Cafés by Dean Gotcher

Cafés

by
Dean Gotcher

The cafés (Parisian cafés) were instrumental in initiating (fermenting) and sustaining the French Revolution. They were the "coffee houses," i.e., the "dialoguing of opinions ("feelings") to a consensus" meeting places, i.e., "group grade" classrooms of the time, where the young (and liberal "old," i.e., the facilitators of 'change') gathered to discuss their carnal desires of the 'moment,' along with their dissatisfaction with (hatred toward) authority, i.e., their resentment (hatred) toward restraint and the retainer—who was standing in their way of pleasure. Their unified outcome, i.e., what they all had in common was the 'liberation' (liberalization) of the child (the proletariat), i.e., 'liberating' "human nature," by negating the father's/Father's authority (in this case the King, and all who supported him, i.e., the bourgeoisie) in society. Their agenda of "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité" is reflected in our agenda today, that of promoting "human rights" (humanist rights), i.e., the carnal nature of the child, "Building relationship upon Self interest," "Making the world safe for democracy," i.e., promoting "worldly peace and socialist harmony."

The structure of the cafés (the dialoguing of opinions in order to arrive at an agreement, i.e., a consensus) was reflected in the salons of France as well—where the bourgeoisie themselves took part in developing the same structure of thought as the "disenfranchised" in the cafés. The Salons were "a discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them" (Gerard A. Hauser, Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres), they were "a theater in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk." (Nancy Fraser, "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy", Social Text), "a realm of social life in which public opinion can be formed." (Robert Asen,"Toward a Normative Conception of Difference in Public Deliberation", Argumentation and Advocacy) The "building of relationships" based upon common "self interest" directed affected not only how the establishing of policy was arrived at (away from top-down commands, rules, facts, and truth to equal input—which was not equal in that only "appropriate information," i.e., "positive" information, .i.e., information antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., information relevant to the facilitator of 'changes' desired outcome, i.e., "common-ism" was permitted in the decision making environment), but the economic structure of society as well, transcending (negating) the authority structure (control) of the King over society.

In the American Revolution we removed the King from ruling over "the people," breaking the government up into three different branches, limiting the power of government, yet we kept him (the King) in place, in the home, in the father's/Father's authority, engendering private family, private property, private business, and private convictions, under God (from whom we derive our inalienable rights), with parents training their children, i.e., the next generation of citizens up to know right from wrong, insisting that those in government do what is right and not wrong as well. In practice we sent "representatives" to present our position in government, as children are sent by their fathers (the constituents) to the store (to the capital) to "re-present" them in buying their goods. If the children (representatives) mishandled the father's (the constituent's) money, spending it on themselves or on their "friends" "self interest" instead, they were recalled, i.e. no longer sent to the store. The breaking up of government into branches was to prevent the child (the representatives) from making decisions (policies) based upon their "feelings," i.e., their desires (impulses and urges) of the 'moment,' usurping the rights of the father (the constituents) in the process.

The café/salon structure of deciding and establishing policy based upon the participants dialoguing their opinions to a consensus usurps (negates) the father's authority, i.e., true "representative" government (limited/constitutional government, i.e., local control). A person can not "re-present" his "self" in court. He can only present his "self." i.e., presenting his own desires and interest of the 'moment.' Seeking consensus (bipartisanship), based upon the participants (the children's) "feelings" (opinion) of the 'moment,' negates true "representative" government. Forming a government of consensus (Directorate, Politburo system)—with departments (using the consensus process in establishing policy) networking between themselves as well as between all branches of government (circumventing limited government)—can only initiate and sustain, as well as serve and protect a common goal, that of negating "representative" government, overcoming the constituent's (the father's) ability to restrain the abuses of the representatives (the children), who, now in control, can spend the father's (constituent's) money on their own "self interest," spending the father (the constituents) into debt, doing it all in the name of "the people."

While George Washington (the "father" of the nation) 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 [by the consensus process]; 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)

Vladimir Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) stated: "...a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [the citizens honoring (submitting to) the Kings authority over them, the property and business owners expecting the workers to do the same to them, i.e., to honour (submit themselves to) their authority over them, as children, honoring (submitting themselves to) their father's authority over them, as man honors (submits himself to) God's authority over him], 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] 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 [private property and business] 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) Millions died after this speech, in order to fulfill Ulyanov's dream.

György Lukács wrote (three months prior to Ulyanov's speech): "'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'], etc. Eliminate these relations [the father's/Father's authority over the children, i.e., the children uniting themselves as "one" in the praxis or social action of negating the father's/Father's authority over them] and you abolish the whole of society; …… a scientifically acceptable solution does exist [dialectic 'reasoning,' "self" 'justification,' and the consensus process] … 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] standpoint other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parents]. 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), "group grade" 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)

The consensus process is key to the negation of limited government (local control). Without the consensus process, i.e., the "group grade" classroom, i.e., the cafés, Globalism (transcending nationalism) can not be initiated and sustained. "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)

The consensus process, i.e., the "group grade" classroom (established upon the use of Bloom's Taxonomies) is the soviet system (cafés) of today, uniting the world (including the "church," i.e., "youth groups," "bible groups," etc.,) upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e. "human nature," i.e., man's opinion negating the father's/Father's authority in the hearts of the children (society), so that all can sin with impunity. Enjoy your donuts and coffee (pizza and pop for the youth) as you "built relationship" with others, basing your thoughts and actions upon your and their common "self interests"—a process called "common-ism" AKA Communism. As I have stated before: The Berlin wall did not come down because Communism was defeated. It came down because Communism had succeeded, in the universal use of the consensus process, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, using the cafés of the French Revolution to 'liberate' children from their parents, citizens from their nation, man from God, from the home (coming between the children and their parents) to the governing bodies establishing international law (coming between the leaders of the nation and the laws that restraint them while doing the same between the youth of the nations and their parents) in order (as in "new" world order) to initiate and sustain the process of 'change,' i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony."

The UN makes no decisions outside the consensus (café) process: "It is proposed that no facts or opinion be considered by the Congress unless the facts and opinions be the established consensus of a group of collaborators." (Harry Stack Sullivan, The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science)

Abraham Maslow explained the café's outcome well:

"In a democratic [café] society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it [A patriarchal culture, where children obey their parents, citizens and elected officials obey the law of the land, man obeys God] is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." "In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)

". . . I've decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN, & the like." "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.)." "To identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)