Institution for Authority Research


During the early twentieth century several Marxist realized that Communism would slip back into Nationalism AKA Fascism if proper procedures were not put into practice (praxis). It was not enough to just shoot the traditional, "authoritarian" King and his supporters, it was necessary to prevent their mindset (the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, i.e., "local control")1 from initiating and sustaining control over any meeting establishing policy for "the people." This required "re-educating"2 all citizens, including elected "representatives," i.e., 'liberating' their feelings, thoughts, and actions, and their relationship with one another, i.e., their desires of the 'moment,'3 i.e., their "self interests" from the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process. Elected representatives, after all, are as children representing their fathers—each elected representative being sent by his father (his constituents) to the store to purchase his father's goods. In a representative form of government, when the child spends his father's money on his own "self interest" of the 'moment,' he is no longer sent to the store. But in the consensus process, where laws reflect the children's "self interest" of the 'moment,' the fathers can find themselves in debt as the children use their fathers' credit cards on their own "self interest" of the 'moment,' having no guilty conscience for their actions, i.e., for their deeds (praxis).

While "Traditional Marxists" (hard line Marxists/Communists), as "authoritarians," advanced Marxism with outright force, "Transformational Marxists" used "group psychotherapy" (the consensus process) instead. Transformational Marxists realized that while Karl Marx advocated negating the "authoritarian personality," i.e., the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system in society by killing the authoritarian figure(s) outright, those who followed his teaching still left the individual citizen holding on to "authoritarian feelings, thoughts, and behavior" during and after the revolution, resisting/inhibiting 'change,' allowing an "authoritarian" figure to rise up again. They also realized that while Sigmund Freud (and those who followed him) negated the "authoritarian personality," i.e. the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system in the individual by killing the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system in the individual's feelings, thoughts, and behavior through "counseling," he (and they) left the individual still isolated and rejected in an "authoritarian society." "Transformational Marxists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., group psychotherapists (all three being the same) therefore by merging Freud with Marx and Marx with Freud through the dialogue of opinions to a consensus in a "group" setting, i.e., by uniting the "individual" and "the group" as "one" in feelings, thoughts, and action, and in their relationship with one another in "solving" personal-social problems, were able to negate the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system not only in the individual's feelings, thoughts, and actions but in his relationship with others and in his relationship with himself at the same time, 'creating' "public-private partnerships," "building relationship upon self interest," overcoming the effect the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, i.e., private convictions, property, and business had, not only the individual, but upon society as well. "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest)

"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) By "shifting" the discussion, which retains the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, to dialogue, which does not, the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth ("negativity," i.e., the restraints of the "past") is replaced with the opinions, i.e., the immediate "feelings" and "thoughts" of those in the room ("positivity," i.e., the desires of the present), resulting in those in the room being influenced by (seduced and deceived by the facilitator of 'change'), responding to the situation of the 'moment' (which is being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change,' guiding those in the room in 'choosing the "appropriate" information, which is being approved by him), guaranteeing his desired outcome—that policy be made through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., through "the group" 'justifying' their "feelings" of the 'moment' rather than according to the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., that which inhibits or blocks the process of 'change.' "Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child [adult] 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." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) "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) "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their individuality, i.e. holding on to their parent's and/or God's position] in the face of apparent group unanimity [in the consensus process]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

With everyone sharing their personal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., dialoguing their opinions, i.e., their "feelings" and "thoughts" in a "group setting," in order to arrive at a "group consensus"—affirmation, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness"—the tendency of the individual to follow after, support, and promote an "authoritarian personality," i.e., the father with his "top-down" authority system over (and therefore, according to dialectic 'logic,' against) "the people" is overcome, i.e., is negated. It should be noted that the "authoritarian personality," under our Constitutional Republic form of government, instead of being the King (and his supporters) ruling over "the people," is the father ruling over his family, property, and business, engendering "private convictions," i.e., a guilty conscience (for doing or thinking about doing wrong) in his children (the next generation of citizens), creating "civil government" in the outcome. True liberty depends upon the local citizen with his private convictions demanding "local control," i.e., limited, representative, majority vote government with its separation of branches in order (as in "old" world order) to sustain his "top-down" practice of private convictions, property, and business—"Mine. Not yours." family, property, and business, i.e., individual, inalienable rights, under God—with God being the highest "authoritarian personality," i.e., "My garden. Not yours," from whom we derive our inalienable (no man can put a lean upon) rights.

The soviet system, developed from the Mir's of old Rus (Russia), was not able to prevent Traditional Marxist's, "hard line," "authoritarian" Communists, such as Stalin, from taking control over "the people," following the same "top-down," "authoritarian" (National Socialist) pattern as was later used by Hitler over the German people. Several Transformational Marxists were working in Germany to overcome (resolve) the deficiencies they saw in the soviet system when Hitler became Chancellor. Not being able to flee to Russia (for life sake) they emigrated to the United States instead. Equating our form of government—which recognized, served, and protected the father's rights (the local property and business owner) as a King over his home, property, and business—as being the same system or pattern as that of Europe, with its King, Keizer, or Tsars, they say Americans responding to socialism as the German people responded, turning to an authority figure in government to protect them, making them "potential Fascists." Becoming professors in our Universities and advisors to our large corporations and government leaders, they injected Transformational Marxism, i.e., the consensus process, i.e., the soviet system, i.e., group psychotherapy into American's professional world, i.e., government, education, business, etc., including the "church." The use of the consensus process in government, in education, in the workplace, etc., has progressively negated individualism, under God, i.e., the rights of the father over his family, property, and business, i.e., local control (requiring a limited, representative, majority vote, constitutional republic form of government).

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transforming 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)

At the heart of 'change' (the consensus process) is the negation of the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system. It is what the so called "new" world order is all about, i.e., the 'justification' of "self" over and therefore against the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system. "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 Transformational Marxist Erick Fromm wrote: "Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis' [people accepting a "top-down" system of authority which is not in harmony with "human nature," resulting in them having a guilty conscience for disobeying authority, i.e., for doing wrong—unable to overcome "private convictions" in "joint deliberations"] as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'" (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, in Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) The Transformational Marxist Theodor Adorno wrote: "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "The conception of the ideal family situation for the child [is] 1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, 2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, 3) inhibition of spontaneity, and 4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "Authoritarian submission [the child submitting himself to the father's authority] 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." "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 [regarding the socialization of America and the world]." Therefore, according to Adorno, all government institutions and agencies (departments) must use "social environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." (Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Marx wrote: "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [in theory and in practice]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) 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 [that the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system no longer ruled over the family]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

Our education system, from the fifties on, has been based upon the works of Transformational Marxists. All certified teachers and accredited schools must use Bloom's Taxonomies, which are based upon the "Weltanschauung," i.e. the world view of Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm, 'liberating' children from parental authority, i.e., opening "Pandora's box" (a box full of evil, which once opened, can not be closed), i.e., washing their brains of the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, producing "conflict and tension" in the home. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 2, Affective Domain) "Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship." "Any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy [equalization of all members of the family, negating the father's "top-down" authority system] regardless of its intent." "Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." "The consequence of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process one begun." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

If we accept this dialectic 'logic,' making the child's nature (our "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e., our desires and dissatisfactions) the basis of society, then Hegel's next statement, sounding more like Karl Marx (who was not yet born), becomes a 'reality.' "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12 "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12
   "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Timothy 3:1-4
   "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 the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system that inhibits and/or blocks synthesis (the "new" world order). If we make the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system the thesis in the home, i.e., preaching the father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given and teaching his facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), then the child's nature, i.e., his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' including his desire for approval or affirmation from the world and his dissatisfaction with the father's restraint becomes and remains the antithesis (the source of conflict and tension). When the child's desires of the 'moment' are restrained by the father's "can not," the child naturally responds with "Why?" in order to get the father into dialogue (there is no father's authority in dialogue). It is the father's "Because I said so" (carrying with it the threat of punishment for disobedience, cutting off dialogue) that results in the child dialoguing with himself instead, 'justifying' to himself his desires of the 'moment' along with his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., his resentment toward the father and his authority (keeping it to himself lest he be punished). But if we make the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' the thesis, i.e., if he start with the dialoguing of opinions first, then synthesis (the child's nature, i.e., all that is of the world only, i.e., the child's desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, in harmony with all the other children in the room, i.e., at-one-with the world) becomes a 'reality,' negating antithesis, i.e., negating not only the father's "top-down" authority system but also the guilty conscience for disobeying or doing wrong in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others. When the facilitator of 'change' ("big brother") comes between the father and his children (Genesis 3:1-6), i.e., 'liberating' the children's "feelings" and "thoughts" from the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, i.e., turning the children against the father and his authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), negating the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong (Romans 7:14-25), he, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of children (as a pedophile), gains control over the children, using them and their inheritance for his own gain.

1. Fathers Authority.html: The father's/Father's "top-down" authority system is based upon Hebrews 12:5-11: 1) to preach commands and rules to be obeyed and to teach facts and truth to be accepted as given (by faith), 2) to bless or reward those children who obey or do things right, 3) to chasten or correct those children who disobey or do things wrong, 4) to discussing with them (at his discretion) where they went wrong or give them clarification, and 5) to cast out those children who question his commands and rules and challenge his facts and truth, disrespecting and defying his authority.
The father's/Father's "top-down" authority system creates a guilty conscience (the father's/Father's voice) in the child for disobeying or thinking about disobeying (Romans 7:14-25), 1) resulting in the child disciplining, controlling, humbling, denying himself (daily dying to himself) in order to do the father's/Father's will, 2) preaching his father's/Father's commands and rules and teaching his father's/Father's facts and truth to others (to be accepted by faith). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification,'" the child is therefore neurotic, wanting be at-one-with the world yet having to be at-one-with (have faith in and obey) the father/Father instead, thus repressing himself, alienating himself from others and others from himself (breaking off relationship with those who reject his father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth).
2. Brainwashing, i.e., washing the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system from the feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship the child has with others and the world, is based upon the pattern of Genesis 3:1-6.
3. that is of the world.html: The child's carnal nature is to 1) to approach pleasure and 2) to avoid pain, 3) to dialogue with his "self"—his desires (what he wants to do in the 'moment') and his dissatisfactions (his resentment-hatred toward restraint)—4) to draw the father into dialogue* with his "Why?" (in response to the father's commands and rules) in order to 'liberate' his "self" from the father's authority, with the father either a) responding to the child's "Why?" with "Because I said so," cutting off dialogue, maintaining his "top-down," "above-below" authority over the child, b) discussing why the child must obey or do things right, or c) entering into dialogue with the child, sharing his opinion, i.e., how he "feels" and what he "thinks," abdicating his "top-down" authority—with the child and the father becoming "equal"—elevating the child's "feelings" over and therefore turning him against the father's "top-down" authority system. (*Dialogue and discussion are not the same. The father negates his authority in dialogue. He retains it in discussion.) While the earthly father is not perfect, his office of authority is—God, who is perfect, giving it to him in order to prepare the next generation to understand and accept His authority (by faith).
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2016