authorityresearch.com

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6
"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

The Institution for Authority Research

About, Issues, Articles, Links, Booklet, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Radio, Sources, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!, P.S., Donate.
deangotcher@gmail.com.
(
Note regarding the censorship of this website by McAfee.)
Bracketed information in quotations and verses which is not in bold print is information added by me.

Diaprax:
Putting Dialectic 'Reasoning,' i.e., "Self" 'Justification' (Luke 16:15) into Praxis, i.e., Into Social(ist) Action.

by
Dean Gotcher

Introduction of Part 1
(Part 2, Part 3)

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
"Let no man deceive you with vain words ["self" 'justifying' words, i.e., words which you want to hear, i.e., words which make you "feel" "good," 'justifying' your "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment']: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Ephesians 5:5-7

Through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, in "group psychotherapy," facilitated meetings children are being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so they—no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. The praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., of "self" 'justification' negates Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, negates Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the "guilty conscience" in children for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, resulting in them questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority instead of honoring it. This is the hallmark of Marxism. Marxism has become so entrenching in education, in business, in government, in the media, in the entertainment industry, etc., and even in the "church" today) to speak of it negatively automatically makes you an ausländer, i.e., an outcast—with most people supporting it without even knowing it, not knowing what it is. Are you a Marxist?

   Marxism is alive and well in America today—in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church." It is marching in the streets and sitting in government chambers, making laws forcing you to support it's "self"-ish way, as "adults"—acting as sulking spoiled children in defiance to their parent's authority—demand their way—having a tantrum if they can not have what they want, when they want it—blaming anyone not supporting them, for getting in their way. The difference between honest giving and Marxist (deceitfully, i.e., dishonest) giving is that in the former you give out of your own pocket, according to your free will, while in the latter you live off of (get paid from) the tax dollars government forces others to give, getting pleasure (including praise) giving their money (in the form of goods, loans, grants, or cash) to the "needy" of the day, guided by government regulations making sure there are no religious (Christian) connotations in the "gift," thus promoting a Godless state. How this is accomplished (with your participation in tax dollars, donations, and "voluntarism") is explained in the following pages.
   Even the "church" has joined in, suspending, as on a cross, the truth of the gospel, i.e., the Word of God so as not to offend others, in order to work with (partnership with) the government, i.e., the "community," initiating and sustaining social(ist) 'change.' "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

   Marxism is closer to you than you might think, might want to know, or might be willing to admit. It is in your heart. Marxism has become the way of doing "business" because Marxism lies in the heart of "the people," i.e., in the heart of the child. The heart is "deceitful" in that it establishes "pleasure," i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the child's "lusting" after and "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's "self interest" (Genesis 3:1-6) as the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will (Hebrews 12:5-11)—which engenders a guilty conscience in the child when doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25)—and "wicked" in that it resents restraint, i.e., hates the father's/Father's authority when it gets in the way of pleasure, willing to annihilate it in the 'moment.' Marxism would not exist if it were not so.

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

"The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality." "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." "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "Social action [desire for affirmation from others] no less than physical action [desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'] is steered by perception [what can I get out of this environment, i.e., this situation for "me"—"self interest"]."  (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."  Jeremiah 17:5

"Sense experience [sensuousness, i.e. the child's "feelings" of the 'moment" being stimulated by the world around him, responding to it according to his own carnal nature] must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception ["lust of the eyes"] and sensuous need ["lust of the flesh"], that is, only when it proceeds from Nature [from "all that is in the world"]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) "Science," when applied to morals and ethics guarantees that only those things which are of the child's carnal nature—the child's "feelings" of the 'moment" in response to the world around him, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his resentment of (hatred toward) restraint—become the "norm," making any child holding onto the father's/Father's authority irrational and therefore irrelevant, i.e., the enemy of the state.

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20

"It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students ["a psychological classification system"]—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive Domain) "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2: Affective Domain) "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) Marxism, i.e., making right and wrong subject to the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., the "affective domain" became the curriculum (the method of instruction) used by educators from the 50's on. All teachers are certified and schools (including colleges, universities, trade schools, military academies, etc.,) are accredited today (including private, "Christian," etc., including increasingly home schooling material) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies." which (as pointed out in Book 2: Affective Domain) are based upon the ideology or "world view" ("Weltanschauung1") of men such as Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm ("1Cf. Erich Fromm [Escape from Freedom], T. W. Adorno, [The Authoritarian Personality]"), i.e., Marxists.

"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:30; 12:47-50 (excerpts) The gospel message is about a Father sending His only begotten Son, who, obeying His Father in all things command, shed his blood on the cross in order to 'redeem' man from His Father's wrath upon them for their sins, in resurrecting His Son from the grave, 'reconciling' man to Himself, setting His Son at His right hand, giving Him the keys to the kingdom, telling the Son when to go get His bride, that she might partake in His Holiness for all eternity. The gospel message is all about a Son's obedience to His Father, asking us to do the same. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.." Matthew 7:21-23

"We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "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." "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) "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, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The 'natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) James Coleman's "Equality of Opportunity" report was used by the Supreme Court to remove parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (traditional education) from the classroom.

"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3) "A change in the curriculum [method of teaching] is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents ....." We "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding to their belief or position, i.e., refusing to compromise, thus sustaining the father's/Father's authority] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group ['changing' their 'loyalty' from the one restraining the child's carnal nature to the one(s) 'liberating' it]." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating' the Karl Marx in the child, thus 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [challenging the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, resulting in the students questioning and challenging their parent's authority when they get home] and getting them to discuss issues [evaluating personal-social issues from their "feelings," i.e., from their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including their desire for approval, i.e., affirmation from "the group," i.e., from the other children, and their dissatisfaction with authority instead of from their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]." This is done in order (as in "new" world order) "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "The affective domain is [the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the fathers'/Father's authority are], in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed].'" "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices [the children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus in the "group grade," "relationship building," "team building," facilitated classroom] are producing between parents and children." "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed." "...many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education) "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) Changing the classroom curriculum from the teacher 1) teaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) blessing or rewarding those students (children) who get things right and obey, 3) chastening or correcting those children who get things wrong or disobey, 4) discussing with the students (at the teachers discretion) any commands, rules, facts, and truth they do not understand, and 5) casting out any student who questions, challenges, disregards, defies, attacks, etc., the teachers authority to do 1-5 to where the students are "encouraged" to dialogue their opinions to a consensus in a "group grade," "group psychotherapy," facilitated classroom, 'changes' the world from the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority to the "new" world order of facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "children of disobedience" seducing, deceiving, and manipulating children (and adults) in order to 'create' a world based upon the carnal nature of the child, so that all "the people"—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, thus no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.

"For this cause [because they "did not like to retain God in their knowledge"] God gave them up unto vile affections [let them have what they wanted, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they "lusted" after, to their own demise]:" Romans 1:21, 25 "And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

"We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." "We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement [children affirming each others carnal desires and dissatisfactions over and therefore against their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]—there's no restraint and no revolt." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to disintegrate a man's personality structure, dissolving his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and making him dependent on another. … brainwashing [where an environment is created which will wash from the child's brain respect for the father's/Father's authority (correlated to Nationalism), turning him against it instead]." (Carl Rogers, as quoted in People Shapers, by Vance Packard)

   Marxism (despite what you might have been taught) is based upon the carnal nature of the child. Karl Marx, as did Sigmund Freud, based his life, and the lives of all mankind upon Georg Hegel's ideology that 'reality' resides in the child, i.e., in the carnal nature of the child and not in the father/Father and his/His authority. "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life,) Therefore, whoever does not make (or have the potential of making) the child "feel good" in the 'moment,' i.e., "feel" in harmony with or at peace with his "self," i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment' and the world stimulating it, inclusive of affirmation (where his "feelings," i.e., "goodness," i.e., his carnal nature of "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment' is being affirmed by others, as he affirms theirs), they are antithetical to the "good life," i.e., they are the enemy of the state. Hegel then wrote, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born): "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lusting" after the pleasures of the world, including (and especially) their desire for approval from others (affirmation)], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." ibid. In other words your spouse, your children, your property, your business, etc., and even you are not yours but societies, i.e., subject to its "felt" needs of the 'moment.' As Carl Rogers explained it above, if it is not common to everybody, i.e., if it does not "have a certain universality" and does not initiate and sustain "psychological freedom," i.e., if it prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks the child from being or becoming his "self" it can not engender the "good life"—which is the bases of common-ism aka Communism, basing the "good life" upon how people think, i.e., 'justifying' their "self," making their "self" subject to their "feelings," i.e., the sensations or "sense experiences" of the 'moment,' i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and the condition(s), i.e., the world around them stimulating them, whether imagined or real, making their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., "the lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes," i.e., that which is of the world only, i.e., of nature only the foundation from which to determine right from wrong, good from evil instead of upon an external authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, which is foreign to their carnal nature, restraining them, requiring them to have faith in the father's/Father's facts and truth and obey his/His commands and rules which are antithetical to their carnal nature (preventing, i.e.., inhibiting or block them from being their "self," i.e., judging/condemning them for "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment they desire, i.e., for being their "self," i.e., for being "normal").

"The life which he [the child/man] has given to the object [to the parent, King, or God—when the child/man humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self," obeying his parent's, the King's, or God's commands and rules as given, accepting their or his/His facts and truth as given, by faith ] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

"Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man [the child] overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower ["History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower, but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum, in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency [sub-consciousness, self-consciousness, self-esteem, self-actualization, progressively 'liberating' "self" and society from the father's/Father's authority]." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)]." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination. The foundation on which the man [the child] of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the carnal nature of the child]; the foundation has to be recovered." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

   'Liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from "an alien and hostile force," i.e., from parental authority was explained by Georg Hegel in his concept of "particular" and "universal." His "particular" (the individual child isolated/divided/alienated from society) is the "self" in the individual child, taken captive to an authority figure who is not in harmony with and therefore is antithetical to the child's carnal nature, dividing the child from that which he has in common with society, i.e., with the rest of the children of the world, i.e., the carnal nature of the child, the father's/Father's authority with his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth not only "repressing" the child but also "alienating" him from the other children of the world, preventing him from not only having peace with his "self" but also preventing him from being affirmed by (and affirming) the other children of the world. In Hegel's mind, i.e., according to dialectic 'logic,' the child initiates and sustains the father's/Father's authority, what Karl Marx called an "alien and hostile force" when he restrains (humbles, denies, dies to) his "self," in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, resulting in the child, out of fear of being condemned and cast out, i.e., being rejected by the father/Father, privately talking to his "self," i.e., dialoguing with his "self" (since the father cut off the child's "Why?" i.e., the child's effort to get the father into dialogue with his "self," with the father's "Because I said so," i.e., "It is written," i.e., "Do what I say or else" response rescuing him, i.e., the father from losing his position of authority, i.e., from abdicating his "top-down" authority—dialoguing with the child would make the father's position, i.e., his commands and rules an opinion, making him and the child "equal" with one another based upon "feelings"), i.e., in privacy 'justifying' his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' in indifference/defiance to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., preserving his "self," resulting in the child resenting the father's/Father's authority as he does the father's/Father's will, in psycho-sociological terms engendering "neurosis," i.e., "thought-action dichotomy."

"belief-action dichotomy" vs. "theory-practice unity"

"In short, philosophy as theory finds the 'ought' [the way the world "ought" to be, according to the child's nature, i.e., pleasing to the child, i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority] implied within the 'is' [within the way the world "is" according to the child's nature, i.e., desiring the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' resenting restraint], and as praxis seeks to make the two [the world and the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "feelings," i.e., desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them] coincide [removing the father's/Father's authority so that adults, in consensus, i.e., affirming one, can think and act as "children of disobedience," doing wrong, disobeying, sinning with impunity, with no guilty conscience judging/condemning them]." (Comments by Joseph O'Malley Ed. of Karl Marx's, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [those dissatisfied with how the world "is," i.e., subject to the father's/Father's authority, thinking about how it "ought" to be, i.e., subject to their carnal desires of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [established their opinion as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the process of 'change' itself, i.e., the consensus process—there is no father's/Father's authority in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process, only the feelings and thoughts, i.e., the collective opinion of the children, i.e., common-ism—there is no father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth (absolutes) in an opinion, opinions 'liberate' the children from the father's/Fathers standards (Liberté), there is no "top-down" father's/Father's authority in dialogue, dialogue guarantees the children freedom of input and therefore makes them "equal" (Equalité), and the consensus process, i.e., affirming one another's carnal nature, i.e., one another's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature," makes the child's carnal nature, i.e., his love of pleasure (that which is of the world) and hate of restraint (the father's/Father's authority) the "norm" 'creating' "community" (Fraternité), i.e., common-ism aka Communism, engendering a "new" world order based upon the principles of the French Revolution, i.e., "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité," and all the common-ist revolutions following, including the so called "velvet" one's]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) "All social life is essentially practical [when relationship is based upon the child's "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' life is practical, i.e., relational, i.e., reasonable]. All the mysteries which lead theory [thought or opinion] toward mysticism [belief or faith] find their rational solution in human practice [in "building relationship upon 'self interest,'" i.e., in 'justifying' "self"] and in the comprehension ['justification'] of this practice." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #8) "Uch nachdem z.B. die irdische Familie als das Geheimnis der heiligen Familie entdeckt ist, muß nun erstere selbst theoretisch und praktisch vernichtet werden." "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family [with the father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Father's authority], the former [the earthly father's authority] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) "It is not individualism [under the father's/Father's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest"] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [being "of and for self"] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6 "... once you can identify a community [where people are willing to 'compromise,' i.e., set aside their belief or faith, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to get along or solve problems], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change. (Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing  The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing  emphasis added) "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'—the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged." "Freud and Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "Psychoanalysis, mysticism, Freud, Hegel, and Marx – the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen." "Common to all of them is a mode of consciousness that can be called the dialectic imagination." "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—[which] culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan [socialism]." "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Joseph O'Malley in Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') "It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education) "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [common-ism based upon his carnal nature, i.e., "human nature"] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

"Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e. who establishes his "self," i.e., "human nature" above and therefore against God the Father's authority] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4

  It should be noted: Hegel, rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., rejecting God (as did Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud), rejected "belief-action dichotomy"—where the emphasis is upon doing the father's/father's will, the child's/man's nature, i.e., the child's carnal desires and actions thus conflicting with (getting in the way of) his duty to do God's will, i.e., his feelings, thoughts, and actions conflicting with his faith or belief in that which is not of and for his nature, thus while desiring to do God's will, i.e., the father's/Father's will acting according to his carnal nature and the world stimulating it instead, thus, being unable to resolve the conflict himself, needing a savior to "redeemer" him from the Father's wrath (rejection), thus "reconciling" him to the Father. By the child obeying the father/Father, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will—because of the child having a guilty conscience when doing wrong, after having done wrong, or when thinking about doing wrong or disobeying or sinning, fearing the consequence, i.e., rejection, which (explained below) is not necessarily true, i.e., the loving, benevolent (true meaning of the word) father/Father loves his children, hating only their doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., their bad behavior, chastening them only when they do wrong, disobey, sin in order that he might learn to do right, obey, not sin, rejecting them only if they reject his/His authority to chasten them, i.e., disrespecting or defying his/His authority, with the child who is still talking to his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his "self" (after having been chastened) refusing to humble, deny, die to his "self," correlating the father's/Father's chastening of him as hating/rejecting him (since his is unable to separate the two, i.e., the father's/Father's love for him and the chastening—the child's understanding of love being pleasure instead of doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., having to do what he sees, perceives, or understands as the very opposite of his nature, i.e., missing out on the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' he desires)—the child, according to Hegel, artificially 'creates' an internal conflict between his "self," i.e., his will, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment, i.e., that which is of nature, i.e., of the world only and his desire to do the will of the father/Father, i.e., to please the father/Father, doing that which is antithetical to his carnal desires, i.e., that which is antithetical to nature itself, thus, in the process, giving "birth" to dialectic 'reasoning,' "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialogue., i.e., "Reasoning," i.e., aufheben.

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers) It is the father's/Father's authority (threat of chastening or casting out) that engenders a guilty conscience in the child when he is thinking about doing, doing, or having done what he wants (is tempted) to do, against the father's commands and rules. If the child can be placed in an environment (a "safe zone") where he can share his opinion, i.e., i.e., his "feelings," i.e., his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with other children without fear of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., judgment and condemnation, i.e., being chastened or cast out, the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is negated, allowing him (along with the rest of the children) to do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.

"Change in organization can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior [pleasure, i.e., affirmation from the other children approving of the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]. To be governed by two strong goals [the child desiring to maintain approval from the father/Father while receiving affirmation from "the group"] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [a detachment from desiring approval from the father/Father, i.e., maintaining a "top-down" authority position in favor of affirmation from "the group," i.e., setting aside the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to initiate and sustain relationship with "the group"]. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads [the child is frozen in the 'moment' not defending his father's/Father's position while deciding what to do].  It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective." (Kurt Lewin in Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression) By educators introducing the "affective domain" into the classroom, making the children's' "feelings" of the 'moment' a part of the curriculum, the children's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint guide them in making decisions regarding right and wrong behavior—establishes their "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing the father's/Father's will as the bases from which to build relationship with one another. In doing so they must go through a period known as "cognitive dissonance" where their belief ('loyalty' to the father/Father and his/His authority) comes into conflict with their carnal desires of the 'moment'—with the pressure of group approval, i.e., affirmation from the other children "helping" them make the "right" decision.

"Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief, i.e., their faith in authority, be it in their parent's, their teacher's, their boss's, their leader(s), or God's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity [especially when "the group," excluding, i.e., rejecting them (because of their "ridged," i.e., "prejudiced," i.e., unadaptable to 'change' "negative" attitude, i.e., their holding onto the father's/Father's restraints) is heading down the road, hand in hand, with their carnal desire of the 'moment,' "enjoying" it without them]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

"The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) When the "leader" holds the children accountable to authority, the children tend to retain that way of thinking and acting (whether they like it or not) but when he encourages them to question and challenge authority, making their "feelings" of the 'moment' the foundation from which to determine right from wrong, they, with some "growing pains," i.e., having to let go of their fear of judgment and damnation, naturally go in the direction of "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' resenting restraint, receiving group affirmation—becoming socialists.

"What better way to help the patient [the student, your child] recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [to the facilitator of 'change']? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists [facilitators of 'change'] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the student, your child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [if his classroom experience] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient [the student, your child] changes the past by reconstituting it." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

   By Hegel focusing upon the child, i.e., upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., replacing "belief-action dichotomy" with "thought-action dichotomy" Hegel 'shifted' the focus from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, to the child's thoughts ("feelings" or carnal desires) of the 'moment,' thus 'justifying' the child's need to be "saved," i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority ('redeeming' his "self" by selling his soul to the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., to "the prince of the power of the air") in order (as in "new" world order) to be his "self again, i.e., in order for him to be as he was before God's, i.e., the father's/Father's, i.e., the parent's, i.e., the King's authority came into his life (all being the same in structure or system of thought and action, i.e., "top-down"), thus making it possible for him to be "reconciled" to the world, no longer having to humble, deny, die to his "self" (and the world) in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's, i.e., God's, i.e., the King's or parent's will. According to Hegel, only by the child liberating his "self" from having faith in God, i.e., from having faith in the father's/Father's authority, focusing upon his and others "thoughts," i.e., "feelings" or desires of the 'moment' instead, can "self actualization" (Abraham Maslow), i.e., "theory-practice" unity, instead of "belief-action dichotomy" become a 'reality,' giving the child "freedom," i.e., the right and duty to 'create' a "new" world where his carnal thoughts ("lusts") and carnal actions ("praxis") can become one and the same, i.e., according to nature only, so that he, along with the rest of children of the world can become his/their "self" again, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only, i.e., "normal."

"The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [the children, i.e., "the parts," prevented from dialoguing with one another, were unable to 'discover' what they all have in common, i.e., their carnal nature because they were forced to accept the preaching of the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of the father's/Father's facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith instead]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

   Hegel's "universal" (the individual/the child 'discovering' his commonality with, i.e., his identity in society/within "the group," justifying his "self justification" through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., through dialoguing with others, which 'justifies,' i.e., affirms "self," condemning the father's/Father's authority which forces the child to restrain "self," against his nature, i.e., inhibiting or blocking "human nature") is therefore the praxis of "self" 'justifying' "self," i.e., of "self" 'justification' (dialogue) becoming "universal," as children 'discover,' through dialoguing with one another, that they are all the same, "justifying their self," i.e., using dialectic 'reasoning' in order (as in "new" world order) to "save" their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, needing "help" from outside their "self," i.e., "help" from a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist," i.e., a "savior" (of "self" from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's judgment, condemnation, etc., replacing the father's/Father's love which is sure and patient with "the groups" love which is "self" seeking and fickle) in order to overcome the restraints, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father so they can become their "self" again, thinking and acting according to their carnal nature, i.e., according to their desires of the 'moment' (which are being stimulated by the world around them only)—being "positive"—needing to be 'liberated' from that which is not of nature, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—that which is "negative." Now, instead of dialoguing with their "self" in private ("particular"), through dialoguing with other children in public ("universal"), with the "help" of facilitators of 'change,' children are able to "'justify' their 'self' before one another," thereby, in consensus (having a "feeling" of oneness) with one another (having set aside that which divides them from one another, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "prejudice"), they are able to work together as one, 'liberating' their "self" not only from the father's/Father's authority internally but externally as well, as they, with "group support," i.e., affirmation, initiate and sustain common-ism aka Communism, establishing "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. In consensus (a "feeling" of oneness with one another, i.e., society or community) they are able to therefore "build relationship," i.e., community, i.e., society upon their carnal desires, i.e. the "self interests" they have in common, according to that which is of and for the world only, i.e., that which is of and for "human nature" only. They are therefore able to not only 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority but the world (community, society) from the father's/Father's authority as well, as they establish laws upon how policies and laws are to be made—through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, (engendering freedom from the guilty conscience, i.e., 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority), i.e., in "group psychotherapy," i.e., facilitated meetings instead of or superseding majority vote, representative (in the true meaning of the word), limited government, where those in government are dedicated to serving and protecting the father's/Father's authority, not getting in the way of or inhibiting or blocking the father's authority, i.e., local control, i.e., the father's right of private convictions (freedom of the conscience), property, and business, under God, i.e., under the Father's authority—thereby, using the consensus process, negating the father's/Father's authority in the making of policy and law so that they (and all the world) can be of and for their "self," i.e., carnal, of the world only, 'liberating' "self" from parental and/or Godly restraint, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority (so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity). It should be noted, if after chastening the child is still talking (dialoguing) with his "self" regarding his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, he is 'justifying' his "self," i.e., basing life upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, making pleasure the standard for "good" and restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority the source for "evil," but if he is reproving, correcting, rebuking his "self," in order not to do wrong, disobey, sin, he has "private convictions," basing life upon doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, making the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth the foundation from which to know right from wrong, "good" from "evil."

"Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9

   According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., those who 'justify' their "self" before men, if it is not "of and for self" it is not worth thinking about mentally or doing physically, i.e., it is "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant," needing to be removed as it gets (or has the potential of getting) in the way of consensus, i.e., in the way of the individual, i.e., their "self" and "the group," i.e., the community, i.e., society becoming one and the same in thought and action, i.e., of the world only. Those who seek to unify "theory and practice," i.e., the child's carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., that which is external to the child affecting that which is internal to the child, thus affecting the child's behavior or actions, making the child's "sensuous needs" (that which is of and for the flesh) and "sense perception" (that which is of the world only) one and the same, base the "good life" upon the child's "sense experience," i.e., upon the child's carnal nature and the world stimulating it. History to them is not what the child learns from others regarding the things they learned of the past but is his own life experience ,i.e., "sense experience," making history itself (as well as the future) subject to or adaptable to 'change,' as the child learns to 'liberate' his "self" from the lessons (restraints) of the past.
   The child by nature loves the sensation of the pleasures of the moment—which objects around him stimulate—he does not love the objects themselves that are stimulating pleasure—their value or worth to him being depended upon their stimulating pleasure within him—hating and striking out against (in an effort to remove from his world) whoever (whatever object) is preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking him from having pleasure, i.e., access to the objects that stimulate pleasure, therefore, by nature, resenting/resisting/hating the father's/Father's authority when it gets in his way. Thus, according to the carnal nature ("lusts") of the child, the basis of dialectic 'reasoning,' , i.e., "self justification," the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life is the approaching and augmentation of pleasure and the avoiding and attenuation of pain (including the pain which comes with the removal of pleasure, i.e., the missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' or the perceived future because the child has to behave a particular way, i.e., according to the father's/Father's standards, which results in the pain of rejection when the child refuses to accept the father's/Father's chastening, i.e., correction, reproof, rebuke for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;" Isaiah 5:20 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35

   Rejection (being disenfranchised, i.e., being cast out) by the father/Father applies only to "the children of disobedience," i.e., Marxists, as the father/Father, loving his/His children, hating only their bad behavior, i.e., hating what they do when they do wrong, disobey, sin, chastens his/His children when they do wrong, disobey, sin in order (as in "old" world order) that they might learn to control and discipline their "self," i.e., that they might do right, obey, not sin instead, only casting out, i.e., rejecting those children, i.e., the "children of disobedience" who reject, i.e., question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack his/His authority to 1.) give [author] commands, rules, facts, and truth to his children to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) bless or reward those children who obey, 3) chasten, i.e., reprove, correct, rebuke those children who disobey, 4) discuss, at his discretion, any issues the child wants explained further or clarified, and 5) cast out those children who reject his authority to do the preceding five things. By the child 'justifying' his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint before "the children of disobedience" he becomes at-one-with them, i.e., in consensus with them. As "the group," i.e., "the children of disobedience" affirm his "feelings," i.e., his carnal nature (his carnal desires of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., his resentment toward the father's/Father's authority—which is being reflected or represented by those being "negative" in the consensus meeting, being pressured to either be "positive," i.e., tolerant of the child's carnal nature or leave, resulting in the father's/Father's authority having no true and lasting impact in the decisions, policies, or laws being made by "the group") and he affirms their "feelings," i.e., their carnal nature (their carnal desires of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., their resentment toward the father's/Father's authority—which is being reflected or represented by those being "negative" in the consensus meeting, being pressured to either be "positive," i.e., tolerant of the child's carnal nature or leave, resulting in the father's/Father's authority having no true and lasting impact in the decisions, policies, or laws being made by "the group") the father's/Father's authority is not only negated in the procedures, policies, or laws being made but is also negated in the child himself, negating the child's faith in and obedience to the father/Father, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, resulting in him no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as he joins with the children of disobedience, negating the father's/Father's authority in the community, the nation, and the world, engendering "worldly peace and socialist harmony" so that all children can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be of and for the world only, i.e., be "of and for self" only with impunity.

"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2,3

   The consensus process is the formula for a police state, what we see developing all around us today, where, instead of the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (engendered by the father's/Father's authority) restraining the people—with the citizens doing right and not wrong, i.e., restraining their "self" in obedience to commands, rules, facts, and truth learned from their parents, teachers, minister, etc., in the "past"—which condition is equated to "neurosis" by "psychotherapists" (whose 'logic' falls apart since God is a living God, who speaks to us through His Word "in the here and now," with His Spirit confirming His Word, filling us with His joy, love, and peace in the present, which the world can not understand or comprehend, and is not a god "of the past," stuck in or taken captive to the traditions of men, although man has done his best to do so, making man dependent upon man, i.e., dependent upon mans words and 'reasoning,' i.e., dependent upon man's definition of God and His Word, instead of being dependent upon God and His Word alone, walking by faith, weighing "self," others, and the world according to it)—we are now experiencing the use of 1). seduction, deception, manipulation, i.e., "group psychotherapy," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus in facilitated meetings (in the classroom, workplace, government, "church," etc.,), 2) propaganda (manipulation, i.e., selective information, referred to as "appropriate" information or more commonly "politically correct" information) by the media and entertainment industry, and 3) force (with local, county, state, national, and international forces uniting as one, crossing jurisdictional borders) in order (as in "new" world order) to re-solve the personal-social issues, i.e., the crisis of the day—which is being done (of course) for the "good" of "the people," with the worth of the individual (your worth) being based upon his (your) social-ist/common-unity/common-ist participation, i.e., support.

". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching." "… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

  The 'logic' of contemporary Marxism is: you can kill ("Vernunft," i.e., negate, annihilate, destroy) the fathers/Father in society, in order to initiate 'change' (as in Traditional Marxism, i.e., "dialectic materialism," where what Karl Marx wrote becomes the standard for making decisions, i.e., is preached and taught to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed as given, reflecting the same pattern of thought and action as the fathers/Father's authority—which is to be remove from society—resulting in Communism becoming "Nationalized," following after an authority figure, i.e., becoming stagnant), but if you do not negate the guilty conscience in the children (for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father), through the use of psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy" replacing it with the "super-ego," i.e., with the children's carnal "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (as in Transformational Marxism, i.e., "historical materialism," where the children's "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' become the "ground" from which to determine right from wrong, but in this case in a group setting), the father's/Father's authority—prejudices, i.e., the standards of the past—will be retained in the children's feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with other children and the world, resulting in them passing the father's/Father's authority—prejudices—on to their children, i.e., the next generation, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., preventing the 'creation' of a "new" world order based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., a world where all children, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., be "of and for self" and the world only. The only successful method for accomplishing the 'changing' of the children and the 'changing' of society at the same time is through the praxis (social or group action) of children (and adults) dialogued their opinions to a consensus i.e., 'discovering' through dialogue with one another their common identity (common-ism), that of loving pleasure and hating restraint, in a facilitated meeting affirming their "self," i.e., affirming the carnal nature of the child, thereby not only 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority and the affect it has had upon their life in the past, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, but also desiring the same for all the children of the world, i.e., 'liberation' not only from the father's/Father's authority but also 'liberation' from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying sinning, so that all children (and adults) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. The tree of "the knowledge of good and evil" did not get its name because it was evil. It got its name in that to eat of it you had to reject the Father's authority. Refusing to base knowledge upon His commands, rules, facts, and truth, you make your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., your "feelings" of the 'moment' the foundation from which to know good from evil, establishing pleasure as the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will, making the Father's authority evil. This is the foundation of Marxism, 'justifying' man's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."  Mark 8:36-38

   Money, i.e., capital, i.e., stored up pleasure plays into this when the father/Father is recognized by the children, as not only being the providing for their life in the present but also, through inheritance, a provider for their life in the future, providing they obey, do things right, do not sin, i.e., do not think and act contrary to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., question, challenge, disregard, defy his/His commands and rules and attack his/His authority. The "children of disobedience," i.e., the cast out ones, i.e., the "disenfranchised," i.e., those children who, in their "lusting" after the things of the 'moment,' i.e., that which is of the world only, i.e., rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, attacking his/His authority, are not only excluded from the father's/Father's blessings in the present but are also excluded from his/His blessing in the future. They can only gain access to the father's/Father's money, i.e., stored up pleasure by gaining access to his children, turning them against his/His authority as well, 'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority so they can disobey, do wrong, sin with impunity, living off of the father's/Father's money, i.e., the children's inheritance in the present, doing so in the name of "the children," i.e., for the sake of "the people." How far are we in debt? There is no children's inheritance in debt, only "the children of disobedience" in control, using "the children," i.e., "the people" as natural resource, living off their and their children's lives. While capitalism rewards good work, socialism rewards bad, 'justifying' "the children of disobedience."
   This is why 'liberals' (and "so called" conservatives), acting like sulking spoiled children in defiance to their parent's authority, demanding their way, are having a tantrum if they can not have what they want, when they want it, blaming anyone not supporting them, i.e., not supporting their carnal desires ("self interest") of the 'moment' (emotionally, "academically," socially, i.e., financially), for getting in their way. While voicing that what they are doing is for "the children," i.e., for "the people," in truth what they are doing is all about them (as spoiled "self"-ish children) 'justifying' and apprehending the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which they desire without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. This is why you can not reason with Marxists, 'reasoning' (understanding, knowledge) to them being dialectical, i.e., based upon their carnal desires and dissatisfactions ("sense experience," i.e., opinion) of the 'moment' only—"Make me feel good, i.e., 'justify' my carnal thoughts and actions [by setting aside, suspending, as on a cross, your commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to build relationship with me] and I will listen to you."—requiring you to 'reason' from your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from that which is of the world only, affirming ('justifying') their way of thinking (that 'truth' lies within you, i.e., within the world only), in order for you to be 'rational' and therefore 'relevant' in their eyes. It is no different than 'reasoning' with a child who is having a tantrum because he can not have his way. The only problem being, he may be in an "adult" body, with authority to use your credit card, putting you into debt, claiming all the while that what he is doing is for "the children," i.e., for "the people," when in truth he is doing it for his own pleasure and gain. As you will see it all begins in the "classroom" (whether in the home, in the public/private "schools," in the workplace, in government, or even in the "church") where children (including those in adult bodies) learn to either honor and respect the father's/Father's authority or through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, i.e., through the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," learn to question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack it instead.
   You might have to read the previous and following paragraphs over several times to understand how the 'change' process (going on around you and to you) works. This is what is happening in the facilitated, dialoguing opinions to a consensus meetings taking place in the classroom, workplace, government, and even in the "church" today, establishing laws on how you (and your children, spouse, neighbors, boss, legislators, minister, etc.) are to think and act in the "new" world order, where order is established upon the children's carnal "feelings" of the 'moment' instead upon the father's/Father's authority, with facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," like a "big brother" taking the father's/Father's place.

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

   To make it as simple as possible, dialectic 'reasoning,' the basis of Marxism, is simply you talking to (dialoguing with) your "self" about how the world "is" (keeping you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire), how it "ought" to be (giving you whatever you want, when you want it—Now), and how it "can be" (once whatever or whoever is restraining or preventing you from having and enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire is removed from your life, i.e., negated). The only one who knows what you are talking to your "self" about, regarding your desires of the 'moment' and your resentment toward restraint, other than your "self," is God. When you remove God from your conversation with your "self," no longer letting His Word restrain you, i.e., reprove, correct, reprove you when you do wrong or are thinking about doing wrong or encourage you into doing what is right, according to His will, requiring you to humble and deny your "self, i.e., die to your "self" daily, letting Him direct your steps (according to those of dialectic 'reasoning' a condition equated to capitalism, i.e., capitulation to a higher authority than "self," where the individual is submitting his "self" to an "alien force," i.e., an authority or government that is "hostile" to his "self" in thought and action), all you have is you talking to your "self," making your "self" god, i.e., the center of the universe, making pleasure the 'drive' of life and the augmentation of pleasure its 'purpose'—a clear definition of "self"-isness. According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the only way for you to overcome the condition of submitting your "self" to an "alien force" ("authoritarianism") or "self"-ishness ("anarchy") is to 1). 'discover,' through dialoguing with others, i.e., "justify[ing] yourselves before men," that everyone else has the same natural condition as you, talking to their "self" about the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' they desire as well as about whoever is standing in the way of their apprehending and enjoying it, resenting (hating) them, and, and thus 2). finding common identity with them, 3). work together with them as one, i.e., in consensus, removing any condition in the world that prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks children from becoming "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only, which ironically is an "either-or" condition (either you are adaptable to 'change,' i.e., "You are with us," 'liberating' your "self" and the world from the father's/Father's authority or you are refusing to be adaptable to 'change,' i.e., "You are not with us," i.e., holding on to and supporting the father's/Father's authority, needing to be "converted," neutralized, or removed—French Revolution, Communist Revolutions [violent and "velvet"], Globalism—in the consensus meeting, when you are told that you will not be judged for what you are sharing, so that all can share freely, you are being lied to, you will be judged and condemned by "the group" if you do not think and act like them, i.e., turn belief into theory and facts and truth into opinions so all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, making the facilitator of 'change' god, and the consensus meeting a worship service to him).
   In dialectic "language," not Georg Hegel's, but Johann Fichte's and those following after Hegel, Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis became the formula for understanding and resolving the dilemma of "self," God, and the world—which are antithetical to one another (at least God and the world, with "self" caught in between, with you either submitting your "self" to God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, humbling, denying, dying to your "self" daily, rejecting the world or "justify[ing] yourselves before men," becoming at-one-with, i.e., in consensus with the world, rejecting God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ). Unlike those of dialectic 'reasoning,' where man and the world become united as one in the carnal 'moment,' with God there is no Synthesis, only above-below, light-dark, heaven-hell, sheep-goats, right-wrong, good-evil, righteousness-unrighteousness, saved-lost, redeemed-damned, Spirit-flesh, faith-sight, "love of the world"-"love of the Father," etc., i.e., either-or.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17 "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin [your "self" and the world, i.e., "human nature"] unto death, or of obedience [to the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ] unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16 "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2 "And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Galatians 5:24 "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee." Isaiah 26:3

WHOEVER YOU PUT IN THE THESIS POSITION DETERMINES THE ANTITHESIS AND THE OUTCOME.

   When you put God in the Thesis position, placing Him in the middle of your conversation with your "self," with His Word and His Spirit controlling your conversation with your "self," i.e., your thoughts, He directs your "steps." Even Karl Marx understood this, writing: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Of course Marx wrote this with the intent of placing "self" and the world in the Thesis position instead of the Lord, i.e., writing what he wrote with the understanding that you first have to know what it is you want to destroy, i.e., negate, in order to make sure you destroy, i.e., negate it, in order to get it out of your way. It is quite sobering to know that all (including "ministers") who are of dialectic 'reasoning,' as Karl Marx was, are set upon negating "faith," "love of God," and "will in Christ" from the face of the earth—even if they deny it, the process they use makes it so. When you put your "self" there (in the Thesis position), making you god, i.e., the 'creator' of the universe (in your imagination, i.e., in your thoughts making the world subject to satisfying your carnal desires of the 'moment'), you become "self"-ish, of and for your "self" only. But if you put others, of the same "self" there, 'discovering' through dialogue with them, your and their "common identity" (communism), i.e., 'discovering' with them that the natural 'drive' of life is pleasure, you can, uniting with them in consensus (being affirmed by and affirming them), determine that the 'purpose' of life is not only the augmentation pleasure (for "self" and them) but the negation of any condition inhibiting or blocking it, i.e., God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. Then, working together with them (as one), in order to 'create' a "new" world order based upon the child's carnal nature, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, you can make sure that all the children of the world can become their "self" again, carnal, of the world only, as they were before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into their life, having to be accepted by faith and obeyed. Again, but now adding the Antithesis resultant, when you place the father's/Father's authority in the Thesis position (as Karl Marx explained above), the child's carnal nature ("sensuality") becomes the Antithesis, requiring the child to humble, deny, control, discipline, reprove, correct, rebuke his "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, preventing 'change.' But if you put the child's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., the child's carnal "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') in the Thesis position, making the father's/Father's authority the Antithesis (as Karl Marx intended), all children, being one and the same in nature, i.e., in consensus (Synthesis) can 'justify' the negation of the father's/Father's authority (Antithesis) in their lives and the world, 'liberating' their "self" and world from the father's/Father's authority in order (as in "new" world order) to be "of and for self," i.e., of and for nature and the world only instead. The very essence of Marxism is the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, as well as in their relationship with others and the world. By placing the children's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., "sense experience," i.e., that which is only of the world) in the Thesis position Marx 'justified' the children's' resentment (hatred) toward the father's/Father's restraints, turning the children against the father/Father (author) and his/His authority. If you place the children's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., the "affective domain") in the Thesis position, as Karl Marx did, i.e., weighing the worth or value of life based upon the child's (your and/or everyone else's) carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (negating the father's/Father's authority in the process), you are a Marxist—no matter what you say.
   Yes I said children (including those in adult bodies), who, under the influence (intoxication, addiction, possession) of affirmation, i.e., the consensus process are 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the Patriarchal Paradigm i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's command and rules in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world, resulting in their questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., the father/Father (and his/His authority) without having a "guilty conscience" when he/He (it) gets in their way, i.e., when he/He does not give them what they want, when they want it. Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud understood this would take place when we focus upon and affirm the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which restrain, i.e., which prevents 'change.' While their words differ, calling the children's carnal nature the "proletariat" and the father's authority the "bourgeoisie," the structure of thought and action are the same.
   If you look at structure of thought and action, Marxism is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11 , i.e., the father's/Father's authority and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that children/mankind can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. By "helping" children dialogue their opinions to a consensus in a facilitated, "group psychotherapy," i.e., "group grade," "team building," "relationship building on self interest," etc., classroom, the outcome is the same, children questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., their parent's authority when they get home—manifesting the presence and 'liberation' of Karl Marx in the child's heart. "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) All teachers are certified and schools accredited today (including "Christian"—as well as, increasingly, home school material) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, opening "Pandora's box," i.e., making the "affective domain," i.e., the children's "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' the focus (core) of the curriculum, i.e., the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of education (life), turning the children against their parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the process. Their disrespect (contempt/hatred) toward the father's/Father's authority is now not only manifest in the attitude of those in "authority" in education, but also in those in "authority" or in a position of influence in the media, in entertainment, in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in government, etc., and even in the "church." (See diaprax and affirmation charts in Links.)
   Marxism has always been here (it is closer to you than you might think, want to know, or may be willing to admit) but was blocked or inhibited, i.e., restrained by parental authority. In the past it was referred to as . . . Continued.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2017