Part 2

Section 5

"In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … 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 state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore." "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." "For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian submission, an overweening interest in the future development of the child—in other words, a child ["feelings" of the 'moment'] centered orientation." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) [Our framing father's gave us a government of "local control," i.e., limited, representative government, recognizing the father as the head of his home, ruling over that which was his, as a King, i.e., his family, property, and business, with as little government encroachment as was possible. Thanks to the 'liberal' courts, congress, and leaders, following after the ideology of Warren Bennis above (and the men below), that has all 'changed.' Prior to Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court wrote: "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic friction's and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." (Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, 1941) Roe v. Wade rejected COMMON LAW making law's subject to the whims of the times, i.e. adaptable to 'change,' The court decided in Roe v. Wade that "there has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973) Thus law moved away from the scientific fact or truth that life begins at conception to an opinion, which is based upon a person's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his love of pleasure (without accountability to God) instead, making all laws subject to the judge's, mayor's, town council's, president's, student's, etc., opinion of the 'moment, i.e., ever subject to 'change.' "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) "Jurisprudence of terror" is found in the consensus process being used by judges, legislators, leaders as well as heads of departments of government, educators, business, etc., to 'change' the world, 'liberating' it from Godly restraint. Since there is no Godly restraint or authority system in an opinion, by moving communication from the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as given, i.e., by faith and obeyed (as long as it does not go against the person's conscience of doing right and not wrong, i.e., "freedom of the conscience"), to the dialoguing of opinions, i.e., to how everyone is "feeling" in the 'moment' ("freedom from the conscience"), God's/parental authority "withers away," i.e., respect for authority (respect toward "elders") is negated in the students feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in the way they relate (communicate) with one another and respond to authority, i.e., "freedom of the consciences" (the voice of the father in the child, i.e., do right and not wrong) is replaced with (negated by) "freedom from the conscience" (the voice of "the village," i.e., augment pleasure, i.e., make us all "feel" good) instead.]

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2016