authorityresearch.com

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
AND ITS SIDE EFFECTS.
(The negation of the father's authority in the home.)

by

Dean Gotcher

Notice:  It may be this article which has caused 'computer censors' ("'enlightened' minds") to label this website as being 'extremely offensive material.'

"It is all about paradigms.  It has never been a race issue or a social issue.  It has always been a sin issue." Dean Gotcher

"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:19, 20)

The following article, Civil Disobedience: and its side affects, exposes a way of thinking and acting, i.e. a paradigm, were all things which inhibit or block human relationships (social pleasure, i.e. peace and harmony) are questioned for the sake of self justification (the heresiarchal paradigm), i.e. for the sake of man setting his mind upon the things on the earth, i.e. "walking after the flesh," i.e. becoming "righteous" in his own eyes, "righteous" in himself, "righteous" in his carnal nature, as he negates in his thoughts and his actions the sovereignty of the home he came up in, the sovereignty of the nation he lives in, the sovereignty of God who created him, and thereby justifies his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous actions, calling himself "good."   ''And he said unto them, 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  The righteous in Christ are not self-righteous, "righteous" in their own eyes, but are instead made righteous, righteousness having been imputed to them by God, by their faith in Him.  It is those of the world, i.e. those trusting in themselves, leaning to their own understanding, who are self-righteous (holding the gospel of salvation in derision/contempt, hating the way of righteousness because of their lusting after the ways of unrighteousness, the ways of the world).  Although the heresiarchal paradigm is self perceived as being useful for the "purpose" of discovering and utilizing the "goodness" of man, for social 'change,' i.e. justification (even "in the name of Jesus"), it leaves all men bound to the flesh, which ends in death to their soul. The heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness" considers all behavior which submits itself to a higher authority, all behavior which limits or inhibits natural inclinations (in the act of obedience to commands, laws, or directions given by higher authority) as being spiritual, and therefore as being detrimental to human nature and social harmony (that which proceeds from "nature," i.e. the flesh).  While admiring and following after authority (obeying a heresiarchal authority) which challenges authority (supposedly even its own), it rejects patriarchal authority (rejects walking after the Spirit, obeying a voice higher than human nature, a voice restraining or condemning the sensuousness of the 'moment'), and thereby rejects the true gospel, transforming it into a social gospel (a sensuous gospel), keeping all who follow in its steps in a condition of condemnation, even when they claim that what they are doing is in the name of Jesus Christ.  Without an understanding of the resurrection of Christ, i.e. His return to be with His Heavenly Father, an understanding of the gospel is lost to simply being a social cause, i.e. of a "good" man (a humanistic Jesus) living and dying for a "good" cause (for humanity), fighting the establishment: Martin Luther King Jr.'s teaching of a humanistic Jesus.  [Unfortunately this paper and others written by Martin Luther King Jr. have been removed from public access by Stanford University.  So much for Universities wanting people to know the truth, i.e., to have the facts.]  (See King's testimony of his "conversion" and unbelief in the resurrection of Christ.)

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:1)

"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."  "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."  Revelation 7:14; 12:11

In writing this article, I condemn no man.  For no man can I condemn, since all men are condemned already (following after their sensuous, carnal nature).  Condemned by their praxis, i.e. their behavior, i.e. their feelings and thoughts in action, i.e. by the paradigm they use i.e. the way they think before God.  (John 3:15-21; Romans 5:18). Only those who have faith in God, only those who believe upon the only begotten Son of God, only those are "washed in the blood of the Lamb," only those "which are in Christ Jesus," only those who obey God, walking "after the spirit" are no longer condemned. Therefore there is only one who can condemn, God.  Actually man condemned himself by his praxis of sin, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. questioning God's authority, placing his feelings, thoughts, and actions above God and His Word.  The very method man uses to "justify" himself before God, so that he can justify himself before man, condemns him.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Romans 5:12). 

There is only one who can redeem you from your condemnation, i.e. redeem you from God's judgment against your actions of self justification before Him.  His name is Jesus Christ. 

"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."  (Romans 7:24, 25) 

Jesus never once stepped outside the praxis of his Heavenly Father's patriarchal paradigm, obeying his Father's will "in all things." 

"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.  He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.  For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.  And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."  (John 12:46-50)  

He was obedient to his Father's commands, even to the point of death (so that we might be redeemed from eternal death).  He was raised from the grave so that we might have hope in eternal life.  "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Romans 4:25)  He is the only one who justifies us before his Heavenly Father, justifying us by his death and his resurrection.  Our justification, i.e. "leaning to our own understanding," which brings death, is overcome by his justification, trusting in His Heavenly Father with all of his heart and willingly becoming the propitiation for our sins, which brings life. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John 4:10  We can never love God.  Our love is always carnal, temporal, sensual (vain) in nature.  Without His Love in us we can not truly love as he loves.

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Romans 5:17, 18) 

Therefore Jesus is the only one justified in removing our condemnation, i.e. justifying us before His Heavenly Father.  "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:11)  Our hope is not to be in this world, in the pleasures of this life  Our hope for the pleasures of this life, i.e. the "purpose" for which we lean to our own understanding, i.e. to justify our feelings, our thoughts, and our actions, is what condemns us.  But our hope is to be in the Creator of this world.  Our hope is to be in Jesus Christ, he who, by his own blood, removed our condemnation, he who, along with the Spirit of God, brings God's love into our lives, he who justifies us before our Heavenly Father that we might have eternal life.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."  (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  (Matthew 22:37-40) "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."  (Romans 13:9)

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,  Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."  (Matthew 19:16-22)

I am exposing a way of thinking (a paradigm), used by man to solve conflicts (personal and social crisis) in life, i.e. to make decisions through the use of a particular way of thinking which justifies mans sinful (disobedient, defiant) nature―using a way of thinking which condemns all men before God, thinking they can use it for the 'goodness' of mankind.  Just because we all have used it does not make it right.  A million (or a few billion) wrongs do not make a right.  It is a way of thinking which leads to death, no matter a persons "good" intentions in using it.  It is in fact a paradigm of death.  "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."  (Proverbs 14:12) emphasis added 

[In this article all bracketed information is information not found in the original quotation. It is information added by me.]

    For a clearer understanding of the paradigm of civil disobedience please read the article The Identification of Paradigms. Since that article is extensive, 250 ± pages, I have divided into three parts for quicker downloading. The Identification of Paradigms, Part I, The Identification of Paradigms, Part II, and The Identification of Paradigms, Part III.

 "In the process of history man gives birth to himself.  He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent—the symbol of wisdom and rebellion—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish:  that man would become like God himself."  (Erick Fromm  You Shall Be As Gods p. 123)

"Civil disobedience" has its roots in the belief that man "gives birth to himself."  By his participation in the 'changing' of history he creates the conditions which are essential for the realization of his potential.  Without his input in the 'changing' of history, as was the first practice in the garden in Eden, he would remain subject to the past (subject to the voice above his nature), never able to liberate himself from its restraints, never able to overcoming the conflict between his nature and the force or forces which prevent 'change.'  It is in this dialectical ideology that "civil disobedience" finds its birthplace.

Civil: courteous, polite, well mannered, gracious
Disobedience: noncompliance, rebelliousness, defiance, breaking the rules, insubordination, naughtiness, waywardness, willfulness, obstinacy, etc.
Civil disobedience: A velvet revolution, i.e. a soft (subtle) revolution, i.e. Communism with a smile, user friendly Marxism, used even "in the name of Jesus."

By turning sin, i.e. an individual issue between you and God, i.e. an issue between God, His law, His mercy, and His grace and your soul, into a race or culture issue, i.e. a social issue between you and mankind, the law of the flesh and of the love of this world replaces the knowledge of God and his law.  Thus man's paradigm and his law negates God's mercy and his grace. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6)  Knowledge of God, through faith in his Word and obedience to His will is replaced with experiential (sensual) knowledge. "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." (Carl Rogers On becoming a person)

Sacrificing the patriarchal paradigm upon the alter of 'common cause.'

The following article will explain the error of attempting to find justice between mankind by sacrificing the patriarchal paradigm upon the alter of common cause.  By doing so, for the sake of equality, the children are raised within a heresiarchal paradigm, a paradigm or way of thinking which is hostile toward the patriarchal paradigm of restraint, and are themselves sacrificed to the worldly cause and its effects of immorality and crime.  Martin Luther King Jr. was right in being proud of his father when his father challenging the racist attitude of a man who treated him inhumanly, by standing up for what was right.  Luther was wrong in attempting to remove racism through the destruction of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the God given right for a father to raise his children according to what the father sees as right or wrong, when a close friend was told not to play with him by a racist father.  While the father, taking a stand on what he believed was right, was wrong, any action taken to destroy his right to make that decision for his family, is to cause a disrupt between the father-son hierarch (a Godly paradigm of "I'm above, and you are below"). I am not talking here of child abuse, physical and mental cruelty, which would bring permanent physical harm and permanent mental harm to the child (chastening should only be grievous for a time). A dialectical mind would see any chastening by a patriarch as both physical and mental cruelty, siding with the child, identifying with his feelings.

"Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." "Mass media, and an ever-increasing range of personal experiences, gives an adolescent social sophistication at an early age, making him unfit for the obedient role of the child in the family."  "One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates, and to consider itself no longer subject to the demands of parents and teachers."  "The old ‘levers' by which children are motivated--approval or disapproval of parents and teachers--are less efficient."  James Coleman  The Adolescent Society

When the role of the father, i.e. to rule his home well in the Lord, is negated through social pressure, then what happened in the Garden in Eden is being reenacted again.  Then the role of Satan in "liberating" the first family from the patriarchal paradigm in the garden in Eden, i.e. the wife under the husbands authority, and all under God's authority, will continue to be played out in praxis of liberating society from Godly authority via the liberating of children from parental authority. In this way all cultures are united upon the collective banner of patricide.  Patricide meaning "death to God" (death to a patriarchal God, a commanding God, an  "I'm from above and your from below" God, naively perceived as a "legalistic" God, i.e. from those who are in love with their flesh and the way of the world), and "death to parental authority" (also patriarchal in structure).  At the same time, with the negation of the patriarchal paradigm, incest is liberated, i.e. following ones natural inclinations, i.e. natural inquiry into nature, i.e. seeking harmony, i.e. oneness with nature without "irrational" patriarchal restraint.  Collective spontaneous sensuousness is therefore liberated in the praxis of consensus. All who enter the temple of 'world peace' must sacrifice the patriarchal paradigm upon the alter of "equality of opportunity."

"The traditional Christian values of tolerance, brotherhood, and equality are more firmly held by people who do not affiliate with any religious group."  (Theodor Adorno  The Authoritarian Personality )

The procedure is to find common interests which transcend religious differences and act upon overcoming these issues for the common good, thereby circumventing (making as irrelevant), the patriarchal paradigm of fundamental religion. As dialogue replaces preaching and teaching, opinions replace belief.

"Only when the process of production is organized on a socialist basis can there be true economic democracy, equality or management and labor, and a high national standard of living." (Theodor Adorno  The Authoritarian Personality)  "In the industrial society, committed to equality of opportunity, adults cannot afford to shape their children in their own image."  (James Coleman The Adolescent Society)

In this way society has moved from a patriarchal paradigm, where the husband set the standards of conduct in the home and in society, through the matriarchal paradigm, where the women had equal input in setting standards of conduct in the home and in society, into a heresiarchal paradigm, what is called a 'filiarchy, where the children, i.e. their wants, have equal if not more powerful input in policy making in both the home and in society, i.e. 'tyranny of the masses,' where "children of the flesh" Romans 9, "children of disobedience" Colossians 3, "children rising up against their parents, causing them to be put to death." Mark 13, assisted by an experiential chasm (in an education system and through social activities—including within the church) which artificially (and deliberately) create division between the parent and the child, i.e. Warren Bennis where, for example, "public schools can legitimately turn down requests by fundamentalist parents not to have their children exposed to literature they consider irreligious or immoral." (Stephen Macedo).  The key component in all the above being equality in the dialogue, i.e. theory (opinions), concerning all participants "felt" needs, i.e. wants, when making decisions for action, i.e. praxis. All striving for consensus.  This is the hallowed ground of Transformational Marxism, i.e. don't shoot the patriarchal (the ground of Traditional Marxism), and thereby destroy your workforce, but instead transform them by pulling them, i.e. driving them, into participation, setting policy in the home and in the community, with the use of the dialectical process, "for the good of all."  Social justice thereby transcends absolute truth, i.e. righteousness, with all participating, even the 'religious.'

In a dissertation by George Russell Seay, Jr.  (PDF file format) THEOLOGIAN OF SYNTHESIS: THE DIALECTICAL METHOD OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AS REVEALED IN HIS CRITICAL THINKING ON THEOLOGY, HISTORY, AND ETHICS, can be found an explanation of the praxis of civil disobedience (the praxis of the dialectical process).  The author (thinking dialectically—here is an example of dialectical thinking), thanked "God, Yahweh, the Unmoved Mover, the Word, Sophia, Allah, the Feeling of Absolute Dependency, the Absolute, the Absolute Geist, and the Cosmic Companion" for being "at his side" while he was doing his Doctoral Dissertation (submitting it to the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University).  The purpose for his paper was to show that "praxis and theology" necessitated "a unity of critical reason/rationality and social action," what he called "critical thinking and social action," known in Marxist philosophy as "theory and practice." Karl Marx understood the power of "theory and practice," and its effect upon the traditional, patriarchal family (the first experience in a child's life of faith in a higher authority, i.e. eventually in God).  He wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family, the former must be destroyed in theory and in practice," [where practice or action (praxis) is the realization of theory or thought (called 'critical theory,' most commonly identified in the popular phrase 'question authority.') i.e. self externalization or self-actualization];  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

There is a direct tie to the use of "theory and practice" and the destruction of the traditional home, with the overall effect of destroying faith in God and his word, whether this is done intentionally, through the direct denial of God and his word (those who respond to you, when you preach and teach the word of God, with "It's just your opinion"), or unintentionally (in the end it does not matter "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Revelation 3:15, 16), as in the following instance, through the transformation (synthesizing) of both God and man for the "purpose" of social harmony (integration).  While the end in mind may be good (the intent to overcome hate between men of different race), the type of reasoning used (the method of thinking or paradigm used) will determine whether hate has actually been dealt with or it has simply been re-directed, not having been overcome at all. "No servant 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."  (Luke 16:13) God's paradigm is a patriarchal, 'no shadow of turning,' paradigm, man's paradigm is a heresiarchal, i.e. change, paradigm.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  (Exodus 20:3)  "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:  Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;  And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."  (Exodus 34:14-16)

While dad and mom may not be perfect, the office of authority they serve in is.  Destroy the office (treat it with contempt or disrespect) and you destroy civil government, under God (all authority is of God).  While the parents (or politicians) may be tyrants, in your effort to overcome their tyranny do not destroy the office they serve in since the office carries within it the means to restrain tyranny. If the 'kings horses are the people horses,' i.e. if God's tree of 'the knowledge of good and evil' is the woman's and Adams and therefore everybody's tree, then all which is private, that which belongs to the king, that which belongs to God, becomes common to all then that which is private (those things which originally belonged to the individual, i.e. private, i.e. sanctuary, jurisdiction and sovereignty, whether great or small) is lost to the collective experience. If you do destroy the office (even for the cause of good), you set free the spirit of disrespect towards authority in the individual, and you set free the spirit of tyranny in society (the tyranny of the masses is always against the restraint which comes from the office of authority, under God). If Karl Marx understood the significance of the patriarchal paradigm and its praxis in the home, its tie to belief in God, why do today's ministers initiate and sustain social-psychology programs in their churches which directly aid in the annihilation of the patriarchal home.  The answer lies in their hearts, hearts which treasure the praises of men, i.e. they love the collective experience, even in 'Jesus name.'  Hearts which find their "purpose" in social causes, rather than that given by God, before the world was created. "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:" 2 Timothy 1:9, 10

In understanding the importance of Jesus' obedience to our Heavenly Father, the founders of America, understood the importance of the home and the office of authority of the father within it.  The local church, which recognized its, i.e. the private home's, authority, knew that it was the key to an independent citizenry.  That paradigm has purposely been removed from education and now the church.  The souls of men have become replaced with social cause.  In the churches today, particularly with the "youth groups," social cause (dialogue) outweighs the word of God (preaching and teaching) in importance (children are no longer raised in the word of God, they are raised in the church program—the patriarchal family is dismantled for the sake of the church program of "social harmony").  As education treats the father, and his office of authority over the family, i.e. with irrelevance, so has the church, i.e. by dividing up the family the moment it comes through the church doors.

"The major implication . . . was the transformation of the family's role in the process of socialization." (Martin Jay The Dialectical Imagination: The History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950) emphasis added

"The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem."  (Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality)

"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." (Erick Fromm  Escape from Freedom)

"The revolt at home against home seems largely impulsive [Eros: "impulses to gratify basic needs." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary]." "Civilization plunges into a destructive dialectic: the perpetual restrictions on Eros [by the traditional home environment] ultimately weaken the life instincts [the desire to unite with the world in pleasure, i.e. with Eros] and thus strengthen and release the very forces against which they were ‘called up' ―those of destruction." (Herbert Marcuse  Eros and Civilization)  [bracketed information added]

Since the parents are stronger than the child and feed and protect the child, the child's anger against the restrainer of Eros—the parent, repressing the child's impulsive desire to unite with the world.  This impulsive energy is instead turned against what Eros sought to unite with—society. Therefore survival in the home means the child must give up his natural impulses to unite with society until the opportunity comes where he can restore himself with society and turn his anger against the repressor i.e. the parent and the traditional home environment, doing so in a collective voice, i.e. in consensus.  What is missing in all this is the fact that God changes man's heart.  If Church unity becomes the focus then Eros is not spiritually dealt with, it is only replaced with Agape, in word only.  When the 'church' is build upon the social cause of negating racism or in fighting aids (or any other physical and social issue) around the world, it is apostate.

Critical thinking strikes at the foundation of authority:  "One would never question the authority which demands that authority be questioned" (Geoffrey Hill)

"... ruthless critique of everything existing." Karl Marx

"What's strange about the Human Potential Movement (HPM) is that one of the tenets of faith is questioning authority, but one would never question the authority which demands that authority be questioned. The problem is not questioning authority. If that were truly a trait of the HPM, the membership would see through the fraud of the system. The problem is that what passes as questioning authority is not a legitimate act of rebellion or resistance. The style of questioning authority endemic to the HPM consists mainly of whining and bitching to parental figures for no logical reason other than to express one's own infantile wishes, and to throw mud in the faces of the maligned parents." Geoffrey Hill THE FAILURE OF THE HUMAN POTENTIAL MOVEMENT: FROM SELF-ACTUALIZATION TO EXPERIENTIALISM     emphasis added 

It is not enough to "whine and bitch," you must "rebel against and resist" parental authority if you are to participate in the human potential movement.

One of the key indicators for detecting an attack upon the patriarchal home is the use of "critical thinking."  "Critical thinking" is synonymous with "Critical theory" and is linked with "questioning authority," i.e. "questioning everything."  Critical thinking or critical theory is thinking about the condition or situation which a person is dissatisfied with, a condition which prevents him from relating with something in the world he desires to relate with, with the objective of changing the condition which inhibits that relationship from taking place.  Critical theory, also called "Marxist theory," is dialectical thinking, i.e. the critique or questioning of the use of capitalism (money stored or used for purposes of personal pleasure, including money used to keep or attain it by force, outside of the collective, outside the common human experience), i.e. "ruthlessly" criticizing the paradigm of "capitulation," ("blindly" obeying parents, laws, owners of businesses, and God) or capitalism (the condition of denying oneself or humbling oneself before a higher authority and doing what you are told, an anti-equality way of thinking and acting.) with the intent of eradicating that paradigm or way of thinking off the face of the earth, if not by physical force—Traditional Marxism (who shot the infrastructure of society), at least by social pressure, by "theory and practice"—Transformational Marxism (social-psychology; "We won't shoot you, we will just deceive you into building your own noose, in the experience of 'group hug,' and help you die with dignity, for the 'goodness' of mankind.").  In either case (they both are one and the same in the end, one just takes longer to get there) they both aim at the eradication of alienation (in civil disobedience, alienation would be synonymous with segregation), alienation existing as the result of the practice (praxis) of a particular way of thinking (a paradigm based upon pre-established right's and wrong's), a system presumably birthed in the traditional patriarchal home environment (commands, obedience, and chastening), inculcating the next generation to believe in absolutes (the capitulation of self unto a patriarchal paradigm with its dualistic above-below, right-wrong, good-evil way of thinking, justifying the use of chastening, the use of power, i.e. 'the negative field of force of an adult' Lewin, to counter any questioning of the one in the office of authority and their commands), resulting in prejudice (pre-established didactic laws of right and wrong, based upon laws from above human nature restraining human nature—a patriarchal paradigm, countering pre-established dialectical laws of feelings and thoughts, based upon laws preceding from human nature—a heresiarchal paradigm).

"Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice but to explain it in order to help in its eradication.  Eradication means re-education."  (Theodor Adorno  The Authoritarian Personality)

Whoever defines prejudice determines the paradigm used to "eradicate" or restrain the other paradigm.   'Re-education' is a buzzword used by the North Koreans and Communist Chinese for brainwashing.  Washing from the brain any residue of a patriarchal paradigm. (One paradigm restraints the flesh while the other paradigm eradicates those who restrain the flesh.  Believers beware.) Brainwashing is washing from the brain (through the praxis of dialogue and consensus) the patriarchal paradigm (the effects of living in an environment of absolutes i.e. obedience to parents and God) so the person can again feel free to experience "the child within" (can again freely flow with his impulses), i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm, and again be at one with his carnal nature and the world.  To re-experience the "child within," he must first do something about the "father within"—the past effect of the office of authority under God with its restraining commands, kept alive by the conscience.

Facilitation: "taking authority when one does not have authority."  Finding the 'ought' within the 'is.'  Finding the sin nature (common to all men), and providing a way so that all men can willingly experience it in harmony ("is" uniting upon the "ought's," negates the "not" of restraint: it is all based upon your definition of is.  "Is" with "Not" is a patriarchal paradigm—established, while "Is" with "Ought" is a heresiarchal paradigm—becoming, "werden," "aufheben" where one is continually dying to the old rules and laws of the past and is reborn to the new and changing conditions of the present: "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." Irvine D. Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy).  Dialectically, "human dignity" is found in sin, human nature freed from Godly authority and restraint (even though it might "seem to" be under Godly authority and restraint) and therefore freed to participate in human harmony—socialism.  Dialectically, global harmony can only be founded upon "positive social change," an experience of collective sin (consensus), mankind freed from non-sensuous (anti-democratic) restraints.  Therefore mankind freed "from" the effects of the patriarchal paradigm is freed "to" praxis a heresiarchal paradigm of continuous, harmonious, social change.  Thereby the issue of sin is negated, i.e. becomes irrelevant, in light of the changing, innovative, times.

"... memory of gratification is at the origin of all thinking, and the impulse to recapture past gratification [dopaminergic impulses] is the hidden driven power behind the process of thought." (Herbart Marcuse Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud). "[Human] emancipation lies in fantasy and the language of experience irreducible to linguistic rules: mimesis. . . . Marcuse thus could write that ‘the realm of freedom lies beyond mimesis.'" Stephen Bronner Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists  "Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or ‘impulse.'" Jürgen Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action  "Impulse, the primary fact, back of which, psychically we cannot go." (John Dewey, "Social Psychology," Psychological Review, I  July, 1894)

"The moment of reflection, however, is itself interwoven with experience. ‘The work of art,' Marcuse can write, ‘is both a process and an instant.' Subjectivity experiences itself in that moment."  (Stephen Eric Bronner  Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) [The "aesthetic dimension" unites our spontaneously expressed pleasure, which arises within us, and pleasure revealing itself to us, from the world.  In this way Eros, experiencing itself, unites man and the world, i.e. momentarily, the person and the world are one.  This is what happened in Genesis 3:1-6, the model for the dialectical process, the same model Satan tempted Jesus to praxis in the wilderness.  Those, in the garden, participated, Jesus, in the wilderness, did not.  The one dialogued (reflected subjectively) while the other preached and taught (proclaimed objective truth).]

"What is particularly important here is that recognition of one's own individuality [resentment toward restraining authority] is the basis for recognition of the individuality of everyone, and for the democratic concept of the dignity of man.  The individual may have ‘secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential." (Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality) [Once repressed carnal desires are brought forward, in an environment where they are accepted as normal, "the democratic concept of the dignity of man" commences, and the democratic community is brought to life.] 

 "... once you can identify a community, you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change."  "The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow community policing officer an entree into the geographic community." Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing [note the use of crime, i.e. crises, to gain access into community, "to bring about positive social control."  Thus the negation of the patriarchal minded individual and the patriarchal based family, begins when, in a crises, they turn to those promoting "positive social change" for help.  It is like asking a robber, wearing a badge, to help protect you from a thief. No one could imagine such a thing happening in America, the land of the free.]

"We are discovering how to find universals in theory, fantasy, and practice. How to integrate a deep sense of corporate and community mission into the practices of work and play, worship and government. How to sense and achieve the visionary, holistic, spiritual, noble, beyond wellness, nirvanic, and universal missions and states that all beings, human and non-human, are evolving toward and are 'working' toward on a daily or yearly basis. In other words, what the 'real' corporate goals are."  Jack R. Gibb THE MAGIC OF SELF-REGULATION: Omicron in the Organization  [Church Growth, emerging Church, ... are built off of Gibbs, trust program, now called speedy trust by some.]

Because of the ignorance of God's word, the misinterpretation of God's word (whether done intentionally or not), or the rejection of God's word, a proper understanding of authority and the abuse of it's office (by those in its office and those under their authority using their power to gain control for themselves, apart from Godly restraints—including religious circles), the function of civil government and the office of authority is misunderstood. This has happened throughout history. Leaders reflect the heart of the people, Hitler did not come into power because of righteous people, it was because "religious" people, wanted to use the office of authority for their own personal gain (misunderstanding the purpose of the office of authority), men sought after the respect of men (so they could receive from man the pleasures of this life) rather than pointing out the wickedness of men's hearts (including men in the office of authority).  When the office of authority itself comes under attack and is overthrown, tyranny rules, unabated, even while they are supposedly working for the cause of "good," i.e. carnal, human pleasure.

Dialogue negates Yea, yea; Nay nay: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:7

"Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity."  "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. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity."  "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."  (Ecclesiastes 1:2; 11:9, 10; 12:13, 14)  emphasis added

Therefore, instead of the world changing into a better place to live, evolving into a better state, because of a patriarchal God it is simply running full speed into judgment (the lessons of history simply reinforce the recurrence of man's depravity—total depravity means, no matter how nice or how much social good a person does, they are not saved by these works—and the need for salvation from a power greater than man's own abilities is a must). With hope in God in place, hope in man is unworkable. When leaders fear God, i.e. purpose to do God's will at all cost to themselves, when they are trustworthy, i.e. not profiting themselves at the citizens expense, and when they refuse to take bribes, i.e. refuse to bring injustice upon the citizens, the tyrant cannot rule.  Marx's (Machiavellian) use of the dialectic process placed hope only in man, making it antithetical to hope in God, thereby history is on man's side, i.e. the tyrants side, if only he can gain control of it and use it for his "purpose."  While God is on one side of the scale, controlling history, as Erick Fromm writes, Satan is on man's side, helping him give birth to himself, helping him, "through wisdom and rebellion," to create his own history, this time a history without God (at least a patriarchal God) in it—replacing God with man (the spirit of human relationship helping man, in common unity, attain common good; replacing "common sense"—don't loan things you value to people with a tendency of breaking things, with "good sense"—don't worry about them breaking it, consider it a learning experience through which both you and the other person can build human relationship skills). Dialectically, "history is largely interpretation of human activity in the past that is unrepeatable." (Seay describing  Brightman's definition of history, i.e. the same interpretation as Karl Marx—as taught by the Transformational Marxists—as explained by Karl Marx, The Holy Family, where he uses "the Fruit" as an example.  See my article on Inductive Deductive Reasoning Part II.)

User friendly Marxism, Communism with a smile:
For Marx, history could only be freed from God's control when man rejected Hegel's concept of above-below, where absolute spirit makes history and not man himself.  As György Lukács put it:  "The great polemic against Hegel in The Holy Family concentrates mainly on this point.. Hegel's inadequacy is that he only seems to allow the absolute spirit to make history. The resulting otherworldliness of consciousness vis-à-vis the real events of history becomes, in the hands of Hegel's disciples, an arrogant-and reactionary confrontation of ‘spirit' and ‘mass'." ( György Lukács History & Class Consciousness Class Consciousness March, 1920) With civil disobedience though, (through the use of the dialectical reasoning), man could again put his hope in both man and God (the passion of God and the passion of man uniting in overcoming the evilness of the world).  He could thus continue his pursuit of creating a better world in his own image (according to his imagination), only this time with God's help (it gets more people on board that way, with less resistance toward a world of "change").

Civil Disobedience is Diaprax.

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. (Jeremiah 17:5)

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Romans 6:16)

Civil disobedience is a praxis of revolution.  To praxis civil disobedience is to praxis insurrection.  To praxis civil disobedience in the public arena is to praxis it at home, in the private arena.  Civil disobedience is built upon the foundation of the dialectical process. Martin Luther King Jr. stated it this way: "But life at its best is a creative synthesis of opposites in fruitful harmony. The philosopher Hegel said that truth is found in neither the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two…. Jesus recognized the need for blending opposites."  (Martin Luther King Jr. Strength to Love)  "King
never tired of moving from one-sided thesis to a corrective, but also one-sided antithesis and finally to a more coherent synthesis beyond both." (L. Harold DeWolf  "Martin Luther King Jr., as Theologian," The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 4: 11   DeWolf was a Boston College personalistic theologian) [Without antithesis there is no dialogue and therefore no avenue to synthesis, i.e. man becoming more at one with himself and the world.]

It is impossible to keep your faith in God and his word and praxis the dialectical process. It is impossible to obediently serve under any authority figure and praxis the dialectical process.  It is impossible to obey parents by faith and praxis the dialectical process.  It is impossible to "defend and protect" any position, contract, or document (including the Constitution of the United States of America) and praxis the dialectical process.  Its very praxis is the annihilation of a patriarchal paradigm, the paradigm of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as well the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm of the traditional home. Those who praxis the dialectical process see salvation in removing faith in God, removing obedience to parental authority, removing limiting contracts—limiting "changing human needs." The easiest way to annihilate the patriarchal home is through public support of civil disobedience and the dialectical process.  As the Transformational Marxist, Theodor Adorno, wrote: "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents' behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality, 1950).

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."  (Colossians 2:8)

When ministers become philosophers, apostasy reigns:  [Note: all bracketed information below means the information was added and not in the original.] To focus upon ones dissatisfactions with what 'is' and what 'is not,' i.e. those rules and regulations which restrain personal desires, i.e. human nature, and think upon what 'ought to be,' is where philosophy commences. In this way the 'ought' retains unity with the 'is' while circumventing the 'not,' i.e. Godly authority, i.e. superiority, i.e. supernatural.

Karl Marx:  "Philosophy is not outside the world; it simply has a different kind of presence in the world. The world is its ground; it is the spiritual quintessence of its age. The world is the object of its enquiry and concern.; it is the wisdom of the world." "The philosopher appeals to reason not faith...." "In short, philosophy as theory finds the ‘ought' implied within the ‘is', and as praxis seeks to make the two coincide." "... philosophy ... establishes the basis of reality as praxis; it serves to distinguish it from religion, the wisdom of the other world."  (Comments by Joseph O'Malley Ed. of Karl Marx's Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' )

Hegel:  "Philosophy is a free and not self-seeking activity, … This activity contains the essential element of a negation, because to produce is also to destroy; … as Mind passes on from its natural form, it also proceeds from its exact code of morals and the robustness of life to reflection and conception. The result of this is that it lays hold of and troubles this real, substantial kind of existence, this morality and faith, and thus the period of destruction commences." "It may be said that Philosophy first commences when a race for the most part has left its concrete life, when separation and change of class have begun, and the people approach toward their fall; when a gulf has arisen between inward strivings and external reality, and the old forms of Religion, &c., are no longer satisfying; when Mind manifests indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein, and moral life becomes dissolved." "Then it is that Mind takes refuge in the clear space of thought to create for itself a kingdom of thought in opposition to the world of actuality, and Philosophy is the reconciliation following upon the destruction of that real world which thought has begun." (Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge.) 

Stephen Bronner:  "…philosophy as struggle with error and superstition is also and always enlightenment." (Stephen Erick Bronner Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) [Thus, philosophy is the struggle to rationally understand and physically overcoming any dualism (tension) between one's natural feelings to relate with the world and the unnatural ("irrational") barriers which block that relationship, with the intent of fulfilling the relationship with the world through the praxis of negating the barrier, through the use of thought and practice—human reasoning and human action (theory and practise). The tension of dualism is found in the experience of cognitive dissonance: "The lack of harmony between what one does [his natural inclination] and what one believes [what he has been taught]." "The pressure to change either one's behavior or ones belief."  (Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology)]

Karl Marx:  "... a philosopher is motivated by a need to synthesize or reconcile some underlying duality in the person's life or times."  (Seay)  "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx) [synthesis requires negation, not of the persons in conflict, but of their absolutes which negate human relationship, i.e. the "negation of negation."  This is the underlying purpose of "universal health" ] 

Karl Marx:  "We see that if the Christian religion knows only one Incarnation of God, speculative philosophy has as many incarnations as there are things" (Karl Marx The Holy Family) [Absolutes and "authoritarianism" terminates "diversity finding consensus through dialogue," and therefore destroys the dialectical process.  Faith in God and his word is its worst enemy.]

Frederick Engels:  "But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself. But this consummate humanity, this overcoming of the religious dualism can only be apprehended in its full historical significance by … philosophy. " (Frederick Engels The Condition of England; A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle) 

Antonio Gramsci:  "'The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history.'  Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action." (Antonio Gramsci  Selections from the Prison Notes) [Gramsci is popular reading today, not only in government, business, and education circles but also in religious circles as well.  He studied scriptures to understand how man could be "delivered" from God's control.]

Erick Fromm:  "Doubt is the starting point of modern philosophy. Rational doubts have been solved by rational answers. The irrational doubt has not disappeared and cannot disappear as long as man has not progressed from negative freedom [parental control] to positive freedom [social control]." (Erick Fromm Escape from Freedom)

Herbart Marcuse:  "... on the basis of Kant's theory, the aesthetic function becomes ... the philosophy of culture ... a non-repressive civilization, in which reason is sensuous and sensuousness rational ... [according to Schiller] the possibility of a new reality principle." (Herbart Marcuse Eros and Civilization)

Benjamin Bloom:  "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction."  "… the man who has achieved a philosophy of life – who knows who he is – has arrived at this truth through painful intellectual effort in which the more complex mental processes of the Cognitive Taxonomy are clearly functioning." "Judges problems in terms of situation, issues, purposes, and consequences involved rather than in terms of fixed, dogmatic precepts …." "A basic tenet of liberal education is that it is by means of intellectual effort that a philosophy of life in large measure is formed." (Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book I Cognitive Domain)

Martin Luther King Jr.:  "... personalistic philosophy – the theory that the clue to the meaning of ultimate reality is found in personality. This personal idealism remains today my basic philosophical position…it gave me a metaphysical and philosophical grounding for the idea of a personal God, and it gave me a metaphysical basis for the dignity and worth of all human personality."  (Martin Luther King Jr. Stride Toward Freedom The Montgomery Story)  [King Jr. used the dialectic to 1) create and apply a dialectical god of feelings to social cause, to unite him with man upon the feeling of social justice (social justice is good), and to 2) humanize the church (with the ideology that man is good, i.e. the "dignity of man") so that both god and man (synthesized) could cooperatively participate in civil disobedience for the "purpose" of actualizing social justice, love, and harmony in the world, i.e. creating a world of perpetual synergy.]

humanization: " a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason."  Merriam-Webster's dictionary  [Man finds his identity, his "purpose," his worth in social cause, not in any force which does not "rationally" work toward the betterment of mankind and the world.]

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled;  In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:"  Colossians 1:19-22

To replace a call to serve God, i.e. above, with a "call" to serve humanity, i.e. below changes one's paradigm, one's system of valuing, thinking, willing, and acting—from a didactic paradigm to a dialectical paradigm (from preaching and teaching truth in faith to dialoguing opinions and theories through the praxis of questioning, i.e. used to identify barriers to social harmony, i.e. exposing and then converting, neutralizing, marginalizing or removing resistors to change, i.e. those who think with a patriarchal paradigm).  In the former, the individual serves under God's authority, in the later the individual finds his identity and worth in his praxis with human institutions (human inter-action becomes the motivation for praxis). If he refuses to be a part of the institution he has no identity and is of little or no worth.  By his change of paradigm, by his praxis he gives the institution worth, which it then can use against him if he should change his mind and go back to a patriarchal paradigm. It is an either-or condition, it is a fight to the death for one of the paradigms—the paradigm which seeks to annihilate the other paradigm, but God will always have a remnant, those who refuse to bend their knee to a worldly, humanistic, dialectical paradigm even when it covers itself with carefully interpreted and extrapolated scriptures and the labels itself "Christian."

The trickery of "Christian humanism" was to deceive people into thinking that the two paradigms could work together. The error (foolishness) in man's way of thinking is that "man's participation in God's kingdom, gives God and his kingdom worth," i.e. "God can not do it without me, therefore I am of worth."  God is already worthy and only He can give us worthiness.  To equate any contribution on our part to the kingdom of God, as a necessary ingredient to its appearance and survival, is works salvation and a falling from grace i.e. "Kingdom Now" or "Emminentizing the Escalon".   A "Christian humanist" is a secular humanist with a "higher calling" of 'deception.'

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."  (Matthew 5:38-45)

Civil disobedience always comes home to roost, in this case not to bring peace into the traditional home (a patriarchal system) but to destroy it (that is to destroy the patriarchal home system).  The father can not be the head of the home when civil disobedience is the praxis (some or all in the family will not submit to his rule).  In fact the father is either feminized, maladjusted, or absent from the home (or treated as irrelevant) when the process is in praxis in the home.  (If the father is not guided by the love of Christ, he may use his fallen nature to force restoration of order under his authority, resulting in "domestic violence," which the process seeks to generate within the home in an effort to gain greater access into the home.)  Any culture attempting to liberate itself from human oppression, through the use of civil disobedience (the dialectical process), executes (eradicates) the father figure in the home (known as patricide), annihilates the patriarchal home in the culture (conscience-cide), and ravages its own culture in the world (ethnocide). 

"Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History.)

While Brown's statement may be the praxis of the world, it can not be the praxis of the true church ( ekklhsia ekklesia, the "called out ones," called out of the world system, called out from the dialectical process.  Thus civil disobedience always ignores or chides the true church and its believers as it struggles to gain control of the culture, and then, once culture is under its influence (the youth are liberated from parental authority) it turns on the true church, persecuting believers (by insisting the believers' children be a part of the Marxist, socialist dialectical process i.e. "what about your child's social life"—a humanistic, non-biblical concept; anyone who asks you this question, who claims to be a Christian, is deceived and voicing a statement made only by those who are an enemy of the gospel, there is no "what about your child's social life" in the gospel message. What part of denying yourself, picking up your cross and following Jesus is tied to "seeking a social life?").  In this way antichrist can rule, with the aid of "inter-cultural Christians" ("Christian humanists," "enlightened Christians," the spirit of antichrist), in his praxis of persecuting the "fundamentalist" believer who takes the bible literally ("biblical literalism,"  Seay)  i.e. believers, who obey their patriarchal Heavenly Father, as Jesus did ("And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."  Matthew 23:9).  Jesus (an "authoritarian," a "fundamental religious extremist") said "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."  (John 5:30)  "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49) "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)  From Genesis to Revelation no other paradigm is acceptable before God except the patriarchal paradigm (he did not even want Israel to have a King between him and the people: "for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." 1 Samuel 8:7).  With man (temporal), this paradigm can not be carried out perfectly (due to man's heart, Kings and parents included), with God (spirit) it is the only acceptable paradigm i.e. requiring faith and obedience.

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.  Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.  As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.  These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.  This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."  John 15:5-14

In the patriarchal paradigm love is correlated to faith in and obedience toward higher authority.  In the heresiarchal paradigm love is correlated to interpersonal relationship with society.  In the patriarchal paradigm, love in the temporal realm can only be known by the absence of rebellion toward the authority figure, resulting in hate toward rebellion and revolution (temporal), and love in the spiritual can only be known by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, resulting in hate toward sin (spiritual).  In the heresiarchal paradigm the perception of "love" is found within social praxis, initiating and sustaining hate toward the patriarchal paradigm.  In this way, those with the patriarchal paradigm experience hate from those under the influence of the heresiarchal paradigm as those possessed by the heresiarchal only see love manifested in the conversion of those with the patriarchal paradigm into living and "loving" by the heresiarchal way of thinking and acting.  Hate coming from the one under authority, from the child, is not perceived as hate, but rather is perceived as an act of "love," and act of conversion.  As the heresiarchal turn resentment toward patriarchal laws and rules into hate toward the patriarchal paradigm itself, they deceive themselves and others into believing that the wickedness of the world is a product of the patriarchal paradigm, they turn their heart toward social cause, finding "love" there and thereby perceive restraining authority as being hateful and therefore irrelevant in their quest for love, peace, and harmony.

According to the heresiarchal paradigm, if the "dream" of social harmony is to become a reality, the patriarchal paradigm must be perceived and responded to as irrelevant, in individual thought and in social practice.  As those with a heresiarchal paradigm treat those with a patriarchal paradigm in disrespect and contempt, they come to perceive that "love," "worth," and "purpose" reside within the heresiarchal paradigm,  i.e. discovering, dialectically, that "love" is man freed to be himself, "worth" is man working with man and not against man, and that "purpose" is found within his participation in the creation of the "good social," i.e. the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm (while God can create something from nothing, man must destroy something to create something).  In this way, the person is "willing" to lay down his life (sacrifice himself, sell his birthright, reject his inalienable rights) for the "social cause." While being used to annihilate the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. remove parental and thereby Godly restraint from off the face of the earth he is actually burning the only bridge available to him to be saved from the judgment of the world.  As he liberates his carnal nature to give birth to the "good society" he gives birth to the lawless one. "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family, the former must be annihilated in theory and in practice."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

 "What better way to help the patient recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images.  Group therapists 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 patient] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient changes the past by reconstituting it." (Irvin Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

No other institution persists in the initiation and sustentation of the patriarchal paradigm except the traditional home.  Even Freud, in frustration, recognized this truth. ‘... The conflict between civilization and sexuality is caused by the circumstance that sexual love is a relationship between two people,... whereas civilization is founded on relations between large groups of persons [the village].... In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.'" (Freud Civilization and Its Discontents)  Lenin saw the same obstacle standing in the way to his dream of world unity.  A "more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [middle class-traditional family system], whose resistance … and whose power lies ... in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production." "Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie  continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." "... the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "... until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, …" "... in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin's Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920)  emphasis added.  If you want a "chill," after reading the quotation above by Lenin, get a hold of the Homeland Security Bill and read it.

Civil Disobedience is Culture War:

"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5)

"Acceptance of religion mainly as an expression of submission to a clear pattern of parental authority is a condition favorable to ethnocentrism." [another word for nationalism, i.e. racism, culturism, "ingroup-outgroup," i.e. an above-below patriarchal paradigm] "... ethnocentrism takes the form of pseudopatriotism; ‘we' are the best people and the best country in the world, and we should either keep out of world affairs altogether (isolationism) or we should participate ‑‑ but without losing our full sovereignty, power, and economic advantage (imperialism). And in either case we should have the biggest army and navy in the world, and atom bomb monopoly." "Confronted with the rigidity of the adult ethnocentrist, one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individuals life, . . .""For ethnocentric parents, acting by themselves, the prescribed measures would probably be impossible." (Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality 1950) [It is interesting that the dialectical process seeks to separate the individual from God and His authority, removing him from a patriarchal system, and putting him under cognitive dissonance—social rejection—if he thinks outside the group, ("group think," rejecting "non-group think," is isolationism), and then re-attach him to all which is of this world.  Thereby when all individuals are collectively at one with the world, the world is under the control of those sustaining the use of the dialectical process.  Diaprax is then the praxis of imperialism, on a global, universal scale. Instead of keeping out of anything (isolationism), it must possess everything, including the home, and the children within it.  The former Soviet Union's Constitution read "Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society." "Socially useful work and its results determine a person's status in society."]

" . . . the impact of Sigmund Freud's work on modern culture . . . the connection between the suppression of children (both within the home and outside) . . . the psychological dynamics of the life of the child and the adult alike."  ibid.

"The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization.... The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the Hebrews are decisive)."  "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." ibid.

"The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction."  "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." ibid.

"Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, . . . leads to neurosis." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man 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." " Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;"  "The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered." ibid.

"The only valuable things in psychic life are the emotions."  "Freud speaks of religion as a ‘substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, ‘opiate of the people.' " "Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis."  ibid.

"Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account."  (Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality)

"The preservation of the already existing large families is a matter of social feeling; . . the large family is preserved because national morality and national culture find their strongest support in it."  (Wilhelm Reich The Mass Psychology of Fascism)

"Sex-economy sociology was born from the effort to harmonize Freud's depth psychology with Marx's economic theory." "Psychoanalysis is the mother, sociology the father, of sex-economy."  "Every effort must be made and all means employed to guard future generations against the influence of the biologic rigidity of the old generation." "The principle weapon on the arsenal of freedom is each new generation's tremendous urge to be free. The possibility of social freedom rests essentially upon this weapon and not upon anything else." "Every physician, educator, and social worker etc., who is to deal with children and adolescents will have to prove that he himself or she herself is healthy from a sex-economic point of view and that he or she has acquired exact knowledge on human sexuality between the ages of one and about eighteen." "… the education of the educators in sex-economy must be made mandatory." "The child's and adolescent's natural love of life must be protected by clearly defined laws." "Those forces in the individual and in the society that are natural and vial must be clearly separated from all the obstacles that operate against the spontaneous functioning of this natural vitality." "It is the elimination of all obstacles to freedom that has to be achieved." "What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being." "Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology." "the right of the woman to her own body." "The termination of pregnancy is at variance with the meaning of the family, whose task it precisely the education of the coming generation – apart from the fact that the termination of pregnancy would mean the final destruction of the large family." (ibid).

The following theory (that the traditional family generates not only a ridged "fundamentalist," top-down view of God, but also a  potential fascist, top-down form of government, that all three initiate and sustain a prejudicial view of the world, an "in-group" "out-group" paradigm) espoused by the Transformational Marxist Theodor Adorno, and used by the U.N., has been proven incorrect (even by Adorno's own research, stating "Extreme prejudice of a violent and openly antidemocratic sort does not seem to be widespread in this country, especially in the middle class."  Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality) but continues to be the spearhead for the justification of globalism, i.e. the negation of national sovereignties (directly correlated with potential fascism) seen as the source of segregation, i.e. alienation between men ("God is the anthropological source of alienation" Stephen Eric Bronner Critical Theory and its Theorists). An obsession (and antipathy) against the traditional home environment lies within those who live according to the dialectical process, evidenced in Adorno's writings: " . . . a 'cure' of one manifestation is likely to be followed by a breaking out in some other way. . . . so great is the over-all fascist potential that any front might make it even more difficult . . ." ". . . as the present study has shown, we are dealing with a structure within the person it seems that we should consider, first, psychological techniques for changing personality." "The problem is one which requires the efforts of all social scientists . . . the councils or round tables . . . psychologists should have a voice."  (Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality)

This paranoia follows the dialectical line of reasoning: since the traditional family is seen as the seedbed for nationalism i.e. alienation, prejudice, segregation, discrimination, etc. it must go.

"‘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." (Herbert Marcuse Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud, 1955 quoting Sigmund Freud) [i.e. the patriarchal father no longer has, or has to have, his way in the matter.]

"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) [Adorno's paraphrase of Karl Marx's Feuerbach Thesis #4 as sited above]

"Transcending alienation involves transcending objectification."  Karl Marx

Since the family is the source of belief in a God greater than man (since parents are greater than the children in the home), children, when they become adults, therefore perceive leaders as being greater than the people (Rather than questioning authority, dialectically, the citizens thus trust and obey authority, didactically, i.e. Hitler—an incorrect categorizing of believers, those who "trust no man," who instead "take captive every thought to the obedience of Christ"—these are the people who the dialectical process is really aiming to annihilate).  By destroying the traditional family, you destroy not only the system for belief in a "fundamentalist" God but also, according to dialectical reasoning, the source for belief in nationalism, you destroy both at the same time, in essence you can "kill two big birds by killing a small bird," i.e. the patriarchal home, the problem is, there is a lot of them. "We don't know the answers to the question: What proportion of the population is irreversibly authoritarian?" (Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management)  The trick was to not attack the traditional family directly (and supposedly have it turn to government for its defense i.e. supposedly producing the sequence of events which lead to fascism), but rather to pull the family (with and through the church) into participation with the community on personal-social issues (getting its members to join in with group dialogue, learning how to achieve consensus and participate with the group's actions concerning social change), putting stress upon the home (and church) environment, where the young, given more liberty to vent their feelings in the crisis (spontaneity), begin to challenge (question) traditional home authority.  Thus when authority is questioned, not only in the social arena (civil disobedience) but also in the home arena (parental disobedience) and the older generation, wanting to maintain control and order, will naturally resort to either the use of threats or force (refusing to dialogue with the child), further dividing the home (or the church).  In this way, believers are classified (taxonomized, i.e. classified by their paradigm, i.e. how they think) as the source of dissention (causing discord) within the community and the church.  Because of those in a patriarchal office of authority refusing to join in and support the necessary changes "required," in a dialectical order of overcome current crises, they are perceived as the major barrier to social harmony, in the home and in the community.  The "ultimate solution," to the overcoming of social crises can only be achieved by their participation in the dialectical process (a patriarchal holocaust—genocide not of a race but of paradigm, a patriarchal paradigm, called patricide).

"We will know that our knowledge of the authoritarian character structure [patriarchal paradigm] is truly scientific when an average authoritarian character will be able to read the information on the subject and the regard his own authoritarian character as undesirable or sick or pathological and will go about trying to get rid of it." " Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management

"… a scientifically acceptable solution does exist [i.e. the dialectical process] … For to accept that solution, even in theory [to put yourself in the other persons position, based upon feelings, means a suspension of your position, i.e. the negation of your paradigm], would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [observing the world from the children's world view (justification of their wants, i.e. their feelings, through the praxis of dialogue, i.e. "Why?" based upon "I won't get hurt." or "Didn't you ever want to when you were my age."), that is resenting parental restraints (because the opportunity to justify one's wants, i.e. feelings, is negated by mandated obedience through the praxis of  preaching and teaching, i.e. "Because I said so."), i.e. their feelings or resentment toward having to do what they are told to do, especially when it goes against their wishes or does not make sense, since what they want to do "seems to" be (to them) physiologically, psychologically, or sociologically not dangerous and manageable—a feeling common to all, including the parent, which dialogue would reveal, if given the opportunity, i.e. equality of opportunity, i.e. finding what we have in common, i.e. our feelings wanting liberation, can only be realized through dialogue] other than that of the bourgeoisie [observing the world from the parent's world view, i.e. their, "This is mine and not yours," position of authority—contrasting good and evil based upon (like God) the contrast between obedience vs. disobedience]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely."  "... as soon as the bourgeoisie [the parent] is forced to take up its stand on this terrain [dialogue within the children's experiential environment, i.e. their wants, i.e. their feelings, i.e. their "felt" needs, i.e. the affective domain], it is lost."  (György Lukács History & Class Consciousness Class Consciousness March, 1920)

The moment the parent, the representative, the minister goes into dialogue—to find common ground with those who resent obedience to authority i.e. seeking to find unity with those who resent a patriarchal paradigm—they abdicate the office of authority they serve in, under God (you preach and teach truth, which is certain, you dialogue opinions, which are uncertain).  Class consciousness is the child perceiving himself as being equal with the parent, and the parent preventing that equality. If the parent accepts this perception by the child as valid, the parent instantly overthrows his own foundation, i.e. the office of authority he occupies, and the power he has, while serving in it.  For the parent to have empathy with the child's rebellion against the office of authority, he must accept his own resentment towards the office of authority as valid.  In this way the office of authority is destroyed, while tyranny remains in place (only now, both the child and the parent become partners in the praxis of tyranny—called a "win-win" situation).  With the office of authority overthrown, tyranny is no longer perceived as tyranny but rather as "freedom," or liberation from the office of authority.  According to dialectical "logic" (i.e. what the Apostle Paul called "so called science" 2Timothy 6:20), this is the formula which grant's mankind, guided by a dialectical spirit, access to "world peace"—mankind liberated from the office of authority, under God .  Again, the parents are not perfect, sometimes, if not often, using the office of authority for their own pleasure, but the office is perfect.  Destroy the office, you destroy the cornerstone of civil government, and an understanding of God and his word.]

When the youth "win" (when parents, in an effort to maintain family "unity," 1) to keep peace in the home, and 2) for the sake of social "unity," in fighting for the community cause of social peace, abdicate their categorical imperatives and concede to dialogue to find consensus with their children and the community), "change" becomes the name of the game, justifying all the actions which followed (praxis), including the breakdown of the traditional home (the father is no longer able to keep order in the home, under the God give office of authority).  In this way (by the use of civil disobedience i.e. the dialectical process) a paradigm "shift" could take place through "non-violent" means, not only in society, but especially in the home, where, supposedly, social disharmony (alienation—segregation—prejudice) originates.  What is missing from this "observation," is the condition of man's heart (depravity)—a condition found in all parents, children, secular and religious leaders.  Without the heart being changed, all that is changed is how the hate is projected (from overt to covert, that is, until there is no fear of reprisal, then, historically, covert hate, disguised as love and caring, becomes overt hate again i.e. "dues" are collected, vendettas are fulfilled, only this time on a larger scale).

"An attitude of complete submissiveness toward ‘supernatural forces' and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of ‘many important things' strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form."   (Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality) ["a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of ‘many important things'" means the person accepts information as true which only later he may be able to understand, called revelation, i.e. "now I understand."  "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas Theory and Practice)  Thus, dialectical logic goes, "You must first destroy the secular structure of revelation, before you can destroy the spiritual structure of revelation, upon which the church is built."  By doing the former, first in the public schools, later on it will be accomplished in the culture—in the community and in the church. see Matthew 16:17, 18.]

"Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination."  "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "Formal logic and the law of contradiction are the rules whereby the mind submits to operate under general conditions of repression." "By ‘dialectical' I mean an activity of consciousness struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction [getting around "the limits imposed by" the traditional family environment]." (Norman O. Brown  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." Karl Marx  [While children "blindly" obeying parents, empowers parents, adults dialoguing to consensus with the "village" empowers the one world system, which in turn considers any who do not dialogue to consensus—expecting their children to "blindly" obey them—as an alien and hostile force.  Satan was empowered in the Garden in Eden though the woman's praxis of dialogue (Genesis 3:1-6), making God an alien and hostile force to mans natural, his desires, and his reasoning abilities.  Satan was dis-empowered in the wilderness when Jesus refused to dialogue, instead using the praxis of preaching and teaching (Matthew 4:1-9; Luke 4:1-10), identifying Jesus as an alien and hostile force to Satan and his kingdom. Satan is on the side of human nature, God is not.]

The use of social crisis to destroy private rights. Replacing "Inalienable rights" (specific rights which limits governments control over citizens and the family to maintain culture under God's authority), with "human rights" (ambiguous rights which empowers government to control citizens and the family in an effort to destroy culture under God's authority).  To have "human rights" (consensus, social rights, public rights) you can not have inalienable rights, (self evident, individual rights, private rights).  To have "inalienable rights" you can not have "human rights."  Above and below can not be synthesized.  You can not synthesize public and private without the public swallowing up the private.  "Human rights" swallow up "inalienable rights."  From then on, the only "rights" you have are "social relationship" rights, and any other right, any right which blocks or inhibits social relationships ("a nature independent of man's social relationships"), is seen "as an alien and hostile force."

"Human rights and duties are grounded in the institutions and ideologies of a culture, not in a nature independent of man's social relationships."  (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change) [When it comes to rights, God is out and man is in. From then on your participation with the "village" determines your worth, your children's worth, your spouse's worth, your loved ones' worth, etc.  In essence the "common-unity" can put a lien upon your right's any time they see fit, for the common good.  You won't even have the right to defend your family, yourself, your property, or your conscience from the "common-unity" good. All these rights will be considered irrelevant in the light of social change.]

"... once you can identify a community, you have discovered the primary unit of society above the level of the individual and the family that can be mobilized to take concerted action to bring about positive social change."  Dr. Robert Trojanowicz  Community Policing  The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing     Negative social change is associated with a patriarchal paradigm, its use of force to maintain an above-below system (labeled as a "class" based society) while "positive social change" is associated with a heresiarchal paradigm, its use of social crises to move man into an equality system (labeled as a classless society).

The praxis of civil disobedience is the praxis of "Culture War," war against culture, against civilization. Many people, down through the ages, have put their hope in the dreams of liberty and fought for it, but to build upon that dream through the use of civil disobedience (the dialectical process) is to produce a more ruthless form of slavery (a form of slavery whereby civil respect is negated, crime and immorality is increased, and a police state is enforced, all for the cause of "freedom," guided by the "dream"), a "dream" whereby all cultures must participate, for the "collective good,"  (The dialectical process always kills its own citizens, considering all citizens guilty before they are re-educated into innocence by their praxis in the dialectical process.) This is totalitarianism, which is nothing more than absolutism, "obedience or else___" ("We are not going to tell you what you can or can not think but you can not buy or sell without thinking our way."), to the one or ones in power i.e. those "helping" everyone to attain "the dream."

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."  (Proverbs 14:12)  This can be read, regarding civil disobedience "There is a dream, and a process used to achieve it, which might seem right to man, but the outcome is always spiritual death, oppression, and slavery to sin." Civil disobedience was not just about race discrimination, it was mainly about discrimination in the home i.e. the authority of the father figure in the traditional home.  Integrate the home and you integrate the world (it is not about race, it is about paradigms, it is about sin), but first you must find a social cause for integration so you can train the next generation upon the proper procedure to follow in the home. "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." (Karl Marx The Holy Family Chapter VII Critical Criticism's Correspondence 1: The Critical Mass)

"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 can predict, from the way individuals perceive the movement of a spot of light in a dark room, whether they tend to be prejudiced or unprejudiced." "We know how to influence the buying 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."  "…our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups. If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow."  (Carl Rogers On becoming a person)

What you sow, you reap. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." (Galatians 6:4)  To use any other method to attain liberty from an oppressor, other than "soweth to the Spirit," (preaching and teaching the word of God to the changing of men's hearts), while still using the name of God, is to mock God, and is deceitful.  Sowing to the flesh i.e. humanism (civil disobedience and the dialectical process), even with the use of God's name, will only produce that which is of the flesh, corruption—you can put Christian in front of it (humanism, or community i.e. the social cause) all day long but it will always produce corruption.  The means and the end are the same.  Use civil disobedience to achieve the "Beloved City," even in Jesus name, and you will always produce evil, no matter how much you meant it for good.  Jesus did not ask the disciples to die with him or for him on the cross, to produce a guilty feeling in the citizens of Israel, for the cause of social change.  He died alone, for righteousness sake.  The first praxis would be to build a city of man's own making (fleshly), the latter praxis, done by Jesus, was for "whosoever believeth upon him," that they would live in a city not built with human hands (spiritual).  The former does not deal with the heart issue, except on a superficial fusion (consensus), although some might be saved because the preaching of the world, though the preaching was for other ends, the latter does deal with the heart of men, to his salvation. 

"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:34)

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."  (Luke 6:45)

Without a change of the heart, no city is free from corruption, oppression, and slavery to the flesh.  "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)  Man can not change the heart, he can only persuade it to be civil, through a patriarchal paradigm (chastening), which develops the conscience—this can only be done by a patriarchal home environment, under God. "Social control is most effective at the individual level. The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated. The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." Dr. Robert Trojanowicz  Community Policing  The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing   Civil disobedience destroys family structure and thus sears the conscience and replaces it with the "dreams" of men. (For a better understand of how our "inalienable right" and the property of the conscience are related, listen to these excellent audio presentations by Phil Worts:  part 1, part 2, part 3.)

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  And be not conformed to this world:  but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  (Romans 12:1,2)

Key to understanding the dialectic process and its effect upon a person is understanding the humanizing effect it has on anyone who participates (praxis) in it's process of "change."  A "change" in the way man thinks, justified by seeing the world in a different way, is explained as the difference between the "old" Newtonian Laws and the "new" Copernican understanding of the universe (God and his word is no longer the center of the universe, man and his common experiences, his reasoning is). "God can no longer be viewed as monarch on a throne determining everything that happens in the earth." (Seay)  God is defined dialectically, he is "now" involved with the "change process" which is taking place in the universe (working with man for the betterment of mankind).  God, "the good personal spirit lies back of the universe as the ground of its being"  (King, "Six Talks in Outline," Papers, 1: 244) and is working with man in the praxis of changing history, in a cooperative effort to "destroy the forces of evil" (Seay), thus overcoming the history of the past (to be repeated again) through the "making" of history, changing the present for the betterment of the future ("history is not God –God is within and yet above history [God is becoming as man is becoming]." Martin Luther King Jr. on Creative Living; Martin Luther King Jr. birth name was Michael Lewis King Jr. emphasis added) The carnal man can not understand God, but will use God and his word for their own gain (be it even for recognition alone, making a name for themselves), as the scriptures state,  "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."  (Romans 8:5-8)  Just because someone is emotional over something does not mean he is walking in the Spirit, although a man, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, can be emotional (while the flesh can not control the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit can control the flesh, but never do they unite in a cause, the flesh is always subject to the Holy Spirit, while the flesh, "the body of death," always quenches the work of the Holy Spirit.)

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.   Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.  Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.  Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.  Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.  Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:  And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;  Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.  But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.   Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."  Colossians 3:17-4:1 

While God's goodness is absolute and man's "goodness" (dialectical thinking requires man to be basically good or at least neither good, nor bad, or the process will not work) is relative to his response to his present situation, thus (dialectically, what he can get out of the situation for himself) both God and man (dialectically) have the same "goodness" (a quality,  a "feeling," a "-ness"), which is the ability to love ourselves and others ("Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is always used to make this connection). The error in the dialectical way of thinking is the understanding that man is good and that he can love himself or others with true love (apart from the first command "... The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." (Mark 12:29, 30) 10:27), you can not do the second, "And the second is ... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Mark 12:31).  Man is not good.  Man's love is always vain ("Vanity, vanity, all is vanity").  Even altruistic love, denying self or even dying for someone else carries within it an element of "getting something out of it for self," even if it be remembrance from others for the act (the original motivation is worldly). Jesus Christ revealed to man where true love emanates from, from His Heavenly Father.  "For God so loved the world, that He (the Father) sent his only begotten Son ....." John 3:16a.  The Father is understood in the Godhead.  Jesus, the night before his death on the Cross, responded to his Heavenly Father, "Nevertheless thy will be done."  Jesus did not die to save any man. (now hear me out.)  He died in obedience to his Heavenly Father's will. Otherwise his death would have been in vain, only for vanity.  He did not do it because he loved mankind, he did it because he loved his Father.  Because of his love for the Father, the Father's love for you and me was manifest in his praxis of obedience (in his life and death), not to us in the will of his flesh (in his will), but in the spirit  (in His Father's will, which he obeyed).  This is something no one else can do.  Although equal with God, he took on the form of a man, therefore he himself could love no man apart from the Father (his dopamine, love of pleasure would have gotten in the way).  Even the disciples were given to him by his Heavenly Father (John 17), and he did his Father's will in guiding them.  By God's standards, man can not truly love, since he has a "what can I get out of this relationship for myself" syndrome, the flesh (dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, adrenaline, etc.). The feeling of love itself involves the emancipation of dopamine (pleasure), that which is of the flesh (whether the environment or our imagination stimulated it, it is the feeling which justifies the action taken and is tied to the love which is of this world). Everything Jesus received (receives) from his Heavenly Father—his earthly life, the scriptures, the Holy Spirit, the disciples, his love, his death, his resurrection, his throne, his bride, etc.—was and is in direct relationship to his obedience to his Heavenly Father's will (commands).

 "Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;  Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."  Ephesians 5:20-33

Apart from God's love in us (spiritual), we can love no man or God, except for personal gain.  Because, the heart which we love from is "deceitful, above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9), it will simply treasure up things for itself, even "in the name of Jesus" (Luke 13:27), that is unless it is under his control and direction.  The dialectic process can not function without this drawing away (being drawn away by the lust of the flesh), this desire for love from others (pleasure and love, to unregenerate man, are the same—lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God) i.e. our desire to love others is based upon our wanting their love in return (if not expressed to us at least to others), be it shown in physical needs satisfaction, as in a smile or nod in recognition or approval for something we have done, or in words of praise.  Our love is conditional (environmental, temporal), God's love is not.  He loves the world, not as the world loves. While we were "yet in sin," in "love" with the world (in love with our flesh), he loved us (our soul that is, for flesh and blood can not be a part of His kingdom but only subject to our will to do his will in this life).  Only those who believe upon his Son, whom the Father sent to die for all men, whom He raised from the grave, for "whosoever that believes upon him," that they might have eternal life, with His Son. The Father directs and commands it all, even the day of the wedding (even today the Son does not know the hour of the event).  Thus man, being full of pride, is totally depraved and blind, and is incapable of true love and refuses to accept the truth that he has no life in himself, that life itself is a gift from God. "For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."  Acts 28:27  Only man's pride keeps him from knowing this about himself, "having human eyes, full of pride, he can not see, having human ears he can not hear." As Karl Marx imagined how the world should be, i.e. all citizens "having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears" Karl Marx. 

 "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
    But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
    For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
    We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh." 2 Corinthians 4:1-11

Apart from God's grace and mercy men are simply the dead walking (condemned, not by God's choice, but by their denial or refusal to humble themselves, and accept by faith, by His grace and mercy), refusing to repent of their sin against Him, unwilling to die to themselves—unwilling to give their life to him, unwilling to deny themselves (private), unwilling to pick up their cross (public), and unwilling to follow Christ Jesus (not in "partnership" with him, those who think that they are in "partnership" with Jesus are so vain, but rather as one welcomed into the family of God, as adopted sons, by believing in Him as savior, and following and serving him as Lord), being faithful to him in all things, enduring all things, trusting in him to the end of this earthly life.  Thus the dialectical process is destroyed with one word, faith, faith in God, faith in His word.  Not in faithfulness, which is a feeling (a quality), but in faith in Him.  It is God who is sovereign, all powerful, and all loving and it is from Him alone we receive the right of sovereignty, the use of power, and ability to love (and the office of authority, missing in civil disobedience).  Apart from obedience to the Father, through belief in His Son (Jesus is the door), and the power of the Holy Spirit, evil (within us and in the world) can not be overcome, but will only be used, as a tyrant uses it, for his own personal gain (we just can not deliver ourselves from it, it is the "law of the flesh" residing in "our bodies of death").  Without the change of a man's heart, the world can not be changed (it will continue as from the day of the fall, Genesis 3, till the day of judgment).  It may have a form of Godliness (able to evaluate), but the power is denied.  Because man is unable to evaluate spiritually and can only see by fleshly observation, he will always see those who take God's word literally, "fundamentally,"  as foolish.  He is only able to reshape God's word, through "enlightened" reasoning, cutting and pasting it, rearranging and redefining it, to fit with his carnal, worldly evaluations.  God will not "partnership" with the will of the flesh, even for the cause of love and peace, because we, left to our human nature, will "consume it unto [our own] lusts." "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:3.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."  Colossians 2:8

King taught that "God relinquished a measure of his own sovereignty and imposed certain limitations upon himself. If his children are free, they must do his will by voluntary choice." "God created the world in such a way the triumph over evil is inevitable."  (King, Strength to Love)  According to the dialectical process, where commonality (integration) universally negates contrast (segregation, another word for alienation), God must limit his power (God's power is therefore "finite"), so he can share it with man, so man can will, as God wills (in commonality), and collectively man and God can praxis the overcoming of evil and the creation of love and goodness on the earth. In this way, dialectically, Gods' power, which is infinite, must be redefined in a way that man can participate with God in its use, yet this very praxis negates repentance of personal sin before a holy, pure, and righteous God, in the belief that man is good and loving in himself, only needing God's cooperation in power to overcome the evils in the world. Therefore only through the praxis of human reasoning (dialoguing to consensus) is man capable of knowing and applying this "will to power" in promoting love and goodness on the broad pathway of "changing" history (changing history into a history of "changingness," evolution, as in all is "becoming").  This is dialectical reasoning. Therefore, leading man into battle for the cause of goodness and love, the dialectical "Christian," will say of his cosmic God, "He's my mother and my father. He's my sister and my brother. He's a friend to the friendless. This is the God of the universe." (Martin Luther King Jr., The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life." A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.).  Yet the word of God says "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."  (Matthew 23:8-10)

"With the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view, moral commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation." Jürgen Habermas Communicative Ethics Source: The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory

"What better way to help the patient recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images.  Group therapists 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 patient] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient changes the past by reconstituting it." (Irvin Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

When the dialectical process is applied to the Church in this way, the gospel message is changed from "setting your mind on things above," to "setting your mind on things below," (while mentioning things above, just to make works for mankind appear God initiated and sustained, thus making the church not only "intellectually respectable" but also "emotionally satisfying" Seay). While Marx rejected God, to support his dialectical materialistic world view (Karl Marx wrote, "The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." Karl Marx), civil disobedience was able to incorporated God into the dialectical formula, by humanizing him. The emphasis upon "human well being" (finding a common need within humanity on which mankind and God could unite—to achieve "wholeness") replaced an emphasis upon righteous living, living a Godly life, humbly before God, "with a broken heart and contrite spirit."  There was a problem though, "How can the church be detached from an individual minded God (private), and reattach to a socially minded God (public), without loosing itself in the transition." The Transformational Marxist, Jürgen Habermas, wrote how this is to be done: "The fact that moral practice is no longer tied to the individual's expectation of salvation and an exemplary conduct of life through the person of a redemptive God and the divine plan for salvation has two unwelcome consequences."  "With the loss of its foundation in the religious promise of salvation, the meaning of normative obligation also changes. The differentiation between strict duties and less binding values, between what is morally right and what is ethically worth striving for, already sharpens moral validity into a normativity to which impartial judgment alone is adequate." [In other words, ideals and truths, which are preached and taught, lose their value in favor of opinions, which are shared in dialogue, thus allow people to feel better about themselves and be less offensive to others.] "The shift in perspective from God to human beings has a further consequence. 'Validity' now signifies that moral norms could win the agreement of all concerned, on the condition that they jointly examine in practical discourse whether a corresponding practice is in the equal interest of all. (Jürgen Habermas,  ibid. bracketed information added)

 When everybody must have equal input in dialogue, being understandable to others (negating revelation) while being understanding of others (tolerant of ambiguity, i.e. tolerant of immorality), the outcome is humanism—dialectical materialism i.e. all that is of the world.   In dialectical fashion, King was able to overcome these "two unwelcome consequences," uniting his followers (seducing them down the dialectical corridor of "world peace" without losing their motivation and concept of the good life) by keeping them focused upon both the goodness of man and the goodness of the cause.  Thus, he (like all who praxis the dialectical process) was able to keep "moral knowledge" and "morally right action" in play, without having to use the baggage of a "fundamentalist" God "tied to the individual's expectation of salvation."  (ibid.)

"The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit."  Psalms 34:18

"... analysis of the dialectical process, in spite of its shortcomings, helped me to see that growth comes through struggle." 
(King, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story)

"By dialectic, I mean an activity of conscious, struggling to circumvent, the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." (Norman A. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
[ "The formal-logical law of contradiction" in "fundamentalism" is its spiritual, "non-human" conditions and rules first experienced in the traditional home environment.  The struggle is to negate (through circumvention and not direct confrontation) the conditions which produce "fundamentalism," not only in the community, and in the home, but also in the mind, where it took shape in the first place (reprogramming personal-social habits by washing of the brain of the old, i.e. "fundamentalism," so that "rational coherency" could be liberated, i.e. re-"emerge," through the use of facilitation, dialogue, consensus, social issues, and diversity).]

Any struggle on the part of man, with himself and with God (seen dialectically), is the "struggle to circumvent" any limitations (barriers) which the God of the Bible has put upon man's participation in pursuing the social cause, in his struggle for "change" (a struggle to get around or overcome the ridged rules of the past which restrain man from his hopes and dreams of the future, "How it can be, if only ...."  Man's hopes and dreams require natural pleasure i.e. dopamine, to be worth pursuing, while God's kingdom, spiritual, does not.  Man's kingdom, temporal, depends upon human nature and human relationship building, God's kingdom, spiritual, does not).  To move the church from Christ's, "It is finished," to join with man in his struggle for liberation (to fight against social evil), it is first necessary to redefine the relationship which God has with man, dialectically—by making social conditions (environmental conditions) the object which needs to changed rather than the heart of man (rather than man fleeing from, fighting against, or enduring the environment, i.e. "putting on the whole amour of God and standing," he can progressively change with the changing world, progressively becoming one with it i.e. his flesh and the world "becoming").  In this way God and man can continue in the struggle for the creation of a new world.  By focusing the issue of life upon struggling against evil (prejudice) in the person, and evil (prejudice) in society, for the "purpose" of world peace, the issue of the wickedness of men's hearts (the depravity of man before God) and the righteousness of God (the wrath of God upon "the children of disobedience") could be bypassed ("circumventing," by not being continually brought up, if brought up at all)—that is overlooked (this is why you have to keep bringing in certain scriptures over and over again, until you give up, you are asked to leave, or you are no longer encouraged to stay).  Therein the language of right-wrong, good-evil, above-below, heaven-hell, etc. (the language of prejudice) could be replaced with "we are all in the same boat, so lest all join in and row in the same direction" (wherein, instantly, if you don't join in and row, or especially if you question the rowing, you are suspect of causing division, i.e. you are prejudice, you are the enemy.) This praxis is foolishness before God: Romans Chapter 1:16-32.

"This voice which really isn't you but tells you the way the world works is a direct attack on creativity. We have to work to remove it." (Abraham Maslow  Maslow on Management quoting Michael Ray)

"For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its ‘obedience to laws.'"
György Lukács History & Class Consciousness Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism? March, 1919

"Obedience and compliance are hardly ideal goals." 
Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book I Cognitive Domain 1956

With the use of civil disobedience, to achieve peace and harmony among men, the redemptive work of Christ, his righteousness imputed toward man, is replaced with the redemptive work of mankind, of, by, and for himself, where all must participate (including God) in the struggle to produce a better world.  In this world, all are in debt to one another, owing through labor and tax dollars (sacrificing blood, sweat, and tears) to the community "cause," to the building of the "Beloved Community" (Works salvation, where everyone owes a debt to society, "Workers of the world unite.").  "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."  Romans 4:4-8  Whereas, according to God's word, sin is between man and God, and we can only be redeemed through his grace and mercy, sin is now redefined (dialectically) as being between man and man ("Sin is the estrangement of man from man." Paul Tillich), and we can only be redeemed through our social praxis.  Sin is now a social factor.  The "feeling" (fear) of being rejected by God, because of our sins against him (for those who think dialectically, this is due in a large part to the "judgmental" attitude of right and wrong held by "fundamentalists," who further the ideology of dualism i.e. above-below), is now being replaced with the "feeling" of rejection or alienation between men, because of the breakdown of communication and respect.  In dialectical thinking, being discriminated against is the result of improper education or poor life experiences.  Improper education and poor life experiences mean, dialectically, being raised in an "unhealthy" (mentally and socially unhealthy) environmental—under an inculcating education system (not free to feel and think critical of authority, to question authority), under a patriarchal paradigm with its prejudiced system of right vs. wrong, training the next generation to think with a ridged "fundamentalist" attitude of "them vs. us," of "in the world but not of it."   This is an incorrect, narrow view of the patriarchal paradigm by dialectical thinkers (there is a condition to question parental commands "children obey your parents, in the Lord").  The patriarchal paradigm is a way of thinking which dialectical theorists have a very hard time accepting.  If they even consider it, it is through much effort on your part, providing they think its worth their time to try to understand it (it would more than likely be a "bait and switch" opportunity for them to try to entrap you in dialogue).  The reason being, if they accepted it, their system of thinking ("the flesh the law of sin") would be condemned, they would have to accept repentance as the only option.  There is no dialogue (opinions of men) in the act of repentance before a holy, righteous, non-dialectical, non flesh loving God.  (he loves you but he does not love your love of the flesh, your love of this world.)

"Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?" Patrick Henry

Alienation between God and man (God is a patriarchal God, expecting obedience or repentance, rejecting those who do neither) is now redefined to fit a social cause, where God is not rejected, but is instead joined in partnership with mankind, involved in history (a history of "changingness," a history of "co-partnership," a history of "becoming"), working on the behalf of mankind in his effort to overcome barriers to social harmony and world peace (this is the teachings of liberation theology).  The patriarchal God of the scriptures has now become the heuristic god of theology and philosophy.  As one author put it, regarding a dialectical theologian, Paul Tillich: "One reason Tillich is unwilling to openly disavow religion is that he must be accepted as a theologian in order to formulate and gain acceptance of an imaginative Grand Synthesis of theology and philosophy. Tillich is actually directing an apologetic humanistic message to a Christian audience." (Leonard Wheat Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)  In this way the God of deism (the one) can be synthesized with the gods of pantheism (the many) to become a God in partnership with man so that man came come into partnership with God (God for man, and man for God—secular-sacred communitarianism), thus circumventing the source of alienation, i.e. treating the biblical God of a patriarchal paradigm as irrelevant (intolerable) in the light of social change ("Alienation is the experience of ‘estrangement' (Verfremdung) from others, . . ." "Alienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "Alienation, according to Feuerbach, derives from the externalization (Entausserung) of human powers and possibilities upon a non-existent entity: God. . ." "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation . . ." "Alienation will continue so long as the subject engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity."  Bronner Of Critical Theory and its Theorists).  Instead of rejecting God, the dialectical idea is, if we redefine him, describe him in dialectical terms (humanize him), we can work with God as he works with us (since we are both good in nature) to overcome evil and exact justice in the world.  In this way the cross takes on a new meaning.  Now it becomes a symbol of sacrificing oneself for the social "cause," doing God's will on earth.  "As above, so below." (pantheism, Satanism) now replaces "Thy will be done on earth, AS it is done in heaven." (Obedience to God, without question, applies in both places, in Heaven and on Earth.)

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?  Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?  But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:11-16  bold added for emphasis

"King contends that human salvation on a social level can only come with God and humanity working together. God and humanity are not collapsed into a single unity, but they are united in 'purpose.' [that 'purpose' being social cause]" (Seay,  bracketed information added)  King preached: "Evil in the world will not be eradicated through human effort or divine intervention alone, but through human effort and divine power."  (M. L. K. Jr.  Strength to Love) Thus only through "human effort," human reasoning ("this worldliness," the individual), synthesized with "divine intervention," revolution faith ("other worldliness," now defined as society), can man, with God's help (and God, with man's help), collectively overcome "evil" for the "social cause."  (The implication is that God can not do it without man—I remember something about rocks crying out in praise to Jesus somewhere in scripture, if man would not do it. The answer being that God will not do it at all i.e. it being to be a friend with the world to help man make the world a "better" place. How can you, and why would you, make that which is condemned, passing away, better? (It would be like seducing people to polish the brass on the Titanic, as it was sinking.) Only someone or something mad, like Satan, would do anything like that, knowing his day's are numbered—taking all the men he can with him, down the dialectical corridor, into the abyss, into Hell, in the name of "world" peace, into "the beloved community.")

"Purpose driven" means "the purposes of society and the individual has become identical." 

Another Transformational Marxist, Erick Fromm, put it this way (it being, achieving world peace through integration): "We may call this new order by the name of democratic socialism but the name does not matter; all that matters is that we establish a rational economic system serving the purposes of the people.  Only in a planned economy in which the whole nation has rationally mastered the economic and social forces can the individual share responsibility and use creative intelligence in his work.  All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical." (Erick Fromm Escape from Freedom)  Another, more contemporary, Transformational Marxist, Abraham Maslow, explained it this way: "Salvation is a byproduct of Self-Actualization Duty." (Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management 1998)  Maslow recorded in his journal that Karl Marx's philosophy and self-actualization, all which proceeds from nature, can be interpreted as one and the same: "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy.  And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now."  (Abraham Maslow  The Journals of A.H. Maslow by Lowry)

"By making the object 'need's' satisfaction, in other words mankind's desires, his 'felt' needs (temporal), rather than obedience toward authority above mans temporal 'felt' needs (spiritual), i.e. God being the highest authority, participants 'shift' their way of thinking ('shift' their mind, their focus, their attention) from absolutes and sovereignty i.e. from private subject to God-parent above (therefore public is also subject to God above); individual, subject to God-parent above (therefore society is also subject to God above),  to relativism/humanism/ and socialism, i.e. to the private subject to the public (therefore the parent is subject to the public); the individual subject to the social (therefore the parent subject to the social) [if God is to be included, he must be redefined dialectically so that his 'purpose' is helping 'drive' a public-private, social-individual 'partnership'].  Done dialectically (building upon common "felt" needs—consensus), a public-private partnership is formed,  the private deceived into thinking ['feeling'] it is still private when in actuality, it has become forever totally public (bought and sold by those in control of public perception—sensuous based.  Anything which blocks the temporal i.e. the spiritual (any authority inhibiting 'felt' needs satisfaction through social praxis) must be negated or redefined to be in alignment with the temporal.  Dialectical totalitarianism is done theoretically for the 'good,' i.e. the positive 'felt' needs of men, but when put into practice it must negate truth, absolutes, sovereignty, the rights of the individual, and liberty i.e. it must negate all praxis inhibiting 'social' harmony (public-private, individual-social 'felt' needs satisfaction)—negating the negative (resisters to change) is referred to as 'negation of negation'.  Once the dialectical process is accepted as the paradigm to live by, the buying and selling of the souls of men commences." Dean Gotcher

Personalism: "Every form of objectification results in alienation."  (Stephen Eric  Bronner Of Critical Theorists and their Theory)  "The life which he has given to the object [the parent or God] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force."  (Karl Marx MEGA I/3, pp. 83-84)  "Humanism elevates man to the rank of God. Tillich's message is that God is man, mankind, humanity. Tillichian salvation is a symbol, a symbol for becoming ultimately concerned about humanity―salvation in an "eternal" present. The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God. This self-realization is a "return" to union: potential becomes actual."  (Leonard Wheat  Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)

Edgar S. Brightman's "Personalism," according to Seay, allowed King to synthesize "Hegel's (the spiritual) and Marx's (human) philosophy of history."  (Seay)  Thus God works through history, dialectically (not judging man according to some pre-set laws greater than the laws of nature), by assisting man, empowering him, in the praxis of changing the "human condition," therefore "God is personal and has infinite goodness, while finite in power." The Scriptures warn us: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."  2 Timothy 3:5  It is important to know that the phrase "denying the power thereof" is repeated in the Greek, in the same chapter, but the second time it is translated correctly as "the power is denied," meaning God will not share his power (spiritual) with man (flesh), that his power is denied when man attempts to use it for "him-self." That God will deny his power when man is preoccupied with himself, preoccupied with his cares of this world.  "Personalism" believes that God shares his power with man, and treats man as being at one with him (not "swallowing him up," nor standing opposite from him, but working in co-operation with him, in agreement with him), so that both he and man can work within the "process" of change for a better world. "God is also humanity's cosmic companion."  (Seay)  In this way, (through the use of a heresiarchal paradigm) God can be re-defined (humanized) so he can personally involve himself, with man, in the praxis of a "changing" world history. 

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:17

Thus, through the use of the dialectical process, King was able to negate Hegel's impersonal God while at the same time negating Marx's Godless world, and conversely was able to incorporate Hegel's guiding Spirit—zeitgeist (God is personally involved in the affairs of man) and Marx's "concern" for humanity and equality (man is the measure of all things, thus it is through his societal praxis that he gains identity and worth).  Personalism is belief in "the free play of human creativity in cooperation with God"  advancing the world toward "the divine ideal," a time and place where "men and women of all races, religions, economic status would be able to live as a family." (King, The Trumpet of Conscience) Through dialectical reasoning, this outcome would not be possible without human free will.  Without it man would be bound to "superstition," Quoting Seay, "Freedom is an absolute necessity or humanity will regress into darkness, superstition, and low aspirations," having no part in the outcome, except to blindly obey some alien will ("Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will."  Leonard F. Wheat Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)—thus he would be alienated from his own will, alienated from his human nature, alienated from the world and its dialectical based system. The truth is, the only will which God has given man to use is his will to say "Thy will be done."  All other will, the will of the flesh, is subject to the world and antichrist—all that which is passing away.

"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."  Kenneth Benne  Human Relations in Curriculum Change  A Marxist-Freudian training manual for the initiation and continuation of Transformational Marxism.

Thus, the dialectical logic goes, "If God has free will, and man is made in God's image, then man has free will, and since God is good and man is good, unless man uses his free will, in doing God's will (to overcome evil in the world), in "cooperative action and mystical love," (Seay) he is living outside of God's will (he is working against the social cause), he is living in darkness and sin (he is a barrier to the pursuit of peace and harmony). Therefore man's goodness is tied to his social commitment in changing the world into a better place for all.  Thus the depravity of man is negated (the heart of man, biblically identified as "deceitful and desperately wicked," but dialectically assumed as basically good, is not changed, only refocused, redirected), setting man free from "fundamentalism" (a patriarchal paradigm), liberating man from a God of "judgment," and alienation, so he can share "power" with a god, a god of "love and justice," in the praxis of environmental, social "change" (a heresiarchal paradigm, and a heresiarchal Christ i.e. antichrist).

"We are not interested in whether the problem is solved accurately or with elegance." "We want the student to lead the good life and become a good man in all his parts." "… the greatest good for the greatest number." Benjamin S. Bloom  Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book I Cognitive Domain 1956

". . . the only authority necessary is the authority to establish certain qualities of interpersonal relationship."  Carl Rogers On becoming a person

History is "a system of interpersonal relationships on widely varying levels among all kinds of persons – both human persons and the Divine Person — with the goal of increasing cooperation in the achievement of the highest values."  Journal of Bible and Religion. 18:1 (January 1950), 3-10, 88.

In this way, environmental change (individual-social change) guides man toward the promised land, man and the environment, united with God (object-subject reconciliation), all in "cooperation," with the praxis of "interpersonal relationship" building, changing the world forever. Yes, forever, because according to this process you can never arrive, there can be "no last event," no "eschaton." There can be no "It is finished" on the broad pathway to the dialectical "dream."  "The eternal purpose ... is that of inexhaustible creativity, ... endless growth in individual powers, community, and love."  (Journal of Bible and Religion, as sited by Seay)  It is, simply put, the process of "change," in pursuit of the "dream." It is only the process of "change" that counts.  Mankind (and God), guided by the dialectical process of change, will help keep the "dream," the "Beloved Community" (a synthesis or theology and philosophy), in sight, keeping hope in its "becoming" ever alive (if you don't work with us it just won't happen, the assumption is then, you may not be with us if you don't talk and walk the "dream," willingly—under threat of social rejection or incarceration you must "willingly" part with your hard earned money and volunteer your time for the "cause").  The deceit was that the city was simply a dream to inspire, to give a platform to grow community, but never be achieved, "never to be totally realized in history." (Ira Zepp, The Social Vision of Martin Luther King Jr.)  . If there were ever an end, the process of "change" would die, and the dialectical process of human relationship building, even with God's help, would come to an end.  As long as the opiate of religion ("blind" obedience to God i.e. faith) is in existence the process will be necessary, thus it is clear to see that the "Beloved Community," the "dream," was all about negating the patriarchal paradigm with its ideal city, made by God's hands (not attacking it as false but pushing it to the side as an issue at hand, thereby making the social city a "logical outgrowth," of human reasoning, passion, and community effort, i.e. behavior deemed necessary to regulate the "Beloved Community," would be used in pursing it). 

"It may be said that Philosophy first commences when ... a gulf has arisen between inward strivings and external reality, and the old forms of Religion, &c., are no longer satisfying; when Mind manifests indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein, and moral life becomes dissolved." Source: Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge.

In dialectical thinking, apart from the quest for societal change ("sensuous needs" satisfaction), man has no identity (this is social materialism—called historical materialism since history is not repeatable only progressive). As Karl Marx wrote: "The essence of man is not an abstraction [Marx rejected ideals and truth, considering them as only concepts or opinions tied to past experiences] inherent in each particular individual."  "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 6 (Bottomore)  "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." Karl Marx "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right" Add God's will to this mix and you have the justification for civil disobedience against the "old" system and its "old" God.

 "Persons satisfied with things as they are must be helped to acquire convictions for change and arrive at that state of dissatisfaction."  "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." "... the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." Kenneth Benne  Human Relations in Curriculum Change

New lamps for old:
The "trick" was to change the thesis over to the antithesis, and the antithesis over to the thesis (to switch the thesis and antithesis).  In other words, when the old way of doing things (thesis) was challenged by the new (antithesis), the old (tradition) tended to carry the weight of argument and thus maintained control (thesis remained unchanged).  But focusing the issue upon "feelings," rather than issue of right and wrong itself, by making the "new,"—the feelings of resentment toward discrimination, a universal feeling—the thesis, the main issue (moving the perception from that which is from above, i.e. right and wrong, to make them appear as resister of change and moving that which is below, i.e. human feelings to front of the issue), the antithesis then became those who wanted to keep things as they were, for the sake of stability, perceived by the public as the "old" way, now seen as resisters to change, bigoted, and hateful.  Thus when society moved its focus from doing what is right—based upon non-human, transcendent, commands (be it a parent demanding their children obey commands, commands which the children feel are unreasonable and thus resent)—to the "feelings" of social injustice, the focus of the people changed in favor of social change.  Thereby, dialecticians were able to get the American public into circumventing the rules of the constitution, ignoring the warnings concerning change by usurpation, warnings given by those who helped framed it (most citizens were unaware of the political restructuring which was taking place and most likely would not have supported or participated in the movement if they had known).  In the midst of "change," based upon emotional issues, the change in environment i.e. government system, is not noticed.  It is not noticed until it is too late.  Like in the Garden, as today, the dialectical process has a blinding effect upon those who participate in its "cause" for liberty ("having human eyes they can no longer see spiritually, having human ears they can no longer hear spiritually").

"Mass media, and an ever-increasing range of personal experiences, gives an adolescent social sophistication at an early age, making him unfit for the obedient role of the child in the family."  "One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates, and to consider itself no longer subject to the demands of parents and teachers."  "The old ‘levers' by which children are motivated--approval or disapproval of parents and teachers--are less efficient." James Coleman The Adolescent Society

With the help of the media, the patriarchal paradigm was put on the defensive, and the discussions of the day was now based upon social feelings ("Truth is a moment in correct praxis."  Antonio Gramsci). "Theoretical praxis [Marxism] enters public life through the newspaper and journal of social criticism." "The philosopher becomes a journalist without ceasing to be a philosopher." (Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')  In this way the praxis of social change (social-government, social democracy) gained precedent in the public arena over the praxis of absolutes and self-government, i.e. self-control—which emanated from the traditional home but which was overlooked by the media, in favor of public polls and surveys (opinions).  The individual, the traditional family, and a constitutional republic (whether the individual, the family, or those in public office were behaving right or wrong was no longer the issue) were all thrown under the civil disobedience bus of social "change," (political systems change, a paradigm change).

Education in the American classroom was already taking the nation down the dialectical corridor.  Two books by Benjamin Bloom (David Krathwohl lead name in the second book) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain (1956) and Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain (1964) were becoming the staple for the development of classroom curriculum (whoever determines the type of curriculum shaping the classroom experience, controls the paradigm which proceeds from it).  These are Marxist based teachers' aids used today to determine teacher qualifications for certification, and school qualifications for accreditation (Christian teachers and schools included).

"The basic task of re-education is to change the individual's social perception, thereby changing the individual's social action."  "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group."  "The objective sought will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen."  "An outright enforcement of the new set of values and beliefs is simply the introduction of a new god who has to fight with the old god, now regarded as a devil."  Kenneth Benne  Human Relations in Curriculum Change

"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed." David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain, p. 84

The dialectical holy grail, the negation of "fundamentalism," i.e. the annihilation of the "fundamental religious extremists," seen as the barrier to globalism.
By dialectical thinking (regarding M. L. K. Jr.) Seay concludes that "the public theologian provides a means of recovering the prophetic function of Christian theology that may contribute to the transformation of society through critical reflection and personal praxis."  (emphasis added)  By this method King stated that " shackles of fundamentalism were removed from my body," while at the same time he was able to maintain "a faith grounded in a critical understanding of the biblical stories."  (Seay)  "Critical understanding" meaning a "dialectical understanding of historical processes." (Seay)  In this context, we are living in a changing world, moving together towards a "better" world with the aid of both man and God, transforming the old world into the new. Stephen Bronner, writing about the Transformational Marxist, Max Horkheimer, put it this way: "The use of ‘critical theory' ["Critical Theory" is used instead of the original Marxist phrase "Marxist Theory," because it was not as "in your face" for the American audience] as a code word, which already becomes evident in Horkheimer's early writings, enabled a certain interpretation of Marxism to enter academic discourse. Horkheimer's purpose in critical theory was to militate against: all attempts to construct a fixed system, every attempt to identify the subject with the object [negating the teaching that man is subject to God, children are subject to their parents, legislators, presidents, and judges are limited by the restraints of the Constitution and therefore subject to the citizens, and the traditional home—which developed and sustained the idea of private property, mine vs. yours—inculcating it into the minds of next generation of voters, etc. is protected from governmental intrusion]."

"Humanistic potential is what critical inquiry must clarify. Grounding itself within the tradition of emancipation, in theory and practice . . ." (Stephen Eric Bronner Critical Theory and its Theorists)  Emancipation means being freed from the system of traditional restraints i.e. the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm both in mind and in practice (in both the private and the public domains).  Concerning "critical inquiry" Paulo Freire, a name increasingly showing up on matters of education policy (from Washington D.C. to the "regional" school districts), stated: "An act of violence is any situation in which some men prevent others from the process of inquiry  ...any attempt to prevent human freedom is an 'act of violence.' Any system which deliberately tries to discourage critical consciousness is guilty of oppressive violence. Any school which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry is guilty of violent oppression." (Freire, P.1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. p.74)  Thus civil disobedience, used as a means to overcome social oppression outside the home, will destroy the home structure from within, where the child who "feels" oppressed (alienated, "segregated" from himself and others, having to carry out the parents commands, a parental system preventing him from "critical inquiry." i.e. a system not given the child freedom to question the parents' authority structure when it inhibits his freedom), will be supported, by social departments in the community (under state, federal, and international supervision), in assisting him in his experience of resistance against (liberation from) his "oppressor," i.e. the patriarchal parent.

"As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." John 15: 9-14

 With the act (praxis) of transforming people into "friends" (who were once enemies), by "finding the worthwhile values in opposites" (Seay) (finding the common human feeling of dissatisfaction, i.e. resentment toward a patriarchal authority, i.e. patriarchal commands), the patriarchal paradigm will be negated (right and wrong thinking is replaced with the value of human "feelings,"  and chastening, which reinforces doing right and not doing wrong, is replaced with dialogue, which reinforces finding common feelings and desires and restructuring life upon cooperation, grounded upon "sensuous needs," i.e. the lust of the flesh for the things of this world).  This transformation is known as the "negation of negation" or the annihilation of discrimination, i.e. "non-human" and therefore inhuman judgment.  The transformation of a patriarchal paradigm (of right and wrong) into a process of finding common ground, only possible with the negation of a right and wrong, i.e. a "fixed" way of thinking—commands from above, destroys a patriarchal paradigm (discrimination based upon skin color is wrong, but to negate discrimination itself is to negate the role of the patriarchal paradigm, which is to teach the next generation to discriminate between right and wrong, between righteousness and evil, based upon commands given to them from authority above their carnal, i.e. humanist nature).   The healthcare package of Government is to annihilate the patriarchal paradigm, (not only annihilating the patriarchal father figure, external to the child, but the patriarchal father figure in the child, i.e. the conscience), and therefore crush the keystone of nationalism, while masquerading itself as cared about the child's physical health.

"Confronted with the rigidity of the adult ... one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individual's life, and since the earlier the influence the more profound it will be, attention becomes focused upon child training." Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality

To "transform" a patriarchal paradigm (to make the home environment an environment based upon interpersonal relationships, i.e. of "friends"), is to turn the family against a praxis of absolute truth i.e. "fundamentalism," (it is to defeat the restraining forces of the conscience, developed within the home, it is to annihilate its top down structure, essential for limited government based upon self-government and essential to the prevention of totalitarianism).  Fundamentalism is an either-or paradigm and can never be equal or in partnership with the other, its opposite.  And what concord [harmony, consensus] hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 2 Corinthians 6:15-18   No man can serve two masters:  for either he will hate the one, and love the other. . .Ye cannot serve God and mammon.  Matthew 6:24  One is from above, spirit, the other is from below, flesh.  The latter (flesh) will not enter into the former's kingdom (spirit). "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." 1 Corinthians 15:50

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."  Romans 10:9

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, regarding his religious development: "Conversion for me was never an abrupt something. I have never experienced the so called 'crisis moment.'  Religion has just been something that I grew up in. Conversion for me has been the gradual intaking of the noble {ideals} set forth in my family and my environment, and I must admit that this intaking has been largely unconscious."  "At the age of 13 I shocked my Sunday school class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. From age thirteen on doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly. At the age of fifteen I entered college and more and more could I see the gap between what I had learned in Sunday School and what I was learning in college. This conflict continued until I studied a course in Bible in which I came to see that behind the legends and myths of the Book were many profound truths which one could not escape."  "As stated above, my college training, especially the first two years, brought many doubts into my mind. It was at this period that the shackles of fundamentalism were removed from my body. This is why, when I came to Crozer, I could accept the liberal interpretation with relative ease."  "Even though I have never had an abrupt conversion experience, religion has been real to me and closely knitted to life. In fact the two cannot be separated; religion for me is life."  (Martin Luther King Jr. "An Autobiography of Religious Development" Papers, vol. 1, 357-358.)  Later in his life, at Boston University, King wrote a "dissertation research on Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman" (Seay)  Henry Nelson Wieman believed that "Christianity was something rising up out of their midst in creative power. Jesus was merely a catalyst.  The death of Jesus released to Christians creative power allowing it to spread beyond their small community and local tradition.  It was not a man who rose from the dead it was creative power."   (Henry Nelson Wieman  The Source of human Good.)  Wieman also believed that  "... the greatest good for all people could be achieved if the many individual interests could be creatively organized so as to function as a single interest. This creative interest is not to fulfill any end or desire that we already possess, but to expand our consciousness and understanding."  He wrote that "Religious experience teaches that this is not a nice world, and that God is not a nice God. And God is too awful and too terrible and too destructive to our foolish little plans to be nice."  (Henry Nelson Wieman,  Religious experience and scientific method.)  Wieman believed that "It is impossible to gain knowledge of the total cosmos or to have any understanding of the infinity transcending the cosmos. Consequently, beliefs about these matters are illusions, cherished for their utility in producing desired states of mind. . . . Nothing can transform man unless it operates in human life. Therefore, in human life, in the actual processes of human existence, must be found the saving and transforming power which religious inquiry seeks and which faith must apprehend."  (Article by Jim Nugent Henry Nelson Wieman)  Concerning Paul Tillich, Tillich believed that "Philosophy and theology are not separated, and they are not identical, but they are correlated." "... to overcome the conflict between the naturalistic and supernaturalistic methods." "God is 'being-itself.'" (mislaid source I need to locate)  Tillich believed that "A stranger, even if his name were God, who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because nobody can stand him." (Leonard F. Wheat Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)  King concluded that "Wieman's ultimate pluralism fails to satisfy the rational demand for unity. Tillich's ultimate monism swallows up finite individuality in the unity of being. A more adequate view is to hold a quantitative pluralism and a qualitative monism. In this way both oneness and manyness are preserved." Martin Luther King Jr. Abstract of "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman" [15 April 1955] Boston, Mass, emphasis added.  In this way he could hold on to a Jesus, with his passion for the world (the world being "quantitative pluralism"), with its many different crisis, his passion ("qualitative monism"), with his willingness to suffer for all mankind, being the element all could unite upon, and he could hold onto the world ("quantitative pluralism")—society, with its desire for dignity and purpose ("qualitative monism")—individuality.  Therefore the many (the diverse of the world with their diverse problems) can unite in the one (the emotion or passion for life, liberty, and happiness built upon a humanized Christ, who promises a better life, if we will sacrifice, suffer, and struggle for our loved ones, for a unified world, seeking the "Beloved Community," here on earth, i.e. in the world becoming). Somewhere along the line, the voice of the patriarchal father (in heaven and on earth), giving commands and demanding obedience, and his patriarchal Son stating "... My kingdom is not of this world:"  (John 18:36) becomes irrelevant.

"King's development of the regulative principles (means) of integration, democratic socialism, justice, and nonviolent direct action are framed by the Beloved Community as a regulative ideal (ends)"  Seay

"...democratic type of relationship, the ability of the subject to appraise his parents objectively, as contrasted with an inclination to put the parents on a very high plane." Theodor Adorno  The Authoritarian Personality

 "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:  Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:  Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.  For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Peter 4:1-6

For the method to work, the focus must be "shifted" from the redemptive work of God, toward the "redemptive work" of mankind (in cooperative partnership), with God's help of course, if or when its needed (one only needs to find the "right" scripture to fit the right moment in the right movement toward human "freedom," "to create a more holistic view of God, humanity, and the church"  Seay).  Mr. Seay writes "Redemptive suffering contends that any suffering in the course of confronting structures of injustice and oppression is redemptive."  Thus, according to dialectical thinking, a person is redeemed only through his critical reflection of the situation at hand (questioning authority, i.e. critical theory) along with the use of the proper paradigm of change to join with society in a personal-social  praxis of change (negating "fundamentalism").  He must be working for the common cause of social justice (the end being "the Beloved Community," "the regulative ideal"—dissatisfied with how the world is, man must therefore imagine how the world "ought to be," and then establishes the right conditions necessary to achieve the dream  i.e. by changing the present conditions using the patterns of the future dream, the "Beloved Community," will liberate man from the use of the present system, a system which could not initiate, nor sustain his dream, and thus the patterns of the future must regulate the present conditions to create the future).  His suffering, experienced in his struggle for the dream, "although not sanctioned by God, is used by God." 

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.  Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."  Matthew 4:8-10

"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.  And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.  If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."  Luke 4:5-8

This is the passion of the cross now played out in the public arena, only this time Jesus is not on the cross but other martyrs are, supposedly suffering for the same cause, that of "justice," to end "evil" in the world, i.e. to unite "all the kingdoms of the world in a moment in time," i.e. breaking down the walls of separation.  As Obama stated his hope for a common-ist world (by attending to what man has in common, i.e. his fleshy nature,  i.e. dialectically rationalized "human, carnal rights," i.e. the hallmark of communist-fascism, i.e. global socialist-capitalism, he is able to circumvent that which is right and that which is wrong, i.e. that which is defined by an authority greater than the fleshy nature of man, i.e. the basis of "inalienable rights," i.e. the rights given by a higher authority than man, thus rights which man can not put a lean upon) in his speech in Berlin (a one minute excerpt; "Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice, it is the only way, the one way to protect our common security and advance our common humanity." [This is the rhetoric of Karl Marx and Lenin, i.e. dialectical-historical materialistic reasoning, which has lead to the negation of "the walls" of national, state, local, and family sovereignty, i.e. and thus the death, imprisonment, and oppression of millions of patriarch minded citizens, i.e. those citizens who were loyal to their own national, i.e. top-down, i.e. patriarchal, identity, i.e. particularly the private property, i.e. conscience based, rights.]  "That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic can not stand. [i.e. The patriarchal paradigm of sovereignty must give way to the heresiarchal paradigm of common-ism, i.e. communitarianism, i.e. democratic communism.] "The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least can not stand."  [Private capital must be replaced with social capital, i.e. Das Capital.] "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews can not stand. [i.e. The patriarchal paradigm must be negated.] These haled walls we must tear down"). (Obama in Berlin, July 2008) 

He later repeated his dream for a united world, i.e. the negation of sovereign nations, i.e. national divisions, in Prague: "We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security."  "We need more resources and authority." "We need real and immediate consequences." "Some will break the rules, but that is why we need a structure in place that ensures that when any nation does, they will face consequences." "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together .... Now is the time for a strong international response. ... the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. And all nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime." "To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay." "I am announcing a new international effort ..."  "We will set new standards, expand our cooperation ..., and pursue new partnerships..." "We must also build on our efforts to break up ..., detect and intercept ..., and use financial tools to disrupt ..." "And we should start by having a Global Summit ..." "When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens." "That is where human progress ends." "There is violence and injustice in our world that must be confronted. We must confront it not by splitting apart, but by standing together as free nations, as free people. I know that a call to arms can stir the souls of men and women more than a call to lay them down. But that is why the voices for peace and progress must be raised together.  Those are the voices that still echo through the streets of Prague. Those are the ghosts of 1968. Those were the joyful sounds of the Velvet Revolution."  [The "Velvet Revolution" was a Transformational Marxist revolution, overthrowing a hard-line Traditional Marxist regime.  It was a "quite" revolution in that the fathers' of the home (private property and business owners) were not shot outright by the government, but instead were negated in the home as the fathers and their sons and daughters were at each others throat, the result of facilitator's of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapists convincing the father's sons and daughters that they, no longer needing to honour, respect, and obey their father's authority, could do as they desired without having a "guilty conscience."  The violent revolution therefore took place in the home, ought of sight of the public, with psychotherapists (child protective agencies) giving a final death blow to the father's authority in the home as they intervened on behalf of the children.] "Human destiny will be what we make of it. ... let us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, and accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it." (Obama in Prague Sunday, April 5, 2009; 4:06 PM bracketed information added)  The Transformational Marxist, Warren Bennis responded to Obama's speech: "What a relief to hear a reasonable president discuss unreasonable problems with composure, tact, and strength."  (Warren Bennis; April 7, 2009; 11:32 AM ET Washington Post)   For this to happen, national sovereignty must be sacrificed upon the alter of world unit. No man can make the statement as given above and serve and protect any constitution limiting the power of government.  His sole purpose in life can only be that of negating any protection the citizens have from governmental, i.e. global governance, i.e. totalitarian, i.e. antichrist, control.

This is socialist revolution guided by a Godless god (a secular-sacred god used to deceive the gullible, i.e. the general public, i.e. those who put their trust in man, i.e. that which is below), who pulls people in by the passion of the "cause" (world peace, "the Beloved Community" created by the heart, mind, and hands of man, i.e. lovers of their own wisdom, i.e. rebellious nature) and then pulls others in by their passion, i.e. feelings, of guilt, i.e. sorrow, the feeling of remorse for participating in the persecution of the martyrs (I am not saying they were right in their persecution of the martyrs, those who suffered for a cause whether right or wrong in itself, nor right in their original position themselves, i.e. we are to proclaim the truth in love, not in hate, calling it just social cause, as the democratic mind do, i.e. democratic ethics), and thereby, now able to identify with the willful suffering of the victims for the cause of "freedom," are able to change their guilt based paradigm of right and wrong (not in touch with the e-motions of "changing" times, only being guided by condition based upon pre-set commands—whether right or wrong in themselves), into a "changing" paradigm, based upon feelings and thoughts of social cause i.e. "change." (Power shifted from being subject to God's authority, to being subject to man's desires, god now subject to man's terms, i.e. mans passions, mans thoughts, mans dream.) Thus civil disobedience moved the focus from God ("I AM"), above, to man ("becoming"), below, and despite every effort to keep religion in place (above-below), true religion (God above and man below) was sacrificed for the social cause (secular united with sacred, calling itself a secular-sacred partnership, thereby annihilated sacred). "The critique of religion ends in the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man; .... The critique of religion ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being." Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'  emphasis added.  Marx was writing about the patriarchal paradigm, with its preset standards of right and wrong—pre-established commands given by God, judging as evil (reprobate) those who refuse to do as he commands from above, refusing to accept direction and correction from him above: see Romans 1:28, 2 Corinthians 13:5, 2 Timothy 3:1-8, Titus 1:16.  Although I will be misunderstood by some, I speak not of the religions of the world, for they are all dialectic in nature, fashioning God in some way, shape, or form in the nature of man (that is the only way it can be for man), but I speak of the religion of the Heavenly Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit and his Holy word, not formed by human reasoning and passion, not by human perception,  but "God breathed," by revelation (the rock from which he builds his church, read Matthew 16:16-18).

The influence of perception, i.e. the power of "seem to":
The environment (that which "proceeds from Nature") influences us (produces a "sensuous need") to look back into the environment ("sense perception") to find a way (through the use of the dialectical paradigm) to satisfy the "sensuous need" ("sense experience"), which all proceeds from nature. The use of diaprax (to praxis the dialectical process) circumvents (and thus negates) the effect of anyone or anything which blocks the "sensuous need," "sense perception," "sense experience" humanistic cycle.  Without the "right" environment with which to liberate the mind to accept "sense perception" as the basis of reality, the person can not overcome the effects of constraints (via. chastening or fear of chastening by God or parents) impeding "sense experience," i.e. inhibiting the natural (carnal) satisfaction of "sensuous needs," (thereby leaving man neurotic).

"The basic task is to change the individual's social perception, thereby changing the individual's social action." (Kenneth Benne  Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"The words ‘seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior."  Carl Rogers

"Social action no less than physical action is steered by perception,"  "... incorrect stereotypes [prejudices, labeling] are functionally equivalent to wrong concepts [wrong paradigm, wrong perception of the world, wrong way of thinking]."  "A change in action-ideology, a real acceptance of a changed set of facts and values, a change in the perceived social world----all three are but different expressions of the same process ["theory and practice"]," "If the individual complies merely from fear of punishment [patriarchal paradigm] rather than through the dictates of his free will and conscience [heresiarchal paradigm], the new set of values [paradigm change] he is expected to accept does not assume in him the position of super-ego [the free will, guided by the senses, the feelings of the present, synthesized with the conscience, guided by conditions of the past, results in what is called the super-ego, thereby negating the inflexible, rigid, unadaptable to change conscience, developed by God and traditional family.], and his re-education [the change in paradigm, the washing from the brain the traditional patriarchal paradigm, so that the transformational, heresiarchal paradigm can determine actions] therefore remains unrealized."  "how can free acceptance of a new system of values [paradigm change] be brought about?" "The individual accepts the new system [paradigm] of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group [when] a strong we-feeling is created, [by all experiencing] the same difficulties, and speak[ing] the same language." [When] "the new system of values and beliefs dominates the individual's perception [and] is linked with the acceptance of a specific group, a particular role, a definite source of authority as a new points of reference," [his paradigm changes, his perception of the world changes, his way of thinking changes, as Kurt Lewin stated "all three are but different expressions of the same process"]. Bracketed information and emphasis added  (Kurt Lewin, as quoted in Human Relations in Curriculum Change, ed. Kenneth Benne)

Civil disobedience uses crime ("non-violence" does not make it a non-crime) to gain control of the passion of (or influence) the citizens (initiating the "tyranny of the masses," the tyranny of the community), to then gain control over (or influence) those in the office of authority, and thus, with the aid of the media, those in the office of authority (to keep their position in the office of authority, to keep the respect of men) are pressured to join in the crime (to practice tyranny against the contract with the citizens, to practice tyranny against the limited power of government, to practice tyranny against the office of authority itself, all under God).  Thereby, through the praxis of civil disobedience, tyranny is able to take control over the office of authority, to take control over the citizen.  "Redemption" is thus no longer just found in God and his word but is also found in one's praxis within the "purpose" of the "village."  Social cause and "God" become one and the same. The two become synonymous (synthesized). No longer is a voice of restraint, above man's passion (his nature), directing him, but man's passion (his nature) is now "driving"  himself, society, and "God."  God is no longer a "Jealous God" above man and nature, giving commands, directing, "demanding his way," but is now has joined in with man and nature below, fighting the "good" fight of social change.  In this way man can be "driven" by his own nature (with God's blessing and support).  (This is the same pattern for the Church Growth, Emergent Church, and any other Church's which builds their foundation upon the dialectical process.)  Apart from the praxis of  the village, i.e. the "Beloved Community," no man can not be "redeemed." 

"Planned change must emphasize the development of skills necessary for creating common public judgments out of the disciplined conflict of 'private' points of view. It must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions [people with absolutes, "fundamentalists"] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue. It is in this sense that democratic planning for change must be anti-individualistic."  ibid.

Love is thus "What can I get out of this situation for myself?" Justice is making sure everybody else gets their love (their "felt" needs are met) i.e. So no one stops anyone else's "What can I get out of this situation for myself?" unless that person is stopping someone else's "What can I get out of this situation for myself?"  As long as everybody gets a piece of the pie—dopamine—then everything is good i.e. this is humanism, what everybody of the world lives for and lusts after. The collective "What can we get out of this situation for ourselves?" guarantees the "annihilation" of the patriarchal paradigm (with its above-below, good-evil, right-wrong, intolerant way of thinking), which can not participate in dialogue (doubt, uncertainty, questioning) without loosing its foundation (faith, certainty, obedience).  Thus, vendetta (in some form), prevails, and can not be overcome by men's efforts, no matter the cause, as M. L. K. Jr. stated "…absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have ‘his due.'"  Martin Luther King Jr. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?  With man's love, the score is never settled, because the heart is never changed.

Aristotle taught that 1) man is basically good, that he is neither bad nor good—it is his social or non-social upbringing which shapes him into what he is, 2) that he, by nature, wills to do good, and 3) that his passions are, by nature, good.  He also taught that man is either courageous, foolhardy, or cowardly—cowardly when he runs away from orders, foolhardy when he "blindly" (by faith) obeys them, and courageous when he questions them, especially when they do not make sense to him, i.e. questioning the act (praxis) of "blindly" obeying the office of the authority which gives "unreasonable" orders (orders which have not come through a dialogued to consensus system).  For example: to obediently carry out a general's orders to charge into battle (especially when it does not make sense to the solder,  i.e. does not seem to benefit his immediate interests or humanities interest) the soldier would be considered foolhardy, to run from the general and his orders would be considered cowardly, but to question the general's order—with "why?"—would be considered as being courageous.  In this "light" any command given by God, which does not benefit society would have to be either redefined (or considered irrelevant) in the "light" of the changing times, and anyone "blindly" (by faith) caring our God's commands would be considered foolhardy.  Thus anyone questioning the behavior of the "fundamentalist," so he could find "purpose" in the cause of the individual and humanity, would be considered courageous, and thereby the "fundamentalist," from thereon, be considered as foolhardy.

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.  Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;  But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks [see, It is not a race issue. It is a sin, or, as in this case, being saved issue], Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.  Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.  For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;  And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:  That no flesh should glory in his presence.  But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:  That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 1:19-31 bracketed information added.

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."  Genesis 6:5  [Could Noah be the only one right and the rest of the world wrong? How prejudiced.] 

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.  Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.  But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;  And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:  Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;  But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.  These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.  For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.  But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."  2 Peter 2:10-22

While changing the environment does not change the heart of man.  Only God can change the heart of man, that is why men of God need to preach and teach the Word of God.  Changing the heart can and does change the environment.  It brings God's paradigm, his judgment of what is good and what is evil, into the environment.  The heart of man must be changed first. If the humanists know this (doing all they can to get men to focus, with the heart, upon the environment first, knowing that if man first focuses upon God, with his heart, he is of no earthy, "humanist good"), why don't the "Christians?"  In the process of change, using the unregenerate heart as a tool for change, the actions of tyranny can go unnoticed in that people are willingly producing that which is of their own nature.  Not until the event has taken place, Godly restraint is removed from the world, i.e. from the room, will those under the influence, under the emotion of change, know the change was really an act of tyranny against God.  I stand corrected, they probably will not be able to know, having spiritual Alzheimer's, or they will not care to know having a hardened heart to God's word, having already rejected it for the "wisdom" of men.  Most of what I see is what I call "willed ignorance."  "Don't tell me the truth since no one can do anything about it anyway" or "I want to know the truth, but not that much truth, because to much truth will cost me relationships."

The truth is liberating, it will liberate you from promotion if not your job, your next term in office, good grades, respect at the family reunion, etc.  The antichrist can not rule without the enlightened, liberated, "Christian's" participation.  "Purpose driven" to produce success,  through the use of synergy—synthesizing the "creative energy" of man, they are so busy in pursing social harmony that they do not "have time" to hear the truth.  Besides they know that if they heard the truth and did it, it would interfere with their success.  Thus the only safeguard for success today can be in the use of ambiguity—as Abraham Maslow called them "fusion words." In this way the words of truth will sound foreign to the language of success, and therefore will be considered as irrelevant, annoying to the "trained" ear.  "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."  Mark 4:12  They take on the image of man, which they worship, i.e. their own human nature, and become like idols of worship made of wood and stone (in this case their own flesh), therefore they can not hear, nor can they see.  The farther the nation travels down this road, the less it will be able to accept (understand) the truth.  The truth is, only God can change the heart of man.  For only in God is their truth and life.

A "change agent... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations ['the defenders' or resisters of' change]." (Ronald Havelock, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education.) bracketed information added

"What we need to learn, it seems, are ways of gaining acceptance for a humanistic person-centered venture in a culture more devoted to rule by authority." (Carl Rogers  Freedom To Learn FOR THE 80'S;  Some Disappointments in Innovation: A Pattern of Failure)

"During the period of innovation [change], an environment is invisible. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it [a person's emotions, his personal desires, his rising expectations are so caught up in the moment, in the cause that he is not aware of the change in paradigm taking place, as happened in Genesis 3:1-6].  It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment."  (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969  Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program p. 237)  Like a buck in rut, only after he has been hit by the car does he become aware of it presence, depending of course, upon how much is left of him to think with.

In order to remove the divisions (discrimination) between mankind (and thus the divisions between mankind and God), those who use the dialectical process must switch the definition of man's nature from total depravity (" But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Isaiah 64:6 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; " Romans 3:23 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." Luke 18:19), to the belief (perception) that man is basically good (Aristotelian thinking as noted above—dialectical paradigm).  For a change in paradigm, in form of government, to take place, the "change agent" must switch the focus from what God says about man (that he is wicked, unrighteous, deceived and deceitful, etc.) to what man thinks about himself and God (if god, who is good, is for man, who is basically good himself, given proper education and upbringing, then who can be against man—only those who see man as wicked, depraved, and lost).  Human feelings of compassion (the human experience of "I deserve," or "We deserve") therefore outweigh revelation truth (that man deserves nothing but eternal damnation).  The natural problem with man is that his understanding of love can only be through what he can get out of the environment for himself.  No matter how religious or how altruistic he attempts to be he can not escape this condition (his ego). Even in the act of giving his own life for another he is aware of his actions, his praxis. It is only in knowing God, who has nothing to get out of the environment for himself, nothing to gain from us, that we can know true love, that we can know how wicked we are before him and how much he loves us.

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."  Romans 1:21

Yet man, in love with this world, in love with his own wisdom, will foolishly speak judgment upon himself, as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow did.

"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." (Carl Rogers On becoming a person)

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."  Genesis 3:4, 5   The "serpent said" you will become "enlightened." Being like a god, you will be able to decide, through your life experience, what is good and what is evil.

"The person at the peak experience is godlike . . . complete, loving, uncondemning, compassionate and accepting of the world and of the person." (Abraham Maslow Toward a Psychology of Being)  

To love, therefore, is "to identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." (Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management) 

Instead of being negative, using physical force to make man put aside belief, or at least set aside his differences in belief, the idea was to be positive, to use the emotional force of social pressure ("group dynamics") to initiate and sustain social unity.  By getting man to focus upon what he had in common with others, and then using this common-ism to get him to work for the common cause, social unity could be attained with less destruction to the social infrastructure. The tool for change was to unite all of mankind upon the resentment of being treated as less than what he thought of himself, i.e. dissatisfaction toward parental or Godly restraint. Unite could then be built upon 1) the desire for respect from others, respect for what one is, and 2) resentment for being discriminated against, for what one is not. By using environmental manipulate, gaining mans willful participation in the process of change, Transformational Marxists were able to do what Traditional Marxism could not do, keep man alive and "happy."  Instead of killing citizens, they trained the citizen to justify the killing (aborting, terminating, "pulling the plug" on) the innocent or helpless, those perceived as socially irrelevant, i.e. the unborn and the elderly, prepared them to kill, incarcerate, or censor, any who did not think or act like them in contributing to the social cause, i.e. dialectically. Thus the dualism of reason and emotion were brought together in a dialectical setting.  By removing any aspects of reasoning which would inhibit or block emotion ("sensuous needs") and social perception ("sense perception") from being the foundation of truth, reason and emotion would be synthesized and truth discovered.  Thereby, by negating revelation, "unreasonableness," the patriarchal paradigm through social praxis, world peace and harmony could be realized.

Removing any aspect of emotion, "nostalgia," i.e. loyalty, to the old way of doing things (which prevented reasoning from being tied to the current human experience since it remained tied to the old way of doing things) had to also come into "play." Anything tied to "sense perception" had to be brought into the meeting in order to negate loyalty to revelation ("non-sensual perception") and loyalty to the rules of the patriarchal paradigm (the "negative valence").   The conscience (the "negative valence"—which, by the way, is not found within natural law but was treated by Kurt Lewin as though it was), ties the person to the "negative force field," i.e. the approval and support of force and threat of force by higher authority, and thus maintains the "old" world order. The conscience was seen as tying the person to the  the authority structure, making him loyal to the old way of doing things, and the authority structure was seen as being responsible for it's development.  Without negating the effect the authority structure had on the mind of the person, the treat of judgment or chastening the conscience could not be converted over to the structure of the super-ego (the mind now relative to change without a sense of guilt of condemnation). It was therefore imperative that an environment be initiated and sustained which would for a "moment" negate the authority structure (the "negative force of an adult") and thereby free the person from the effect of the conscience (the "negative valence"). By shifting the focus of those in the room to finding common ground, built upon a common desire, i.e. the approval of others, only this time not from a higher authority but from a group of people, the person or group of people would be "driven" to change their language of facts, tying them to higher authority (that which is "negative"), into the language of feelings and thoughts, tying them to the group (that which is "positive"). 

By seeking common ground, built upon a common "purpose," all participants would be 'changed.'  The group and its "purpose" (the social cause to remove suffering from the world) would suffer failure if the individuals in the group or society refused to "shift" their loyalty, i.e. their affections, from that which was above to that which was below, i.e. human suffering.  In this way, any class of people, perceived as being "unreasonable," "unemotional," and therefore "irrational" toward the "suffering," i.e. the pain of alienation from natural desires ("felt" needs—Maslow, or sensuous needs—Marx), or inflicting suffering, via chastening, to reinforce belief, would be seen as evil.  Therefore the patriarchal form of government, its way of thinking, its paradigm, would be "justifiably" circumvented.  Circumvented in that to attack it (ideology and principle), would result in a counter attack from the traditional minded, with approval, but by not attacking tradition, by force, but rather treat it as irrelevant, the perception of man will be that the "old" way was being unreasonable, as it inflects suffering upon those circumventing it.  As it sought to maintain its old way of doing things the traditional minded would therefore loose favor with society (within the work environment, the classroom,  the community, and the fellowship).  Through "non-violence," civil disobedience would be able to treat the office of authority as irrelevant, as immaterial, as worthless, and gain and maintain social approval and support as the "new" world order attacked the "old" world order through theory (dialogue) and practice (consensus put into social action). Otherwise, by using force against force, it would be attacked by physical force, by those who wanted to maintain the "old" world order, and not be able to gain social sympathy, approval, and support (affective, cognitive, psychomotor unity).  Justified by the laws of "just dues" (justice, now defined by the "new" world order as "equality," (social) negating the "old" world meaning of "doing the right thing, to the right person, at the right time" (individual)—old dictionary definition), it would be able to limit the use of violent "civil" disobedience while achieving its objective, socialist control (by force of 'legalized' government) over and against homes, towns, cities, states, and nations, i.e. citizens for the cause of "world peace and harmony." 

Karl Marx, rejecting the condition of man's heart as being wicked and deceitful, focused upon social cause as the cry of the heart. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."  (Karl Marx Selected writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy, translated by T. B. Bottomore)  Thereby, Marx understood, dialectically, that it is only through social cause the heart of man can find peace and justice, i.e. freedom from man's bondage to "religion ... the opium of the people."  Without social sympathy, approval, and support, the "oppressed," "heartless," "soulless" condition, i.e. "the notorious crime of ... a particular social sphere," could not be overcome. "For one class to stand for the whole of society, another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits. A particular social sphere must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." (Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)  Civil disobedience was built upon the same structure of thought and action as developed by Hegel and Marx, putting Hegel into social action while humanizing Marx.  "King studied Hegel's Phenomenolgy of Mind at Boston University under Edgar Brightmann and Peter Bertocci. .... he spent his spare time reading Hegel's Philosophy of History and Philosophy of Right." (Seay) 

The "ideology" of "contemporary social science," that the heart of man is basically good (only needing the "good society" to actualize itself), now permeates the "American culture" with its "dream" of "justice" and "freedom."  "Contemporary social science, especially in America, bears the impact of Hegelian thinking to an extraordinary degree. Cultural anthropology and social psychology, especially of the psychoanalytic and Gestalt variety, and much of present day sociology… are more Hegelian than they would like to admit, or do acknowledge." (Carl Friedrich The Philosophy of Hegel, 1953)  Therefore since the hope of "the good society," grounded upon the humanistic belief (lie) that the goodness of man can only be realized within social praxis, society must transform itself into the image of man so that man can find (actualize) himself within the creation of the "good society."

 "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [the Greek word is praxis]; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."  Colossians 3:9-11 

The "old man praxis" is grounded upon 1) the use of lies—"Man is basically good and therefore given the right social conditions he can discover for himself what is good and what is evil." "You don't have to take God at his word," "Maybe I just misunderstood what he meant," i.e. accepted a lie by adding personal feelings, human feelings, to the truth, as the woman did in the Garden in Eden—and 2) carnal desires, desires found upon our nature to relate (unite) with the world.  The "new man praxis," found in Christ, is grounded upon 1) truth—you must take God at his word, as Jesus did in the temptations in the wilderness—and 2) spiritual unity while found "in the world" is "not of the world." Spiritual unity is not found in temporal man, whose unregenerate heart can only think "What can I get out of this situation, out of this relationship for me?"  The reason you hang around people you like is because they give you a buzz, i.e. dopamine, the effect of being near an object of gratification your body naturally wants.  It is not them you want, its the pleasure they stimulate in you that you want. Try spending a day around somebody you don't like and see how much dopamine you get from your experience with them.  You might get some dopamine from the environment as you get to know them better but it is only as you find things in them that you like, or as you perceive within your mind, others, or even one other person might recognize your "good" work in the future that you get some pleasure.  True unity can only be found in the Spirit of God, in His love.  Unit in race (Jew and gentile), unity in class (master and servant, parent and child, man and women), unity in economics (rich and poor, land owner and worker) can only be found in Christ Jesus, not in a social praxis but in His work and the work of the Holy Spirit.  In the temporal condition, in genealogy, in office, in financial position, the differences remain, but in Christ and in the Spirit they are negated. "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God." Romans 2:9-11 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."  Galatians 3:28  Unity (not social harmony) can only be attained, as a byproduct of being in Christ. Only in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, by the will of the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit, can man be at one with God and thereby truly have fellowship (koinwnia koinonia) with one another, loving one another as God loves them, regardless of their temporal differences.

By focusing upon discrimination between races, classes, and faith, through dialectical lens (neo-Marxist lens), and not focusing upon the wickedness of man's heart before a patriarchal God, the element of common-ism, resentment and envy, could be "justifiable" used for social change.  Resentment for being criticized, i.e. for being judged for the way you feel, think, and behave by "repressive" standard, both within the community and within the home had to be recognized and changed into resentment towards those who inhibit or block you from having an opportunity to express they way you feel, think, and behave, within the community and within the home. A shift from resentment toward the individual (the person restraining the wickedness of man's heart) to a resentment toward the system restraining the individual (the "irrational," non-dialectical, anti-democratic system of absolutes initiating and sustaining the ideology that man's heart is wicked) could be initiated and sustained only if the individual "ought," i.e. resentment toward absolutes, could be liberated and synthesized in a social praxis "purposed" in negating the restraining "can not" of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the prejudiced and discriminatory system used within the community and within the home to initiate and sustain the patriarchal culture. "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." (Maslow Management)  Prejudice and discrimination is right when it entails the refusal to support and participate in the persecution of another race.  It is wrong when it treats the office of authority itself, being used to persecute another race, as irrelevant.  The latter form of prejudice and discrimination is the praxis of civil disobedience.  It is a system of usurpation.

As George Washington stated in his farewell speech "But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.  The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." (George Washington  Farewell Speech)  Although the cause may be right, the means to achieve it can be wrong.  The right means, granted by the constitution and the bill of rights, is to petition, petition, petition, use statutory duty to removed, imprison, and fine the tyrant, or use the rights granted by the bill of rights, i.e. force as a last resort, otherwise you destroy "free government" when you use "usurpation" as an "instrument of good."

Civil disobedience by its very definition necessitates the destruction of civilization, in the quest for a "better" civilization, i.e. in the quest of utopia.  Sigmund Freud's  "neurosis of civilization" (the patriarchal paradigm) is being replaced with "Eros and civilization" (the heresiarchal paradigm) as we march to the dialectical tune of social harmony and world peace.

"If society imposes repression, and repression causes the universal neurosis of man, . . . there is an intrinsic connection between social organization and neurosis." "The pattern of history exhibits a dialectic of neurosis. The core of the neurosis of individuals lay in the ‘memory-traces of the experiences of former generations.'" "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression.... Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression – in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body.  The resurrection of the body is a social project."  (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified "neurosis as a social product, . . . in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization."  (Bronner)

"... the Freudian hypothesis ... does not lead back to the image of a paradise which man has forfeited by his sin against God ..."  "[... the Freudian hypothesis leads] to the domination of man by man." (Herbart Marcuse Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud).

"For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its ‘obedience to laws.'"  (György Lukács History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

". . .we will inevitably find ourselves moving toward the chosen goal, and probably thinking that we ourselves desired it. …it appears that some form of completely controlled society … is coming."  (Carl Rogers On Becoming a Person)

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."  2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

Abraham Maslow had the same dialectical hope in man's effort of creating a "better" world by discovering and rationally uniting all of mankind upon his common nature.  He wrote in his journal: ". . . I've decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN, & the like."  "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.)" "Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers. If only for such a reason a world government is necessary. It too would have to evolve. I suppose it would be weak or lousy or even corrupt at first--it certainly doesn't amount to much now & won't until sovereignty is given up little by little by 'nations.'"  (Excerpts from The Journals of A.H. Maslow, Volumes I and II. Lowry R.J.)

Segregation (thesis) confronting Integration (antithesis) results in Desegregation (synthesis). 
While on the surface things may appear to change (synthesize), the heart of man remains the same (wicked and deceitful).  Wicked and deceitful leadership come into power because the people want leadership which thinks and acts according to (reflect) their wicked and deceitful hearts desires.

Using the unregenerate heart, for the causes of social harmony and world "peace," only further segregates the truth from both man and society, leaving man with a heart full of vendetta, i.e. hostilities against his fellow man covered up in the perception of social transformation, i.e. "I've got my just dues coming."  Social harmony is only an illusion being accepted as a reality, necessary for the few to control the many.  Did O. J. Simpson overcome (circumvent) the sin issue (right vs. wrong, the truth) through the use of the race issue (social prejudice, men's opinion)?  If he could do it, then men in high places, with their "miracle teams" (think tanks), can do it to, for the "goodness" of social cause.  If you justify the wickedness of a man because of his social worth, i.e. you turn your head the other way, you justify wickedness, i.e. you condemn yourself to his wickedness and therefore have no right to complain when his wickedness comes your way to destroy you.

"How can a situation be brought about which would permanently change social interactions?"  "To bring about change, the old constellation of forces have to be upset."  "Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions."  (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change  A Marxist training manual.)

When the paradigm of the present (dialoguing emotions and thoughts, informally experiencing sensuousness and spontaneity perceived as from the "present," therefore new) confronts the paradigm of the past (preaching and teaching, formally inculcating rules and lessons perceived as from the "past," therefore old), either 1) the paradigm of the "past" uses force, i.e. discipline and chastening (reward and punishment), to maintain itself, (producing more resistance), 2) the paradigm of the "past" is defeated, (setting up new rules to be obeyed in the future, changed rules which are then preached and taught in the future, becoming rules and lessons from the "past"), or 3) the paradigm of the "past" concedes to dialogue with the paradigm of the "present," and by willingly pursuing and arriving at consensus with the present, "negates" itself.  In the latter praxis, the paradigm of the process of "change" is initiated and sustained, establishing unchanging rules of human nature, the laws of the flesh, i.e. the want of gratifying objects, thus humanism, i.e.  rules of lawlessness 1 John 2:18-21 rule, sustaining that all rules of the past must forever be "changeable." This very concept tears apart the patriarchal paradigm, forever keeping man "in touch" with his and others emotions of the present.  In this way the flesh of man (the mind of the flesh), that which is common to all men, prevails. 

"Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right  ed. Joseph O'Malley) 

Yet, in spite of all this effort on the part of man to find peace for his soul, because the unregenerate heart is never changed, the quest for peace is never realized.  Thus while peace may "seem" attainable, the pathway continues to be strewn with hate and violence, greed and selfishness, lies and betrayals, death and destruction.  Only this time the troubles of life, i.e. crisis is "used" to initiate more dialogue and sustain the "need" for more change (as in cash change for those now in control, making a living off of perpetuating the change process of human suffering, calling it self-actualization, self-determination, self-esteem, etc.).  The money has simply changed hands, from those interested in land as their property rights, dominion (the conscience being the most sacred property), to those who view people as their property rights (where their feelings or "felt" needs are treated as property).  In this way whoever makes you feel good, or promises to make you feel good, you will follow.  Thus they own you through their control of the environment which shows the potential of "satisfying" your "felt" feelings. All this is done in the name of removing slavery and its dregs from society. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the elimination of slavery, I hate slavery and the idea of human slavery, but until man is set free from slavery to the flesh, and the greed which emanates from it, he can never know true freedom nor liberty, true and lasting peace, peace as only God can provide.

I know this may sound strange, i.e. bizarre at first but I'm hoping by the time you get to the other side of this information you will understand the depravity of the dialectical process and why we are see so much wickedness around us, accepted as a norm. 

Dialectically, since money (capitalism, surplus capital) represents stored up life, i.e. we store it up so that we can enjoy our life (private life seen as Id, i.e. "the life instinct"), as well preserve our life (private life seen as Ego, i.e. "the death instinct," fighting for that which we want or want to keep), having others limit their lives, their Id and Ego, to serve us (work for us—note of clarification: God is against the love of money, the love of pleasure, but he is not against money or pleasure itself).  Since, according to dialectical thinking, the "death instinct" is just as important as the "life instinct"  (Norman O. Brown covers this subject in his book Life against Death), stored up money, i.e. property, capital, etc. represents a person's effort to escape the purpose of the "death instinct," i.e. to remove any object which prevents Id actualization, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, so that the person can be at one with the world, through Eros, i.e. through his nature common to all men, i.e. the Id, the "life instinct" seeking union with the world which stimulates it, drawing it to be at one with the current environment, i.e. the catalyst for creating social life. Thus capitalism, i.e. capitulation, keeps man from experiencing all that is of Eros, Eros being his nature in others and their nature in him, both, in the right environment seeking to realize inter-personal relation, united in Eros.

"Death is the reality in which human beings cannot come to terms." "Death can be a learning experience." (Norman O. Brown  Life Against Death ) 

There is no "death instinct" in man so those who think dialectically must reject God or redefine him dialectical.  If the "good death," i.e. the ego, is to be accepted as in a quasi-stationary equilibrium with the "good life," then the Ego must be willing to praxis the "good death," that is be willing to die if necessary in the praxis of  annihilating whatever it is in the environment which is preventing the "good life," i.e. social harmony.  "Bad death" is the individual willing to living apart from his nature, suppressing his Id and therefore preventing his potential harmony with society from being actualized.  Self-control, self-discipline, developed under the patriarchal paradigm, is seen as an anti-Eros, anti-social experience and is the result of the Ego refusing to die in the praxis of defending his Id (an all other peoples Id), abdicating his Ego to an external Ego, i.e. the parent or God, who is demanding that their Id be actualization. Since the "good death" is the individuals only pathway to the "good life," i.e. society, i.e. life and death united. Those who think dialectically must reject a patriarchal God (the authoritative Father who restrains the Id and demands Ego submission) and replace him with a matriarchal god (the permissive mother who the Id wants as an object of gratification and who is willing to let that gratification manifest itself, i.e. incest).  The process must reject that man was created by God, created in his image, created to live forever, since an eternal soul, which can experience eternal life or eternal death (not as a part of God, or as a god), is not a perceivable fact to them, all men die (physically) and the soul is either part to the creation in some form, or completely disappears.  Therefore, according to their logic, based upon human perception, the preservation of the "good life," i.e. stored up money, is an enemy, a barrier to mans social nature, i.e. Eros, i.e. union with the cosmos in life and in death because the Ego was not willing to praxis the "good death," sacrifice himself for the social cause.

"The 'dialectical' consciousness ... a manifestation of Eros ... that Dionysian ego which does not negate any more [the "I will" which does not block the "manifestation of Eros," in life and in death]." "Dionysus affirms the dialectical unity of the great instinctual opposites: reunifies male and female, Self and Others, life and death." (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death)   [How do you restore a child who has fallen in love with himself and this world and is able to justify his actions, his praxis, in his own eyes, through his "'dialectical' consciousness"?  Abomination is what follows, as the Apostle Paul so clearly explains in Romans 1:18-32]

This is why, throughout history, when the dialectical process is used in government, so many people die untimely deaths, i.e. citizens of their own country die at the hand of their own government.  The dialectic process can only have life in death ("the good life in the good death," i.e. revolution, "a learning experience"), i.e. it flows down its river of life (Eros) on the blood of the helpless, the innocent and any who refuse to go with its flow.  Therefore, in dialectical eyes, man does not have the right to life when it goes against the dialectical "dream," when it goes against the common human quest of experiencing all that Eros has to offer, i.e. if you are not in Eros (in sensuous oneness with the universe, in life and in death), then you are having a bad life and will have a bad (untimely) death.  This is dialectical love, to ". . . fuse & become one--in the mystic fusion, or in the 'good death.'" (The Journals of A.H. Maslow, Volumes I and II. Lowry R.J. ed). The scriptures warn, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16  This is why those who are possessed with the dialectical process, who are slaves to the flesh, i.e. who are in love with their sin, who are servants to its master, Satan, hate the patriarchal paradigm, and seek to annihilate it, i.e. remove it from the face of the earth.  As Freud hoped: "One day, the brothers who had been driven out came together [came to consensus], killed and devoured their father [committed patricide] and so made an end of the patriarchal horde [annihilating the traditional home with its patriarchal paradigm]." ( Freud, Totem and taboo  1912-1913a, p. 141).

"We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.  Justice is on one scale, and self-preservation on the other." Thomas Jefferson

Slavery has always been hard if not impossible to resolve because of the hate which proceeds from its use and abuse. Throughout history, the oppressed have always "taken it out" upon their oppressors.  It continues to be a bloodletting experience for many even today around the world, aided by "social agencies" proclaiming themselves  "peace keepers." Every culture, every race has experienced slavery, cruel slaver, by their own and by others. This is why those who repent from their practice of abuse have such a difficult time on how to undo the damage which has been done, how to let go of the wolf's ears (he's going to turn and try to kill you).  The abused tend to turn and rend them (don't think the north was any more sympathetic than the south regarding slavery, its just that the north knew the south would be rent.  The south was plundered not only by the loss of "labor" going to the northern states, but also by the carpetbaggers of the north, dues owed being collected.  The dues owed by the southern white was vendetta money owed to the northern white, i.e. the love of money.  Little if any money was used by the Northern States to assist the "freed" slaves, i.e. little if any land was give to them in the South, etc. A man is not free if he can not own land, nor is a man free if he must forever pay dues to "own" land. The Civil War was not over slavery, it was over money.  Yet the hate resides on both sides even today.  The north knew they would profit from it both ways, looting the south for retribution and acquiring cheap labor at the same time from the freed slaves moving north for work, "over worked, disrespected, and underpaid" Seay quoting Martin Luther King Jr.). 

Although slavery was supported by many, through the use of scriptures, referring to its practice in the scriptures, they do not acknowledge that slavery was a condition already existing among men before the Mosaic laws were written, continuing to be practiced around the world today under barbaric conditions, all races, all gender, and all ages included in the practice.  The Mosaic laws simply described a slave (the word itself not found in Hebrew) as one being a "servant," "bondman," or "bondservant," (or equal to being treated as a child in the home) and had no description of or justification for the type of practice which was carried out in America and is being carried out in this land and around the world today, i.e. in sex crimes, forced labor, sweat shops, etc. The gospel, by its spirit of love to all brethren ("Where there is neither ... bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." Colossians 3:11), is unsympathetic to the idea and practice of slavery.  The acts of humiliation, depravity, and brutality associated with those who profited from slavery is unbiblical in nature where the servant was supposed to be taken care of as a human being, as one in the home.  Thou, for a time, a practice which was limited to seven years duration as servitude resided in this nation and still has its effects in debts owed or some crimes committed, slavery and servitude should not be legal, which is not the same as a person willingly working as a servant for residency and pay, i.e. for hire (a man is worthy of his labor).  Mankind, through the gainful oppression of others, even those in the "church," have down through the ages simply practiced the custom of carnal self-promotion on the backs of others, in their seeking after pleasure and the lust for the respect of men. Like those in the "church," who called the earth flat, they did not gain their error from the word of God, but through the opinions of men regarding the word of God, choosing the respect of and traditions (doctrines) of men and thus pursued and supported men's customs rather than to accept the truth, willing to die for it when necessary, i.e. "give me liberty or give me death."  Something this generation can not comprehend.  To them liberty is "fun" time, i.e. Eros in praxis. 

"For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men."  1 Corinthians 7:22, 23

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.  Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.  I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness."  "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."  Romans 6:16-20, 22

"Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."  John 15:15

"Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them."  Luke 12:37

The spiritual and scientific do not conflict, which many today fail to grasp.  Ironically the dialectical process would say as much but instead of recognizing the laws of science as established from above (from God—spirit) thus making man and nature subject to God's will (established), they would tie the spiritual (God) to that which is below, making God subject to a "scientific" process (dialectical materialism—flesh based), making God subject to man's interpretations of his will.  Defining God according to what all men have in common is this world, their slavery of the flesh, which we all came into the world under the control of.  Even Jesus came into the world under its influence, yet without sin, not letting the flesh rule over him.:  "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:7,8 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.  Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.  But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;  And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:  Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;  But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.  These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.  For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.  But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."  2 Peter 2:10-22 

Down through history, even when man has been freed by his oppressor, sometimes out of compassion but mostly out of economic conditions, without a repentant and forgiving heart he has turned and rent them for their past deeds, keeping the promises he made in the past to his loved ones. "Through the ability to promise, the future is bound to the past." "The ability to promise involves the loss of the natural animal forgetfulness of the past, which is the precondition for healthy living in the present."   (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  But, as covered in other articles in more depth, the price you pay for getting rid of the system of promise is that you also get rid of the system of the conscience, the patriarchal paradigm, which tends to generate from the traditional family ("The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." Brown ibid.).  With the negation of promise, the conscience is replaced with what is called the "super-ego," the dialectical description of the conscience, liberated from the past (the "bondage" of promises) with the will of change (the "influence" to be a part of the present changes taking place in the "village").  "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:  the superego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" While promises made by men have often been destructive, full of hate, the promises of God are blessed.  God is a God of promises.  To destroy the system of "promises of the past" in order to remove evil from the earth, is to loose hate itself upon the earth.  The world is witness to this hate down through the ages.  Even today evil deeds are done by men to men, by men carrying out "promises" for wrongs done even in some cases millennia ago.  This is not the Spirit of God.

 "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:  Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,  According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:  Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."  2 Peter 1:1-4  " Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."  2 Corinthians 7:1

Social-engineers work to overcome this stored up hate and vendetta through dialogue (to use it, under "rational" control, for social cause), but by doing so, they destroy (knowingly) that which is key to maintaining limited-government, i.e. the conscience. "Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted by neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control, than on internal self-control." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz  Community Policing  The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)  "External control" means a police state form of government, i.e. globalism, where "The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow community policing officer an entree into the geographic community.... that once you can identify a community, you have discovered the primary unit of society above the level of the individual and the family that can be mobilized to take concerted action to bring about positive social change." (ibid.  emphasis added)  Those who seek control of man through social means (perception, deception) rather than through truth and the conscience must use what is called a "positive" approach (associated with the "community of interest" which is generated by "crime, disorder and fear of crime") rather then a "negative" approach (associated with the patriarchal system, found in the home and in limited-government, training the next generation, through chastening, not to commit crime).  Carl Rogers identified the difference, tying the "positive" with the use of crime as a necessary part of the process of change. "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes. The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner [a positive system of change through dialogue], rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [a negative system of rules and chastening]." (Carl Rogers, On becoming a person)  The problem then is how to overcome the dregs of slavery (discrimination) while maintaining limited-government, which was in part the support of slavery (how to remove tyranny from the office without destroying the office).  Through preaching (repentance of men's hearts before God) and petition (conviction of men's hearts, men in office and their hard hearts towards God's will, before society: It is not enough to know it is evil, you must expose it as evil and treat is as evil) and the awakening of the conscience is one way (patriarchal, change of heart), through the use of social-engineering and exploitation is the other (heresiarchal; "change").  The latter might appear "right" unto men at the time, but it is the pathway to a greater slavery than slavery over man has ever been, it is slavery to the flesh on a global scale.  As Carl Rogers stated it:

"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 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."  "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes.  The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers On Becoming A Person)  

What was misunderstood, and thus is missing in the whole process (in the use of civil disobedience) is that man's slavery to the flesh (his "inclination to behavior") was never changed, the hate (vendetta) in his heart, especially toward those who oppressed him (a condition found in all men, of all races), was not replaced with true love (which is only possible through the will of God, in the accomplished work of Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).  Even getting your oppressors (rightly or wrongly accused) to "confess their sins" before you, can be an act of vendetta, an agenda to humiliate them, a moment to proudly triumph over them.  The outcome will always be the same, slavery to some master, either to a man or to a group of men, social slavery made possible by man's personal slavery to his flesh, slavery to his "What can I get out of this world for myself without someone ordering me around, telling me what I need and what I don't need, always telling me what I have to do?" "But what, after all, is democracy? Nothing but the absence of masters who could govern you, and the acceptance of this unavoidable absence, the attempt to manage without them." Frederick Engels, The Condition of England, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844

"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 comes to ask himself ‘What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers On Becoming a Person) 

Apart from God, it is all merely slavery to the flesh, the "wants" or "ought to be's" of man, seeking to achieve freedom from any voice above his carnal desires, any voice which restrains his own nature.  "Freedom, as Fromm argued in Escape from Freedom meant ‘freedom to,' not merely ‘freedom from.'"  (Martin Jay  The Dialectical Imagination)  Social democracy allows man freedom to invest himself in the cause of social harmony and world peace, i.e. selling his soul into slavery under the new world order, a general systems theory of unregenerate human freedom.

"Freedom becomes anchored in the subject. Nevertheless, what this means remains open to question. Freedom is now content to contest power and thus forgets that power is necessary to constrain its arbitrary exercise. The ethical and practical function of freedom is lost. Indeed, since subjective freedom is a social phenomenon, maintaining sanity depends upon the ability of the individual to fill a social role and affirm his or her fullest potential." (Bronner Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)    

Civil disobedience generated and continues to generate this form of freedom, freedom only found in contributing your soul to the social cause ("mandatory volunteerism") .  Once you get in step (giving it life), don't you dare get out of step, or it will march all over you and all that which you love (it is only tolerant of the tolerant and is not tolerant of the intolerant i.e. The word tolerance is not showing up on the day of judgment.  God is patient but not tolerant.).

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."  John 14:27

By using a "dialectics of race, class, and faith,"  (Seay) (demythologizing of the world of God) the office of a patriarchal paradigm must be sacrificed to the history of the common cause (a history in the making, forever liberating itself from the history of the past— history holding the world to "a history which repeats itself," revealing the effects of man's unchanging, unrepentant heart, a life built upon vanity, threading its way down through the ages of technological change) striving for the dream of  "The Beloved Community." This directly correlates with the destruction of the traditional home, where the father is to rule, the desire of the heart of the wife is to be towards her husband, and the children are to obey their parents, all "in the Lord."  Social dialectics leads to the "dialectics of parents, dialectics of personality, and the dialectics of siblings" (Seay) where "feelings" of equality (belongingness to the world without Godly restraint) outweigh any office of direct authority, be it parents over children, rules over feelings (learning self control), older over the younger, etc. Social dialectics leads to anarchy in the home, in the schools, and in the nation.  Thus when Mr. Seay writes that King "used the dialectical method to synthesize various streams of information and translate them into practical actions [praxis],"  (Seay, bracketed information added) he defines the conditions which lead to the destruction of the home in America and America itself (race is not the issue, the issue is the home, i.e. the home of all cultures).   The dialectical process is not only the praxis of death to America, it is the praxis of death to Americans, both justified for the "purpose" of world peace and social harmony, on a global scale. 

It is not a race issue, it has always been a sin issue.

In no way do I condone how the black race (or any race) was, and still is in many cases, treated with contempt and hate.  Such behavior is deplorable.  Neither do I condone how the black race (or any race) was/is treated in hard labor for little pay, "a man is worthy of his labor."  Such practices is immoral and unethical.  That is abominable. I do not condone how any race is treated around the world by any race, it's own included, i.e. when man thinks of himself "more highly than he should" Romans 12:3 (to treat one's opinion or passion as higher than God's truth). But in no way do I condone the destruction of the patriarchal home to attain a so-called "equality," for any race.  Segregation, i.e. parents keeping their children from relating with other races, may be caused by several different reasons (ignorance may be the major one), yet parents have the responsibility and God given right of keeping their children safe from harm, and under their authority, which should have nothing to do with the color of one's skin, but does have everything to do with a person's heart.  Segregation, based upon race, has no justification in the gospel message, despite what some people might think and argue, while segregation, based upon living a righteous life and having no part in unrighteous living, does (again, its a sin issue, not a race issue). To champion the one at the cost of the other, through the praxis of civil disobedience, is foolishness, because it does away with sobriety and faith, with which a man can not clearly weigh the issues of life.  "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly; according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."  (Romans 12:3)  In overcoming the evils of segregation (based upon skin color, etc.), the heart of man must be changed (contrition before God, for hate in the heart).  If the matter is not dealt with (spiritually), all the evils of the heart (temporal passion), though momentarily concealed in the fight for "good," being used in the cause of  social justice, lie in wait to become "ruthlessly" manifest in the future. As a famous Transformational Marxist, Jürgen Habermas, warned about "the revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life, which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers."  (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest)

When refusal to support authority's unreasonable demands (in the eyes of the one under authority) leads to getting in the face of authority (direct action) which leads to confrontation with authority (when anger and violence has been provoked in authority, in response to the situation), revolution is afoot.  When the revolution has been seized upon by the "heart" of the "masses," and authority uses force to counter the revolution, then those in authority will be perceived as being the enemy, i.e. the oppressor (rightly or wrongly accused), and those promoting the revolution will be perceived as victims as well as champions of the cause.  This is the key to the "success" of civil disobedience in its praxis of the annihilation of both the patriarchal home and the sovereignty of a nation.  While providing "justice" to the oppressed and keeping "self-preservation" for the "repentant" oppressor may not be possible with man (dialectal paradigm), they are possible with God (when both parties humble themselves before God, and repent before God, for the hate in their hearts—the lust of their flesh and eyes, and their pride of their life—the love of the world comes to an end in their heart, i.e. this is not a social cause, dialectical moment, this is a moment when past sins are forgiven, i.e. not the sins of past generations but the sins of the present generation, seeking the way of the world instead of knowing God).

"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15  

How then can fairness between races be achieved, void the bloodshed, anarchy, and the destruction of limited government?  In this life such conditions will continue because of the heart of men.  I blame the preachers for not preaching the depravity of men's hearts, all men's hearts, in all offices, public and private, and in all races, black, white, red, and yellow ("Go ye therefore, and teach all nations [ethnos or races/cultures], baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"  Matthew 28:19).  True love is found only in Christ's obedience to his Heavenly Father, who lived and died, in obedience to his Heavenly Father, dying for those who deserved judgment and eternal death and damnation, and who rose again (an act of the Father), for those who place their hope, trust, and faith in him, that they might have eternal life with him (a gift from the Father).   All other love is based upon human emotions, subject to vanity, be it for personal gain or social cause (also based upon personal gain since altruism always carries with it vanity "What can I get out of this situation for myself, even if it be a feeling of love, or recognition for dying for others, for the 'cause'?"). God is not indifferent to man, which means he loves the world, yet at the same time he is infinite in knowledge and power, whereas we are not, therefore he is indifferent to those who reject his correction ("But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Hebrews 12:8).

The conflict comes when human reason conflicts with faith (when reasoning can not accept chastening from God), where reason and emotion strive for unity in liberating a person from "irrational" (non-dialectical, absolute from God) truth which conflicts with human emotions.  When we are wronged by someone else, the issue is how we respond.  We are not accountable for what happens to us (although our past actions may have precipitated it), but we are accountable for how we respond. In our response, do we turn to ourselves, lean upon on own understanding, turn to others, trusting in the arm of the flesh and the wisdom of men, or turn to God and His word, whereby we weigh our thoughts and actions as well as others' advice taking them "captive to the obedience of Christ," and make the right decision based upon His will (to go any other direction is to follow after the "flesh the law of sin," Romans 7:25). "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."  Jeremiah 10:23

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14 

Fairness and justice is hard to find in a land where people (including judges, mayors, sheriffs, governors, presidents, legislators, ministers, educators, parents, etc.) do not fear God and his judgment.  The gospel changes the hearts of people in all cultures.  Why men can not get along is because of the unregenerate heart of man, because of man's fear of man rather than God, because he desires the respect of men, for personal gain i.e. human recognition. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."  James 4:17 "... let God be true, but every man a liar; ..." Romans 3:4), Love everyone, but trust no one ("Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:3-5), but to hate a man because of his skin color is sin. There is a big difference between not trusting someone, until you get to know them (they need to earn your trust), and hating someone (whether you personally know them or not), especially if you hate them because of their physical features (children do this and can be quite cruel, when adults do it, it is execrable). You can hate what a man does to himself or others, but we are not to hate man.  We can only pray to God that, if it be his will, He would frustrate man's deeds of evil and keep him from succeeding while he is ignorant or indifferent toward God's will, or bring him to judgment if he willfully fights against God's will, but most importantly that God would open his eyes to receive His truth. "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." 1 John 4:7  But this is something we can not do in and of ourselves, social cause or not.  This love can only come from God: the Love of His  Heavenly father towards us, and is only possible through the obedience of his son, Christ Jesus, through his shed blood, his righteousness imputed to those who believe upon him, redeeming them from condemnation, eternal damnation (all conditions established by His Heavenly Father), and by the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

The choice is either to chose faith and continue to grow in it, to reject faith, or to humanize faith (to deceive yourself and others), through "biblical criticism," where "intellectual curiosity" and a "natural critical mind" (Seay) can experience commonalities between the events of the day and the events of the Bible.  Thus, the struggle of mankind to find freedom and justice, justifying his actions in seeking and executing judgment upon his oppressor. This has always been the path taken by men who refuse to accept God's condition for love, peace, and joy, when they seek to make a world of "peace" according to their own understanding, according to their own hearts conditions (seeking the respect of men whereby they can get, from them, something for themselves, even be it recognition), where their opinions and their experiences, uniting in theory and in practice, fulfill themselves in the humanistic praxis of self-actualization.  "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life.  Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.'"  (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)   Thoreau wrote an essay entitled  Essay on civil disobedience, which, while attending Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, Martin Luther King Jr. happened to read.   Seay writes that King's attendance at Morehouse college "... provided a safe distance from the overbearing influence of his father" and allowed him freedom "to exercise his natural predilection to critical analysis."  That it was "the Morehouse experience that prepared him to accept the liberalism of Crozer and Boston University." (Seay)  "It was Crozer that provided liberal theology as the answer to fundamentalism."  (Seay)  According to Seay, it was at Crozer that King became "absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason."  (Martin Luther King Jr. Strength to Love.) 

Thus, according to dialectical reasoning, it is the role of the Church to be involved in the development of the "whole" person, as interpreted (incorrectly) by Jesus statement  "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."  Luke 4:18, 19 Thus, to a dialectical mind, the role of the church is to fight against the "exploitation of the poor by the rich," and "challenge the materialism of capitalism,"  (Seay's observations regarding what King learned from his intense analysis of Karl Marx's Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto while in college).  According to Seay "King was drawn to Boston University because of the appeal of the personalistic philosophy of Edgar Sheffield Brightman." (Seay)  Seay wrote that King developed a belief in "a personal God and the 'dignity and worth of all human personality.'" (Seay) under the teachings of Edgar Brightman (who died shortly after King's arrival at Boston University) and L. Harold DeWolf.  Therefore King was able to learn "intellectual means  [how to use the dialectic] to resolve his theological, philosophical, and ethical contradictions." (Seay) "... the 'dignity and worth of all human personality'" is not a concept in harmony with the gospel message. But it is a concept which the anti-Christ must be grounded upon.  Without it he can not gain power and rule.

 "In Kant we find the authority of divine command reestablished in the unconditional validity of moral duty. In this we hear an unmistakable resonance. With his conception of autonomy, Kant certainly destroyed the traditional conception of being 'a child of God.' Something was lost when sin became guilt ... The lost hope of resurrection has left behind a palpable emptiness." Speech by Jürgen Habermas accepting the Peace Prize of the German Publishers and Booksellers Association Paulskirche, Frankfurt, 14 October 2001

In Kant, his Critique of Pure Reason, hope in God (spiritual) was replaced with the sensuous (temporal) definition of hope, a hope being founded upon happiness, thus we hope in pleasure, thus hope is in the mind, thus, now we know scientifically, hope is tied to neurotransmitters such as dopamine, which are triggered by environmental conditions; thus the aesthetic dimension i.e. pleasure, and its association with particular social conditions.  Thus hope is found within social cause pursuing justice and love, bringing man and nature together, and in so doing, the need for a resurrection from this world becomes less of a subject for concern.  Instead of "chasing" people out of the church (the word church in the Greek actually meaning the "called out ones," called out of the world system), threatening them with judgment and hell, with the judgmental language of "fundamentalism" (preaching and teaching) you can bring them into the "community of whatever you want to call it" with a tolerant (ambiguous) language of common "purpose," drawing them into the church with the flesh.  When you move from "Thy will be done." to "purpose" you cut God's head off and put man's head in its place.  That is the dialectics way.  You may have the form of Godliness, there is a body and a head, but you have denied the power of God, his words which proceeds only from his mouth, i.e. sharper than any "two edged sword."

With the use of Hegel and Kant, King was able to use experience, knowledge, and reason ("aesthetic, analytic, dialectic") as heuristic tools to move the church into a social praxis. Thereby releasing the church from God's law ("beyond the realm of the legal" Seay), civil disobedience (autonomy from a patriarchal God i.e. thus man is liberated to accept the "dignity" of man, which "proceeds from nature" Karl Marx; "In the group not only must the individual strive for autonomy [freedom from God's and parents commands, their prejudice] but the leader must be willing to allow him to do so. … an individual's behavior cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of his environmental press.  …one member's behavior is not understandable out of context of the entire group. …there is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members.  Members must develop a feeling of mutual trust and respect and must come to value the group as an important means of meeting their personal needs. Once a member realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself.  ... encouraged to take risks in the group; such behavior change results in positive feedback and reinforcement and encourages further risk-taking.  [Participants] might, with further change, outgrow … [their] spouse … unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse."  (Irvin Yalom,  Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy), bracketed information not in the original] allowed the church to become an agent for social change (Lawless, anti-establishment), challenging the established authority (not just challenging the corruption of men in that office of authority but challenging the very order of having an the office of authority above man's nature) through a revolutionary praxis, even if it was through so called "non-violent" action. By fighting against inequality, based upon skin color (a just cause to fight against), while also fighting for "equality of opportunity," based upon character,  through the utilization of civil disobedience, character was sacrificed (the idea that "human rights," is good and can be trusted, usurped the righteousness of God, man is not good and can not be trusted, therefore there is a need for "inalienable rights," which are to protect the citizens from a man or group of men in government wielding force against the individual citizen and the home).  If the cause was to remove tyranny from the order while preserving the order (preserving limited government—cherishing freedom of the conscience while protecting the right to inculcate righteousness, Hebrews 13), character would have been exonerated.  But instead it was the tyranny of attacking and removing the order itself (by replacing limited government—with its use of petitions, votes to change law, restraints upon government power, right of citizens to bear arms, etc.—with unlimited government—with its unconstitutional use of the judiciary and executive branches to make laws and the new rights to use force, usurping constitutional limitations of government, for the sake of equality, justifying unlimited power).  Thus character (and liberty) was swallowed up in the social cause (thus lawlessness and tyranny prevailed, all based upon the "goodness" of man striving to actualize the "dignity" of man). 

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.  The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.  A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.  The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evidenced by experiments ancient and modern;  some of them in our country and under our own eyes.  To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them."  (George Washington, Farewell Address)  emphasis added

 "The synthesis of opposites ... fierce ideological battle between democracy and its economic cohort, capitalism, and communism and its economic orientation, Marxism.... the synthesis of capitalism and communism as social democracy."  (Seay) 

"America must move toward democratic socialism." (Martin Luther King Jr., Garrow quoting King at South Christian Leadership Conference; Garrow, Bearing the Cross, p. 537 bold added)

"The 'transformed nonconformist' is the synthesis of 'conformity' and 'nonconformity.'"  (Seay summing up King's sermon called "Transformed Nonconformist," in King's book Strength to Love, p.  29-31) 

"[I]ntegration will evolve to include the dissolution of class and national distinctions as well" (Seay)  "Dissolution" means the termination of both the patriarchal home—with its class distinction of husband, wife, and children, a top-down arrangement—and national sovereignty i.e. States Rights (which liberals and many so called "conservatives" loathe) with its constitutional republic form of limited government, with the greatest liberty grounded in the patriarchal home. Dialectical reasoning (materialistic reasoning) would say that it is therefore impossible for the "wholeness" of man and the goodness of society to become a reality while a condition exists which forces man, and therefore society, to attend to rules restrictive to his nature, i.e. therefore restrictive to his social nature ("non-human" rules handed out by "non-human" authority—"non-human" meaning rules and authority not in harmony, not in synchronization with the zeitgeist, the personal/social "felt" needs of the time). "Parents are ‘out of touch with the times,' and unable to understand, much less inculcate, the standards of a social order that has changed since they were young." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society: the Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education)  Science, under the influence of the dialectical process (when theory is treated as a fact and religion is treated as an opinion of the uneducated, non-dialectical, non-dialectical "electorate"), took on the same process in the public school system, thus censuring the voice of the patriarchal parent and patriarchal culture from developing curriculum for the classroom. "If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion, it loses control of the curriculum and surrenders it to the will of the electorate." (Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago Press. Ill. 1987, p. 259) 

Thus, according to dialectical reasoning, authority (patriarchal authority) using force to block a person (or child) from relationship with things (or people) in the world (which he would naturally relate with if left to his own nature), produces a "non-human" feeling of fear (a "negative valence," not found in nature) whenever he encounters the item or person in the environment (experiences the suppression of the urge to relate with the person) in the future (this is a mental condition psychology describes as "neurosis").  From thereon, whenever a person encounters the item or person in the environment, his conscience (the internalized voice of the parent) becomes a barrier to his natural inquire into his own nature and nature itself (blocking his natural pursuit of "wholeness" with the world) and through his actions and communication he carries the voice of the parent into the present, inhibiting the culture from participation in the praxis of "change." "If an individual wishes to maintain a position of arbitrary authority [i.e. obeys God or parents], then it behooves him to inhibit the development of any rules permitting reciprocal process observation and commentary [inhibit the questioning of authority]."  (Irvin Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Kurt Lewin identified the making of the  "non-human authoritarian personality" in this way: "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." (Kurt Lewin A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers)

"Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic."  "The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower." (Norman O. Brown  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

The dialectical religion (humanism) goes like this: "If you, by your very own nature, are drawn to relate with things in the environment, in a way which others call perverse or obscene, then your natural fixation, to relate with things in the environment, reveals that those who hold a dualist view of the world, 'flesh and spirit, higher and lower,' are blocking you from knowing your true identity, your human potential."  Thereafter, in the practice of this theory, the "lust of the flesh" is no longer treated as a lust, it's just normal behavior being called "lust" by someone not in agreement with the religion of humanism.  This is the dialectical "logic" for the "justification" of adultery, fornication, pornography, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, sadism, masochism, hedonism, abomination, etc., i.e. the fruit we now see so brazenly being initiated and sustained in the post-modern age. This is the "logic" of those who seek to remove discrimination in one area (between races) while practicing discrimination in another (against the patriarchal paradigm in the home and in government, under Godly restraint), who seek to remove discrimination in one area (between the sexes) while practicing discrimination in another (hate against the patriarchal paradigm of the home, under God).  The whole system is evil; turning that which is good (God and his commands are good), into evil, and that which is evil (man's heart is evil) into good, redefining that which is of God as equal with man (love and justice), so that man can be equal with God (both good, working together on creating the good society) thereby negating prejudice, the "dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower."  Racism is evil, but its removal, by the dialectical process, comes at a cost to man's soul, i.e. the presentation of a false gospel and a vain hope. "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, 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  " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.  For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." Galatians :6-11 emphasis added

For those who think dialectically, the traditional family is the birthplace, the training ground for class distinction, nationalism, and discrimination. "Dissolution of class and national distinctions" is only possible through the changing of both the personal and social conditions of the home environment (the changing of paradigms, falsely called a paradigm "shift," i.e. "changing" from a patriarchal paradigm of absolutes to a heresiarchal paradigm of "shiftiness," as in shifting sands).  They think this way: if authority is treated as irrelevant (which "non-violent" civil disobedience does) then the "non-human" feeling of fear, the fear which serves as a barrier to "integration," will disappear (then the barrier to "wholeness" will evaporate—the ridged conscience of the past will be seared, replaced with the super-ego which is shaped to the feelings and thoughts of the present).  Kurt Lewin wrote: "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, ibid.) Thus, by not calling those in government, those with power, to repentance before God (who is above), and by not recognizing the condition of men's hearts below (as wicked and therefore not to be trusted; being restrained by limiting governmental power and, through petition and legal protest, persuading men in office to restrain themselves or they will be replaced by men who can), but instead by attacking the government system itself (even using "God's name" to do so), civil disobedience justified, by its praxis, the negation, not only of a patriarchal form of government (a form of government deliberately limited in power in order to preserve the patriarchal home, it's seedbed for a self-governing people, an environment from which limited government can only develop and function), it also negated the patriarchal home itself (removing any hedge of protection, which the limited form of government provided it, from the ravages of social engineers).  This was the call to arms by socialists (Democrats) in the 50's.  Even in Education, the destruction of the patriarchal home was the agenda. "Can the student accept the fact that the traditional family might be changed and might possibly disappear?" (Paul Dressell, General Education: Explorations in Evaluation, American Council on Education, 1954) 

"The dialectic of Hegel and Marx's variation on the theme, contain discrepancies between actual and desired conditions. The contradiction between thesis and antithesis [the self and the environment―the other] set up pressures that eventually force a new state of affairs, the synthesis. The desired condition is synthesis, the elimination of contradiction and conflict between thesis and antithesis. Conflict between thesis and antithesis bring about a restructuring that reduces or eliminates (negates) the conflict." (Richardson, George P., Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory as quoted in Judy McLemore, The Architects of Total Quality Management General Systems Theory and Marxist Theory-Praxis)

When civil disobedience is justified in the promotion of the "dignity of man" and "mutual respect" in a social framework, then it is supportive of a social system which advances the "dignity of man" and "mutual respect" (a social system of the antichrist, which God will judge.  Antichrist does not say there is no Christ, he just presents himself as a different Christ—a user-friendly, non-offensive Christ—one who can work with human nature and the religions of the world, for the cause of world peace, therein allowing everybody to feel better about themselves, and be less offensive to others (no denying yourself and picking up your cross, dieing daily, is required for this Christ). When civil disobedience is the vehicle for the initiation of a socialist democratic form of government, it is supportive of a social system which negates national sovereignty. Civil disobedience is therefore used "to forge creative tensions and conflicts to produce change"  (Seay) of government, not just the changing of men in government (removing tyrants), but used "to forge" the changing of government itself (an act of tyranny). In the classroom it is deliberately used to produce conflict between the parents and their children.  This is the agenda of textbooks used for teacher training, helping them to develop classroom curriculum which is specifically designed "… to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents" resulting in "conflict and tension between parents and children" which produces conflict between those who participate and those "who are not participating in the special opportunities." David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain, p.  83 We have already witnessed the budding of this praxis and will soon experience its ruthless fruition.

"[T]he Kingdom of God is neither in the thesis of individual enterprise [capitalism] nor the antithesis of the collective enterprise [Marxism], but a synthesis that reconciles the truth of both," (Martin Luther King Jr., Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story  bracketed information added by Seay) 

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."  1 Corinthians 15:50  "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."  John 18:36

Thus, according to King, the "Kingdom of God," is the uniting of the goodness of man with the goodness of society through the use of the dialectical process, which finds the "good" in all things (being positive and not negative). As Hegel wrote it: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)  Thus goodness can not be based upon limiting conditions of the past, which judge and restrains the present (resists change), but is instead is based upon the "changingness" of the present, accepting change.  "What truly is always true is that all is in flux, the truth-seeker ought properly to address himself to the study of this life process of truth seeking itself." (G. W. F. Hegel)

"The good life is not any fixed state. The good life is a process. 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." "When the individual is inwardly free, he chooses as the good life this process of becoming." "The major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the other person, or the other group." "the whole emphasis is upon process, not upon end states of being … to value certain qualitative elements of the process of becoming, that we can find a pathway toward the open society."  Carl Rogers on becoming a person

"The dialectic will go on until we reach the absolute whole, that which includes everything within itself, and so cannot possibly depend upon anything outside itself."  (Frederick Beiser, Hegel  168, 169)  Since, according to Seay, "Integration means social interaction that respects the worth of all human personality," socially forced integration will eventually lead to social harmony (when society, your friends and neighbors, walk on the other side of the street while you are being bludgeoned and plundered, you will understand the meaning of "integration," "social interaction" "respect," and "the worth of all human personality").  Social harmony will never be the outcome because the "human personality," is self-seeking.  Integration simply means a mass of people "seeking what they can get out of the situation for themselves," all in agreement you are not one of them, all in unity, "Members must develop a feeling of mutual trust and respect and must come to value the group as an important means of meeting their personal needs ["What can I get out of this group for myself"]." (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change bracketed information added) "For there is no respect of persons with God."  Romans 2:11 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"  Romans 3:23  Thus the "whole" person is just as wicked before God's eyes as the "un-whole" person (they are all unholy), whether alone or in a group, even if they call their group a "Church."  As if being in a Church, socialist in purpose or not, makes you holistic (holy).  The true Church is simply a byproduct of believers who gather "in his name,"  they are not made holy by being in the fellowship of believers, they are made holy by being in Christ.

For the discrimination of States Rights (State Sovereignty) to be overcome, Federal Rights must be initiated (usurping State Sovereignty). 
For the discrimination of Federal Rights (National Sovereignty) to be overcome, International Rights must be initiated (usurping National Sovereignty).
For the discrimination of Inalienable Rights to be overcome, Human Rights must be initiated (usurping Inalienable Rights).
No one directly attacks these once established rights, they are simply treated as though they are irrelevant, in the "light" of "changing" times.

Thus, dialectically, God himself is tied to the universal outcome of man's quest for global unity and peace.  "This process can not stop. It must go on until a category is reached which does not give rise to any contradiction."  (The Philosophy of Hegel: A Systematic Exposition)  Thus, until the end comes, "all is becoming," where thought and experience, theory and practice, are united in seeking for truth, i.e. where "wholeness" is "groping for expression and serenity." (Seay), where the oppressed united with action negate the system they see as oppressive.  Thus "being," meets its opposite "non-being" (or nothingness) and from these two opposite forces emerges "becoming."  "One is always in the process of becoming." (Ann Robinson quoting Maslow, Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management)  When the parent—"being"—prevents the child from "being" himself—he produces, dialectically speaking, a "non-being"—he produces separation and tension between himself and the child (producing alienation, i.e. segregation of feelings) while separating the child from his own "being" in relation to himself and the world around him (producing resentment in the child).  Not until the parent puts aside his restraints or commands, which the child can not experientially comprehend (to the child, the parents rules are "felt" as irrational or "non-human," making him feel as a "non-being"), and, through dialogue, the parent seeks to (re)bond with the child (find consensus, i.e. a moment of oneness based upon feelings, requiring compromise, lowering his conditions, on the part of the parent)  in an effort to maintain relationship with the child, while the child seeks to relate with the world, and, in the quest of developing rules for the child, (which the child can experientially understand and accept), the parent synthesizes rules of conduct for the child, rules in harmony with the child's natural inquiry and abilities, can the synthesis of "becoming" (in all participants) become actualized, and thereby the praxis of the dialectical process is set in motion to do it all again, i.e. the process of "change" initiated in the home—a condition known as "negation of negation."  Thus the one world/new world order thinking is: if people would think and act dialectically "they could properly orientate their lives towards the creation of a better life, family, community, or world." (Seay) 

"Any non-family-based collectivity [or dialectically based society, i.e. Child Protective Services] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship.  For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian submission, an overweening interest in the future development of the child-- in other words, a child centered orientation."  Warren Bennis  The Temporary Society

Without the aid of outside support (from people trained as social-engineers or change agents), the thesis of the parent (and their commands) can not be moved into the antithesis position, that is, put on the defensive (if it is done it is usually done through much difficulty), and the antithesis of their children (their wants, triggered by nature) can not be brought to the forefront as the thesis (where "feelings" become the issue—the lubricant upon which "change" freely moves; e-motion-motion).  Only with the assistance of outside social pressure (what others might think or feel concern the parents demands—"How far can I go in disciplining my child without creating community disapproval.  If the community knew, what would they say and do?") can the "wants" of the children (to do their thing without the fear of chastening) and the wants of the parents (love of the children along with approval from the community) pressure the parents to refocus their mind, through dialogue (the "village" is already dialoguing with the parent, in the parents brain, the parent second guessing his actions in light of what the group, the "village," might think), upon relationship with their children, pressuring them to move away from their patriarchal system of commands (and chastening for disobedience). In America today, patriarchal parents are experiencing the same hostility towards their homes and their businesses, experiencing the same tension and need of secrecy as the Jew's did in  Fascist Germany.  They are having to protect and even hide their families from socialist encroachment upon their God given office of authority, the authority to raise their children up in the Lord.  There is a world of difference in raising your children up in the word of God, as opposed to raising them up in the church, considering how apostate (socialist) the "community" church is. 

"Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching [or the parent fears "his own orientation to be a possible liability" to himself in the "changing world"] the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken."  (Warren Bennis  The Temporary Society) 

"Warren Bennis' notion that we need to un-learn most of what we have been taught to be true and find that voice from within that instinctually knows what is true." (comment by Martin Melaver on website cheseagreen.com) Inter-personal relationships, now the praxis of the "changing" home, therefore assists the next generation into participation (frees them to participate) with the change required so that the social cause of world peace can be brought about (with man and God, children and parents, students and teachers, workers and bosses, government leaders and citizens, nature and man, society and the individual, working as one, so all can be in atonement with the cosmos), i.e. alienation conquered. In this way, ridged laws (absolute right and wrong), and enforced laws (laws inculcated into the next generation, by the means of chastening or fear of it), originating outside of human nature (inhibiting spontaneity and blocking inquiry into nature) can now be replaced with natural (environmental) laws which proceed from man's nature, allowing him to be his carnal self, in a carnal world (not only freeing him to be carnal, but freeing the world to be carnal as well, producing a world of sin where the lawless one can then rule).  "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."  Hebrews 12:5-11

King preached that "Above all, we must be reminded anew that God is at work in his universe. He is not outside the world looking on with a sort of cold indifference," (King, Strength to Love.)  Indifference to the color of one's own or others skin is what must be attained for equality to become a reality.  This becomes possible only when the project at hand requires ability, or when love, compassion, grace, or mercy is applied. Ironically the civil disobedience movement did this very thing (using those with compassion and ability to think and act dialectically) yet destroyed sovereignty in the very use of the process (sovereignty with an indifference to what another person posses (this is why George Washington only wanted a navy to defend and preserve and not an army to attack and take—which he ended up doing anyway)—not lusting after what one's neighbor has—but living next to him with indifference, but with a heart (if not a regenerate heart, at least a fear of God heart), i.e. I won't meddle in your affairs, don't meddle in mine, but if you need help, let me know and I will help you, if I can—socialism insists that everybody meddles in everybody else's affairs for the sake of equality and leave it to the government to help, if it can?  Remember New Orleans? 

"The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets." Norman Levine The Process of Democratization

Socialism negates private. Private, in the patriarchal paradigm means, "You can not touch it, it is my private property,"  in the transitional paradigm it means, "If you can not see it, it is my private property, in a transformational paradigm it means "If you think it is yours i.e. if the 'village' sees it and thinks they 'need' it, it is theirs." There is no more private in a "public-private partnership").  Whether called capitalism  or "rugged individualism," the true meaning of private (as in personal conscience or property) is the basis of liberty, is a driving force for a prosperous nation, a nation of producers, producing a healthy pride in ownership, "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31, i.e. control over one's own person, family, business, and nation, a people able to self-govern themselves, under God.  Otherwise the nation becomes a nation of consumers, driven by emotions, "felt" needs, by lusts, ("give me," "I deserve," whining spoiled children) subject to manipulation by every tyrannical politician's "dream." 

With the new world order now in place, with its mandatory "call" for all nations to join in the global community and its mandatory "call" to help construct the "Beloved Community" (only possible with the assistance of our leaders and a blinded willfulness of the citizens), the negation of the United States of American sovereignty—the cornerstone of liberty from tyranny and oppression—is being finalized.  The United States of America, as a nation of laws, is being annihilated.  A bloodletting upon America has already commenced (a war on commerce is now in full swing). It's hedge of protection has been removed because its citizens have rejected the author and finisher of its hedge of protection.  "No Fear" has replaced the fear of God in the hearts of its people (when the tyrant knows this, in his mind he has no fear of accountability before God, for God will no longer hear the cry of the people for they will no longer cry out to him for help) and soon they will experience evil as they have never dreamed.  Instead of evil being overcome, it will rule (with those who perform evil calling it good, even believing they are doing it according to God's will). " Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."  Proverbs 14:34 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. " Acts 10:34, 35

Public-private partnership does not have a conscience (based upon doing right and not wrong; i.e. righteousness), only a consensus (based upon the influence and opinions of the moment, i.e. social pressure), and its only property is a feeling, based upon the perception of the approval or rejection of human relationships, where private ownership is an illusion, based only upon the private's ability to produce to the publics demands (and getting some form of recognition in return).  The private produces, the public consumes.  We have become a consumer nation, a property-less nation, in debt to foreign nations, don't pay your taxes (dues owed to the public and those beyond) and see how much land you own.  Those beyond do not look upon your affairs with cold indifference but rather with cold utilization.  "What can we (international powers) get out of America(ns) for ourselves?"  Play this game on others (define God—above and man below, as at one with fallen man—ours, to overcome evil in the world, is to deny Jesus as the Christ—sent by the Father, obedient to the Fathers will, to live in, but not according to, the flesh, to die in the flesh, and to be raised again with a new body, a spiritual body, all to redeem man from the Fathers judgment upon man's sin—to those who believe), deny the bodily resurrection of Christ (making him just a symbolic figure, a "creative power," to gather men's emotions around) and it will come back to consume you i.e. it will destroy your home and your nation (then the antichrist can rule).  "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." 1 John 2:22, 23  "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." 1 John 4:3-5 

 "In our democratic society, any enterprise--any individual--has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management 

This whole process is moved by the love of money. "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."  1 Timothy 6:10 Seay writes, concerning the dialectics triad system: "The thesis of integration encountered the anti-thesis of political justice, which was synthesized into economic justice. In turn, economic justice, the new thesis, encountered the antithesis of militarism"  (Seay), the new synthesis is the removal of funds being used to defend national sovereignty (dialectically viewed as militarism) and reallocating them to the "purpose" of social equality and global unity. If the patriarchal father (the bourgeoisie) controls the money to maintain himself and the home (seen as the supporter of militarism by those thinking dialectically), then the children (the proletariat, resenting commands against their nature, and parents refusing to finance their nature) can not do what they "want" to do (that is to relate with who they want to outside the home, because the father thinks "Evil company corrupts good morals" and thus, in dialectical thinking, the parents are promoting a praxis of segregation, placing barriers against their child's natural human/social interaction) preventing the next generation from participating in the dialectical pursuit of community harmony and the "dream" of the "Beloved Community."  The father figure, standing at the door protecting his family from the mob (the mob wanting incest with his children), has been replaced with the half clad woman, charging over the barricades, leading the mob in overthrowing the father figure (in the act of patricide).  Eros has synthesized with agape, overthrowing it, now calling itself agape. This is the dialectic way, finding common ground with its opposition, taking on their appearance, so as to continue its pursuit of more victims (this is the Marxist waltz, cross dressing for the purpose of seducing and then using the innocent and the trusting for their own pleasure, the same praxis of the pedophile).  This is the dialectical definition of agape (Eros), the love of money, the love of pleasure, masquerading as the love of mankind, are they not all one and the same, the Eros of this world.

enduring: (enduring is against sin, not social cause.)

"Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.  And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:  For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?  But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.  Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.  Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.  Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;  And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.  Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:  Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;  Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.  For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." Hebrews 12:4-17 bold added for emphasis

Only if the father abdicates his patriarchal paradigm, for the "love" of the family and the community, the race, the cause (synthesizes his "mind and heart" with that of the family and the community, etc.), or he is removed from his office as head of the home (actually the office is removed from the home, removing the "legal obstacle" which segregation creates—private property, mine and not yours), or he and his office are rejected as an example of authority to be respected (which is the praxis of civil disobedience), can equality of opportunity be achieved, and social harmony, as a goal, be initiated and sustained.  "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power. " (James Coleman The Adolescent Society)  Equality of opportunity is limited when human interaction is limited. Thus dialectically thinking government leaders are using a graded tax system to tax private property to weaken all successful (and unsuccessful) patriarchal paradigm institutions (i.e. private business which prospers itself and its family and which tend to support laws which limit the power of government over free market enterprises, supporting an "anti-socialist," "anti-democratic," anti-brotherhood, anti-fraternity, form of government—there is a direct correlation here with the directorate of the French Revolution and the soviet system), and use the acquired taxis to support institutions (Government Departments) created (by dialectically thinking or deceived elected officials) and sustained (through tax dollars and law of force) for the expressed purpose of negating private patriarchal intuitions, and homes (making them harder to survive), which do not serve in the interest of social "change," i.e. families which continue to raise their children and run their private business, training their children and employees to be non-influenceable to public pressure (thus able and willing to stand against tyranny), teaching them to hold to private convictions (convictions based upon their belief that right is right and wrong is wrong, that there is a right and a wrong way of thinking and a right and a wrong way to do business), preparing them to maintain an "old" order, what Seay calls "artificial social constructs," in their effort to continue "dominance," according to Seay, over what is "theirs."  By redefining the "role" of God, tying him to a socialist agenda of world peace, the verse "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."  Galatians 3:28 is dialectically redefined to mean that Christ's death was a call of compassion and sacrifice for all to follow, so that equality in this world could become a reality (temporal-spiritual reality, secular-sacred reality), as long as we all sacrifice and suffer collectively, for the common good, the cause is just.

"power is infused with love and justice."
King, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?

Man's love is "What can I get out of this other person for myself, while giving him what he wants?" Man's justice is "What can we get out of each other for ourselves, while punishing the person who gets what he wants without letting us get out of him what we want?"   Thus power is removing anyone who introduces self-denial, based upon principle, commands and laws higher then man's quest for love and justice.  Thus the outcome is patricide and incest, exactly the outcome we see today.

Civil disobedience is used to "bypass the traditional channels of top-down decision making ..."  (Irvin Laszlo A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)  All environmental issues and controls being pushed today, are a result of  Laszlo's research on what it takes to create and sustain a "health earth." (The complete statement goes: "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..."  ibid).  With the media and "educators" putting pressure on the legislative branch to compromise their principles, principles which put them in office (which their constituents voted for), pressuring them to give in to the "zeitgeist" of the moment (the dialectical media putting the pressure on), putting pressure on the judicial branch to make laws, and the executive branch to create executive orders in favor of social change, our government is bypassing the majority electorate of a constitutional republic, bypassing limited government.  Therefore a new form of government has been created out of the "old."  Synthesizing the Legislative (love) the Judiciary (justice) and the Executive (power) branches upon one "common cause," voiding constitutional restraints (restraints our framing fathers gave us to protect us from tyranny).  All branches combined (through unelected departments and cabinets networking—think tank management—and guiding all branches in setting social policies to build the "Beloved Community") we now have a directorate (French Revolution), Politburo (Soviet Revolution), Centralist form of government (a bloodless revolution, except for the unborn or just born and the elderly and "useless"), known in other parts of the world as communism, this time it showed up with a smile, offering to mediate our differences (the problem really begin when we let them in the room).  Thus it can be said: As integration is to social democracy so is love to power, both determine the closeness or distance from the "progress and proximity of humanity's realization of the Beloved Community." (Seay)  If this be the case then love, justice, and power is now on the side of communism (communitarianism). "A new emphasis on civic participation and social interaction alone seemed capable of confronting the crisis. And, that is precisely what Fromm provided in his notion of ‘communitarian socialism.'" (Bronner Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

Democracy (the tyranny of the masses) is like an avalanche, a mass of unstable people (dialoguing to consensus, not bound by laws of restraint greater than man's own nature), moving (descending) in the same direction at the same time (uniting in consensus), annihilating things as they used to be (calling it change), destroying everything in their path (calling it progress).  Only those with their Pieps turned on (tuned in with Jesus) can be rescued (redeemed) when its all said and done.

A Constitutional Republic, a form of government where, through "the bill of rights," power is invested in the citizens, citizens guided by their conscience i.e. self-governed, is only possible with principled and self-controlling citizenry—citizens, who can stand alone in the midst of governmental attempts at usurpation and tyranny.  This citizenry has now been replaced with democratic controlled masses (the tyranny of the masses) where the people are under the influence of a form of government which repudiates their inalienable rights and replaces them with "human rights," (the right to relate with anything on the face of the earth "as long as no one gets hurt," i.e. they consent; be it human, animal, plant, or mineral—the praxis of incest and abomination: which Leviticus 19 and 20 lists and describes as abomination to God).  We as a nation are now following men in government, who simply voice promises and dreams of a better life to come, if only we all keep working together with them for the "good" life, the righteous cause of a prosperous future for all mankind, promises and dreams based upon placing our "trust" in them and the "new" form of government (the new world order). Students used to have to memorize a poem like, "The spider and the fly" which had something to say about trusting government (I doubt it is found in any textbooks published since the 50's).  Partnership, "partners in power," becomes the base upon which "What can We get out of this relationship for Us" (human "felt" needs) becomes the slogan of the order of the new world, where "feelings" of "becoming" are treated as property.  Call it altruism if you like, it is actually tyranny.  Individual freedom is sacrificed for collective "freedom," "The individual is swallowed up into the whole."  The conscience is not changed, it is just negated, replaced with the control of a police state (justified by the "reign of terror," "Pandora's box," opened so it could be used by the process).  Top-down, which was to be government controlled by the citizens themselves, has been replaced by a top-down socialist system, with a soviet system of dialogue, diversity, and consensus.  The conscience of the citizen is negated for the socialist dream (an illusion of "world peace"), a dream falsely based upon the premise that man is good and that by changing the environment via. the usurpation of individual rights (individual rights contaminated with ridged ideals "of the past,"—labeled as the foundation of segregation and discrimination) with "human rights."  Mankind now, freed from principled restraints (based upon the paradigm of good and evil, based upon standards higher than man's standards), can manifest his "goodness," liberated through the uses of civil disobedience, in the cause of social harmony, now united in "purpose," to "now and forever" create and sustain the "Beloved Community," the New World Order. To speak out in warning of such foolishness will only put the citizen in harms way.  For he no longer has a voice outside the "Beloved Community." Freedom of speech is only granted to those in support of the "Beloved Community." What it says is now the law.

    " Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.  For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." (James 2:13-18)
    "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, 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.  Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?  But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.  Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.  Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.  Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.  Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." (James 3:1-10)
    "Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.  There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?  Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:  Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.  For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.  But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. " (James 3:11-16)

"The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society."  Karl Marx  Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'  [With the changing of paradigms from inalienable rights to "human rights," the separation of powers, i.e. the limiting of governmental power, collapse into a government with unlimited power.]

According to Seay, King "noted that the change that they would be seeking was moving beyond the U.S. Constitution. He insightfully declared that: 'We have left the realm of constitutional rights and we are entering the area of human rights… The Constitution assured the right to vote, but there is no such assurance of the right to adequate housing, or the right to an adequate income.'" "Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom" Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. Edited by James M. Washington (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 58-59.  "Human Rights," that which is from below, replaces "Inalienable Rights," that which comes from above (since no man can put a lean upon them, they did not come from man, man simply recognized them since they are "self evident").  Somewhere in the change for a "better" world, designed in favor of human nature, being built with the efforts of man (and a dialectical god), the right "to pursue happiness" was replaced with the right "of happiness" ("the right to adequate housing," "the right to an adequate income.")  This change can only take place when feelings are treated as being equal with property, when the "aesthetic dimension" (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason) becomes the cornerstone for human unity and world peace, where the line of thinking is replacing hope in Christ, in a Savior, since I can not save myself, or we ourselves, is replaced by the praxis of hope for happiness which is found in pleasure (Eros) which is found in the mind (which is dopamine emancipation), which is the result of an environment which provides the potential for hope.  So if you do not participate in creating and sustaining an environment which provides pleasure to all, you are of no worth, and you and your laws will be treated as irrelevant .  This describes a world where man puts hope in man's ability to save himself.  This is a dialectical salvation. 

The Austrian Marxist, J. L. Moreno (who came to the U. S. A. in the late 20's; he is the father of "role playing," which you may have done some time in your life but were not told it would help you get rid of the voice of restraint i.e. the voice of God and parent) defined the dialectical Godhead, the dialectical world and dialectical salvation in this way: "My first scientific dream was that if I were God I would be able to start an adequate science of the universe.... all measure and tests of humanity should be constructed after the model of God involved in the creation of the universe.... a science of the Godhead also a science of culture cannot be produced at a distance and post mortem by philosophers and historians; it must be initiated and inspired by the creators of the cultures themselves." "... the origins of my work go back to a primitive religion and my objectives were the setting up and promoting of a new cultural order." "As I tried the sociometric system first on the universe and on the concept of God, its first manifesto was a revolutionary religion, a change of the idea of the universe and the idea of God.... The god of Jesus was further extended, the son 'withered away' until nothing was left except the universal creativity of the Godhead and only one commandment: To each according to what he is (an all-inclusive acceptance of the individual 'as he is')." "A creator, as soon as his work has emanated from him, has no right to it any longer except a psychological right. He had all rights upon it as long as it was growing in him but he has forfeited these as soon as it is gone out of him and becomes a part of the world. It belongs to universality." "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality." "We propose, therefore, the specialization of the notion of parenthood into two distinct and different functions-the biological parent and the social parent. They may come together in one individual or they may not. But the problem is how to produce a procedure which is able to substitute and improve this ancient order."  "The community needs, therefore, to be explored and, if necessary, purged from undesirable cultural conserves .... The community must be 'deconserved' from the pathological excesses of its own culture, or at least, they must be put under control." "Sociometry can assist the United States, with its population consisting of practically all the races on the globe, in becoming an outstanding example of a society which has no need of extraneous ideas or of forces which are not inherent in its own structure."  J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive

"I could well imagine a world of a reversed order, opposite to ours, in which ethical suicide of people after 30 or 35 as a religious technique of countering overpopulation is just as natural as birth control has become in our culture.  In that society the love of life would be carried to its extreme. 'Make space for the unborn, make space for the newborn, for everyone born, Every time a new baby is born make space for  him by taking the life of an old man or an old woman." J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive? [Take note: Moreno's ideology as well as his method of role playing is being used in all institutions of society today, including Federal, with this attitude in mind.  President F. D. R. met with him and admired him.]

This is a praxis which must discriminate against it own citizens, a social salvation which must annihilate those who do not think and act dialectically. (The dialectical process always declares war on its own citizens (using their legitimate needs, to gain access into their lives, and then turn on them when they wake up to the trickery, if they ever wake up).  All citizens are guilty until they are proven innocent, proven "innocent" by their fraternity in the process (by identifying and hunting down others to bring them into the process).  All who participate in the dialectical process, once they see it for what it is, a process of death and destruction (out to buy and sell souls), can have no hope in deliverance from the process, since, dialectically, God is on the side of the process.) Cover it with scripture all you want, bring the "church" into partnership with it, the outcome is still the same, oppression.  This is not of a patriarchal God, this is not of our Heavenly Father, but is a process of the "prince of the power of the air," who was a liar from the beginning—"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:" Ephesians 2:2  The true God is a good God, and a great God, who will not share his glory with any man, save his son, the son of man and the son of God. He reveals his glory to man, that all men would come to know him and praise him and have eternal life through him.  The flesh and blood of man has no part in God's kingdom and only Christ's name will be glorified, for only his work is acceptable to God. "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:  The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,  And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,  Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,  Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:  And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,  Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Ephesians 1:17-23

"The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of Communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism [Capitalism] and collectivism [Communism]." King, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?  [bracketed comments added by Seay] 

Civil disobedience does not lead to the "Beloved Community," a "good and just society."  Civil disobedience is used by those who make use of human misery for their own name sake, for personal gain (leaving men's souls as dead as they were found, for there is no life in the process but only death, and there is no name under heaven whereby man must be saved than that of Jesus Christ).  This is the stuff the New World Order lives and breathes for.  Place your hope in Christ and not in man. "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

    "And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.  And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.  For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.  But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.  And the gospel must first be published among all nations.  But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.  Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Mark 13:5-13

    "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:  And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:  And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.  But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!  And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.  For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.  And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.  And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:  For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.  But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things." Mark 13:14-23

    "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,  And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.  And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.  And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven." Mark 13:24-27

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2009-2015