Marxism: alive and well in America,
Sailing incognito under the cover of psychology,
i.e., "group psychotherapy," i.e., the facilitated meeting.
See also "Marxism in America."
Norman Levine, in his book Dialoguing within the Dialectic, wrote about the many forms of Marxism—from "Traditional Marxism" to "Transformational Marxism." What they all have in common (common-ism) is the children's natural desire ('drive'), i.e., love ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., for the pleasures of the world (thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) as well as their natural hate of restraint (which includes hatred toward the restrainer, i.e., the father/Father and his/His authority), resulting in the 'purpose' of life being the augmentation of pleasure, i.e., the 'liberation' of children, i.e., the child's carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority by attenuating, i.e., negating ("Vernunft," i.e., crushing) the father's/Father's authority in the children's feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world. While "Traditional Marxists" kill the fathers (and those who support them) in society outright, they, when they get in power, place themselves in the father's position of authority (using force to maintain their position of authority, in the name of "the people"), becoming a father figure to "the people" in the process (equated to Fascism or National Socialism, i.e., "Nationalism" by "Transformational Marxists"), leaving the father's/Father's authority still in tact in the children, i.e., in their conscience—as a result of children accepting the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth as is, by faith and obeying them—Transformational Marxists, i.e., facilitators of 'change, i.e., "group psychotherapists," by taking the father's/Father's place in the classroom, teaching children right from wrong behavior, i.e., right from wrong thinking and acting (but in their case encouraging the children to dialogue their opinions to a consensus, i.e., to be "positive," affirming their "self," i.e., each other, as they are in their carnal nature, i.e., teaching them "right" thinking and behaving instead of teaching them "wrong" thinking and acting, i.e., preaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to them to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed, i.e., being "negative," forcing them to restrain their own and every one else's carnal nature) in this way "helping" the children kill, i.e., negate (wash from their brain) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the guilty conscience in their "self" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning instead, so they, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' (along with the children) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (Revealing the hallmark of socialist language, i.e., "self" 'justification, i.e., "It's not my fault, it's my parent's fault, my teacher's fault, my lack of education fault, lack of money fault, being born on the wrong side of the tracks fault, etc., as in the garden, the woman's fault, the Serpents fault, blaming something or someone in the environment for their failure instead of accepting the fact that it is their fault.")
"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3)
The facilitator of 'change's,' i.e., the Transformational Marxist's, i.e., the "group psychotherapist's" authority lies in the carnal nature of the child, without his ability and opportunity to access and 'liberate' it he is "dead in the water." "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues" in order "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box (jar) full of evils, which once opened can not be closed].'" (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
"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
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 Deceitful, in that it perceives pleasure as the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will, and wicked in that it therefore hates anyone or anything that gets in its way—not supporting ('justifying') it in its "lusting" after pleasure.
"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 Justifying yourself before men is the consensus process, i.e., the praxis of affirmation, i.e., affirming your and everyone else's "lust of the flesh, " "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life," over and therefore against doing the father's/Father's will.
By 'liberating' the children's carnal thoughts and actions from the father's/Father's restraints (authority) and putting the consensus process (affirmation), i.e., the soviet process into praxis (social action) in the "group grade" "relationship building" classroom (through the teachers use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum), the children not only challenge, question, disregard, defy, attack their parent's authority when the get home, when they "grow up," they readily initiate and sustain (support, serve, and protect) policies and laws in the workplace, government, and even in the "church" that 'liberate' all children, i.e., all of society from the father's/Father's authority, so that all children can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., be "human" again, as they were before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into their life—which prevented them from being their "self," i.e., of and for the world, i.e., of and for their carnal nature, i.e., of and for "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" only.
"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 is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination." (Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
From Hegel, to Marx, to Freud (actually long before them, i.e., starting in the garden in Eden) the message (and agenda) has always been the same: 'liberate' the children ("the people") from the father's/Father's authority so they can be "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only, serving, protecting, and praising (affirming) the facilitator of 'change.' Georg Hegel believed: "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]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Karl Marx believed: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former [the traditional family with its father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [in the child's thoughts , i.e., in his relationship with his "self" and in his relationship with the other children of the world]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4) Sigmund Freud believed: "'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 has authority over the family or in society, no longer entering (restraining) the individual's or society's, i.e., "the people's" thoughts and actions again]." (Sigmund Freud quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) Marxism, i.e., Transformational Marxism is simply the praxis of the garden experience in the classroom, workplace, government, and even in the "church," with children (including those in adult bodies) through dialogue 'justifying' their "self," i.e., doing Genesis 3:1-6, negating Hebrews 12:5-11 , i.e., the father's/Father's authority, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge [disregard the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., disregard the father's/Father's authority] in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" ibid. "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" "I wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx." (Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination)
"The individual [the child] accepts the new system of values and beliefs [Marxism] by accepting belongingness to the group [group approval or affirmation]." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
Karl Marx explained it this way: "It is not individualism [the individual subject to God's and/or the parent's, bosses, etc., authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["the group"] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning] and individuality [to be one's "self," i.e., "of and for self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)
Preaching and teaching (and discussing, at the father's/Father's discretion) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, to be accepted as is, by faith, engenders the father's/Father's authority and individualism, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the child, where the child holds his "self" personally accountable to a higher authority than his own "sense experiences," i.e., carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature," i.e., "self" and the world.
Dialoguing opinions to a consensus (in a group setting) makes everyone's "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal nature (pleasure) and affirmation (group approval) the foundation from which to "know" right from wrong, i.e., right being pleasure (the child's carnal nature, i.e., his desiring the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including "group approval," i.e., affirmation, which only that which is of the world can stimulate) and the augmentation of the conditions which stimulate it and wrong being restraint and the restrainer, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, fulfilling Karl Marx's dream, i.e., a world 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, so that man could be of and for the world only, i.e., of and for that which he has in common with the world and the world has in common with him, i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment.'
The father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature are antithetical to one another, the child either having to 1) humble, deny, control, discipline his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, 2) rebel against the father/Father (killing him if necessary), doing his own will instead, yet still carrying the father's/Father's authority within his "self," with a guilty conscience (the father's/Father's voice within him) condemning him for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, regenerating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the next generation, or 3) kill the father/Father in his "self" through the dialoguing of his opinion with other children to a consensus in a facilitated "group" setting- affirmation meeting, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, so he can—along with the other children of "the group"—be "of and for self," i.e., "of and for the nature" only, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.
Changing the classroom curriculum from the preaching and teaching (and discussing, at the teachers discretion) of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted, learned, and obeyed as given, by faith to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (adding the affective domain to the classroom curriculum, i.e., adding the children's "feelings," i.e., their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including affirmation and their dissatisfactions with restraint, in response to the current situation) does the deed, 'liberating' the Karl Marx in the children's heart (in defiance to parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority), so that they can be "of and for self," i.e., "of and for the 'human nature" and the world only.
"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 Book 2: Affective Domain)
"[Kurt] Lewin emphasized that 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." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)
The America of today, as explained through the eyes of a Transformational Marxist, Herbart Marcuse:
Through his book, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud―one of the two "bibles" for the 'liberal's of the 60's, Norman O. Brown's book, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History being the other—Marcuse explained the merging of Marx and Freud, i.e., the creation of "group psychotherapy," i.e., the facilitated meeting, and the 'changing' of America. Sorry for the length of the following exposé, but to better understand the issue at hand it is important to understand the ideology behind it. It affects your life on a daily bases, therefore it is worth understanding. Abraham Maslow, known for his "felt needs," "self-actualization" agenda, explained the merging of Marx and Freud, this way:
"Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "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)
It is why Maslow could also write:
"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." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of A.H. Maslow)
Martin Jay wrote about a group of Transformational Marxists, who (merging Freud and Marx) came to America in the 30's and how their work has greatly affected this nation. Herbart Marcuse was a member of that group. Jay wrote: "Through the sudden popularity of Herbert Marcuse in the America of the late 1960's, the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory (Kritische Theorie) [known as "Marxist Theory" in Europe where we get the phrase "Question Authority"] has also had a significant influence on the New Left in this country [Why President Regan said he did not leave the Democratic party. It left him.]." "Praxis and reason were the two poles of Critical Theory [the uniting of "theory and practice" (individual thought over and therefore against parental authority and socialist action united as one in revolution (praxis) against patriarchal or parental "top-down" authority) being the agenda of "Marxist Theory"]." The dialectic idea being: "'A great truth wants to be criticized, not idolized,' Nietzsche." In other words, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' parent's should want their commands to be "questioned" by their children (with their response of "Why?" to the parent's commands) instead of being accepted "as is," by faith, and obeyed, i.e. "idolized." Jay writes that Marcuse's' book went beyond the original work of the Frankfurt School, in their effort to 'change' this nation through the merging of Freud with Marx, through "group psychotherapy," i.e., the facilitated meeting making Marxism incognito, less noticeable to the American public, as it entered into every part of their lives, i.e. as it 'changed' their lives. "Eros and Civilization went far beyond the earlier efforts of Critical Theory to merge Freud and Marx." (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) Jay along with Marcuse and Brown noted the impact that the Frankfurt School had in the 'changing' of America (and thereby the world) through the merging of Marx with Freud or rather merging Freud with Marx (depending on how you want to look at it): "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud'" (Jay) The idea being, instead of shooting people, as traditional Marxists did and still do, "re-educate" them through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus in a facilitated meeting, take them under your control through the use of "therapy," i.e., "group psychotherapy."
"The use of 'critical theory' [instead of "Marxist Theory"] as a code word, which already becomes evident in Horkheimer's early writings, enabled a certain interpretation of Marxism to enter academic discourse [into the universities and colleges in the late 50's and early 60's]. Horkheimer's purpose in critical theory was to militate against all attempts to construct a fixed system, every attempt to identify the subject with the object ["critical theory," the child's dissatisfaction with parental restraints, expressed in the classroom environment as their potential opportunity to advance their own lives and the lives of others, used to undermine the children in identifying themselves with their Fathers, identifying themselves instead of with themselves, moves the children from submitting to their parent's or God's authority to turning to themselves and the socialist for direction, the socialist's providing them the opportunity to 'liberate' themselves from their parents authority, engendering the socialist's position of influence and income]." "Humanistic potential is what critical inquiry must clarify. Grounding itself within the tradition of emancipation ['liberation' from the Father's authority], in theory and practice [in the child's thoughts and social action, i.e. in his relationship with others, "building relationship upon self interest," i.e., "human nature" instead of upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth]." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)
The work of the Frankfurt School continued, yet transcended, the work of John Dewey and his 'laboratory schools,' who got caught up in the philosophical verbiage of dialectic thinking, which made it increasingly difficult to move the school system into the praxis of 'social 'change' without being identified and blocked. John Dewey wrote, regarding "theory and practice": "Any theory and set of practices is dogmatic [of the authority of the parents, of the Father] which is not based upon critical examination of its own underlying principles [the child, in other words is not free to "questioning authority," to come up with his own principles, according to his own "human nature," according to his "natural inclination" to relate with, i.e. unite with the world through pleasure]." (John Dewey, Experience and Education)
What put Freud and Marx on the same page was the fact that they both 'reasoned' dialectically, from the premise that the 'purpose' of 'reasoning' was to "help" man 'liberate' himself, i.e. his "human nature" from the restraints of higher authority and allow himself, according to his "natural inclination" to seek after ("lust" after) the things of the world, thereby find unity (oneness) with himself and with the world. "Frauds individual psychology is in its very essence social psychology." "Freud's theory is in its very substance 'sociological.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) 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)
Marcus explains that "according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros itself." (Marcuse) Regarding the "biological-organic nature of Eros" and it's tie to society, Freud wrote, "'The conflict between civilization and sexuality is caused by the circumstance that sexual love is a relationship between two people,... whereas civilization is founded on relations between large groups of persons ["community" or "the village"].... In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.'" (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents) This is Freud's case for, i.e., defense of Sodom, Gomorra, and the Canaanite (dialectic) culture.
As you will see, according to Freud, the children's sexual desire for union with one another and with their mother (incest) is inhibited by the Father-mother (husband-wife) limitations placed upon sexual relationships, placed upon the family and society by the Father. That "the modifications and deflections of instinctual energy necessitated by the perpetuation of the monogamic-patriarchal family, or by a hierarchical division of labor, or by public control of the individuals private existence are instances of surplus- repression [Marxist term for Freud's "neurosis"]," Freud believed that the "'unification' of the partial instincts [sexual drive] into one libidinal object [the object of gratification] of the opposite sex, and in the establishment of genital supremacy [husband ruling over one wife, wife submitting to one husband, children excluding from the sexual relationship by the father] .... is repressive." (Marcuse) "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, ... leads to neurosis." (Brown)
Marcuse, explaining Freud's interpretation of history i.e. a Fatherless, lawless world of sexual liberation 'discovering' itself, wrote:"... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan, which in turn deifies the assassinated father [thereby re-establishing a top-down form of government] and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality [creating a condition Freud called the "neurosis of civilization"]." (Marcuse) In Freud's history the children, unite as one (in consensus) in killing the father, killing him because he come between them and their natural inclination to (sexually, sensually and spontaneously) relate with their mother, claiming her as theirs ("Ours, not just yours." the language of public property) and not just his ("Mine' not yours." the language of private property). Hint! Hint! Hint! There is not private property, home as in family, business, etc. (inalienable rights) in "Ours, not just yours." Just socialism and abomination, i.e. "human rights." Private (individualism) is only found in "Mine, not ours."
In psychology, the father has no authority, i.e., "right" to give commands to his children to be obeyed without question, and to chasten (judge) them when they disobey. Psychology comes to the aid of the child on the individual level, sociology on the social level, both united as one in 'redeeming' the child from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' him back to his carnal "human nature," to be at-one-with the world in pleasure. As Hegel, Freud, followed after dialectic 'reasoning' where "human nature," i.e., the child's "natural inclination" to relate with the world in pleasure, in the moment, the child' nature (not the Father's authority) becomes the standard from which 'reality,' i.e., "self" is to become "actualized." Freud, Marx, Hegel all recognize "equality," the will of the children united as one, not hierarch, the authority of the Father's, as being the paradigm necessary if 'change' (a one world system, i.e. socialist harmony and worldly peace based upon "human nature" alone) is to become. Hegel, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born), wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [there being no "top-down" authority structure in the home with the husband/father as the head], where there is no antithesis 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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) The consequence of such 'logic' is that your children, spouse, property, business, including you do not belong to you (under God) but to everyone, i.e., the "state," i.e., society, i.e., "the people," i.e., the facilitator or 'change.'
"The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so is his restoration.... The crime against the reality principle [killing the father to remove his restraint upon "human nature"] is redeemed by the crime against the pleasure principle [repressing "human nature" for social cause]: redemption thus cancels itself." (Marcuse) In other words, killing the Father was a crime (against the father, i.e. against God) but restoring his "top-down" system of government, to preserve society, was also a crime (against the children, i.e. against society). The 'redemption' of the children from the Father was "canceled" when government did not 'reconcile' the children back to the world, back to their "human nature," i.e. back to their "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, back to Eros (incest).
According to Freud, it was the formation of the "guilty conscience," a product of the father's authority (chastening) which was used to restraint the child's "natural inclinations" to relate with (to be at-one-with) the world in pleasure, that produced the "familial organization," resulting in the "neurosis of civilization." Only through the killing of the father (patricide) and the re-uniting of the children with themselves and the mother as one (incest), could society become "normal," could man (individually and collectively) become himself again. "Freud noted that … patricide and incest … are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
"Moreover, this hierarchical division of pleasure [Marcuse is speaking here of labor, where your experience of labor is separated from Eros, where you have to do what someone tells you to do, wanting to please them, humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining, reproving, correcting, rebuking your "self" in order to do their will, without getting "enjoyment" from your labor for yourself] was 'justified' by protection, security, and even love: because the despot was the father, the hatred with which his subjects regarded him must from the beginning have been accompanied by a biological affection—ambivalent emotions which were expressed in the wish to replace and imitate the father, to identify oneself with him, with his pleasure as well as with his power [his "top-down" authority system remaining in the individual in the form of a "guilty conscience" still keeping the person subject to the Father's commands, subject his way of doing things (even though he is dead)]." (ibid.) You can kill the fathers, as was done in the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc. Revolutions but without killing the "guilty conscience," the voice of the father reappears back into society (re-creating a "top-down" system). Without the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' through consensus, 'justifying' "human nature" over and against the father's authority to restrain "human nature," the "guilty conscience" remains in force, with man remaining captive to the hierarchical division of pleasure and labor.
"Freed from constraints ... man ... without work and order ... would fall back into nature ... [and] destroy culture." (ibid.) The problem was, if man just does what he "wants to do" in the 'moment,' he won't get work done, he might not even work. The answer was, get rid of the Father's or the boss's "top-down" authority to demand obedience and his authority to chastening you for disobedience (fire you for not working or for immoral behavior, according to his standards), put Eros (sexual pleasure) back into the workplace, so you can "enjoy" it, and you will "volunteer" to work. Therefore you can't wait to go to work to "rub shoulders" with you fellow women workers, and the women the same with the men, (now men with men and women with women). separation
"The primal father prepared the ground for progress through enforced constraint on pleasure and enforced abstinence [the children having to obey the father without question, according to his moral standards (of sexual restraint)].... the first preconditions for the disciplined 'labor force'' of the future." Marcuse wrote "This dialectic constitutes the unexplored and tabooed core of Freud's metapsychology." "The gratification of non-procreative genitality are ... tabooed as perversions..." "... perversions ... the sex instincts ... which do not serve or prepare for the procreative function." "... sexuality is by nature 'polymorphous-perverse.'" (Marcuse) It is this "polymorphous-perverse" nature of "the child within" which has to be "resurrected" in the workplace, if, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' man is to "enjoy" labor again. Mike Connor stated: "Life Against Death established Brown, along with his colleague and friend Herbert Marcuse, and later Charles Reich, as an intellectual leader of the New Left …. a Marxist mode of Freudian analysis. Brown's push to resurrect the human body with all its erotic urges freely expressed, resonated with the members of the Human Potential Movement and the undergrads they were influencing in the 60's." (Mike Connor) Brown wrote: "Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children [Freud considered children sexually active, just not able to pre-create, that "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body"], ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven ["the kingdom of heaven" being man united in Eros, in pleasure, here on earth]."
"First, that the work is external to the worker, that it is not a part of his nature [of Eros, carnal, worldly], that consequently he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself [having to submit himself to the father or the bosses moral standards]." "The worker therefore feels himself at home only during his leisure, whereas at work he feels homeless." "His work is not voluntary but imposed, forced labour [having to do something, like obeying the father or the boss, according to their moral standards, which requires them to deny themselves, deny their "human nature" which seeks for oneness with the world, in the 'moment,' in pleasure]." (Karl Marx) This from someone who never worked a day of his life, who went on trips pushing his ideology of pleasure, leaving his wife at home to beg Engels for rent money (for a place which Marx could not afford) with Engels already financially covering his travel expenses. Sounds like our government today.
I am not saying we should not get satisfaction from our work. I worked over 25 years in construction, through much pain and self sacrifice, yet took joy in my work and the people I satisfied, even though sometimes not getting much financial gain (just enough to keep the family fed and the rent paid, sometimes late). I didn't ask my wife to beg for money from a "friend" so that I could live in a house above my means, while taking trips across the country "enjoying" myself, telling others to think and act like me (as Karl Marx did). As a believer (who Marx hated) we are to deny ourselves the "enjoyments," i.e. the "lusts" of this life, suffer "the masses" disapproval (rejection) in what we do, and follow Christ, looking, as He looked, to the joy that lies ahead, feeling "guilty" when we fail in doing His Heavenly Father's (our Heavenly Father's) will.
It was the merging of Marx with Freud that made Marxism a part of the American culture, negating righteousness, i.e. obedience to the Father as the issue of life, turning the nation instead to the "children of disobedience" (social-psychologists, the saviors of "human nature") instead of to God to know how to think and act. Abomination is now the flag that flaps in the winds of socialist 'change' over this nation, propagating democracy, "the tyranny of the masses" around the world. Brown correlated the father's authority in the home and his worship of the Father above as the source of "neurosis." He writes: "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."
The "docile" (the non-rebellious, non-revolutionary, non-dialectic) behavior of man, according to Marxists, is the product of the father chastening his children, which produces a "the peaceable fruit of righteousness." "If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11 According to Brown "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" and therefore "Psychoanalysis must treat religion [the Father's restraining of the child's "human nature" and the child accepting it] as a neurosis." (Brown)
As Norman O. Brown put it:"Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality."(Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) It is the Father's "top-down" restraint upon the children, limiting their sensuous relationship with themselves and with his wife, their mother (correlated with "mother nature"), keeping her for himself, which engendering the "earthly family," the traditional family structure, for which Freud and Marx are united in negating.
Today all of education (public and private) is grounded upon the works of Benjamin Bloom and his so called "taxonomies" (see the issue on education). In book one he makes it clear that his books are not based upon helping the children learn truth or facts the old fashioned way (by an authority figure up in front of the classroom imparting facts to be memorized "as given") but instead that the "taxonomies" are a "psychological classification system,"using "relevant and accepted psychological principles and theories" designed for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. 'changing' society through the 'changing' of your child's classroom experience (from the preaching and teaching of truth to the dialoguing of opinions), 'liberating' the child from his father's authority so that he can "be himself" again, as he was before his father's first command and threat of chastening for disobedience. "Members of the taxonomy group spent considerable time in attempting to find a psychological theory which would provide a sound basis for ordering the categories of the taxonomy. …consistent with relevant and accepted psychological principles and theories." (Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book I: Cognitive Domain) Those "relevant and accepted psychological principles and theories"were the teachings of Freud and Marx united as one for the 'purpose' of social 'change.' Bloom's world view, his "weltanschauung," as he states it in book 2, was established upon two Marxists, two men of the Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm. And you thought psychology was all about "helping" people. It is. It is about "helping" the individual to think and act like Karl Marx, negating the voice of the Father, replacing it with the voice of "the people," the voice of "the village," crying out against the authority of the Father, working to remove the father's authority from his own life as he works, united with others, in removing it from society.
In the "cookbook for humans" (Phil Ring), Human Relations in Curriculum Change [socialism in paradigm change], Kenneth Benne wrote: "Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs [change the paradigm of the the participants, i.e. their way of thinking and acting] of an individual or a group [from the one, i.e. the Father above, to the many, i.e. the collective, i.e. the "village" below]." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) The purpose of education, according to Benjamin Bloom (building "curriculum" upon Marxist and Freudian ideology both united as one, i.e. social-psychology, i.e. Transformational Marxism), was for 'change.' He wrote in Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain, that education was "'to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents': "The major impact of the new program is to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."
As Warren Bennis put it: "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." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society). Bloom wrote: "… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions [from the traditional home environment] and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other [which is a major component to brainwashing, i.e. washing from the brain, i.e. from the thoughts and actions of the children, the father's authority, i.e. washing from the brain, from the thoughts and actions of the citizens and their leadership, the idea of sovereignty, i.e. "Mine, not yours" thereafter every one thinking and acting, as common-ists AKA communists, "Ours, not just yours"]." "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 may 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 non-authoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain)
Lenin, using dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justified' the killing of millions (as do all Marxists) in an effort to eradicate the world of the Father's authority over the children, in his terms the "bourgeoisie" (the father's, the one's) rule over the "proletariat" (the children, the many): "...a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance ... and whose power lies in ... the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production. Unfortunately, small-scale production [private business, i.e. "Mine, not yours"] is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. Capitalism and the bourgeois environment … disappears very slowly even after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, (since the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie) give rise to what is essentially the same bourgeois careerism, national chauvinism, petty-bourgeois vulgarity, etc. —merely varying insignificantly in form—in positively every sphere of activity and life. … until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, … in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception. We must learn how to master every sphere of work and activity without exception, to overcome all difficulties and eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder; An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success, May 12, 1920)
There is no such thing as a Christian psychologist. Beware all who journey there to receive advice on how to think and act (instead of to the Lord). The two can not walk together hand in hand, though one, deceiving you, would like you to think so.
"And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." Isaiah 8:7 "For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." Jeremiah 2:13
"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 13:6
In the end it is all about the Father and His only begotten Son who obeyed Him in all things commanded, even unto death, i.e. to 'redeem' us from condemnation (from the Father's judgment upon us for our 'justifying,' worshiping, and serving of "human nature," our heart being deceitful, i.e. its desire for things of this world always "seeming to be good" in our eyes, and desperately wicked, i.e. always seeking after the things of pleasure of this world, instead of God), 'reconciling' us to His Father so that we might "partake in His holiness," i.e. doing that which Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, as Satan, hated, glorifying God, God alone. America, "making the world safe for democracy," is now sailing under the flag of social-psychology (Marx and Freud united) with worldly peace and socialist harmony being its heart desire, 'redeeming' the children from Godly authority, 'reconciling' them back to their carnal "human nature," as they were before the father's first command and chastening for disobedience. "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself [creating a world of his own, in his own image]." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and its Tradition) The world can not become united upon the Word of God for it divides (Luke 12:51-53). It can only become united upon "human nature," that is, through the child's "natural inclination" to unite with it (be at-one-with the world) in pleasure.
"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve." Matthew 4:10
The only reason anyone worships at Satan's alter is because their name is inscribed on it (in bold print), their carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., their desire for (love of) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including (especially) the affirmation of men, making them subject to him and his "authority." Satan offered Jesus the Kingdoms of the world. He turned him down because all he would have is those who worship at Satan's feet, loving all that is of the world only. That is the Consensus process, bringing the world together, preparing it for judgment day.
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin ["human nature"] unto death, or of obedience [to the Father] unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16
"[K]now 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
"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
Marxism is alive and well in America (in "community action") today. The question is: "Is Karl Marx alive and well in your heart?" Are you a Marxist? Who are you following after and serving today? You have to serve somebody. It is in your nature. God put it there to either know and serve him by faith—faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God—or know and serve the world by sight—with your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' controlling your thoughts and actions, making you a servant of the master seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of children, men, and women, i.e., the master facilitator of 'change,' "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and the praises of men (affirmation).
"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6 "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015 -2017