Facilitators of 'change': by Dean Gotcher

Facilitators of 'change':
'Change' agents of seduction, deception, and manipulation

Dean Gotcher

"For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 10:3, 4 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

"The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential [for 'change']." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Philosophy is simply man's effort to find, in his mind, another world than the one that "is." To make that effort (to think) means that a person is not satisfied in the way things are. Dialectic 'reasoning' is a person musing over (reflecting upon) the world that "is" and the world that 'ought' to be (the world that "is not"). Ironically it is the world that "is," with it's "not" ("Thou shalt not") that prevents the world that "is not" (but in thought "can be"), from becoming. The one world of "not" inhibits or blocks the pleasure that "can be," the other world of not ("Don't tell me what I can or can not do"), negates the world of "not" which inhibits or blocks pleasure. This is where the phrase the "negation of negation" comes into being, with man getting rid of the "not" of the world that "is" (the "old" world order) so that the world that "can be" can become (the "new" world order). Without the thought (the musing, the reflecting), the world that "can be" would not be possible. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the person's dissatisfaction with the world that "is," with its "not" ("This is the way it has always been done. You can't do it that way."), thought would not be possible. It is with man's quest for augment pleasure and his effort to attenuate pain (including the absence of pleasure), where thought or "human reasoning" is engendered. For example: without God telling Adam "Thou shalt not," (thereby initiating a "top-down" world order), the woman would not have been able to use thought, dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' to herself that they could (thereby initiating a "new" world of "equality"). Using dialectic 'reasoning' she 'justified' to herself that God's tree was every one's tree. As Karl Marx put it, also using dialectic' reasoning': "The kings horses are the peoples horses."

When the child is told by his Father that he can not have what he "wants" (desiring a gratifying object in the environment which engenders pleasure) his "natural inclination" is to obtain the object anyway. It is here that the two world orders meet (collide), the "top-down" world order of "Mine or someone else's, not yours." and the so called "new" world order of "equality," "Not just yours, but mine also" (where later on, in the group think sessions, i.e. socialist programming, it becomes "Not just yours, but ours also"). The "new" world order of the child is repressed by the "top-down," "old" world order of the parent, not only because of the command of the parent (with the parent's "can not") but also because of the chastening or the threat of chastening of the child by the parent for his disobedience or intent of disobedience, thereby initiating and sustaining the "old" "top-down" world order of authority ("Do what I say or else") in the thoughts and actions of the child.

It is our "natural inclination" to "approach pleasure and avoid pain" (read the article on Dopamine for an understanding of that system within us). "1. All human behavior is directed toward the satisfaction of needs, 2. the individual will change his established ways of behaving for one of two reasons: to gain increased need satisfaction or to avoid decreased need satisfaction, and 3. 'augmentation' in the possibilities of needs satisfaction." (Douglas McGregor as quoted in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change). If the pain we encounter is greater than the pleasure which we seek, we give up on the pleasure and submit to the condition that pain (or the fear of pain) establishes, i.e. we submit to the authority which inflicts (or has the potential of inflicting) pain. Yet we, in our subconscious mind, retain the desire for the pleasure, confining it to the private world of our imagination, submitting our desires to our thoughts and reflections, to our inward discussion of how it "ought to be," talking to ourselves alone. It is here, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' that thought (self-consciousness, i.e. opinion, i.e. how I "feel" and what I "think") becomes manifest. "... memory of gratification is at the origin of all thinking, and the impulse to recapture past gratification is the hidden driven power behind the process of thought." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) It is why Hegel could write: "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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

When we desire something which the traditional "top-down" thinking and acting parent says we can "not" have, it does not take long for us to know who is in authority, the one who has the greater force. For example: when our father says "no" (can "not") to our desire, it is our "natural inclination" to ask him "Why?" The Father's command engenders a "top-down" system (or patriarchal paradigm) of authority (of preaching and teaching facts as given, to be obeyed without question), the child's "Why?" engenders an "equality" system (or heresiarchal paradigm) of 'change' (getting the Father into the dialoging of opinions, making all things adaptable to 'change'). When the Father refuses to participate, refuses to 'shift' or 'change' his paradigm (he retains his "top-down" patriarchal paradigm of authority) he responds with "Because I said so." It is that structure of sentence (and the tone of his voice) that we know force (pain) will be applied to our person if we persist in our current course of action, to acquire the object of gratification, as well as voicing our current course of thought (our opinion), for the 'purpose' of attaining the object of gratification, the stimulator of pleasure (emancipating dopamine). Our only recourse, to sustain our "human nature," is to dialogue within ourselves, creating a world of "ought" (his preaching and teaching and threat of chastening preventing it's fruition in the world that "is"). Any attempt to continue dialogue with the Father, with a "Well I ought to be able to do whatever it is that I 'want' to do" has dire consequences. Our desire (our "ought to be") always seems to be "good" in our own eyes, only being "bad" in the father's eyes for some reason.

For worldly peace and socialist harmony, i.e. for "equality" to become a reality, the "top-down" structure, initiated and sustained by the Father's authority must be negated. Hegel wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis ["top-down" order] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one . So too all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality. Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Karl Marx simply took Hegel's idea of "equality" and put it into socialist action (praxis). Sigmund Freud put it into action on a couch, one on one. Transformational Marxist, merging Marx and Freud, do it in a group session, in a facilitated meeting of 'change.'

Wilbur Brookover wrote: "Lewin suggested that the research needed for 'social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering.' Lewin (in Resolving Solving Conflict) offered the following principles for social-action programs: 1) The change has to be a change of group atmosphere rather than a single item. . . . It must be deeper than the verbal level or the level of social or legal formalities [it has to be personal]. 2) It can be shown that the system of values which governs the ideology of a group is dynamically linked with other power aspects within the life of the group. . . . Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group [it changes who people will follow, who they will vote for]. 3) From this point it will be easily understood why a change in methods of leadership is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of the group. 4) It is . . . very important that the people who are to be changed . . . be dissatisfied with the previous situation and feel the need for a change." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

Karl Marx wrote: "No class of civil society can play this role [as 'emancipators of society,' as participations in 'change'] unless it arouses in itself and in the masses a moment of enthusiasm, a moment in which it associates, fuses, and identifies itself with society in general, and is felt and recognized to be society's general representative, a moment in which its demands and rights are truly those of society itself, of which it is the social head and heart." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)

A "change agent [a facilitator of 'change']... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations [resisters of 'change']." (Ronald Havelock, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education) "During the period of innovation [period of 'change'], an environment is invisible [people are not fully aware of what is happening to them]. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it [ people are so involved with 'actualizing' their "ought" they don't see their paradigm being 'change']. It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment." To "get things stated" the people's "ought" (their "dissatisfaction") is needed expression in order to "upset" the condition that "is," the condition that contains the "can not." "By making their dissatisfaction known and by upsetting the 'status quo' they get things started." (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969 Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program)

It is our "ought," for which those of dialectic 'reasoning' (facilitators of 'change') seek to 'discover,' to 'liberate' us, emancipate our "human nature," our "child within," from the authority of the father, from his "top-down" system of authority which inhibits or blocks 'change,' so that we, along with all children of the world, can create a world that "can be." As Abraham Maslow stated it: "We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." "If we wish to permit the facts to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic [listening to where the person lives in the 'moment,' seeking harmony with the 'changing' time, is getting in touch with the yin-yang of time, where subject and object touch, i.e. where man and nature are 'momentarily' one, where the focus is not upon the subject nor the object but upon the 'moment,' experiencing the sensation of the existential 'moment' where the two (man and nature, i.e. the particular and the universal) are become "one," to 'liberate' the person from internal and external restraints, so that the "ought" and the "is" can 'momentarily' unite]." "Here the fusion comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the is [forcing the world to think and act a particular way], but from a scaling down of the ought, from a redefining of expectations [to prevent the individual 'ought' from controlling the collective 'ought' in outcome] so that they come closer and closer to actuality and therefore to attainability [that the "is" and the "ought" are in harmony with nature, with the 'moment,' and not controlled by and used for the desires of one man or a group of men, outside the collective experience―which is a lie since facilitators meet as a group of men discussing how to control (seduce, deceive, and manipulate) the group meeting (and get paid to do so, in money and worship, i.e. in "the approval of men")]." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) "Existential living is to say that the self and personality emerge from experience. It means that one becomes a participant in and an observer of the ongoing process of organismic experience." "The individual in such a moment, is coming to be what he is. He has experienced himself. He has become what he is." "Prior to therapy [prior to the facilitated meeting] the person is prone to ask himself ‘What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself ‘What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, On becoming a person) The idea being, if I can get your "ought" out, I know where your "thought" is, so that it can be 'liberate,' so that you can be used you to negate the "not" (the old "top-down" order of the world, under God). "Not" (parental and Godly authority) engenders "ought" (dissatisfaction), which (with the aid of facilitation) engenders "thought," which (with consensus, group approval, "the approval of man") engenders collective action (social action: praxis) to negate the "not" in theory and in practice (in the individual's mind and in his social action).

Instead of the child turning and fighting against the Father for his own identity (the Father having the upper hand on the use of force), he instead submits to his Father's will, initiating and sustaining the "top-down" order of authority, detaching himself from his true nature. Abdicating his universality, he takes on the image of the Father, submitting to the authority of God. As Karl Marx put it: "The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) It is the role of the facilitator to assist the individual in the act of 'liberation' from the influence of the parent (God and His righteousness) in his life experience, facilitating him in making decisions for himself according to his own nature (that which he has in common with all mankind) and to no longer make decisions for himself and for others from a higher authority than "human nature," such as parent of God, no longer determining for himself and for others what is right and what is wrong, what it good and what is evil, in thought and action according to their will. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' that which begins with the father ends up with the nation (correlated to Fascism). "'Every renunciation ... becomes a ... conscience; every fresh abandonment of gratification increases its severity and intolerance ... every impulse of aggression which we omit to gratify is taken over by the super-ego [the community] and goes to heighten its aggressiveness (against the ego [against the I will]).' 'That which began in relation to the father ends in relation to the community [nationalism, Fascism].'" (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, as quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)

The "role" of the facilitator, if he is to engender 'change' (to 'liberate' man from God's or the parent's authority), is to first create an environment in which everyone will feel "free" (safe) in sharing their "ought to be," i.e. seducing everyone into participating in the process of 'change' (with the hope of achieving their "ought to be" which the parent engendered but repressed with their "Because I said so"), then convince them, i.e. deceive them into believing that there will be no repercussions from their participation in the process of 'change' (which is a lie because once the process of "group think" is in, to question the group is to be rejected, i.e. to become an outcast), and finally, once everyone has sold their soul to the process of 'change,' the facilitator's role is to use them, i.e. manipulate them into furthering the process of 'change' on others (upon the world, i.e. making the world "safe for democracy," all the while getting everyone to supporting (sustain) the facilitator of 'change' in his work of seduction, deception, and manipulation, perpetuating the process of 'change.'

Therefore the roll of the facilitator is to negate the affect of the Father in inculcate a "top-down" order in the next generation, which, according to dialectic 'reasoning', engenders nationalism, engendering wars between nations. This error in dialectic 'reasoning,' that wars are caused by the "top-down" order of states and nations, is because the process must accept that man is potentially "good," his "goodness" based upon his cooperating with humanity, thus rejecting the fact that war (hate, envy, and greed between people) is actually the result of man's deceitful and wicked heart. "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3 Fallen man, 'justifying' his carnal nature, lusting after pleasure, perceives himself as being 'right' in his own eyes when he does "good" for other men. "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3

The roll of the facilitator is to negate man's accountability to God, negating the issue of man's relationship with God, i.e. God's righteousness and man's unrighteousness, i.e. sin, as being the issue of life, replacing it with "human nature," i.e. man's relationship with himself and the world. The roll of the facilitator is to convince man that "Sin is the estrangement of man from man." Therefore "Concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) The facilitators roll is to convince you (and your children) that your position is not yours (that your children's position is not theirs) but your father's commands (but their father's commands), that it is only in your own opinion (how you "feel" and what you "think"―that it is only in their opinion, how they "feel" and what they "think") in the 'moment' that you (they) have a position, a 'changeable' position, adaptable to the 'changing' times.

The roll of the facilitator is to 'redeem' man from God ('redeem' the children from their father), to rescue him (them) from the rigidity of belief, to 'reconciling' him (them) back to himself (themselves) and "human nature," restoring him (them) to the world of 'changingness,' engendering worldly peace and socialist harmony. Jesus came to do the opposite. Jesus, by His obedience to His Heavenly Father, even unto death (in obedience to His Father shedding His blood on the cross for our sins), came to 'redeem' us from judgment and hell, i.e. 'redeem' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us, i.e. "the children of disobedience," and ascending from the grave to heaven, to 'reconciles' us to His Heavenly Father that we might know Him as He knows Him, as a loving Father, a Father of mercy and grace, throughout eternity. This is all lost (only given lip service to deceive those ignorant of Satan's devices) when the facilitator of 'change' takes over control of the room (facilitating the meeting of 'change').

"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 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30 "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12: 49, 50 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, ..." Colossians 1:21-24 "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins:" 1 John 2:1, 2

When ministers facilitate 'change' in the church they are not ministers of the word of God, they are ministers of Babylon, taking the children of God back into captivity. We are instead to take every thought captive "to the obedience of Christ": "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 "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

In the end it is all about the Father. It is why Jesus came, that we might know Him. The gospel message is Jesus saying: "I want you to know my Father." The roll of the "facilitator of 'change'" is that we will "not." And you thought his 'purpose' was to help us to all "get along," to help us "grow" in our "relationship" with one another, to make our world a better place to live in, to "grow" our business, our community, and our "church." The scriptures warn us, telling us not to become deceived (our "ought's" are not our friend but our enemy, it is the reason why we must deny ourselves and reject "the approval of men" and follow Jesus instead): "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man [our "ought's" are always right in our own 'eyes'], but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

to add to issue as time permits.

"Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult. If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers)

"One of the primary functions of these [matter-of-fact] questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety." (Theodor Adorno, The Authorities Personality) emphasis and bracketed information added.

"Much stress is laid on the creation of an atmosphere of freedom and spontaneity—voluntary attendance, informality of meetings, freedom of expression in voicing grievances, emotional security, and avoidance of pressure." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Lewin wrote that "change in organization can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior. To be governed by two strong goals is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads. It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children," Child Behavior and Development)

"For one class to stand for the whole of society, another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits. A particular social sphere must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)

"Freud referred to as the group's ‘need to be governed by unrestricted force . . . it's extreme passion for authority . . . it's thirst for obedience.'" "Among the strongest of these is man's need for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnicaring parent, which together with his infinite capacity for self-deception creates a yearning for and a belief in a superbeing." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)