1 John 2:16 Describes Marxism

authorityresearch.com

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5, 6

1 John 2:16 Describes Marxism (The "New" World Order).
(Most quotations have added information which is not apparent in the audio presentation.)
(Personal note.)

by
Dean Gotcher

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

"Sense experience must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

All Karl Marx did was redefine "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," that is, only that which is "of the world" as "sensuous need," "sense perception," and "sense experience," that is, only that which is "of Nature," making the child's carnal nature, his carnal nature, lust, that which is stimulated by "the world" the only means to knowing the 'truth,' to knowing what is "actual" and what is not, to knowing right from wrong behavior, with pleasure, that is lust (and hatred toward restraint, toward the Father's authority) being right and the Father's authority, that which gets in the way of lust or pleasure being wrong, needing to be removed from the environment in order for everyone to be right, to be their self, to think and act according to their carnal nature without having a guilty conscience, without having a fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out.

"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words it is lust that unites men, making them at-one-with the world.

"Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people." (Mao Zedong) In other words it is the Father's authority that divides men between those obeying Him, doing His will and those who are not.

Carl Rogers, as did Karl Marx rejected the Father's authority, making his lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, his human heart the foundation from which to establish right and wrong behavior. This is the foundation of "behavioral science," where man's carnal nature is the foundation from which to establish behavior, not God and His Word, that is being told what is right and what is wrong behavior and the consequence of doing wrong. Rogers wrote: "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

As will be explained below, when it comes to behavior discussion goes with authority, with "rule of law." God is God in discussion, having the final say, "It is written . . .." which Jesus Christ spoke in response to the temptations in the wilderness (thus, when it comes to knowing right from wrong behavior we are to "trust in the Lord with all our heart," having been told) while dialogue goes with our carnal nature, with the "law of the flesh," which the world stimulates. We are God in dialogue, having the final say. "I feel" and "I think . . .." (thus, when it comes to knowing right from wrong behavior, when we learn to our own understanding, to our "sense experience," with pleasure or lust being right and having to miss out on pleasure in order to do right and not wrong according to what you have been told being wrong we are "of the world"). There is a place and time for dialogue. What we have been told we can do and say. But when we take dialogue into what we have been told we cannot have, do, or say it becomes an act of defiance, making ourselves God over that which is not ours. (When politicians, for example go to dialogue, regarding your land they, in their mind "own" your land. When they go to discussion, you own it instead.) It is the difference between faith and sight. Discussion sides with faith ("I KNOW because I have been told"). Dialogue with sight ("I know because I have experienced it myself," because it makes "sense" to me). That which is "of the world" sides with dialogue. That which is "of the Father," who even 'created' and established the physical laws of nature sides with discussion. To those "of and for the world," who 'reason' through dialogue, "sense experience" (called dialectic 'reasoning') anything that is not of the flesh and the world that stimulates it, anything not subject to stimulus-response is spirit, thus making no "sense" to their carnal mind. "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." 1 Corinthians 2:14 That is they require faith. Discussion and dialogue are two different, opposite political systems. Although we have and do both, we chose between them when it comes to behavior (called 'juxtaposition'), doing what we are told or what we want instead, either being justified in our thoughts and actions by doing what we are told ("trusting in the Lord") or 'justifying' our thoughts and actions, that is 'justifying' ourselves, our thoughts and actions instead ("leaning to our own understanding"). While discussion, in and of itself can save no one it is the language God communicates through, with God having the final say ("It is impossible to please God without faith"). Making discussion ("I KNOW") subject to dialogue (to "I feel" and "I think," to our "feelings," to our flesh which the world stimulates, which those "of and for the world" do) is where the phrases "so called science," and "seemeth right unto man" come from. The Apostle Paul explained the difference. "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 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 7:14-25

"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

In his article The Holy Family Karl Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, that is, of faith, of true love, that is of love of God, of true will-power, that is of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." He then wrote: "It is not sensuality which is presented ..., but the attraction of what is forbidden." By generalizing, he used fruit trees as an example he found he could draw the believer into participation into that which is "forbidden." Creating an environment where the believer could participate with an unbeliever in solving a problem or working of a project of "common interest." Finding what they had in common as far as their "self-interest," he could silence the believer, who for the sake of initiating and sustaining the "relationship" (and therefore attain his "self-interest") would "suspend" his standards (in order not to offend or 'chase' the other person away). While in his mind his silence is not 'justifying' (consenting to) the unbeliever's thoughts and actions, in the unbelievers mind it is seen as consent or 'justification'—in legal terms silence implies consent, qui tacet consentire videtur. By moving communication, when it comes to behavior away from discussion, where the Father has the final say to dialogue, where there is no judgment, condemnation, being cast out for sharing opinions, since everyone has the right to share their opinion in dialogue, everyone can share their feelings and thoughts without being judged, condemned, or cast out, that is without having a guilty conscience, since a guilty conscience is a product of the Father's authority, effectively negating the Father's authority in the conversation and therefore in the outcome (especially when right and wrong behavior is involved, is being established). Being asked to be "positive" and not "negative" effectively does the job when you are willing to participate, that is be silent for the sake of "self-interest," making "self-interest," that which is "of the world" more important than any standard established from above, be it your earthly father's or the Heavenly Father's.

"In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) Discussion is based upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, being held accountable (there is a consequence) when you do wrong.

This is reflected in the Word of God. "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

The gospel message is all about the Son of God, Jesus Christ doing the Father's will, doing what he was told, even dying on a cross, by his shed blood covering our sins (propitiation), doing so in obedience to the Father ("O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Matthew 26:42) asking all to follow Him doing the Father's will as He leads; "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 10:5. Not once did Jesus ever participate in dialogue—making his "feelings" and his "thoughts" the foundation for establishing right and wrong behavior. Even in the temptations in the wilderness he depended upon his Father's authority, "It is written . . .."

"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 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 12:47-50

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

"A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "The spirit of dialogue, is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

While in discussion, God is God, having the final say in dialogue you are God, having the final say. When the woman in the garden in Eden turned to dialogue regarding the "forbidden tree" (where discussion would have required her to go to God for an answer) she became equal with God, making herself God instead, doing what she wanted to do. This done with the "help" of the master facilitator of 'change,' the serpent. "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? [this is a neurolinguistic construct (an imbedded statement in a question, sensitizing a person to their lusts, when it comes to right and wrong behavior, beginning the process of liberating a person's lust out from under their fear of judgment, out from under the father's authority, bring dialogue forward out from under the restraint of discussion)—which is one of the most powerful forms of hypnosis] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [she revealed her lust], lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die [removing the "negative," fear of judgment (which was not a lie regarding the here-and now, the tree itself did not physically kill her—or Adam—but a lie regarding the there-and then, with God removing her—and Adam—from having access to the "tree of life" for their disobedience, then, after death both coming to judgment, inheriting either eternal life or eternal death based upon their either repenting, turning to God, doing the Father's will or 'justifying' their self, 'justifying' their carnal thoughts and carnal behavior, turning to "behavioral science" in order to 'justify' their lusts)]: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (which dialogue does, everyone is a god in dialogue), knowing good and evil [according to their carnal nature]. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise [evaluating (aufheben) from her senses, leaning to her own understanding she made her self the establisher of right and wrong behavior], she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:1-6 (emphasis added)

When God created man He did something to him He did with nothing else in the creation, He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" making him a "living soul." "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7). He then did something with him He did with nothing else in the creation, He told him what was right and what was wrong behavior along with the consequence for disobedience. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16, 17). Only man can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior. Only man can read or write a book. All the rest of the creation is based upon instinct and stimulus-response—for living organisms, approach pleasure and avoid pain. The soul KNOWS by being told. The flesh by "sense experience,"by stimulus-response. When it comes to behavior the carnal man turns to dialogue, his own feelings and thoughts. For the believer he turns to what is written. If there are any questions, to discussion, where the Father and the Word have the final say.

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 Man is not to live by dialogue alone, but by discussion, where the Father has the final say.

An example of the difference between discussion and dialogue would be eating lunch at a buffet where you can choose the foods you like, which would correlate with dialogue (you are as a god, choosing right and wrong behavior, that is what you like, and you do not like). But if you have been told there are certain foods that are bad for you (that you like), now you have to discuss with your self (and with others, if you choose) which foods you can eat and which ones you can (or should) not. If you go to dialogue, you will go ahead and eat what you like (what you want). If you go to discussion, you will not. Which one wins out (discussion or dialogue) determines what you will eat for lunch that day—dialogue for pleasure (that the world or environment is stimulating) or discussion in order to do right and not wrong (according to what you have been told). We tend to mingle (juxtaposition) between the two (finding homeostasis), using dialogue, that is we compromise in order to eat what we want. "Just a little taste." When it comes to behavior, the more you go in the direction of discussion the more you reason from established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Conversely the more you go in the direction of dialogue the more you 'reason' from your carnal desires of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. Reasoning based upon discussion results in your doing the father's will, doing what you have been told while 'reasoning' based upon dialogue results in your doing what you want. Those "of (and for) the world" go to dialogue, making any discussion subject to it. The "skill" (trickery) of the facilitator of 'change' is to bring the two (discussion and dialogue) together in conflict with one another, in a "feelings" (dialogue) based environment (where affirmation from others or fear of rejection by them is at the forefront) creating what is called "cognitive dissonance," pressuring the participants to choose between either doing the father's will (and missing out on pleasure, the lusts of the 'moment,' experiencing rejection by "the group") or go with "the group" (enjoying the pleasures, the lusts of the 'moment,' experiencing "the groups" approval). Ernest R. Hilgard, in Introduction to Psychology explained cognitive dissonance as "The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or one's belief." Irvin D. Yalom, in his book Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy wrote: "… few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their loyalty to the father's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance. Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority." The more "the group" goes into dialogue the more the person insisting upon discussion becomes perceived as being argumentative.

In his article The Holy Family Karl Marx described the praxis of dialogue (the human heart, his heart, your carnal heart): "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." It is in your dialoguing with yourself that your hearts desires are played out and 'justified.' "The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure, that is lust is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's will], and desperately wicked [hating anyone preventing, that is inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it lusts after, hating anyone threatening to or taking it away]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 We cannot see our hatred toward authority as being evil since our lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. In Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx explained what he meant by "Critical Criticism" where "Criticism" had come to the boiling point of action. "Criticism is now simply a means. Indignation is its essential pathos, denunciation its principal task. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis [action]." "The critique of religion [hatred toward the father's authority] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being [being called a sinner, thus being judged, condemned, cast out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions]."

It is the father's authority system that engenders the guilty conscience. As the Marxist Norman O. Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History explained it: "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:'" It is the guilty conscience that carries the father's authority into society. Society cannot be 'liberated' from the father's authority unless the guilty conscience (for disobeying the father) is silence, that is is negated (where judgment, condemnation, fear of being cast out for sinning, for lusting no longer comes to mind). The Marxist Kurt Lewin found the solution, first defining its creation, calling it a "negative valence." "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (that is, if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality) As was done in the garden in Eden, by negating the negative, "thou shalt surely die" with "Ye shall not surely die" or "You can talk about anything here without being judged, condemned, or cast out" the soul can be delivered from God and therefore from eternal life, being cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who followed after him instead.

For the Marxist, the father's authority system has to be negated if there is ever to be socialist harmony and worldly peace. Karl Marx in his 4th Thesis on Feuerbach wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, that is annihilated, that is negated] in theory and in practice." Having rejected the Heavenly Father's authority Karl Marx could only reason that the Heavenly Father's authority was a product of children honoring their earthly father's authority. Thus, the need to negate the earthly father's authority in any form it took, from King to the local peasant.

"The peasantry [the traditional family] constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie [the Father's authority system]—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920) This required the negation of the guilty conscience for disobeying the Father.

"Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Rogers)

Sigmund Freud had the same ideology. According to the Marxist Herbert Marcuse Freud's whole agenda was, through the praxis of therapy to negate the father's authority, replacing discussion, where the father has the final say with dialogue where the "client," with the "help" of the psychotherapist, has the final say (paying the therapist of course for saving his soul from God's authority and eternal life). Even by focusing upon the family, bringing the father, mother, and children together, through dialogue resolving the children's behavior problems the father's authority in the home is negated.

Herbert Marcuse, in his book Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud (from where we get "If it feels good, just do it") wrote: "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father." "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the husband and father no longer exercises his authority in the home, over his wife and children]."

Sigmund Freud's history of the prodigal son is not of the son coming to his senses, humbling his self, returning home, submitting his self to his father's authority, learning his inheritance was not his father's money but his father's love for him (Luke 15:11-24), but of the son joining with his "friends," returning home, killing the father, taking all that was his (the father's), using it to satisfy their carnal desires, their lusts, killing all the fathers in the land (devouring the fathers, which dialogue, when it comes to behavior does) so all the children could be the same, like them, thereby affirming them, their "incest," 'justifying' and supporting their control over them, following after, supporting, defending, protecting, praising, worshiping, and even willingly dying for them for 'justifying' their lusts.

Abraham Maslow the author of "Maslow's Hierarchy of 'Felt' Needs," which excludes the Father's authority wrote: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, that is, 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 Abraham Maslow)

For anyone desiring to pursue a career in psychology they need to know it is based upon Genesis 3:1-3 and 1 John 2:16. It has no other foundation.

Brown wrote: "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;"

Marcus wrote: "... the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'"

"Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung; English. Reasoning and Self Preservation) The whole of the "Protestant Reformation," Protestantism, that is, the priesthood of all believers, doing your best as unto the Lord, putting no man between you and the Lord, refusing to consent, to be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is based upon "the depravity of man's heart" and God's mercy and grace toward him if he repents and turns from his wicked ways and follows Him, putting no man between himself and the Lord, engendering individualism, under God. Even the Marxist Max Horkheimer recognized that it is the Father's authority system that engenders individualism, under God, your worth as an individual before God. The Marxist Jürgen Habermas wrote: "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) Marxists know of God's judgment upon them for their sins but seek to remove His Word from the environment so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, lust without having any sense of guilt. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32 (See Romans 1:21-31) "We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12) The protestant reformation was the rejection of Aristotelian ethics, where stimulus-response was the means to establishing right and wrong behavior. The idea being by 'creating' a "healthy" environment a "healthy" person could be 'created." This did not resolve the human heart issue, which can only be changed by the Lord. Righteousness is therefore imputed by faith in Christ, not by any work a man can do—that man should boast.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9

It is the Father who authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) and obeyed or applied and enforces them. Without the Father there is no being told what is right and what is wrong behavior. Without being told there is no being held accountable for your behavior. In other words without the Father's authority system there is no law (known as "rule of law"). This is Immanual Kant's "lawfulness without law" where the law of the flesh rules without the law of God getting in the way. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) Without law there is no doing wrong or disobedience. Without disobedience there is no sin. Without sin there is no need of a savior.

"I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Romans 7:7

". . . for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:20

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:8-10

Whoever "denieth" the Father, the law, "denieth" the Son, the savior—who, by his shed blood on the cross redeemed us from His Father's judgment upon us for our sins.

"He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28-32

"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. Proverbs 16:5

"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." James 4:1-4

"Let no man deceive you with vain words [self 'justifying, lust 'justifying' words]: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Ephesians 5:5-7

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

"For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:3-7

In dialectic 'reasoning,' in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process there is no Father's authority, therefore there is no established law, therefore there is no disobedience, therefore there is no sin, therefore there is no need of a savior. Therefore the object of dialectic 'reasoning' is to remove the Father, thus removing the Father's authority, thus removing law, thus removing judgment, condemnation and being cast out for sinning so man can sin without having a guilty conscience, so he can sin with impunity, with everyone's affirmation.

György Lukács, carrying on the same theme as Kant, Hegel, and Marx in his article History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism? wrote: "... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'"

In Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' Karl Marx wrote "Laws must not fetter human life [that is inhibit or block lust]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs [that is the lusts] and capacities [that is the interests and the attractions of lust] of the people change."

While the heavenly Father is holy and the earthly father is born into sin both have the same authority system, preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is (at first at least by faith) and applied, discussing with those under His authority any questions they might have regarding His commands, rules, facts, and truth, providing He deems it necessary, has time, those under His authority are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking His authority, 2) rewarding those who do right and obey, 3) correcting and-or chastening those who do wrong and-or disobey, that they might learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to the established commands, rules, facts, and truth they have been taught (or told), in order to do the Father's will, and 4) casting out (expels or grounds) those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack His authority, which restrains the Father's authority system in the child's or man's thoughts, directing effecting his actions, resulting in the those under the Father's authority KNOWING right from wrong from being told (especially when it comes to behavior).

"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

"Building relationship upon self interest" is the hallmark of Marxism. It is a sad day when you have to explain Marxism in order to explain what is happening in the world around you today.

Karl Marx, in his article Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual."

In other words, according to Karl Marx it is lust, enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and-or object, people, or person is stimulating that makes us at-one-with the world, establishing lust over and therefore against the Father's authority that gets in the way. Self is therefore "actualized" in lust, not in doing the Father's will.

Karl Marx, in his Sixth Thesis on Feuerbach wrote "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." It is in "social relations" that compromise becomes the way of life.

Karl Marx wrote "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, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

In other words, according to Karl Marx, who rejected God's authority, who rejected his soul being eternal, and thus his being judged by God for his carnal thoughts and carnal behavior, the child, that is he having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his "self" in order to do the father's will is not what "fulfills" the child or him. "On the contrary," he wrote it is the father's authority, the child or his having to do right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth that "destroys him," that prevents him from becoming his self, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, thinking and acting according to what he has in common with all the children of the world. The child's desire for approval from others, requiring him to compromise, that is "suspend" as upon a cross truth in order to "get along," in order to build relationship "is the necessary framework through which freedom" from the Father's authority and "freedom" to lust after pleasure, to do what he wants without having a guilty conscience (which the Father's authority engenders) "are made reality." If you are more concerned about your child's social life than where he or she will spend eternity, you are a socialist. You might deny it, but you cannot refute it.

Norman Brown wrote "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." "Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." "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."

According to Sigmund Freud the guilty conscience is a product of the Father's authority, which sustains the Father's authority in society. It is only in the "social group" that the guilty conscience can negated. According to the Marxist, Norman O. Brown without the "social group" the child and society remains subject to the Father's authority. Therefore the child and society can only be liberated from the Father's authority and the guilty conscience which the Father's authority engenders in the "social group," which 'justifies' the child's carnal nature, Eros, lust.

Kurt Lewin, in his article Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics wrote: "The group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions"

Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne's book, Human Relations in Curriculum Change wrote: "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group."

Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover's book A Sociology of Education explained the effect leadership style has upon the group and the child. "The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . .. he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group."

Kurt Lewin, regarding the effect different types of leadership have upon people wrote: "Change in methods of leadership is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of a group." "Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group." (Barker, Dembo, and Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development)

Kenneth Benne recognized the effect curriculum change would have upon how people think and act. He wrote, "A change in the curriculum is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents . . . ." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." ". . . people involved who were loyal to the older pattern must be helped to transfer their allegiance to the new." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group." "For actual changes in 'content' and 'method' we must change the people who manage the school program. To change the curriculum of the school means bringing about changes in people—in their desires, beliefs and attitudes, in their knowledge and skill . . . curriculum change should be seen as a type of social change, change in people. Curriculum change means a change in the established ways of life, a change in the social standards. It means a restructuring on knowledge, attitudes, and skills in a new pattern of human relations. Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Since it is the guilty conscience, which is engendered by the Father's authority that sustains the Father's authority in the child and in society it was necessary to use the dynamics of the group setting to silence it. Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, in his book The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing defining the development the guilty conscience and its effect upon society wrote: "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." Trojanowicz then promotes bringing the police and the community together with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, negating local control, the father's authority system and the guilty conscience replacing it with the "police state." Done with the use of 'crime' to bring "the people" together.

There is no Father's authority, judgment, condemnation, fear of being cast out in dialogue therefore using dialogue to establish right and wrong behavior negates not only the Father's authority it negates the guilty conscience as well. While the guilty conscience ties the child to the Father or rather the Father to the child the "super-ego" ties the child to society.

In Book 2: Affective Domain Benjamin Bloom wrote: "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society. Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development."

In other words society needs man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to become one and man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure needs societies 'justification.' The 'liberation' of self, of lust out from under the Father's authority "is necessary for personal growth," while submission of self to the Father's authority "stunt(s) human nature." Marxism is philosophy and psychology becoming at-one-with one another. It is in dialogue (which does not recognize the Father's authority) that all can become one, "bypass" the Father's authority in making rules, policies, and law, in establishing right and wrong behavior—resulting in lust being right and the Father's authority being wrong.

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas, one of the youngest and probably smartest of the "Frankfurt School" members in his book Knowledge and Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory wrote (regarding the effect dialogue has upon a group setting): "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence."

Ervin Laszlo, who organized and promoted the "climate change" agenda, in his book A Strategy For The Future: The Systems Approach to World Order wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making our objective center's upon transformating public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common [lust] 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."

Karl Marx in his Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach (which is inscribed on his tomb) wrote: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change."

In other words, it is the father's authority system, the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth (which differ from father to father) that divides the people. It is in the child's propensity to respond ('change' in accordance) to the situation and-or object, people, or person in the 'moment that is the objective of life. Without the "help" of the facilitator of 'change' the children remain subject to the Father's authority system. The facilitator of 'change,' perceiving his self as being the personification of "the people," who, like him lust after the carnal pleasures of the moment the world stimulates, hating restraint, sees it as his duty to 'justify' the people's natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to 'justify' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure. When you question the facilitator of 'change's' actions he will respond with "It is not just about you," really meaning "It is all about me, so I can lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, my lusts or get in my way 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since having 'justified' their lusts I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for my 'good.'" This is the true meaning of "sight-based management," "opinion or dialogue-based management."

All the facilitator of 'change' has to do (in a "positive" environment, in an environment which will not judge, condemn, or cast you out for lusting after pleasure or for being wrong) is ask you how you feel and what you think regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth you have been taught (that get in the way of your carnal desires), especially when it comes to behavior and the facilitator of 'change' "owns" you. This applies to all who participate in the facilitated, dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process (establishing lust over and therefore against the Father's authority).

The soul KNOWS by being told (discussion, where the Father has the final say). The flesh knows by "sense experience," by stimulus-response (dialogue, where the child has his opinion, that is the final say). As an example, "Bloom's Taxonomies" (Marxist curriculum by which all teachers are certified and schools accredited) bases knowing upon the students "sense experience," that is their "affective domain" (requiring an environment of dialogue), not upon KNOWING from being told, that is, the Father's authority (where the Father has the final say) is missing (rejected being classified as being "negative") in the "group grade" classroom. The "affective domain" is how a person "feels" when it comes to behavior (towards self, others, the world, and authority), directly effecting how he or she behaves (towards self, others, the world, and authority).

"We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

Karl Marx's ideology as explained by Friedrich Engels was the same as Benjamin Bloom's: "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy [where your feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' determine right and wrong behavior], nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Using Marxist ideology, that is the negation of the Father's authority and thus His established commands, rules, facts, and truth as the basis of his "taxonomies" Benjamin Bloom could then report:

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Bloom explained what his "taxonomies" are grading, that is their intended purpose: "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents," "The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Benjamin Bloom continued: "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.' " "Pandora's Box" is a mythological story of a "box" (originally a jar) full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed—once parental authority, the Father's authority, fear of judgment, "the lid" is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again. Warren Bennis best explains the consequence of or the effect this process, the opening of "pandora's box") has upon the family. ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching." "… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." "The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore." "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." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

Bloom then wrote: "It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found." "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." According to Bloom a "good teaching" environment is one in which the students "feelings" are 'liberated' from their parent's authority, from the Father's authority system so they can sin, lust, be their self, thinking and acting according in harmony with their carnal nature without having a guilty conscience. In the "group grade" environment students are pressuring (out of fear of "the group's" rejection of them) to publicly, in "the group" (for the sake of "the group's" approval) question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack, etc., their parents commands, rules, facts, and truth, thereby giving them the opportunity to evaluate the world through their carnal desires, through their "lusts," their "self-interests" of the 'moment,' that which they have in common with each other in "the group." This method of 'education,' according to Bloom "... allows the individual [a greater amount of freedom in which to achieve a Weltanschauung. "Weltanschauung" is the German word for World View. Bloom's "Weltanschauung" (as Bloom noted in his footnote) was that of two Marxists, "Erich Fromm" and "T. W. Adorno"

The Marxist Erich Fromm (who Bloom referred to as his and therefore the "taxonomies" world view) wrote: "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." "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." "... to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being ... who can feel at home in [the world] if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature [that is both he and others can come to consensus based upon their carnal nature, their lust for pleasure, worshiping the world that stimulates it]." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

The Marxist Theodor Adorno (who Bloom referred to as his and therefore the "taxonomies" world view) wrote: "Authoritarian submission [humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating one's "self" in order to do the Father's will] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], 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." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "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) The error in Adorno's "logic" is that all forms of socialism, including Fascism must negate the Father's authority in the home as well as in the individual in order to initiate and sustain the socialist's control over the individual, that is, "the people."

Bloom wrote: "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." ". . . ordering and relating the different kinds of affective behavior." ". . . we need to provide the range of emotion from neutrality through mild to strong emotion, probably of a positive, but possibly also of a negative, kind." ". . . organized into value systems and philosophies of life . . ." ". . .many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

It should be noted that "Bloom's Taxonomies" are a fable, are not true science. "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." (Book 2: Affective Domain) "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences. It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals. . .. observable and describable therefore classifiable." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain) True science is observable and repeatable, not just definable (which can be, as in this case subjective). Whoever defines terms for you, from facts or feelings controls your life.

Jacob's publication "Changing Values in College" was a catalyst for the use of the "affective domain" in education—the student's natural inclination to "lust ...," being used in the classroom in order to 'liberate' him or her from "doing the Father's will." College, with its absence of parental influence being a prime environment in which to initiate and sustain the process of 'change,' transcending parental authority. Bloom wrote: "Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain was the publication of Jacob's Changing Values in College (1957)." (Book 2: Affective Domain) For more on the "group grade" and the education system that initiates and sustains it see the Issue "Blooms Taxonomies": - The Devil's Education System. (pdf) (Audio) You can deny it but you can not refute it.

The "educator" (the facilitator of 'change') does not have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority when they get home from school, if they were not doing that already (telling them would be "old school," maintaining the "old" world order of being told even if it was done for the 'purpose' of 'change,' for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order), all they have to do is use a curriculum in the classroom that "encourages," pressures the students to participate in the process of 'change,' into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, 'justifying' their carnal nature, "lust" over and therefore against their parent's authority. Being told to be "positive" (supportive of the other students carnal nature) and not "negative" (judging them by their parent's standards) pressures students to 'justify' their and the other students love of pleasure and hate of restrain, doing so in order to be approved, affirmed by "the group," resulting in "the group" labeling those students who, holding onto their parent's standards, refusing to participate in the process of 'change' or fighting against it as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, maladjusted, unadaptable to 'change,' resisters of 'change,' not "team players," lower order thinkers, in denial, phobic, prejudiced, judgmental, racist, fascist, dictators, anti-social, etc., "hurting" people's "feelings" resulting in "the group" rejecting them—the student's natural desire for approval and fear of rejection forces him to participate. The same outcome applies to all adults, in any profession who participate in the process. Once you are 'labeled,' you are 'labeled' for life. In the soviet union, once you were 'labeled' "psychological," no matter how important you were in the past, your life was over, your career was done.

"Has authority been banished in these later days? Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of pupil soviets?" (Will C. Woods, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California, March 1921) The facilitated, "be positive and not negative," open-ended non-directed, dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, "group grade" classroom your child is learning to think and behave in is a soviet. A soviet is a diverse group of people (which must including the deviant, the catalyst for 'change'), dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, over social issues (where social worth becomes more important than the right of the individual, under God, as Kenneth Benne in Human Relations in Curriculum Change stated it, we "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue"), to a pre-determined outcome (that no policy or law is to be made without the soviet system, that is the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, which prevents the Father's authority from establishing policy or making law).

In Bloom's second taxonomy we read "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed. . . . many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." "The effectiveness of this new set of environmental conditions is probably related to the extent to which the students are 'isolated' from the home during this period of time." ". . . objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other."* (Book 2: Affective Domain)

Kurt Lewin, the father of, Unfreezing, Moving or Changing, Refreezing People, Force Field Analysis, and Group Dynamics wrote "A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing group life on the new level."

Edger Schein and Warren Bennis explained what "unfreezing" was all about "In brief, unfreezing is the breaking down of the mores, customs and traditions of an individual – the old ways of doing things – so that he is ready to accept new alternatives." (Edger Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach)

Warren Bennis in Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction explained how "brainwashing" is done by the Communist. Notice the similarity to Bloom's Taxonomies," replacing physical torture with "group rejection," that is mental torture—in the "group grade" system the whole group gets graded as one. His refusal to participate with the "the group" effects the groups grade. "The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of 'unfreezing,' in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of 'readiness' to be influence; and (2) a process of 'change,' in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of 'the people's standpoint' and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure."
"Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to 'help' their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance. Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image."
". . . Once this process of self of self re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others." (Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, ed. Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele, explaining the steps of what is called "brain washing," that is washing the Father's authority system and therefore Nationalism from the mind of the individual and therefore from society, the same agenda as "Bloom's taxonomies") The indoctrination of Marxism, the washing of the Father's authority system from the students' mind in the classroom effects the whole nation, all of its institution from the home to its highest court.

Prior to dialectic 'reasoning' overtaking our nation, our highest court, in Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, 1941 wrote: "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well-known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian [men's opinions or rule of law]. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." By the 50's with education become subject to Marxist indoctrination, that is with its use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" as its curriculum Christianity was replaced with Marxism as its method of 'reasoning.' Karl Marx, rejecting the father's authority system (discussion) built his ideology off of Heraclitus who wrote: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." (Heraclitus's ideology, based upon dialogue influenced the Stoics). Karl Marx, in Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' wrote: "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." In ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973 our highest court (rejecting and therefore in defiance to the Christian faith) turned to stoicism (men's feelings of the ''moment'; influenced by the immediate situation, rejecting the restraints of the Constitution) in making law: "there has always been strong support for the view [opinion] that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." In ROE V. WADE our highest court embraced Marxism, establishing Marxism over and therefore against the Word of God, that is Godly restraint, that is individualism, under God, that is "rule of law." With dialogue replacing discussion in our courtrooms, the outcome is no longer in favor of the victim. R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, in their book Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law, explaining the effect dialogue has upon decisions made in the court room wrote: "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state."

When policy and law are established according to self interests the victim (whose individual rights were violated by the criminal) becomes the criminal (by forcing his laws upon the criminal, who was simply following "human nature"), who, now becomes the victim—since he has to obey established laws preventing him from becoming his self (subject to his carnal nature, that is subject to what he has in common with all that is "of the world"). Anyone holding to established commands, rules, facts, and truth placed in a dialoguing of opinions to a consensus environment will always be perceived as being argumentative, experiencing terror as his individual rights, under God are replaced (negated) with social cause, that is social worth. Your child does not have to be told to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack your authority as a parent (if he or she was not doing it already), all he or she has to do is participate in a classroom using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as its curriculum, that is learn right and wrong behavior in the "group grade" classroom, where he or she must go with "the group," that is become a socialist, replacing individual rights, under God with "social worth," that is be affirmed by "the group" or be rejected, that is silence, censored, and-or cast out by it, going with or affirming "the group" and he or she will do it automatically.

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

"For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 10:3, 4

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:2-5

"And what concord 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

End Notes

Facilitators of 'change,' psychologists, behavioral "scientists," "group psychotherapists," Marxists (Transformational Marxists)—all being the same in method or formula—are using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process, dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from and through the students "feelings" of the 'moment,' from and through their "lust" for pleasure and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval, affirmation and fear of group rejection) in the "group grade," "safe zone-space-place," "Don't be negative, be positive," "open ended, non-directed," soviet style, brainwashing (washing the Father's authority from the children's thoughts and actions, "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience, which the Father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation" since the Father's authority and the guilty conscience, being negative to the child's carnal nature, is negated in dialogue—in dialogue, opinion, and the consensus process there is no Father's authority, no established or absolute command, rule, facts, or truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed; there is only the person's carnal desires, lusts of the past and the present being verbally expressed and 'justified'), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from and through the students "feelings," that is their natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—dopamine emancipation—which the world stimulates, their "self interest," their "sense experience," selecting "appropriate information"—excluding, ignoring, or resisting, rejecting any "inappropriate" information, that is established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome, pleasure—in determining right from wrong behavior), "Bloom's Taxonomy," "affective domain," French Revolution (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) classroom "environment" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' children from parental authority, from the Father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm)—as predators, charlatans, pimps, pedophiles, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them as one of Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats, and Pavlova's dogs, treating them as natural resource ("human resource") in order to convert them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is can "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, with impunity.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17

Home schooling material, co-ops, conferences, etc., are joining in the same praxis, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's as well as Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda of using the pattern or method of Genesis 3:1-6, "self" 'justification,' dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning," 'reasoning' from and through your "feelings," your carnal desires of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world (including your desire for approval from others, with them affirming your carnal nature) in order to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, the Father's authority, having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your "self" (your lusts) in order to do the Father's will, negating Romans 7:14-25, your having a guilty conscience when you do wrong, disobey, sin, thereby negating your having to repent before the Father for your doing wrong, disobedience, sins—which is the real agenda.

"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," their love of "self," their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates, establishing lust over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12