Concerning the "middle class": by Dean Gotcher

authorityresearch.com

Concerning the "middle class":
Why those of dialectic 'reasoning' must negate it's authority in society if they are going to create a "new" world order of 'change.'

by
Dean Gotcher

The difference between having a middle class and not having a middle class is the difference between cream and scum. Generally speaking, the middle class, which requires hard work and doing the job right to get ahead (rewarding good work), lets cream "rise to the top," while socialism, which destroys the middle class, accepting no work being done or work done badly to get ahead (rewarding bad work), lets scum "rise to the top." It is the middle class that prepares the next generation to build their lives on reality, doing their best whether they get rewarded or not, instead of on an illusion, getting rewarded no matter what. The difference between becoming an adult, getting satisfaction from riding a horse, with all the risks involved (reality) and remaining a child, getting satisfaction from riding a broomstick, pretending that it is a horse (illusion), is that in the latter adults are forced to work to satisfy the child's illusion (utopia). In other words: in the middle class while the child might, as a child, ride a broomstick, pretending it is a horse, he learns to grow up, i.e., learns to deal with reality with all its risks, setting the broomstick aside and riding the real thing, not forcing others to support his imagination (illusion)—pretending that it is real, i.e., 'reality.'

The hallmark of the "middle class" is the importance of children learning to do right and not wrong according to their parents commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "get ahead." Self control and self discipline—in order to do right and not wrong (in harmony with the biblical message of humbling, denying, dying to your "self" in order to do the Father's will)—are key to this way of thinking (referred to as the father's/Father's authority, i.e., a patriarchal paradigm or way of thinking and behaving). According to 'liberal' thinking, i.e., socialism, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' the "middle class" stands in the way of progress, i.e., prevents social 'change,' i.e., diversity, i.e., "deviance," i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., "self" esteem. It therefore establishes "self" 'justification,' i.e., deviancy, i.e., the child's carnal nature , i.e., the child's "lusting" after pleasure (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. Georg Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father'/Father's authority to become as we was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), of (and now for) "self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

While the "middle class" focuses upon "doing right and not wrong," according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., rule of law, those of "class consciousness"—the foundation of 'liberal' thinking, i.e., "We working for Us, against them"—focuses upon the child's "self interest," i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures ("self interest") of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his or her dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., toward the patriarchal paradigm when (since) it gets in the way of the child being his or her "self," i.e., "of and for self"—an attribute which all children have in common. This line of 'reasoning,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from dialogue, i.e., from the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' instead of from discussion, i.e., from established commands, rules, facts and truth) thus establishes the child's carnal nature and "self" 'justification' (which all children have in common) over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (which divides the children between one another, caused by the fathers differing positions and beliefs; "The dialectical method [the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus] was overthrown [by the father's authority]—the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within "the group," i.e., society]." György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) demanding their children do right and not wrong according to their commands, rules, facts, and truth). Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child controlling, disciplining, humbling, denying, dying to his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him [gets in the way of his carnal nature, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates ("To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')]. Society ["human relationship built upon self interest," i.e., upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., finding one's identity in "the group," i.e., in society, i.e., according to that which all children have in common, their "lusting" after pleasure and their hating of restraint and the restrainer, which is 'discovered,' i.e., made manifest in the praxis of dialoguing their opinions with one another, seeking consensus, i.e., common-ist ground ("In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to be "of and for self" and the world only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

This very 'logic' when put into practice, i.e., into social(ist) action (where thought and action is focused upon and dedicated to advancing carnal relationships instead of doing right and not wrong, known as praxis) automatically negates the "middle class," i.e., the father's/Father's authority. Many have been oppressed and/or died from the application of this 'liberal' agenda—to negate (remove) the "middle class," i.e., the father's/Father's authority from society. Without the disparity between the rich and poor, i.e., hatred toward the father's/Father's authority (the rich, i.e., the privileged) by the children (the poor, i.e., the disenfranchised)—which is mitigated by the "middle class"—crises can not to be initiated and sustained, i.e., used to advance the socialists agenda of world domination. It was the very basis of Lenin's bloody revolution in Russia. "...A more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [the "middle class," i.e., the citizens honoring (submitting to) the King's authority, the property and business owners expecting the workers to do the same to them, i.e., to honour (submit themselves to) their authority, as children, honoring (submitting themselves to) their father's authority, as man honors (submits himself to) God's authority; all being the same in structure, system, or paradigm (patriarchal)—"top-down," "do it right, i.e., My way, or else," "Mine. Not yours"], whose resistance ... and whose power lies in ... the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production [in private business, where workers must submit to their bosses authority as children must submit to their father's authority]. Unfortunately, small-scale production [local control, under the father's authority] is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism [capitulating to the father's authority] and the bourgeoisie [the middle class which initiates and sustains, i.e., engenders and supports the father's authority] 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 [which naturally happens when the husband and wife have a family, i.e., children of their own (engendering the language of "Mine, not yours"), believing their children should do as they are told, i.e., obey them]) give rise to what is essentially the same bourgeois careerism, national chauvinism, petty-bourgeois vulgarity [belief or faith in a higher authority than themselves], etc. —merely varying insignificantly in form—in positively every sphere of activity and life. … until small-scale economy and small commodity production [private property and business under the father's authority] have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian [socialist] 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 [middle class] habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder; An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success, May 12, 1920)

Abraham Maslow (famous for his "hierarch of felt needs" and "self actualization"), in agreement with Lenin, wrote: "Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers. If only for such a reason a world government is necessary. It too would have to evolve. I suppose it would be weak or lousy or even corrupt at first―it certainly doesn't amount to much now & won't until sovereignty is given up little by little by 'nations.'" "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the Humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.) (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Maslow's contempt for the "middle-class," with its father's authority system (referred to as "authoritarian"—"Authoritarian submission 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." "The [authoritarian's] conception of the ideal family situation for the child [is]: uncritical obedience to the father and elders, pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, inhibition of spontaneity and emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) is best reflected in his response to traditional minded students in his classroom. "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)

A side bar, which is of issue today, our founding fathers broke our government up into three separate branches in an effort to protect the "middle class," i.e., in an effort to protect the father, i.e., the traditional home from the encroachment of government upon his right of private property, business, conscience, religion, and home, i.e., raising his children up in his faith/belief, maintaining the father's authority in the home, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., rule of law, engendering the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the next generation and the nation (producing civil government, i.e., 'limited' government, protecting individualism, under God). Socialists seek to (must) negate this separation. They are dedicated to usurping the separated branches of government, making them one and the same (with SCOTUS and POTUS making laws which LOTUS—in agreement with the citizens, i.e., the "middle class"—won't make) in order to force its will (despotism, i.e., socialism) upon the people instead. It is doing so by having consensus meetings between the different branches of government, leaving government in place while restructuring it upon the consensus process, i.e., the 'liberal's' agenda, bringing all in government into one mindset, bypassing the restraints placed upon government by our framing fathers—which they placed there to protect the "middle class." "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transform 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) There is no representative government in the consensus process, except for those who hate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., who hate 'limited' government, i.e., who hate individualism, under God, i.e., who hate your unalienable rights, i.e., who hate the "middle class."

George Washington, in his farewell address stated: "It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." (George Washington, Farewell Address) Washington's warning is what is at issue today, with 'liberal's' seeking to rule over "the people," in the name of "the people," enforcing their globalist agenda upon all "the people" for the sake of "the people," i.e., themselves.

Three months prior to Lenin's speech, György Lukács wrote: "'Capital' … is, according to Marx, 'not a thing but a social relation between persons mediated through things.' 'These relations,' Marx states, 'are not those between one individual and another, but between worker and capitalist, tenant and landlord, [between the children and their parents, i.e., between the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' and the parents established commands, rules, facts, and truth which inhabit or block the child from expressing and satisfying himself, according to his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., between paradigms, i.e., the Patriarchal paradigm of the father's/Father's authority and the Heresiarchal paradigm of the child's propensity, in disobedience to the father, to "do his own thing"], etc. Eliminate these relations [the father's/Father's authority over the children by uniting the children as "one" in the praxis or social action of "doing their own thing," negating the father's/Father's authority in their thoughts and actions in the process] and you abolish the whole of society; …… a scientifically acceptable solution does exist [dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus , i.e., the soviet process, i.e., Hegel's formula or method, i.e., Karl Marx, with "group psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change,' Transformational Marxists (all three being the same) taking the father's/Father's place] … For to accept that solution, even in theory [as an opinion, i.e., aufheben], would be tantamount to observing society from a class [from the children's, i.e., socialists] standpoint other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parents, i.e., the "middle class"]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely [the 'moment' parent's evaluate their authority over the child from the child's perception, from the child's desires and dissatisfactions, they negate their authority over the child—becoming at-one-with the child in "feelings," "thought," and "action," i.e., in theory and practice]. ' '... the ideological history of the bourgeoisie was nothing but a desperate resistance to every insight into the true nature of the society it had created and thus to a real understanding of its class situation.… the Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie produces its own grave-diggers [the parent's, insisting upon their authority over the children, prepare the children to turn against them and destroy or annihilate them and their authority].'" "... which the consciousness of the proletariat has striven to create ever since its inception. The workers' council [the consensus (soviet) meetings] spells the political and economic defeat of reification [the end of right and wrong, "Mine. Not yours." i.e., the father's/Father's way of thinking and acting]. In the period following the dictatorship it will eliminate the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary." (György Lukács History & Class Consciousness, March, 1920)

According to Karl Marx, the child "creates" the father's/Father's authority the 'moment' he accepts the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and obeys the father/Father against his own carnal desires of the 'moment,' submitting his will to his father's/Father's will instead. Marx wrote: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do his will, thus "empowering" him] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Barak Obama, when he spoke to national leaders, spoke to their children as well—encouraging them to transcend their borders and customs, doing so, i.e., "tearing down walls," i.e., their parent's/national leaders authority for the sake of global unity ("Our future will be defined by young people." Speaking to the young people, he said: "Do not think for a moment that your own freedom, your own prosperity, that your own moral imagination is bound by the limits of your community, your ethnicity, or even your country. You’re bigger than that. You can help us to choose a better history." "The international order that we have worked for generations to build" is "threatened by an older, more traditional view of power." "We must meet the challenge to our ideals, to our very international order." "It is you, the young people ... who will help decide which way the currents of our history will flow." B. H. Obama's speech in Brussels). In such praxis he declared war on the leaders of the nations and sovereignty, and the "middle class" which supports them and it.

What Karl Marx, György Lukács, Vladimir Lenin, etc., i.e., 'liberal's,' socialists, etc., i.e., those of the "deep state" all had/have in mind was/is the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (soviet) process—where individualism, under God, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., the "middle-class" must be sacrificed to (and for) the "feelings of the group," i.e., "the people," i.e., to (and for) the "common-ist 'good'"—if worldly peace and socialist harmony was to become a 'reality.' If socialists are to rule over "the people," using them as natural resource ("human resource") for their own pleasure and gain (socialist can not function, i.e., can not survive without using someone else's money, time, and inheritance), the "middle class," i.e., the father's/Father's authority must be identified (labeled) as being the source of controversy, division, neurosis ("mental illness"), social(ist) disharmony, etc.,. Their paranoia is tied to their hatred of the father's/Father's authority, using generalization to correlating it, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and the "middle-class" to Fascism. "It is a well-known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle-class phenomenon, that it is 'in the culture' and, hence, that those who conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced." "It would then be more understandable why the German family, with its long history of authoritarian, threatening father figures, could become susceptible to a fascist ideology." [The error in this so called "reasoning" is that socialism, from Fascism to Communism to Globalism (socialist-capitalism where citizens themselves are the capital) must destroy the father's authority in the home in order to function—their paranoia being how to creating global socialism, which requires the destruction of the "middle-class," i.e., the father's authority, while preventing the "middle-class" from turning to national socialist's (abdicating the father's authority in the home to the state, i.e., abdicating 'limited' government) in an effort to save the father's authority in the home] ". . . should fascism become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners of traditional American democracy. . . ‘rugged individualism'" "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

There is much talk about the "middle class" today. A work done back in the late 40's was all about the "middle class" and how to "negate" its effect upon society (preventing 'change'). Transformational Marxism is the belief that man is basically "good" (or neither "good" nor "bad") in and of himself, but given the right or wrong environmental conditions becomes "good" or "bad," "good" being based upon his 'willful' participation in social 'change,' "bad" being his intolerance of 'change,' i.e. his 'resistance' to or inability to contribute to 'change.' Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba in their book, Adolescent Character and Personality identified that the problem in education was not the liberal minded teachers (rich or poor, who tolerated deviancy, according to them, the rich because they could afford to be deviant, not caring what other had to say about them, and the poor, living up to somebody's else's standards not being an issue) who wanted 'change' (freedom from "religious" morality which stratified them, inhibiting their ability to "survive" in, i.e. 'change' within their particular domain) but the "middle class" teachers who inculcated discipline and absolutes (rigidity of thought and action) in their children (so that they might be able to "climb" the social ladder) inhibited 'change.' Education is now all about negating "private convictions," replacing them with the child's desire for approval from other children, based upon his or her and their carnal nature, i.e., affirmation. "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding to principles i.e., their parent's, teacher's, constituent's, or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, refusing to compromise] in joint deliberations [in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus meeting] as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum) There are no "middle-class" values in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (soviet) meeting, only the abdication of them for the sake of "the people," i.e., the socialist.

Havighurst and Taba wrote: "The school must itself be changed if it is to serve more effectively in the formation of good character. It must make room for the deviant student. This person will be able to discriminate among values and to deviate from the moral status quo of the community, when such deviation is necessary to the realization of higher [socialist] moral principles. How such persons can be discovered, and, above all, how such persons can be produced in greater number is the major problem for research in character formation." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba, Adolescent Character and Personality) Emphasis added. If the school must make room for the "deviant student" then students who hold to right-wrong thinking, i.e., who hold to their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., who accept and honour their parent's authority must be silent or tolerant of, i.e., non-judgmental of the "deviant student"—setting aside, i.e., suspend their parent's/God's commands, rules, facts, and truth (as on a cross) in order to "get along." "Building relationship upon self interest," i.e., common-ism negates the parent's authority in the children's thoughts and actions, turning them against their parent's authority. "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)

If deviancy is to be tolerated in the classroom, deviancy becomes the "norm." If you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e., if you do not speak out against unrighteousness, exposing it for what it is, then unrighteousness (by your silence) becomes the "norm." Any environment (meeting) which requires (demands) that everyone be "positive" and not "negative," requires (demands) everyone to abdicate (negate) the father's/Father's authority, requires (demands) everyone to sacrificing "right-wrong thinking," i.e., doing right and not wrong according the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, thereby requires (demands) that everyone sacrifice the father's/Father's authority upon the alter of "self" 'justification'—all done for the sake of "the people," i.e., "building relationship upon self interest," i.e., humanism. This is the foundation of common-ism (Marxism).

Adolescent Character and Personality was a research project done in the late 40 using a small town in the Midwest renamed "Elmtown," looking at it through a "neo-Marxist" lens for the purpose of 'change.' Just to give you an understanding of what this "lens" is: Karl Marx (KM) put it this way: "The philosophers [wanting to understand the world] have interpreted the world in different ways, the objective is to change it." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Marx wrote, regarding who the resisters to 'change' were and how to 'change' them: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx Theses On Feuerbach #4) The "middle-class" is the "earthly family" with the father's/Father's authority who/which resists 'change,' and who, according to Marx (and all who 'reason' dialectically), must be "annihilated," i.e. negated (that is, no longer recognized as of worth or value, i.e. perceived as being "irrational" and therefore responded to as being "irrelevant") in the thoughts of the individual and in the actions of society, if 'change' is to be initiated and sustained. It was the uniting of the adolescents thoughts of 'liberation' from parental authority (not being strong enough to do it on their own as individuals and not having social support) and society's action to negate the parents authority (social action being based upon the adolescent's personality, the desire for 'liberation' from parental authority, "common" to all people, put into action) that allowed not only the 'changing' of the individual but also the 'changing' of society as well, i.e. the individual's of society becoming "one" in thought and action, united in the action of social 'change' (praxis).

Hollingshead in his book Elmtown's Youth: The Impact of Social Class on Adolescents wrote: "This volume and Elmtown's Youth may be viewed as companion pieces since they have been based upon research in the same community, and in part on the same boys and girls. They differ in that each volume is focused upon a different facet of adolescent life." (August B. Hollingshead, Elmtown's Youth: The Impact of Social Classes on Adolescents) (The focus upon "adolescent life" was due to, in there mind, the adolescent's "natural inclination" to resist and rebel against parental authority, i.e. their rebellion against the "old" way of doing things). Hollingshead's life focus was upon the "negative" impact the traditional "middle-class" family had upon the next generation (preventing 'change') and how it played a key role in the mental health of society (engendering 'neurosis' and schizophrenia―the persons inability to tell what is real and what is not real apart, in this case, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' religion being not real, yet being treated as real, affecting not only the individual but also society). At Yale, Hollingshead published a famous work (The Four Factor Index, an unpublished work, until this century, which has been heavily used in the fields of medical and public health) using occupation, sex, and marital status (the key indicator here being the male as the head of the household which was later changed, as times 'changed,' i.e. as education progressively liberalized the husband-wife-education-work relationship, to the husband and wife's' occupation and education) as the criteria from which to identify social stratification (and schizophrenia-that is, a person not being able to tell the different between what is real and not real, the "ethical" concern for those of dialectic 'reasoning' being: if man believes and acts upon his belief that God is real then he can not be "himself," nor can he allow other's to be themselves, i.e. human, i.e. "religion" being an obstacle or barrier to socialist harmony and worldly peace).

Ralph Tyler, in Frank Brown's book Education for Responsible Citizenship wrote: "Citizenship is not merely a matter of inculcating moral and social precepts. The school furnishes opportunities to discover and use facts, principles, and ideas that are more accurate, balanced, and comprehensive [according to social engineers, facilitator's of 'change,' "group psychotherapists," i.e., Transformational Marxists] than what is provided in most homes, work places, or other social institutions. The school is usually an environment that represents the American social[ist] ideals more closely than the larger society." He believed that without 'changing' the school environment from the teachers preaching and teaching facts to where they encouraged the students (the adolescents in particular) to dialogue their opinions concerning social issues (including the home), social 'change' could not take place. That the home experience of the students and the traditional education system instead of augmenting social 'change,' prevented it. His leadership in the Eight-Year Study was instrumental in the 'changing' of the American education system, for the purpose of social 'change'―which included (required) negating the "middle-class" with its tendency to moralize. Tyler described the method developed in the Eight-year Study as essential to the "mapping" or taxonomizing of the classroom "community" for the purpose of 'change.' He wrote: "Although these instruments were derived from techniques developed from the Eight-Year Study, their application to the field of personal beliefs, where "right" and "wrong" is strongly emphasized, represented a new venture [education no longer being used to supporting the "middle class" parent's authority and values but now being used to challenge them]. (Eugene R. Smith and R. W. Tyler, Appraising and Recording Student Progress)

Bloom's Taxonomy Book I, is dedicated to Ralph Tyler. Book one is based on the belief that "truth and knowledge are only relative," that "there are no lasting truths for all times and all places" (thereby countering the categorical imperative, "Because I said so" nature of the traditional home and traditional education system). Book 2 talks about "opening Pandora's Box," "challenging the students fixed beliefs," developing "attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents," and the "conflict and tension" the "new method of education" was causing "between parents and children." All done with the intent of breaking down the "middle-class" home, by 'changing' (negating) the traditional education system which supported it. As Warren Bennis, in his book, The Temporary Society, put it: "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." As Bloom wrote in Book 2, sighting James Coleman's work The Adolescent Society: "objectives [of 'change'] can best be attained where the individual ["during the adolescent period"] is separated from earlier environmental conditions 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." Bloom also admitted that his principles of education (his belief, i.e. his 'drive' and 'purpose' in life) as being Marxist, sighting two Marxists, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm as his world view or paradigm, the word he used was "weltanschauung." Someone asked me to "prove" that Bloom was a Marxist. As the saying goes: "If it walks like a duck ...."

One thing about the "enlightened" (those steeped in dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying' themselves in their own eyes, according to their own carnal nature), when you show them the light, like the blind, they can not see. "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:11-24 emphasis added.

James Coleman's book, The Adolescent Society, was all about 'change,' about negating the "middle-class" through the education system, refocusing its energies away from supporting parental authority to the creation of a classroom experience which would 'liberate' the adolescent from parental authority, thus engendering social 'change.' While Tyler advised six of our Presidents on Education, Coleman advised our Supreme Court instead. His other work Public Private Schools shows how to to secularize private schools, bringing them into the "new" world order of 'change' ("humanizing" them). His book, Equality of Opportunity was used by the Supreme Court to 'justify' their making of major changes in the school system in the 60's. His book Community Conflict was about how to identify those in the community who were "resistant to change" and how to better neutralize their efforts to resist and prevent the 'changing' of society.

The focus of all this work is upon 'changing' the view of those in authority (As Theodor Adorno stated it in his book The Authoritarian Personality, "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." ) to where they will seek to "understand" and incorporate the view of those under their authority in making decisions, that is, moving away from using punishment for doing wrong, i.e. punishing the child for his participation in the world of 'change,' to using the techniques of therapy, i.e. to psycho-analysis and psycho-therapy which embraces 'change,' which instantly negates the "top-down" authority of the Father―the "equality" system of secular humanism negating the "top-down" system of religion. "Freud speaks of religion [obedience to a higher authority, accepting their authority and obeying them in faith] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) In this way the adolescent "community" of 'change' (of sensuousness, of feelings and thoughts, of opinions and theories, subject to the whims and pressures of the 'moment') is used to pressure the adults into "embracing" the process of 'change' rather than judging and condemning it, i.e. forcing, through chastening, the adolescent to accept their "old" world order of unchangingness (of righteousness, of preaching and teaching established truth and facts, of belief, of "religion").

The hallmark of the "middle-class" is the stabilizing of society, thereby maintaining a "class system" of those who "have" and those who "don't have," with a "middle class" preparing their children to better their lives so that they can "have." Dialectic thinkers and activist, claimed the "middle-class" prevented the "have not's" from advancing by their "moralizing" in the classroom and therefore that they must, for the 'purpose' of 'change,' negate the "middle class" as they, (in the eyes of the public) supposedly worked to "save" it. It is then possible, through the conflict between the poor and the rich, the "have's and the have not's" (including in the home) to "divide and conquer" and thereby take over control of the nation and the world (facilitate 'change'), for the 'purpose' of social 'change' (socialist change). Hegel understood and promoted this way of thinking .

Just because someone says he wants to decrease tax on the middle class does not mean he really wants to (or will) do it. Those of the "upper-class" need the "middle-class" since they support their way of living (those of the "middle class" working to attain it for themselves and their children). Those of the "lower-class" need the "middle-class" since it is the only way to get to to the "upper-class" as well. Destroy the "middle-class" and both rich and poor become "equal" (along with the "middle class"), "equal" in a "new" world order of abomination, that which the "middle-class" tends to inhibit and restrain, chastening their children when they think and act that way, preaching to them and teaching them of a better way, a way of discipline, accountability, and honesty (in the true meaning of those words). Not saying that the poor and the rich (in mind) don't have these standards or desire them, they do, but unlike the poor and the rich (I explain how those of dialectic 'reasoning' think) the "middle-class" (in mind) tend to ingrain them in their children (I say you can be poor or even rich and have a "middle-class" mind, the poor using it to get ahead, the rich retaining it in how they got ahead).

Government can only "help" the "middle-class" by leaving it alone, by letting parents inculcate into their children doing what is right and getting ahead through working hard and doing their best for their family, better yet as unto the Lord. The same is true for the family business. Government "help" (through socialist work) will only destroy it (as is intended, which social workers will deny, to deceive themselves and all who support their "felt" needs, which is working). Like competing with the third world's economy (focusing upon making the poor and the rich "equal"), you eventually become the third world's economy (poor). How far are we into debt? The "enlightened," those of dialectic 'reasoning,' like pimps and drug pushers, i.e. ever seeking and promoting 'change,' don't know what "bottom line" means other than when they run out of other peoples money they look for more "customers" to "help" them meet their "felt" needs. As Carl Rogers admitted, those in government, who 'reason' the dialectic way, are not interested in stopping crime, as they might say, they are only interested in "using it," to get their way. "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [middle class, i.e., parental authority]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

The greatest poverty is not the absence of money, it is the absence of morality, of righteousness, which the "middle-class" tends to uphold (this is the platform of those who 'reason' dialectically). Those of dialectic 'reasoning' must negate righteousness, not poverty, if they are to produce a "new" world order of 'change.' At least that is what their own research acknowledges as being their intent. "Class Consciousness" (the oppressed-oppressor, "haves" and "have not's" syndrome) is the hallmark of Marxism ideology, for which we now stand. Thanks to those of dialectic 'reasoning' facilitating 'change,' 'justifying' "human nature," i.e. the child's carnal nature, i.e., unrighteousness (sensuousness) as being the "norm" (over and therefore against righteousness, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will, it can't be "equal"), we are no longer looking at our heart, i.e. our thoughts and our actions according to God's Word, i.e. according to what our Father says, i.e. which is (was) the "middle-class" way of thinking and acting (doing right and not wrong according the father's will). "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (ibid.) Those of dialectic 'reasoning' don't mind your soul being around, as long as they own it (can buy and sell it as "natural resource"), keeping God from it (who sent his Son, Jesus Christ to save it from eternal death, i.e., damnation).

When someone brings up the issue of "the middle-class" now you know what it is really all about. You can't have it around running (ruining) things if you want 'change,' i.e., globalism, i.e., one world government, i.e., a "new" world order with facilitators' of 'change,' i.e., socialists ('liberals'), i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same), i.e., "big brother" in control.