Political Correctness Came Out of the Frankfurt School

[northwye]

The Authoritarian Personalty by Theodor Adorno was published in 1950,. The book had a substantial influence upon a generation of American personality-social psychologists. The book followed an ideology developed by the Frankfurt School in Germany before many of the Frankfurters migrated to the United States in the thirties. Frankfurt School ideology taught that Christianity and the patriarchal family created a type of character that was prone to racial prejudice and fascism.

The German Frankfurters who came to the U.S. saw that the United States was, in the thirties, dominated by Christianity and the patriarchal family. The Frankfurters then set out to gradually turn America off on Christianity and the patriarchal family, and our American culture which the Frankfurters saw as being prejudiced toward certain minorities, especially Blacks and Jews.

Political Correctness began in the major American universities within what we then called the Women's Liberation and Black Power movements in the period of the late sixties to the early seventies.

And that early Political Correctness was influenced by Adorno's 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality and the Frankfurt School's ideology that Christianity and the American patriarchal family cause fascism and both must be weakened and finally done away with.

"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the
heavenly family , the former must be destroyed (annihilated), in theory
and in practice." Karl Marx , Feuerbach Thesis #4

Betty Friedan and other second wave feminists, plus other social engineers in personality-social psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychiatry, under the influence of the Frankfurters were important in the creation of Political Correctness.

Starting from the Frankfurt School's ideology saying that Christianity and the patriarchal family were the cause of the
Authoritarian Personalty - stated in a pseudo scientific way in Adorno's The Authoritarian Personalty - a simple method of opposing, diminishing and perhaps finally destroying the culture of the West was created by the end of the seventies.

David Weinberger wrote about Donald Trunp and political correctness in How Donald Trump Hijacked the Authenticity of the Web. "His credibility is zero, but by attacking political correctness he projects a true voice to his internet followers."

See https://backchannel.com/how-donald-trump-hijacked-the-authe…

Weinberger wrote that ""Rather than dignity, respect and sympathy being the sign of authenticity, in the world of Trump xenophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, racism, and anti-intellectualism are the hard truths that only Trump supporters are courageous enough to acknowledge."

In his book, The Authorithoritarian Personality, the Marxist Theodore W. Adorno said that Christianity and the family created an authoritarian personality, characterized by racism and fascism. Since Trump has been critical not only of political correctness but also is critical of allowing huge numbers of refugees from The Middle East and Latin America into the United States - including many Islamics and among them an unknown number of
Jihadists - from the point of view of the Marxist dominated Left, Trump has to be a racist. Weinberger, being more articulate than the current screaming Leftists called "Social Justice Warriers," adds that Ol Trump is also xenophobic, Islamophobic and anti-intellectual.

I do not know whether Weinberger, who has a Ph.D., is a Marxist or not, but in saying that Trump is a racist he is following the talking points of the screaming "social justice warriers," and seems to be defending their political correctness. The opposite to political correctness in present day America is support for Christianity and the family. I would rather live in an America that keeps its First Amendment intact and not weakened by political correctness.

Trump went to an Ivy League Business School, Wharton School of Business, though he probably does not have a Ph.D. But he is now "anti-intellectual" maybe because he does not like political correctness or the Islamic "Refugees" pouring into the country.

Political Correctness uses a form of the Marxist version of the Hegelian dialectic. In this dialectic life, culture, language, borders, and people are overly-simplified. In the simplified dialectic there is a direct opposition made outstanding in public perception to white Christian heterosexual males and the value placed on them by an older culture.

The white, Christian, heterosexual males and the older culture that valued them are the thesis and the opposition to this thesis is the assertion that they are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic (and anti-lesbian). In the Hegelian dialectic the opposition to the thesis is called the antithesis. The Greek word αντιθεσεις , or antithesis, is found in I Timothy 6: 20. Other Greek words mean opposition, but αντιθεσεις is a term used by the Greek philosophy of the dialectic before the time of Christ.

The Political Correctness method of culture change can be applied beyond just making white, middle class, heterosexual males feel guilty for not being Black, female, or homosexual. Political Correctness can be used to make a large percentage of Americans accept the current invasion of the Western nations by the refugees with jihadists among them. It can be made to appear politically incorrect to reject the refugees because they are of another race and religion. This is "racist."

Any thing, or person can be made politically incorrect and therefore "racist" that is not liked by the Left. If someone running for office promotes policies that are nationalist and intended to help Americans, they can be called "racist" and therefore politically incorrect. Since Hitler was a nationalist rather than a Marxist internationalist, so anyone who is a nationalist is a Fascist. But all the presidents before George H. W. Bush were nationalists, though you could place the last nationalist President being in office prior to Lyndon B. Johnson .

 

[The Horn]

Bigotry is bigotry . It's not being "politically incorrect ". Trump is a bigot, period . He's not "politically incorrect ."

 

[intojoy]

Bigotry is bigotry . It's not being "politically incorrect ". Trump is a bigot, period . He's not "politically incorrect ."

So are the obamas


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[PureX]

The make-believe phenomena of "political correctness", by the conservative right in America, is a very popular social "bogey-man". Any time they are disparaged for expressing their bigotry against others they cry that they are persecuted by the bogey-man of "political correctness".

The victimizers love to play the victim when they are caught out, because they are truly cowards, at heart.

 

[northwye]

The three comments above are interesting in regard to the knowledge of Transformational Marxism in the Capital C Church now. The same could also be said of the knowledge in the Church of the Counterculture and the influences upon in from about 1962 to 1980. In the mid eighties I tried to get a manuscript published on a Biblical view of the Counterculture. One editor of a more conservative Christian publishing house said the Church was not interested in the Counterculture. I corresponded some with Francis Schaeffer about my manuscript and he was interested in the subject. This was not long before he died in 1984. I self-published the manuscript in 1985 and it was distributed by Great Christian Books out of Wilmington, Delaware.

Later I found mentions of my book by Christians on the Internet - in 1988 Thomas Ice wrote a brief review of the book in An Evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism, Bibliotheca Sacra, 145 no 579 Jl-S 1988, for example. And my book is or was in the library of the Dallas Theological Seminary - BR115 .C8 P76 1985. Its not there because I wrote good things about dispensationalism. It is a review of the studies on the
counterculture by social scientists, and a Biblical criticism of the
counterculture.

If I were to write the book now, I would include a discussion of the
Baby Boom Generation and its interaction with the counterculture. In
the book, though, I did emphasize II Timothy 3: 1-7. There Paul starts
by saying "in the last days perilous times shall come" and then he
lists several personality traits of people in the last days. These
traits not only fit those described by the three social scientists who
studied the counterculture but are also a prophecy by Paul about
the personality traits of people in the end times - and especially of
the Baby Boomers.

 

[annabenedetti]

The Authoritarian Personalty

A friend and I were just talking about authoritarian personalities. Look for a related thread before long.

The German Frankfurters who came to the U.S. saw that the United States was, in the thirties, dominated by Christianity and the patriarchal family. The Frankfurters then set out to gradually turn America off on Christianity and the patriarchal family, and our American culture which the Frankfurters saw as being prejudiced toward certain minorities, especially Blacks and Jews.

Interesting how you put that: "the Frankfurters saw as being prejudiced toward certain minorities, especially Blacks and Jews." In using that phrasing, you've distanced yourself from presenting our historical prejudicial behavior towards certain minorities as the fact that it is. Do you not agree with the Frankfurters that American society held (holds) very real and measurable prejudice?

 

[northwye]

"Do you not agree with the Frankfurters that American society held (holds) very real and measurable prejudice? "

The Frankfurters were Transformational Marxists who operated on the basis of the Hegelian Dialectic, and were setting up an opposition to Christianity and the patriarchal family. They knew in the thirties, forties and fifties that Christianity and the patriarchal family were strong in the United States. Agreeing with them, and with their Marxist version of the Hegelian Dialectic, and their plan to weaken ad eventually get rid of Christian influence, and their propaganda of political correctness, is an opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Does this mean that the Gospel is racist? Certainly not. See Galatians 3: 28. But agreeing with the Frankfurters and the present day use of political correctness is an opposition to the Gospel of Christ, because it is anti-Christian. This is a serious issue in 2016.

Matthew 5: 13, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt
have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good
for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."

Matthew 5: 13 is describing the spiritual condition of the church after the
falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7. "Savour" might be understood as
only referring to how salt gives food a better taste. But the Greek word
behind savour is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number 3471, moraino, from
3474, moros, "dull or stupid, as if to shut up, heedless, blockhead..."
Moraino is a cognitive condition. But in Matthew 5: 13 moranthe refers to
a spiritual condition. Under the many false prophets operating for
decades, the churches have lost their intelligence. One example of this loss is
not being able to discern that Transformational Marxism and its political correctness is using racism as a weapon to attack the Gospel of Christ. Those in the Capital C Church who argue on the dialectic side of Transformational Marxism, or political correctness, have been deceived into opposing the Gospel itself.

 

[annabenedetti]

"Do you not agree with the Frankfurters that American society held (holds) very real and measurable prejudice? "

The Frankfurters were Transformational Marxists who operated on the basis of the Hegelian Dialectic, and were setting up an opposition to Christianity and the patriarchal family. They knew in the thirties, forties and fifties that Christianity and the patriarchal family were strong in the United States. Agreeing with them, and with their Marxist version of the Hegelian Dialectic, and their plan to weaken ad eventually get rid of Christian influence, and their propaganda of political correctness, is an opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Does this mean that the Gospel is racist? Certainly not. See Galatians 3: 28. But agreeing with the Frankfurters and the present day use of political correctness is an opposition to the Gospel of Christ, because it is anti-Christian. This is a serious issue in 2016.

Matthew 5: 13, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt
have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good
for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."

Matthew 5: 13 is describing the spiritual condition of the church after the
falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7. "Savour" might be understood as
only referring to how salt gives food a better taste. But the Greek word
behind savour is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number 3471, moraino, from
3474, moros, "dull or stupid, as if to shut up, heedless, blockhead..."
Moraino is a cognitive condition. But in Matthew 5: 13 moranthe refers to
a spiritual condition. Under the many false prophets operating for
decades, the churches have lost their intelligence. One example of this loss is
not being able to discern that Transformational Marxism and its political correctness is using racism as a weapon to attack the Gospel of Christ. Those in the Capital C Church who argue on the dialectic side of Transformational Marxism, or political correctness, have been deceived into opposing the Gospel itself.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[northwye]

I wonder if the people who are trying to say they agree with political correctness agree with dispensationalism or Christian Zionism? From what Paul says in Romans 9: 6-8,II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 4: 24-26 and especially Galatians 3: 3, 16, 26-29, those who claim to be of Israel because of their physical DNA from Abraham are "not the children of God" (Romans 9: 8). Dispensationalists who now honor those who claim to have the physical DNA of Abraham are "racist."

Deception is coming from the secular society as well as from false prophets claiming to be preachers or priests. The Marxist propagandists who teach that prejudice toward Jews or Blacks came out of Christianity and the family are deceivers and liars. The family itself teaches whatever the culture teaches,or what the father teaches. Saying that Christianity causes fascism and prejudice toward Jews and Blacks is the basic lie of Marxism, a lie which is obvious if you know the New Testament scriptures. The family is valued in Christianity because it is the basic small group of society and it can best teach the doctrines of the New Testament to its members, if it is cohesive, and the parents know the scriptures.

 

[annabenedetti]

The Marxist propagandists who teach that prejudice toward Jews or Blacks came out of Christianity and the family are deceivers and liars. The family itself teaches whatever the culture teaches,or what the father teaches.

So if the father teaches prejudice? This is somehow the fault of "Marxist propagandists"?

Your answer here: ____________________________

If the Christian culture teaches prejudice? Beginning with our early Puritans:

After a particularly devastating smallpox epidemic among the Indians, William Bradford recorded in his diary: "For it pleased God to visit these Indians with a great sickness and such a mortality that of a thousand, above nine and a half hundred of them died, and many of them did rot above ground for want of burial."

The colonists interpreted these Indian deaths as divinely sanctioned opportunities to take the land. John Winthrop declared that the decimation of Indians by smallpox manifested a Puritan destiny: God was "making room" for the colonists and "hath hereby cleared our title to this place." After an epidemic had swept through Indian villages, John Cotton claimed that the destruction was a sign from God: when the Lord decided to transplant His people, He made the country vacant for them to settle... "

"The wilderness through which we are passing to the Promised Land is all over fill'd with fiery flying serpents... our Indian wars are not over yet. We have too far degenerated into Indian vices. The vices of the Indians are these: They are very lying wretches, and they are very lazy wretches; and they are out of measure indulgent unto their children; there is no family government among them..." [Rev. Cotton Mather]

From A Different Mirror, by Ronald Takaki (which I happen to be reading right now).
​

Prejudice against minorities (towards the original inhabitants of this country, no less) in this country goes back to our founding immigrants and it continues to this day. Yes, in this culture. Yes, taught by fathers (and mothers) to their children, generation after generation. No "Marxist propagandists" were used in the making of such prejudice.

 

[northwye]

Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse were the European founders of Transformational Marxism and the Frankfurt School.

Abraham Harold Maslow, Irvin Yalom, Carl Ransom Rogers, Benjamin Samuel Bloom and Normon O. Brown were some of the American social engineers who were under influence from the Frankfurt School.

Georg Lukács said "What differentiated the West from Russia,
Lukacs identified, was a
Judeo-Christian cultural matrix which emphasized exactly the
uniqueness and sacredness of the individual which Lukacs abjured. At
its core, the dominant Western ideology maintained that the
individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, could discern
the Divine Will in an unmediated relationship. What was worse, from
Lukacs' standpoint: this reasonable relationship necessarily implied
that the individual could and should change the physical universe in
pursuit of the Good; that Man should have dominion over Nature, as
stated in the Biblical injunction in Genesis. The problem was, that as
long as the individual had the belief—or even the hope of the
belief—that his or her divine spark of reason could solve the problems
facing society, then that society would never reach the state of
hopelessness and alienation which Lukacs recognized as the necessary
prerequisite for socialist revolution." http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html

Lukacs was aware of protestant individualism and its affirmation of an
individual's
personal relationship with God, as Jesus Christ the Son. The West had
affirmed the individual and his spiritual rise above the mere flesh of
man through Christ and the Holy Spirit. But Marxism affirms the
collective, the group. and hence the phrase "It takes a village to
raise a child" of Hillary and other Marxists.

 

[northwye]

Political Correctness, as the manipulation of the people by use of race,
gender and other stereotypes, is more like the Marxism of the
Frankfurt School than the Bolshevism of Lenin and Stalin who did not
follow the "long march through the institutions" of Antonio Gramsci
(1891-1937), but used massive violence from the beginning to overthrow
government.

The political correctness movement reduces the subtle and complex reality of cultures, ideologies, borders, language and people to make all this into a simple matter of race, gender and other stereotypes, used as weapons to change the culture of the West, This process is called predilection
for single orderings. Francis Schaeffer said that many people do not have enough categories of thought. He was talking about this over-simplification process. Clinton B. DeSoto's 1961 concept which he called predilection for single orderings is the idea that many people cannot deal with multiple concepts at once, or a mix of several concepts in a dialectical opposition.

DeSoto did a study, published in 1961, which supported his idea that many people generally have difficulty in understanding and ordering a complex set of ideas, issues or events and tend only to understand and deal with simple one dimensional statements.

The dialectical opposition which is presented by Political Correctness - a method of attitude and belief change used by Transformational Marxism - ignores a number of factors in order to carry out the manipulation of the attitudes, beliefs and behavior of masses of people.

The concept of predilection for single orderings and its support in empirical data shows that many people are unable to deal with a complex set of oppositions. For example, Black Slavery Is Good versus All Slavery is Bad is a single ordering, that most people can understand.

But when you create a dialectic that is more complex than such a single ordering many people cannot deal with that.

For example, the Old South played an important role in winning the Revolutionary War and in setting up the Constitutional Republic. Old South leaders played a large role in formulating the nation's political ideology. Transformational Marxism is opposed to that American political ideology - especially seen in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was created under a guy of the Old South, James Madison.

The complex dialectic which political correctness creates using racism in the Old South - but does not acknowledge - mixes racism with the creation of an American political ideology which gives the individual rights that Transformational Marxism opposes. This is the deception of political correctness.

Transformational Marxism, as a form of Marxism, has no absolute morals, and so Transformational Marxism has no moral reason to try to change people's prejudice toward Blacks, women, homosexuals, lesbians, etc. As a form of Marxism it wants to overthrow the American Constitutional system of checks and balances and especially to do away with the Bill of Rights, giving individuals rights in what the Marxists want to create, a collectivist society, which is already under way in the screaming politically correct "warriors." The Marxists want to get rid of the First and Second Amendments. Remember that the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not only did James Madison, who, with his Committee in the House, create the Bill of Rights, own Black slaves, and so did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk - and Ulysses S. Grant.

Jefferson opposed slavery, but kept his slaves as part of his household, and many historians say, his family. Ulysses S. Grant owned one Black slave and controlled a number of others who were owned by his wife. The complexity of racism in the U.S. includes the fact that four states which remained in the Union during the 1861-65 war continued to allow slavery during that war - Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. And that politically correct Union Army which invaded the South, destroying property and killing civilians, after the war became politically incorrect when it began killing Indians in the states of the Great Planes.

 

[annabenedetti]

The Schiller Institute?

Lyndon LaRouche?

The 9/11-was-an-inside-job LaRouche?

Did you know that he thought rock music was brought into being "by people who set out in a deliberate way to subvert the United States. It was done by British intelligence," and that the Beatles were "a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division specifications"?

Also that Bill Clinton's impeachment was a plot by British Intelligence to destabilize the U.S. Government?

There's so much to say about LaRouche, but where to begin?

What I'd really like to know is how you came to think that a father (or mother) passing their prejudices to their children is somehow a result of marxist infiltration? Somehow, I don't think you're inclined to answer that.

 

[northwye]

“The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by
accepting belongingness to the group.” Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne
Human Relations in Curriculum Change

The type of group that Kurt Lewin, the flounder of Group Dynamics, is
talking about is a collective, unlike the cohesive family under the father
figure.

"And on the basis of this individual growth of each in our conditions a new
type of mighty socialist collective will in the long run be formed, where
“I” and “we” will merge into one inseparable whole. Such a collective can
only develop on the basis of profound ideological solidarity and an equally
profound emotional rapprochement, mutual understanding."
Nadezhda K. Krupskaya a, Letter to A. M. Gorky.

Dean Gotcher has shown how certain leaders within the self psychology movement of American personality-social psychology, such as A.H. Maslow and Carl R. Rogers, became part of the Transformational Marxist movement to remake major American institutions. Gotcher also understands the important role that the Group Dynamics and Encounter Group movements played in the creation of a new American collectivism.

Gotcher is a preacher, and also a scholar, who is mostly rejected by the churches in 2016, though any one particular church or preacher may not have ever heard of Dean Gotcher. He is not liked by the Churches, especially the huge Churches. Sometimes small chuches will still invite him to speak.

 

[annabenedetti]

What exactly do you know about Carl Rogers and his client-centered approach to therapy?

And how, exactly, do you see it as an attempt to "remake American Institutions"?

 

[annabenedetti]

You do realize, also, that there is such a thing as a cultural difference to the ways people interact with and within their society, and that there are more individualistic societies and more collectivistic societies, and that you don't have to assign evil intent to people who live in more collectivistic societies? Collectivism isn't defined by Marxism, in fact it predates Marxism.

 

[northwye]

I took a course at UT-Austin on Marxism. It was mostly on Das Kapital. Later, I came across the F Scale, a questionnaire which tried to measure predisposition to fascism, by Theodore W. Adorno and his crew at Berkeley. Personality-social psychology professors in the fifties and sixties mostly accepted the ideology of Adorno as a social science hypothesis, when it was really propaganda.

It was not until about 2004-2007 when I was on a Christian Yahoo Group that I began to study the writings and audios of Dean Gotcher, and then I found out what Transformational Marxism is and how it attacks the foundations of Western culture.

A.H. Maslow and Carl R. Rogers were self psychologists, who may not be seen as contributing much to Marxist collectivism. Rogers, though, was one of the pioneers in the Encounter Group movement, which did make use of concepts out of the Group Dynamics movement which was collectivist as far as small groups are concerned.

In the sixties when Carl Rogers, William Coulson and a number of
other facilitators ran encounter groups involving the nuns of the
Sacred Heart of Mary in Southern California, they did not tell the
nuns that the patriarchal authority of God must be overthrown, or that Roman Catholicism is false doctrine.

Rogers and his crew of facilitators told the nuns they could be
themselves, and express their full potential and become
"self-actualized." They could become "fully functioning" people. Above
all, they could express their feelings which Rogerian theory put above
cognitive clarity or knowing. Rogers and his gang of facilitators ran
encounter groups using the Nuns, and processed them with the dialectic
in groups which were relatively cohesive.

The result was that these allies of the Transformational Marxist
Frankfurt School psychologists and psychiatrists destroyed the
Immaculate Heart order. William Coulson in an interview sometimes
called "The Story of a Repentant Psychologist" long after the
encounter groups were run on the Nuns in 1966 and 1967 says "Within a
year after
our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out
of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority,
except the authority of their imperial inner selves."The interviewer
asks "How many years did it take to destroy this Immaculate Heart
order?
COULSON: It took about a year and a half." " Of the 615, how many are
left?" COULSON: There are the retired nuns, who are living in the
mother house in
Hollywood; there is a small group of radical feminists, who run a
center for feminist theology in a storefront in Hollywood."

William Coulson's story of how Carl Rogers and a number of trained
facilitators of encounter group procedures "destroyed" the Sacred
Heart of Mary group in Southern California is an example of the power
of the dialectic as developed within American social and clinical
psychology by the mid sixties. When you have a group led by a trained
facilitator of the dialectic where the group is deliberately led to
avoid focusing upon facts as truth and absolute morality, and instead
the group is led to focus more on feelings and opinions, then you have
a "shifty" group. A "shifty" group is one in which more traditional
reliance upon facts, or truths and on a fixed set of morals are given
up and whatever satisfies man's feelings and opinions, which are
derived from feelings, or emotions, take over.

Carl Rogers wrote a number of books and got federal funding for large federal research grants, though his research was very "soft" and not rigorously designed. He was into much more than his client-centered psychotherapy.

William Coulson, a few years ago, told me in an E Mail that "Maslow hung out with the Frankfurters," by which I think he meant that A.H. Maslow was a friend of the Marxist Herbert Marcuse, who, like Maslow, was a professor at Brandeis. I don't know if Carl Rogers ever had any personal contact with any of the Frankfurters. Rogers left Wisconsin sometime in the sixties to go to Southern California. His side kick, William Coulson, was also at Wisconsin in the early sixties, and followed Rogers to California. But - Coulson broke with Rogers and the Encounter Group movement and became critical of both. I think Dean Gotcher had some kind of personal contact with Coulson because of the knowledge Coulson had about Carl Rogers. I was once a Research Assistant of Rogers at Wisconsin. But I knew nothing about Rogers after he left Wisconsin for California. William Coulson is a Catholic and Got his Ph.D. at Notre Dame in clinical psychology.

 

[The Horn]

Intojoy, how are the Obamas "bigots ".? They're anything but bigots . Unlike Donald Chump, they
e never been vicious fear and hate mongers, and have criticized individual people or groups, but they've never fostered racism . Let;s face it ; Trump is nothing but a ruthless demagogue. Like him or not, Obama is no demagogue . He's the exact opposite of a demagogue- a decent, reasonable and fair-minded guy .

 

[annabenedetti]

A.H. Maslow and Carl R. Rogers were self psychologists, who may not be seen as contributing much to Marxist collectivism.

I'd venture to say they didn't contribute anything at all to Marxist collectivism.

Rogers, though, was one of the pioneers in the Encounter Group movement, which did make use of concepts out of the Group Dynamics movement which was collectivist as far as small groups are concerned.

Small groups (which are a part of human society) cannot be equated to the monolithic form of Communist totalitarian government that you have in mind.

In the sixties when Carl Rogers, William Coulson and a number of
other facilitators ran encounter groups involving the nuns of the
Sacred Heart of Mary in Southern California, they did not tell the
nuns that the patriarchal authority of God must be overthrown, or that Roman Catholicism is false doctrine.

That order of nuns happened to be quite progressive (one of them already a well-known artist known as Sr. Corita Kent, who I first learned about here - she designed one of the LOVE stamps for the USPS). They were already engaged in major confrontation with their conservative bishop at the time, had already simplified their habits, and yes, much of this came during the turbulent sixties. It was the convent who contacted Rogers and Coulson, the nuns requested them.

Rogers and his crew of facilitators told the nuns they could be
themselves, and express their full potential and become
"self-actualized." They could become "fully functioning" people. Above
all, they could express their feelings which Rogerian theory put above
cognitive clarity or knowing. Rogers and his gang of facilitators ran
encounter groups using the Nuns, and processed them with the dialectic
in groups which were relatively cohesive.

The result was that these allies of the Transformational Marxist
Frankfurt School psychologists and psychiatrists destroyed the
Immaculate Heart order.

No they didn't.

I just finished reading (as a result of your post), a research paper entitled "An Encounter Between Psychology and Religion: Humanistic Psychology and the Immaculate Heart of Mary Nuns."

In it, the researcher, Robert Kugelmann, himself a professor at a Catholic University, quotes the Mother General of the order at that time. In response to Coulson's claim that he and Rogers had caused the destruction, she said his claim was "blatantly false."

William Coulson in an interview sometimes
called "The Story of a Repentant Psychologist" long after the
encounter groups were run on the Nuns in 1966 and 1967 says "Within a
year after
our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out
of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority,
except the authority of their imperial inner selves."The interviewer
asks "How many years did it take to destroy this Immaculate Heart
order?
COULSON: It took about a year and a half." " Of the 615, how many are
left?" COULSON: There are the retired nuns, who are living in the
mother house in
Hollywood; there is a small group of radical feminists, who run a
center for feminist theology in a storefront in Hollywood."

William Coulson's story of how Carl Rogers and a number of trained
facilitators of encounter group procedures "destroyed" the Sacred
Heart of Mary group in Southern California is an example of the power
of the dialectic as developed within American social and clinical
psychology by the mid sixties. When you have a group led by a trained
facilitator of the dialectic where the group is deliberately led to
avoid focusing upon facts as truth and absolute morality, and instead
the group is led to focus more on feelings and opinions, then you have
a "shifty" group. A "shifty" group is one in which more traditional
reliance upon facts, or truths and on a fixed set of morals are given
up and whatever satisfies man's feelings and opinions, which are
derived from feelings, or emotions, take over.

Carl Rogers wrote a number of books and got federal funding for large federal research grants, though his research was very "soft" and not rigorously designed. He was into much more than his client-centered psychotherapy.

William Coulson, a few years ago, told me in an E Mail that "Maslow hung out with the Frankfurters," by which I think he meant that A.H. Maslow was a friend of the Marxist Herbert Marcuse, who, like Maslow, was a professor at Brandeis. I don't know if Carl Rogers ever had any personal contact with any of the Frankfurters. Rogers left Wisconsin sometime in the sixties to go to Southern California. His side kick, William Coulson, was also at Wisconsin in the early sixties, and followed Rogers to California. But - Coulson broke with Rogers and the Encounter Group movement and became critical of both. I think Dean Gotcher had some kind of personal contact with Coulson because of the knowledge Coulson had about Carl Rogers. I was once a Research Assistant of Rogers at Wisconsin. But I knew nothing about Rogers after he left Wisconsin for California. William Coulson is a Catholic and Got his Ph.D. at Notre Dame in clinical psychology.

Again, according to the Mother General of the IHM order, no - Rogers and Coulson didn't destroy the order. When you look at what happened in context, religious orders were emptying out across the U.S., it wasn't limited to this one order although it's a very good illustration of what was happening in Catholic religious institutions everywhere in the country. According to the paper, between 1965 and 1990, the numbers of American nuns decreased by 43%, and I actually think that number sounds a little low.

What I think happened is that many, many, many nuns didn't necessarily have a vocation, that for various sociological reasons they chose a path that they were ill-suited for, or it was ill-suited for them, and they didn't see a way out from under the hierarchy - until - they were personally empowered to think for themselves. That's where Rogers and Coulson may have made their impact, and I suspect that's what you find so concerning. You want Individualism over Collectivism - except when you don't. Why is it you're not concerned about the collectivism of the convent? Or does it come down to only the "correct" kind of individualism and the "correct" kind of collectivism?

That's when it gets scary, for any person who's in control (whether through religious patriarchy, hierarchy, monarchy, or prejudicial injustice): when people begin to understand that they have some power over their destiny.

That was in process before Rogers and Coulson arrived. They may have been partners in facilitation, but the ultimate decisions by these nuns to shape their individual destinies was made by them. Some were laicized, some started a new community that exists to the present day.

 

[northwye]

Dean Gotcher Quotes: From: http://www.authorityresearch.com/

"The greatest obstacle to globalism is the individual with his strong
conscience, the result of a patriarchal home, with a patriarchal
faith.... Our tax dollars wholeheartedly support these heresiarchal
programs today. Our tax dollars are dedicated to pushing and
sustaining their liberal agenda, the dialectical paradigm, into every
American home, via. entertainment, education, work, government, and
even the church. All must participate. The process is not successful
until no one can escape."

"The pathway to "equality," in its full glory, is sodomy...........The
role of the facilitator of 'change' is to prevent any from standing in
the way of sodomy, where 'change' (progress) becomes the way of life.
It is the duty of ministers who facilitate 'change' to prevent any
from inhibiting the agenda of "equality," to guarantee the Sodomizing
of America while deceitfully telling you that that is not their aim,
i.e. as Satan told the woman in the garden, "You will not die." When
you do not reprove, correct, or rebuke unrighteousness, sodomy becomes
the "norm," abomination becomes the way of life."

(Sodomy is politically correct in 2016 political correctness Marxism)

"God cannot speak into the pre-flood, Tower of
Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, dialectic mind..."

Jesus Christ taught and implied that his Truth is absolute. Marxism says there is no absolute truth and no absolute morality. A psychologist who teaches that there is no absolute truth and no absolute morality has established the same starting point as a Marxist.

Carl Rogers, On Becoming A Person:

"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?'"

"Experience is, for me, the highest authority."

"Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience."

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

Benjamin Bloom, who wrote the two volume book on the Taxonomy
of Educational Goal Objectives, by which all teachers must be
certified, said "“We recognize the point of view that
truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and
fast truths which exist for all time and places.” (Benjamin Bloom, et
al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain)

Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change

"THE RIGHT GROUP SIZE for "soviet-delphi-brainwashing" to work: "The size of group should be the smallest group in which it is possible to have represented at functional level all the socialization and achievement skills required for the particular learning activity at hand." "To large a group duplicates skills . . . to small a group leaves gaps of competency." "At the present stage of our understanding, we may guess that for such a task as creative thinking for the purpose of planning an experiment (in which a wide range of social skills is required to keep the problem in front of the group and to build on all the suggestions offered and to have a sufficient range of ideas to begin with) a group from four to eight may be found necessary." "The specific goal is not an achievement goal per se but is rather a socialization goal which must be reached before the achievement goal can be adequately facilitated." The relationship between group and individual action should be such that the individual perceives his out-of-group action as the resumption of a task set in the group and interrupted by the ending of the preceding group meeting."

"Using a theory of "human motivation," a facilitator is able to change the purpose and method of education while changing a person's paradigm. Curriculum change is just a subtle way of saying paradigm shift. Motivation, according to this theory, is based on "needs satisfaction." The use of environmental forces can be used to "augment", encourage, or "reduce," discourage, specific behavior. Through the use of group recognition or depreciation (group dynamics) each individual learns quickly what behavior is accepted and which is not. "

"Though the fusing of "dynamic psychology" with "applied anthropology and sociology" (socio-psychology) in problem solving situations a laboratory type condition, organizational change can be developed and utilized to fulfill Marx's and Freud's dream of creating a humanistic, non-patriarchal, dialectic, materialistic, based society."

Collectivism is defined as the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. Collectivism is created in a more individualistic oriented society by an authoritarian - fascist nationalism or Marxist internationalism - government, and/or by agents in society who are allowed to assume control over groups.

A collectivist society wold have no governmental rule - a Constitution with a Bill of Rights granting each individual a set of rights. But an individualistic society would have such a Bill of Rights.

A facilitator of a small group acts as a controller of the group, though he or she may pretend that control is "non-directive" in imposing a collectivist or group-think attitude on members of the group.

The greater the control over the group that the group members allow of a controller the greater the potential for collectivism of the group.

"Small groups are the most effective way of closing the back door of
your church." Rick Warren