in order to develop (within them) a particular paradigm—way of thinking and acting, i.e., political system, i.e., form of government. Curriculum, i.e., method of instruction directly correlates with paradigm, i.e., how children think and act toward authority—obeying, disregarding, or attacking it.

Curriculum is how children are "trained up" to think and act toward authority. Paradigm is how children think and act toward authority as the result of participating in a particular curriculum (method of instruction). Both curriculum (method of instruction) and paradigm (way of thinking and acting) are revealed by how parents "deal" with their children—either 1) preaching, teaching, and discussing commands, rules, facts, and truth, holding their children accountable to authority, 2) letting them do "their own thing," i.e., being 'laissez faire' or 3) dialoging their opinion with them, encouraging them to do the same, in order to arrive at a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness" instead—and how their children respond to authority—either 1) (having faith in and obeying those in authority) respecting, honoring, supporting, replicating, and propagating authority, or 2) ("doing their own thing") disregarding authority, or 3) ('justifying' themselves, i.e., 'justifying' their natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against authority) questioning, challenging, defying, attacking authority when it gets in their way instead.

Look around you. You can see it everywhere—children either 1) listening to and obeying their parents (indicative of the "old" world order), 2) disregarding their parent's commands, etc., or 3) questioning, challenging, defying, attacking their parents authority (indicative of the "new" world order), with parents either 1) correcting (chastening) their children when they do wrong (disobey), which is a "dangerous" thing to do these days, especially in public, 2) letting them "do their own thing," or 3) wrapping their lives around their children's "feelings," 'justifying' their children's (and their own) natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world (the situations around them) simulate instead. Since curriculum (how the child is trained up, i.e., how the child is instructed) affects the child's paradigm (how the child responds to authority), changing the parent's curriculum (method of instruction) changes (or has the potential of changing) the child's paradigm, i.e., the child's way of thinking and acting. It all depends upon whether the child desires 1) to be approved by the one in authority, i.e., by faith accepting the father's/Father's authority doing the father's/Father's will, desires 2) to be left alone so he can "do his own thing," or 3) desires to be affirmed by the many, i.e., by "the group," who, like him, want to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates—which the father/Father disapproves of.

"In pointing toward the importance of the parent-child relationship [the home environment] in the establishment of prejudice or tolerance we have moved one step in the direction of an explanation [of why children continue to resist or readily embrace 'change']." "We must use social-environmental forces to 'change' the parents behavior toward their children." "Few parents can be expected to persist for long in educating their children for a society that does not exist [that no longer reflects (supports) their traditional paradigm], or even in orienting themselves toward goals which they share only with a minority [isolating themselves from society]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching, once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

A cognitive (facts) based curriculum, where those in authority preach commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teach facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, allow discussion at their discretion, and insist upon those under their authority "doing right and not wrong" tends to engender a conservative paradigm, called a Patriarchal paradigm, i.e., a father's/Father's way of thinking and acting, requiring those under authority to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline their "self" in order to do right and not wrong, in order to obey and not sin—engendering a guilty conscience in them when they do wrong, disobey, sin. An affective ("feelings") based curriculum, where those in "authority," using group pressure, i.e., peer pressure "encourage" children to dialogue their opinions to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness" (based upon their common nature of loving pleasure and hating restraint, called affirmation, where "of self" and "for self" become one and the same), in a "positive," "permissiveness," "tolerance of ambiguity aka deviancy," "open-ended" ("We can talk about anything"), "non-directive" ("I am not going to tell you what to say and no one is going to judge you, i.e., put you down for what you say"—unless your are conservative aka Patriarch in paradigm, i.e., "negative") classroom environment tends to engender a 'liberal' paradigm, called a Heresiarchal paradigm—biblically identified as children of disobedience—where "self" 'justification' and "self" 'esteem' (united as one) becomes the way of life, engendering a "super-ego," where "feelings," i.e., love of pleasure (including, and especially love of affirmation) and hate of restraint (including, and especially hate of the restrainer) directs the persons thoughts and actions. "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." 1 John 2:16

"It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

A paradigm is the way a person 1) feels, thinks, and acts, 2) relates with his "self," others, and the world around him, as well as 3) responds toward authority. There are three general paradigms: Patriarch, Matriarch, and Heresiarch. The Patriarchal paradigm is based upon the child humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining his "self" in order to "do right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's will, with the father/Father 1) preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) blessing or rewarding those children who do things right or obey, 3) chastening or correcting those who do things wrong or disobey (in order for them to learn to do right or obey), 4) discussing (at his discretion) how best to do the job at hand, resolving any questions, and 5) casting out any child who rejects 1-5, i.e., who questions, challenges, disregards, defies, attacks, etc., his/His authority. The Matriarchal paradigm is based upon "feelings" for relationship, yet carries with it aspects of authority, i.e., a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (resulting in what is called "neurosis" where a person is caught between his natural desire to "enjoy," i.e., "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his desire to, at the same time, obey commands, rules, facts, and truth which get in the way of his carnal nature, i.e., his natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, which condemns him, i.e., his carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions—wanting to do both, but being unable to, he waffles in his "feelings," i.e., emotionally, and in his thoughts, and in his actions between the two, called "belief-action dichotomy"). And the Heresiarchal paradigm is the child 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his "feelings" or his relationship with his "self," others, and the world, establishing the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life upon his, i.e., man's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, including (especially) the pleasure which comes with affirmation, and his resentment or hatred toward restraint and the restrainer, finding his identity in his own "sense experience," i.e., his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," with affirmation, i.e., "the group" (society) supporting and guiding him in his (and its) quest to "enjoy" the carnal thoughts and actions of the 'moment' which the world stimulates—without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

"A change in the curriculum is a change in the people concernedin teachers, in students, in parents." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Curriculum, i.e., how students are educated in the classroom directly affects their paradigm. By changing the curriculum being used in the classroom, the student's paradigm is 'changed.' The teacher controls the structure, system, pattern, method, curriculum being used in the classroom, directly affecting the student's paradigm. In traditional education the teacher reflects the father's/Father's authority in the classroom, 1) preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) blessing or rewarding those student's who do things right or obey, 3) chastening or correcting those who do things wrong or disobey (in order for them to learn to do right or obey), 4) discussing (at the teacher's discretion) how best to do the job at hand, resolving any questions, and 5) casting out any student who rejects 1-5, i.e., who questions, challenges, disregards, defies, attacks, etc., the teacher's authority. In the 'laissez faire' (or transitional) classroom the teacher tends to let the student's do (or study) what they "feel" like doing (or feel like "studying") in the 'moment.' In transformational education the "teacher" "encourages" the students to dialogue their opinions, i.e., their "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' in the "light" of the current situation (with students affirming or disaffirming one another based upon their paradigm) to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness," emphasizing their being "positive," i.e., affirming each others, i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and not "negative," i.e., preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be obeyed as given, by faith, i.e., holding to and promoting the father's/Father's authority, "hurting" other students "feelings," making them "feel" bad or guilty for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. In this curriculum the student's paradigm is 'changed' from finding his identify in the one above, restraining him, i.e., insisting he does "right and not wrong," determining what is right and what is wrong based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth he has been taught in the "past" (by his parents, his teachers, his minister, the Word of God) to where he 'discovers' his identity in the many who are like him, 'justifying' (affirming) his (and their) natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates and his natural dissatisfaction with, resentment or hatred toward restraint and the restrainer. In this way "self," "interest," "pleasure," and "all this is in the world" becomes one and the same, making that which is only of "Nature" the basis of 'reality.' "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating anyone preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 Refusing to recognize the deceitfulness and wickedness of man's heart they seek to 'change' his social conditions instead, thinking that by 'changing' it he will become "good" again, leaving him in ('justifying') his sins. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 "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

In a traditional classroom of twenty students, each from a different a family, the teacher is only able to inculcate facts, i.e., preach those commands and rules and teach those facts and truths that are approved of by their parents (which includes the facts of true science, i.e., the laws of nature which are established by God—once and for all times and places—which, unlike man's "feelings" of the 'moment,' are not changeable), keeping the children divided between one another according to the commands, rules, facts, and truth that are peculiar to their particular family. "The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Only through the students dialoguing with one another, 'discovering' their common desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint can they become at-one-with one another and the world around them, 'liberating' themselves from their parent's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. "For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality" "with its 'obedience to laws'." (ibid.) The dialectic agenda, i.e., the use of dialogue , i.e., "feelings," i.e., the affective domain in the classroom is to 'liberate' children from their parent's authority, making reality subject to their own thoughts and actions of the 'moment' (which they all have in common—the basis of common-ism) instead of subject to their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth (which divide them from one another—the basis of individualism and nationalism).

"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) "Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education) "One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates, and to consider itself no longer subject to the demands of parents and teachers." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society;) Of note: James Coleman, a major source for the Supreme Court, was educated, i.e., earned his PhD. under the tutelage of Paul Lazarsfeld, a member of "the Frankfurt School," a group of Marxist's who merged Marxism and psychology, hiding Marxism in psychology, many of whom came to America in the 30's, entering our Universities. Our highest court used James Coleman's writings, and those who thought like him, to 'justify' the removal of prayer in the name of Lord Jesus Christ, Scriptures, and spanking from the classroom as well use "bussing" to break up local control, i.e., in order to remove parental control over their children's education. The objective was to use crisis and conflict to 'change' the student's paradigm, not solve crisis or crime according to the parent's standards of right-wrong behavior, which would reinforce the father's authority in the home. While race equalization in the classroom was used as the reason, the 'changing' of the student's paradigm, i.e., 'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority (for all races) was the main objective, i.e., the true agenda, i.e., the 'drive' and 'purpose' of the curriculum.

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

"Bloom's Taxonomies" ("a psychological classification system") are at the heart of the paradigm 'change' that has taken place in the classroom (affecting the home, the community, the workplace, government, and even the "church" as a result)—focusing upon the students carnal nature, i.e., their "feelings," i.e., their affective domain, i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' over and therefore against their parent's authority. (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Bloom wrote: "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.'" (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) "Pandora's Box" is a box full of evils, which once opened can not be closed. "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberate' the students "feelings" from the "pressure" (restraints) of parental authority so they can "enjoy" (or hope to enjoy) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire without having a sense of guilt] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [creating a "safe place" or "safe zone" where students can question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority without fear of reprisal] and getting them to discuss issues [expressing their resentment toward authority]." (ibid.) Once resentment toward restraint is 'justified' (affirmed) in the consensus, i.e., "relationship building," "group grade" classroom, along with the students natural desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, students are (in their mind) 'justified' in questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parents' authority when they get home. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (ibid.) This affect is lasting. As Warren Bennis, in his book The Temporary Society, explained it, "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun."

The role of the "educator," acting as a "group psychotherapists," i.e., as a facilitators of 'change' is to create an "environment" in the classroom where students can "feel" free to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority, thereby 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. Karl Marx wrote: "Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3) Benjamin Bloom wrote: "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 many 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." (Book 2: Affective Domain) Student's under pressure of the consensus process (affirmation) can not hold fast to their parent's authority, caving in to "group pressure" out of fear of rejection. The same applies to adults participating in the consensus process in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church." "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [hold to their parent's/leader's/God's commands, rules, facts, and truth] in the face of apparent group unanimity." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are based upon the ideology of Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud—'liberating' children from the father's/Father's authority so they can be "of and for self" and the world only, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. It is the same ideology as put into praxis by two "students" in a garden called Eden (Genesis 3:1-6) resulting in them negating the Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) in their thoughts and actions, negating their having a guilty conscience (Romans 7:14-25) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—as liberal's, blaming someone else for their problems.

Benjamin Bloom's "Weltanschauung" (world view) was that of two Transformational Marxists, Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm. (Book 2: Affective Domain) Transformational Marxism is the handiwork of György Lukács, merging Marxism and Freud, i.e., socialism and psychology, making society and the individual one and the same, i.e., of and for the world ("nature") only. In his book, The Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno write: "Authoritarian submission [the child humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining his "self," i.e., "repressing" his nature in order to do the father's/Father's will] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." Of note: Karl Marx believed God was 'created' ("conceived") as people submitted to His will, i.e., as children submitted to their parent's will over and therefore against their carnal desires of the 'moment.'. He wrote: "The life," i.e., authority "which he," i.e., the person "has given to the object," by submitting to commands and rules and accepting facts and truth as is (by faith) that go against his carnal nature, i.e., by humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining his "self" in order to the father's/Father's will "sets itself against him," i.e., his carnal nature "as an alien and hostile force," resulting in him alienating his "self" from his carnal nature and the world which stimulates it. (Karl Marx MEGA I/3) Marx's "Critical Theory" is based upon the assumption that "every form of objectification," i.e., faith in and obedience to parent or God, restraining "human nature" "results in alienation." "God," i.e., faith in and obedience to God "is thus the anthropological source of alienation [world/social disharmony]." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) Adorno continued: "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state," i.e., parental authority, local control, nationalism"have ... been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed [you can see why 'liberal's go here right away, labeling anyone who exposes and oppose them and their globalist agenda as a Fascist—which destroyed the father's/Father's authority, i.e., local control, preventing any discussion regarding differences of position whatsoever] that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem [how to eradicate the father's/Father's authority in society]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Erick 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." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest"] be restored to the individual [to the child]; that the purposes of society ["the group"] and of his own become identical [that of 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning so that everyone can be of and for "nature" only, doing wrong, disobeying, sinning with impunity]." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom) This is why Bloom could write in the first "Taxonomy," Book I: Cognitive Domain, "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places," paraphrasing Karl Marx, "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred."

"As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research)

Adorno and Fromm were members of "The Frankfurt School," a group of German Marxists who—as mentioned above—merged Marxism and psychology (thus bringing Marxism into the culture through psychology). In the 30's most members of "The Frankfurt School" immigrated to America, entering our Universities as professors (training up the next generation of professors), advancing the ideology of globalism in the classroom, advising our businessmen on how to "make customers" and our government leaders on how to "transcend borders." Abraham Maslow wrote (regarding the merging of Marxism with psychology): "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) Carl Rogers wrote: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Kurt Lewin and Wilhelm Reich were associated with "The Frankfurt School," editing their papers. Abraham Maslow, who admired Reich, wrote in his Journals: "Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "Nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations." "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." In his book, Maslow on Management, Maslow wrote: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards."

"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 [(read) hedonism] is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination. The foundation on which the man 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 wrote: "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 [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Karl Marx wrote: "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 [in the children's thoughts and actions]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4) Sigmund Freud wrote: "'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]." "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the motherculminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan." "The 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'—the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged." "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education) "Frauds individual psychology is in its very essence social psychology." "Freud's theory is in its very substance 'sociological.'" (Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) Marcuse, quoting Freud, wrote: "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism as quoted in Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain ["of and for self"] in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21, 22, 28, 32 "And for this cause [because men 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against doing the Father's will] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "[A]nd truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24 "...know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:24-27

While the Patriarchal paradigm can not save you, you can not be saved without it. In other words, while dad and mom are not perfect, they might be (or might have been) down right tyrants, their office is perfect, given to them by God in which to serve Him—training up their children to put their faith in Him and do His will. It is why the Lord Jesus Christ came, i.e., was sent by His Heavenly Father to save us—who by His shed blood on the cross, 'redeems' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience, i.e., for our wicked ways, i.e., our dialectic or "self" 'justifying' thoughts and disobedient praxis, and by His resurrection 'reconciles' us to His Heavenly Father in order for us to partake in His Holiness and inherit eternal life.

The parable of the soils sums it up. The hard soil is heresiarch, rejecting truth from the onset. The thorn infested soil is matriarch, though appearing to be patriarch at first. While the person originally is interested in the word, the cares of the world, i.e., "feelings" eventually occupy his mind, blocking out the Word of God. The rocky soil is matriarch, though appearing to patriarch at first. While the person originally is interest in the Word, his desire for relationship with others, i..e, "feelings" eventually get in the way—you will only go as deep into the Word of God as your "friends" will allow you. The good soil is patriarch, with the person, having given his life to the Lord, humbling, denying, dying to his "self" daily, picking up his cross (enduring the rejection of others), and following after the Lord, Jesus Christ, doing His Heavenly Father's will. Which paradigm are you? The question can now be asked (and answered with understanding). Hopefully you are amongst the redeemed and not a Marxist?

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018