authorityresearch.com

A Facilitator Of 'Change' VS A Traditional Educator.
(The child's/man's carnal nature vs the father's/Father's authority.)
See also: Bloom's Taxonomies, An Exposé. (pdf), If You Want To KNOW What Is Going On. (pdf), Mao's Long March Across America. (pdf), It Is All About The Father. (pdf).
(Personal note.)

by
Dean Gotcher

Doing your will or doing the Father's will (these are the only choices).

"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

"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." "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 5:30; 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

"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

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

The father's/Father's authority (the system or paradigm itself, i.e., the Patriarchal paradigm, i.e., your way of feeling, thinking, and behaving toward your self, others, the world, and authority) is reflected in traditional education, where the teacher:

1) preaches established commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaches established facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discusses any question(s) the children might have regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth being taught, at the teacher's discretion, i.e., providing he or she deems it necessary, has time, the children are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority,
2) rewards the child who does right and obeys,
3) corrects and/or chastens the child who does wrong and/or disobeys, that he might learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, and
4) casts out (expels/grounds) any child who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks the father's/Father's authority system, which retains the father's/Father's authority system in the child's thoughts and actions.

The facilitator of 'change' on the other hand creates an environment where he and those under his influence are 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority system so they can think and act according to their carnal nature, i.e., so they can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and or people or person is stimulating without having a guilty conscience (which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority system), with one another's approval aka affirmation. Karl Marx and (as you will see) Sigmund Freud had this as their main agenda: the 'liberation' of mankind (themselves) from the father's/Father's authority system so they could do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and or people or person is stimulating without having a guilty conscience (which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority system).

"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, i.e., negated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

The "earthly family" and the "Holy family" have this in common—those under the father's/Father's authority having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will. For the carnal nature of the child, i.e., for the facilitator of 'change' to rule without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without having a sense of accountability for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting the father's/Father's authority has to be removed from the environment. Having rejected the Heavenly Father's authority (and therefore the soul, i.e., eternity), perceiving the earthy father's authority as engendering the Heavenly Father's authority, all Karl Marx could focus on was negating the earthly father's authority (the system itself) in the thoughts of the children, i.e., in the "proletariat," i.e., in his followers, thereby negating in the outcome the Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment, i.e., fear of spending eternity in the lake of fire that is never quenched (prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him, lusting). While traditional education reinforces the father's/Father's authority system in the thoughts of the students, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to what they are taught (told), directly effecting their actions, the facilitated, "group grade" classroom with its dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process negates the father's/Father's authority system in the thoughts of the students, directly effecting their actions, not only in the classroom, but also at home and everywhere else, i.e., wherever they go. It is not just the father/Father that is under attack in the facilitated meeting but the father's/Father's authority system itself, with all participants (in order to participate) negating the father's/Father's authority system in their thoughts, directly effecting their actions.

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3

Apart from the Word of God all man has is his opinion (his perception) of how he is to think and act. While philosophers, with only the world (their "Reasoning") to guide them sought to discover and develop "right" behavior (the idea being, if you can 'discover,' define, and then 'create' a healthy environment you can 'create' a healthy person—"ignorant of God's righteousness," i.e., ignorant of the depravity/wickedness of man's heart, i.e., of man's need to repent—which entails the Son's obedience to the Father, i.e., the Father's authority for our soul's sake), the facilitator of 'change,' rejecting the father's/Father's authority system itself makes his and his student's carnal nature, i.e., lust, i.e., perpetual 'change' the foundation from which to establish right and wrong behavior.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)

Parents have "interpreted the world in different ways," insisting their children do as they are told, dividing them from other children whos parent's have a different position aka belief, "the objective however, is" uniting children upon what they all have in common, i.e., their lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, i.e., their resentment toward parental authority for getting in the way. 'Change' is synonymous to stimulus-response, where what—in the environment—stimulates pleasure (in the 'moment') is right, i.e., is "positive," i.e., is to be affirmed and augmented and what inhibits or blocks pleasure, i.e., what stimulates pain, i.e., the missing out on pleasure (in the 'moment') is wrong, i.e., is "negative," i.e., is to be removed from the environment, thus removing respect for parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system from the thoughts of the children/students.

"In the more traditional society a philosophy of life, a mode of conduct, is spelled out for its members at an early stage in their lives." "A major function of education in such a society is to achieve the internalization of this philosophy." "This is not to suggest that education in an open [socialist/Marxist] society does not attempt to develop personal and social values." "It does indeed." "But more than in traditional societies it allows the individual a greater amount of freedom in which to achieve a Weltanschauung¹." "¹Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm were Marxists, i.e., members of the "Frankfurt School" who, fleeing Fascism in Europe (in the early thirty's) came to America from Frankfurt, German (thus the name), making it there agenda to 'change' America, i.e., to turn its educators and government leaders into Marxist, i.e., into facilitators of 'change'—moving education out from under parental (the father's/Father's) authority, i.e., local control ("in loco parentis") to government, i.e., their control. What are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" (by which all educators are certified and schools accredited today) are established upon the Weltanschauung (world view) of Marxists, i.e., the ideology of Marxism (Karl Marx), facilitating 'change' in the classroom (and therefore the Nation), as Bloom admitted. By 1971 over one million of Bloom's "taxonomies" were published for the Communist Chinese education system. (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation)

Erich Fromm 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 ["the group"] 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 it [in the world] if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

Theodor Adorno wrote: "Authoritarian submission [humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating "self" in order to do the father's/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." "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." (Adorno)

The "problem," according to Adorno is, as long as children remain 'loyal' to the father's/Father's authority system, doing what they are told, they can not become their self, i.e., they can not lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without fearing judgment, condemnation, and being cast out. The father's/Father's authority system requires no compromise when it comes to established commands, rules, facts, and truth while for the facilitation of 'change,' i.e., the building of relationship upon common self interest compromise or setting aside of established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of the relationship is necessary in order to initiate and sustain the relationship.

While traditional educators hold their students (as traditional parents hold their children) accountable to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (which requires them to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do so), facilitators of 'change' 'liberate' them from parental authority so the facilitator of 'change' can be his (or her) self, i.e., so he can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without having a guilty conscience (a product of parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system) with the students affirmation, i.e., approval—negating the father/Father's authority system, i.e., 'justifying' the students natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating directly effects their actions—'justifying' their questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parent's authority (the father's/Father's authority system), without having a guilty conscience.

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (Book 2: Affective Domain)

The facilitator of 'change,' perceiving his self to be the personification of the students, who like him lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' the world stimulates sees it as his duty to 'justify' their (and therefore his) natural inclination to lust. If he can not convert the students into 'justifying' their (and therefore his) natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating his agenda is to manipulate the students into silencing, censoring, removing those students who are getting in his way, i.e., who are "intolerant of ambiguity," i.e., who are "negative" insisting he and the other students think and act like them (as their parents taught them). When he says "It is not about you" when you question his actions he is saying "It is all about me, so I can lust after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, i.e. 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.'"

The facilitator of 'change' focuses upon his and the students "feelings" (dopamine emancipation), that the current situation and or people or person is stimulating, i.e., that the world is stimulating—reasoning from what they are lusting after, i.e., from what they covet, i.e., from their self interest—building relationship with one another based upon their common self interests, i.e., their lusts. The traditional educator on the other hand focuses upon the students doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth—reasoning from what they have been taught, i.e., told—separating themselves from those who do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., who, lusting after the things of the world do not do as they are told. The traditional educator replicates the father's/Father's authority system, teaching students to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth while the facilitator of 'change' comes between the children and their father/Father, 'justifying,' i.e., establishing their own and the children's natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating, establishing themselves (the facilitator of 'change' and the children), i.e., their self interest, i.e., their lusts over and therefore against the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., establishing their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint (hatred toward the father's/Father's authority) over and therefore against their having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, 'justifying' their questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority (removing the father's/father's authority from the environment) so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., lust after the carnal pleasures of the world without having a guilty conscience (a product of the father's/Father's authority), with everyone's approval aka affirmation. When it comes to the difference between the facilitator of 'change' and the traditional educator (as far as structure of thought goes) one verse (amongst many) stands out, 1 John 2:16.

"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

In other words, according to Karl Marx it is lust that "reconciles" the individual to the world, i.e., to what is "actual" (to all there is), not the father's/Father's authority (which divides the individual from the world—while living in the world the individual, living according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth is not living of it, i.e., according to it). If stimulus-response, i.e., only that which is "of the world," i.e., lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint is all there is to life, i.e., is the "norm," i.e., is "the actual" then anyone inhibiting or blocking (judging, condemning, casting out those who) lust, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system must be removed from the environment in order (as in "new" world order) for everyone to lust, i.e., to be "normal," i.e., to become "actualized" ("self-actualized") without having a guilty conscience (which is a product of the father's/Father's authority system).

". . . prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) Caps in the original. Bion is of Tavistock—British version of the American National Training Laboratories; A definition of Tavistock by Tavistock. (Clear cookies before accessing.) KNOWING inhibits 'discovering' it for your self (from the world only).

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

This is Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of the flesh without the law of the father/Father getting in the way. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

"Obedience and compliance are hardly ideal goals." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

All educators are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom—the theme is common to all social "sciences," if the individual, i.e., the student is to become his self, i.e., in harmony with his carnal nature he must 'liberate' his self from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system.

"Every time we teach a child something, we keep him from discovering it himself." (Jean Piaget, Swiss psychologist, 1896 - 1980)

"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: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

While Rogers included Marx in this list (which I left out) he did so because, to the "transformational" Marxist the agenda was not to just teach, i.e., inculcate Marxism, as "traditional," hard line, National, i.e., "traditional" Communist do (thus retaining the "top-down" father's/Father's authority system) but for the students to "experience" being Marx themselves ("sense experience," i.e., lusting after the things of the world without being judged, condemned, cast out itself being the key to 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority system). People think Communism was defeated when the Berlin wall came down when in truth it had succeeded (in overcoming National Communism aka traditional Marxism, i.e., Fascism—which is the same as Nationalism in the eyes of "transformational" Marxists). The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is Marxism ("Transformational" Marxism, i.e., the facilitation of 'change') being but into praxis, i.e., is the participants "experiencing," i.e., "becoming" Karl Marx themselves, directly effecting the outcome of the meeting or classroom experience, 'changing' the Nation and the world. The very act of participation is the outcome, i.e., to participate is to "become" Karl Marx in thought (theoretically) and in action (practically).

"It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education)

In other words, according to those "of and for self and the world" it is not doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., "top-down" authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (that get in the way of man's impulses and urges of the 'moment' that the world stimulates) that establishes order but everyone "experiencing" what all mankind has in common, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, i.e., that which is only "of the world."

"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, it is not individualism, i.e., the individual having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his self in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will that "fulfills the individual" but rather what he has in common with society, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, i.e., that which is only "of the world." According to Karl Marx, i.e., according to those "of and for self and the world," i.e., according to the facilitator of 'change' it is not the father's/Father's authority system (the "old" world order)—that holds every individual personally accountable (for his thoughts and actions, i.e., behavior) to the father/Father, i.e., to the father's/Father's established commands, rule, facts, and truth (engendering individualism, under God), holding every individual accountable to that which is external to and contrary to, i.e., restraining his carnal nature—that establishes order but what all individuals have in common, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., that which is only "of the world" (engendering "common-ism").

"Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung; english: Reasoning and Self-Preservation)

Max Horkheimer was a member of and for a time director of the "Frankfurt School." He noted that it was the Protestant Reformation, i.e., "the priesthood of all believers," "doing your best as unto the Lord," "putting no man between you and the Lord God" that engendered individualism under God—the nemeses to socialism, i.e., to the facilitation of 'change.' Seems to be is not the same as is. When you make seems to be, i.e., "sense experience," i.e., perception the foundation from which determine right and wrong behavior you negate what "is," i.e., that which is above human nature, restraining it, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., the father's/Father's authority system.

"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)

"Relationship built upon self interest," i.e., upon "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," 'justifying' the child's natural inclination to lust after the pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates and hate restraint (the restrainer), i.e., "behavior science" is the hallmark of Marxism, i.e., is the agenda of the facilitator of 'change,' making all participants friends "of the world," i.e., an "enemy of God."

"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 4:4

Anyone establishing the child's behavior, i.e., doing right and not wrong upon "science" (engendering "behavior science"), i.e., upon that which "only . . . proceeds from Nature," i.e., which is only "of the world," i.e., upon the child's "sensuous needs," i.e., his "lust of the flesh," the child's "sense perception," i.e., his "lust of the eyes," and the child's "sense experience," i.e., his "pride of life," i.e., upon what all children have in common—their natural inclination to lust is an enemy of the father/Father, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (the system itself).

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21

When "behavior science," i.e., "science falsely so called" is applied to the child, the father's/Father's authority is negated in the child's thoughts, directly effecting his actions. When "science" is applied to human behavior, the soul, i.e., that which is accountable before God is replaced with lust, i.e., self interest, i.e., human nature, damning the soul.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

"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

In this way of thinking, "sense experience," i.e., making behavior subject to "science," i.e., to that which is only "of the world," i.e., "behavioral science" replaces (negates) faith, i.e., negates the individual having to do the father's/Father's will, turning him against God.

"A democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority." "God is the source of corruption in individuals." (John Dewey, Democracy and Education)

In other word the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., that which divides people based upon who is doing the father's/Father's will and who is not must be removed from the environment in order for all to become one, i.e., united upon what they have in common, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., only that which is "of the world."

"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." (Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed) Freire was a Marxist (in Brazil).

As the Brazilian Marxist, Paulo Freire explained it, anyone forcing the child to obey established commands, rules, facts, and truth (that prevent the child from 'discovering' for his self, according to his carnal nature, i.e., that "prevent human freedom" to lust) is "guilty of oppressive violence." This all in defense of the child's, i.e., Freire's naturally inclination to "lust . . .."

The law of the flesh vs the law of the Father.

"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

When you KNOW what you are doing is wrong (having been told) and you do it anyway, that is your flesh revealing your lust, i.e., the law of sin. By making knowing subject to "sense experience," i.e. to how the students feel or perceive things to be (their opinion), KNOWING by being told, which engenders a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after the things of the world is negated (in the thoughts of the students).

"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

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:3, 2

Reject the Father's authority, i.e., leave the Father out, as the facilitator of 'change' does (he might say he recognizes the father's/Father's authority but in practice must deny it if he is to praxis the process of 'change' or else he must repent), and all you have is the law of the flesh, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" being 'justified.' While the traditional educator might not accept the Father as his authority he uses the father's/Father's authority system itself, i.e., he holds his student's accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth he tells them in the classroom.

"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." (Rogers)

Quotations (statements) by facilitator's of 'change' (examples 1, 2, 3; with many more given below) are being carried out today in the home, in education, in the workplace, the media, the medical profession, the marketplace, etc., in law enforcement and the courts, in the neighborhood, township, state, and nation's government, and even in the "church," i.e., anywhere where policy is being established and rules are being made, in opposition to the Word of God, i.e., to the Father's authority, directly effecting your thoughts and actions. Which one you turn to for direction, i.e., to the facilitator of 'change,' 'justifying' the child's (your) natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., dopamine emancipation that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating (imagined or real), and hate (questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking) anyone who inhibits or blocks him from becoming his self, i.e., who prevents his lusts from becoming "actualized"—thereby negating his having a guilty conscience, i.e., fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out, which the father's/Father's authority system engenders (from now on abbreviated "lust . . ." or "lusting . . .") or to the Word of God, accepting and proclaiming the father's/Father's authority (the system itself—despite the earthly father being formed of the earth, i.e., being subject to "lusting . . ." he has the same "top-down" authority system [as does the traditional educator] as the Heavenly Father, authoring commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is and obeyed, enforcing them, with the Heavenly Father in authority over all), who insists those under his/His authority do what/as they are told, i.e., humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do right and not wrong according to his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth, holding them accountable (correcting, reproving, chastening, or casting them out) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting . . ." (from now on abbreviated to "do or doing the father's/Father's will") directly effects (under the Heavenly Father's authority) where you will spend eternity, i.e., the there-and-then (with the earthly father determining whether you will receive any inheritance from him or not).

"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." Jeremiah 6:16 Chasing after dopamine emancipation, i.e., the "eternal present," i.e., becoming, as a drug addict, intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed by lust, the child will find no rest for his soul.

"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

The facilitator of 'change' establishes the child, i.e., human nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth while the traditional educator requires the child to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his self in order to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., in order to do what he is told.

"The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father'/Father's authority to become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), "of and for self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

"Flee also youthful lusts:" 2 Timothy 2:22

Facilitation of 'change' is based upon the child's (and the facilitator of 'change's') natural inclination to "lust . . .," 'liberating' the child (and the facilitator of 'change') from having to "do the father's/Father's will," negating the father's/Father's authority in his (or her) thoughts, directly effecting his actions. The father's authority in the home and in the classroom (traditional education) is under attack for the simple reason it trains children to KNOW right from wrong from being told, rewarding those who obey and do things right, chastening or casting out (grounding or expelling) those who disobey and/or do things wrong (after being told).

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3

"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4

Doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, taken into the workplace, i.e., doing the boss's will, i.e., doing what you are told is essential if you want to be employed, making it difficult if not impossible for those "lusting . . ." to be hired or if hired to keep their jobs (not be fired). Therefore for those "of and for the world," i.e., for the facilitator of 'change' if they are to "lust . . ." without being judged, reproved, condemned, and/or cast out, the father's/Father's authority must be removed from the environment, i.e., from the home, from the classroom, and from the workplace.

"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity [from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, truth, changing their position only when persuaded with facts and truth], though such a process is indeed possible [in other words, "We do not want to think about/focus on/accept that way of thinking"]. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness [from belief, i.e., faith and obedience to theory, i.e., opinion], from rigid structure to flow [from "What does the father/Father want me to do?" to "What do I want to do?" and "What will 'the group' think?"], from stasis to process [from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth to self (lust) 'justification']." "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships [with those who are deviant, i.e., doing wrong, disobeying, sinning], which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others [those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning], guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing [his lust for pleasure (to lust) and his lust for "the group's" affirmation, 'justifying' his lusts]– he has become an integrated process of changingness [stimulus-response]." (Rogers)

"All individuals (organisms) exist in a continually changing world of experience (phenomenal field) of which they are the center." (Carl Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy)

"A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum." (Adorno) This in its very act (praxis) negates the father's/Father's authority, i.e., right and wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, making everything subject to the sensation of the 'moment,' i.e., right being that which stimulates pleasure, wrong being that which inhibits or blocks it, stimulating hate.

"The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) There is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth, when it comes to right and wrong behavior in praxis. The name for the National test for teachers is Praxis.

If "behavior science," i.e., stimulus-response, i.e., lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint is the bases of life then the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth must be removed from the environment. This is the duty of the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the change agent.

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 ['change']." (Ronald Havelock, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education)

"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. It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment." (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969, Behavior Science in Teacher Education—commonly referred to as BSTEP) Lust blinds you to where it is really taking you, to what it will cost you in the end, i.e., the price you will pay with your soul. All Federal Education Grants are subject to this Grant. The book "1984" was a result of this grant, exposing what is in it. In other words, if you participate you will not know what hit you until it is to late, i.e., 'change' has already taken place (and there is no going back).

Marxism and psychology have this in common: 'justification' of the children's natural inclination to "lust . . .," negating in their mind their having to "do the father's/Father's will," directly effecting their behavior. By facilitators of 'change' 'justifying' the children's natural inclination to "lust . . .," negating in their mind their having to "do the father's/Father's will," all they have in outcome (in the end) is children following after, serving, defending, protecting, praising, and worshiping them, affirming and therefore 'justifying' their use of them (as "natural resource" aka "human resources") to satisfy their natural inclination to "lust . . .," without the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment getting in the way. This is why Marxism is so popular amongst the "disenfranchised" youth—of all ages—who think what they lust after they are entitled to. Marxists, i.e., facilitators of 'change' are totally focused upon negating the father's/Father's authority so children, "lusting . . ." will follow after, serve, support, protect, defend, praise, and worship them. "What can I get out of the current situation and/or people or person present, for my self ?" and "What will happen to me if they reject and/or turn on me?" is at the heart of those being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by the facilitator of 'change.'

Sigmund Freud had the same agenda as Karl Marx. While Karl Marx focused upon society, Sigmund Freud focused upon the individual, with both negating the father's/Father's authority in the person's/"the peoples" thoughts, directly effecting their actions.

"'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/father no longer exercises his God given authority in the home]." "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." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)

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 (cast out by the father for his immoral (perverse) behavior) joining with his "friends," returning home, killing the father, taking all that was his (the father's), using it to satisfy their carnal desires, i.e., their "lusts," killing all the fathers in the land so all the children could be the same, i.e., like them, thereby affirming them, i.e., their "incest," 'justifying' and supporting their control over them, living off their labor.

"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." "Freud saw that in the id there is no negation [no parental authority, i.e., no Godly restraint, i.e., no "can not," "must not," "Thou shalt not"], only affirmation and eternity [only the child's/student's natural inclination to "lust . . ."]." "Children have not acquired that sense of shame which, according to the Biblical story, expelled mankind from Paradise, and which, presumably, would be discarded if Paradise were regained [if "lusting . . ." becomes the agenda, i.e., the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life]." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination [on doing the father's/Father's will]." "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 [in his urges and impulses of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world] unconvinced, and therefore neurotic [caught between his desire for parental approval and his lust for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, having a guilty conscience for thinking about or doing the latter]." "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 ['liberated' from the guilty conscience, requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"Marxian theory [society] needs Freudian-type instinct theory [man's natural inclination "lust . . ."] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions ['liberation' of "self," i.e., lust from the father's/Father's authority] are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions [submission of "self" to the father's/Father's authority] 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)

"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) After therapy, i.e., after participating in the facilitated, "group grade" classroom he asks himself, "What will 'the group' think?"

Maslow's solution to the "authoritarian character" in his classroom was: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [students who are loyal to the father's/Father's authority system] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Maslow, Journals) After lecturing at Sacred Heart (a Catholic Nunnery in California) he wrote in his journal: "They shouldn't applaud me. They should attack me. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would attack." Once he had children of his own he wrote in his journal (regarding his children getting him into "conflict" over his own theory): "Who should teach whom?" (children adults or adults children), describing the "conflict" as being over his education theory: "I've been in continuous conflict over this Esalen-type, orgiastic, Dionysian-type education." Maslow was referring to curriculum being used in the classroom known as "Bloom's Taxonomies." All educators are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., Marxist curriculum in the classroom.

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are ". . . a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values . . . which are not shaped by the parents." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"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." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Benjamin Bloom simply paraphrased Karl Marx's ideology "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred" (without giving him credit—for obvious reason).

"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. . .." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.'" (Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Pandora's Box" is a container full of evils, which once opened can not be closed. Once the "lid," i.e., parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again.

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (Book 2: Affective Domain)

That which comes naturally to the child (child or children from now on also means man or mankind), i.e., "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., that which "the world" stimulates, i.e., stimulus-response, i.e., that which is observable and definable (and therefore 'justified') by "scientists," i.e. "behavioral scientists,"​​​​​ i.e., facilitators of 'change' "is of the world" and "is not of the Father"—who tells the child what is right and what is wrong behavior, holding him accountable for his thoughts and actions, i.e., for his behavior, rewarding him when he does right (according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth which he has been taught, i.e., told), chastening him when he does wrong (that he might repent and do right, i.e., do the father's/Father's will). The child's carnal nature, i.e., that which is stimulated by "the world" is 'justified' by those "of and for the world," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' who either, uniting children on their carnal nature "convert" them, i.e., 'liberate' them from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., from having to do the father's/Father's will or silence, censor, and/or cast them out for remaining 'loyalty' to the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., for judging, reproving, condemning, and/or rejecting children (and the facilitator of 'change') for their rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., for not doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., for "lusting . . .." That which is taught and enforced by the traditional educator, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (indicative of the father's/Father's authority system) results in children refusing to fellowship with and follow after children who are doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., who are lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. One way of thinking, i.e., reasoning is structured after that which is "of the world," i.e., stimulus-response (where children and the facilitator of 'change' are concerned about their "feelings," i.e., their self interests, i.e., their lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating—first and foremost), focusing upon the here-and-now, directly effecting what they are thinking on and/or doing in the 'moment.' The other after the father's/Father's authority, i.e., being held accountable for what they have been told (the consequence of doing wrong and not right according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth), focusing upon the there-and-then, directly effecting what they are thinking on and/or doing in the 'moment.'

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

The facilitator of 'change,' focusing upon the things of the world, i.e., his (and the carnally minded child's) "feelings," i.e., his lusts of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating rejects the there-and-then, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to what he has been told, wanting all, affirming his and their carnal nature to follow, support, praise, protect, and worship him—for 'justifying' their carnal nature. The traditional educator, although he might not know the Lord as his savior recognizes the there-and-then in his structure of thought, teaching there is, according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth a consequence for your (and his) thoughts and actions—according to being told. God demands that you considers the there-and-then (where you will spend eternity) in the here-and-now, for your soul sake.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Corinthians 5:10

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:18

"[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12

"[B]y the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:6

The soul vs the flesh—the difference between being told and experiencing/discovering it for your self.

The soul KNOWS by being told. The flesh by "sense experience."

"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

When God "formed" (created) Adam He made him unlike any other living thing in the creation, i.e., He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" making him "a living soul." He then "commanded" (told) him what he could and could not do (what He did with no other creature in the creation), i.e., He told him what was right and what was wrong behavior, i.e., which trees he could eat the fruit of and which one he could not (lest he die).

"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

If you reason from what you have been told, right and wrong are objective, i.e., you are subject to the father's/Father's authority system. If your reason from your self, i.e., from your self interest, i.e., from your lusts, right and wrong are subjective, i.e., you are subject to whoever 'justifies' your carnal nature. Your ability to reason comes from God, choosing to either use it to do His will, i.e., do what He commands (do what you are told) or do your will, i.e., 'justify' your self, i.e., your lusts instead, something no animal does (it can not be evolved). You have to lower yourself to an animal, i.e., to one of Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats, or Pavlov's dog in order to participate. Romans 1:18-32

No animal, which are all subject only to stimulus-response (approach pleasure - avoid pain) and impulses and urges (instincts) can read or write a book, i.e., can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior, i.e., what they can and can not do. By making the child subject to stimulus-response (to only that which is of the world, i.e., "behavior science," i.e., the "cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor domains," i.e., to the child's "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life," i.e., "only" that which "is of the world"—what the facilitator of 'change' does) the child is (deceptively) equated to an animal (approach pleasure and avoid pain) denying the fact that the child does what animals can not do, i.e., reason from being told, which requires faith in the one giving him commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted and obeyed. For the facilitator of 'change' if the child is to "'think' for his self," i.e., is to 'discover' for himself what is right and what is wrong behavior he must "reason" from his perception of what is and what is not in the world before him (as the woman did in the garden in Eden)—with the "help" of the facilitator of 'change.'

"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 neurolinguistc construct (an imbedded question in a statement, beginning the process of liberating a person's lust out from under their fear of judgment)—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 [her lust revealed], lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die [removing the "negative," i.e., fear of judgment (which was not a lie regarding the here-and now, i.e., the tree itself did not 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," then after death coming judgment, i.e., eternal life or eternal death)]: 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. 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, i.e., her understanding], 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.

The 'moment' the master facilitator of 'change' got the woman into dialogue, regarding right and wrong behavior he "owned" her. (The effect of dialogue, when it comes to knowing right from wrong behavior is covered in greater detail below.) By "helping" her to openly share her carnal desire, i.e., her lust of the 'moment' (to "touch" the "Thou shalt not" tree), in a non-judgmental, i.e., "Ye shall not surely die" ("positive") environment he was able to open her mind up to the "possibilities," i.e., to her "full potential." In this way, the woman, dissatisfied with not having what she wanted, taking council from the master facilitator of 'change' became the first "scientist" ("behavioral scientist"), evaluating the situation via her "senses"—establishing "human nature," i.e., what she understood (from her senses), i.e., stimulus-response over and therefore against the "Father's," i.e., God's authority, i.e., over and therefore against being told. Then putting it into praxis, i.e., acting on it (the devil did not "make her do it," i.e., we all choose) she "resolved" the 'crisis,' i.e., "the problem" without God and His Word getting in the way (which, according to those "of and for the world," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' is "the problem"). Adam, lusting (following) after the woman instead of obeying the "Father," i.e., instead of doing the "Father's" will likewise established his carnal nature, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life" i.e., that which the world stimulates, i.e., stimulus-response as his basis for determining right and wrong behavior. 'Liberated' (in their mind) from the "Father's" authority they became their self without restraint (without the "Father's" authority, i.e., without established commands, rules, facts, and truth getting in the way of their lust), i.e., they become self actualized.

Who told you?

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. . . . I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?" (excerpts from Genesis 3:8-11) emphasis added.

Rejecting being told (when it comes to right and wrong behavior, i.e., to what you can and can not do), turning to stimulus-response, i.e., "reasoning" from the flesh leads to sin. The liberal's response is not to admit he is wrong, i.e., is to blame someone else or the situation (the environment) for his "bad" behavior—since there is only stimulus-response (in his mind).

"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." Genesis 3:12, 13

When confronted with their sin's, i.e., their lusts they became the first 'liberals.' Instead of showing remorse for their sins and repenting they ('justifying' their self, i.e., their lusts) blamed the situation and someone else for their "bad" behavior, with Adam blaming the woman—"throwing her under the bus" (along with God for creating her, i.e., for creating an "unhealthy environment" for him to live in)—and the woman blaming the Serpent, i.e., the master facilitator of 'change'—"throwing him under the bus" for "helping" her 'justify' her lusts.

To understand the facilitator of 'change' you must KNOW what the Word of God says about him, i.e., why he wants you to turn to him for direction instead of it.

For those "of and for the world," i.e., for the facilitator of 'change' instead of reasoning from what you KNOW, i.e., from what you have been told you are to "Reason" from your "senses" that the world stimulates, i.e., from how you "feel" and what you "think" in the 'moment' (according to the flesh, which the situation and/or people are [or tree is] stimulating) making you a god amongst gods (which makes right and wrong behavior subject to your lusts). A traditional educator focuses upon the child learning, i.e., accepting and obeying/applying established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., upon the child doing the father's/Father's will, resulting in the child KNOWING right from wrong from being told. Although the earthly father and traditional educator can be wrong regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth being taught it is the authority system itself that is of issue here—with the Heavenly Father, having the same authority system (He originated it, establishing His authority over all), never being wrong. A facilitator of 'change,' on the other hand focuses upon the child's and his carnal nature, i.e., upon that which is "of the world," making the child's and his behavior, i.e., knowing right from wrong subject to "science," i.e., to "the world," i.e., to "sense experience," i.e., to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's and his thoughts, directly effecting his and the child's actions, resulting in the child and him lusting after the things of the world without having a guilty conscience (which is a product of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., being told).

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3

"Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:16, 17

God's righteousness, i.e., doing the Father's will, i.e., doing what you have been told is not the same as the righteousness of man, i.e., doing your will, i.e., doing what (according to you carnal nature) makes you "feel" "good," i.e. like God. Only God is good (according to his holiness).

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12

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

"This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." James 3:15

"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

It is all about 'change.' As quoted above and bares being repeated (since it is the agenda of the facilitator of 'change'): "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Inscribed on Karl Marx's tomb (so it must be important). In other words, according to Karl Marx and the facilitator of 'change' it is lust that 'reconciles' the child to the world, i.e., self is actualized in lust and the world that stimulates it. Having rejected the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having rejected being told Karl Marx could only perceive (and therefore advocate) that it was parents/traditional educators (as "philosophers," "interpreting" how children are to think and act, forcing their established commands, rules, facts, and truth upon them) who prevented the children, i.e., the "proletariat" from becoming at-one-with their self (individually) and at-one-with one another (socially). Therefore according to Karl Marx, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' the child can only know his self in the "light" of what he has in common with other children, i.e., in the "light" of his and their canal nature, i.e., in the "light" of his and their natural inclination to "lust . . .."

"Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." "[H]e is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:18, 22

"... it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

Those "of and for the world," i.e., facilitators of 'change' have an agenda, 'liberating' children (themselves) from the father's/Father's authority so they can be their "self," "lusting . . ." without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without having any sense of accountability to a "higher authority" other than to those who think and act like them (negating Romans 7:14-25—the guilty conscience, i.e., fear of judgment, i.e., condemnation for disobeying the Father, requiring the need of a savior—since man can not save himself from himself). According to the facilitator of 'change' man can not become his self, united as one, thinking and acting in harmony with his carnal nature, and the world that stimulates it while the father's/Father's authority directs his thoughts and therefore his actions.

"The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (Lukács)

For the Marxist, i.e., for the facilitator of 'change,' as long as parents, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system remains in control over the child, telling him what he can and can not do ("forcing" their established commands, rules, facts, and truth upon him), the child is "prevented from finding [his] definition within" the other children, i.e., i.e., in what he and they have in common, i.e., in their natural inclination "to lust . . .."

"In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it [a patriarchal culture] is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." "In our democratic society, any enterprise―any individual―has its obligations to the whole." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow On Management)

"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture [their parent's/God's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system]. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Higher Reaches Of Human Nature)

"In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The 'natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society)

"The current generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to learn from grandparents;" (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)

The praxis of "quality": For the facilitator of 'change' (and those who follow after him, i.e., who think and act like him) quality is not the durability or dependability of a product but the praxis of "lusting . . .," i.e., the "quality" of relationship children have with one another (not judging, condemning, rejecting one another based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., having to do the father's/Father's will). "In short, philosophy as theory ["Reasoning" from lust] finds the 'ought' [lust] implied within the 'is' [within the here-and-now, i.e., within the 'moment'], and as praxis [setting aside (negating) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment, i.e., the there-and-then] seeks to make the two coincide [making "lust" the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose']." (Comment by Joseph O'Malley, Ed. of Karl Marx's, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:22-24 (see Ephesians 4:22-5:13)

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [the Greek word for deeds is praxis];" Colossians 3:9 The "old man" "lusts . . ." (which is 'justified by the facilitator of 'change'). The "new man" does the father's/Father's will, i.e., does what he is told (which is reinforced in traditional education—while the traditional educator might not accept the Lord as his savior, he might even deny Him, he holds the children accountable to His system of authority). The facilitator of 'change' does not have to attack religion, i.e., the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., traditional education (the traditional educator) all he has to do is 'create' an environment where the "old man," i.e., lust can function without fear of judgment, condemnation, and being cast out and the children will attack religion, i.e., the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., traditional education (the traditional educator) for him.

Whoever defines terms for you controls your life. Either those "of and for the world," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' defines terms for you, 'justifying' your and his natural inclination "to lust . . ." or God the Father defines terms for you, telling you how you are to think and act (reflected in the earthly father's authority and traditional education—Hebrews 12:5-11—where the use of chastening, when the child does wrong, disobeys, sins, i.e., "lusts . . ." "yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.").

Stimulus-response requires the negation of the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the removal of parental authority (and traditional education) from the environment—so children, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' can be his self, "lusting . . ." without having a guilty conscience. 'Change,' according to the facilitator of 'change' is not the child being converted, i.e., the child no longer doing his will but doing his parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's will, i.e., concerned about the there-and-then (the consequence of his thoughts and actions) no longer "lusting . . .." but doing what he has been told instead. For the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., for those "of and for the world," i.e., for those making behavior subject to stimulus-response, i.e., to the here-and-now 'change' is instead a product of the child's carnal natural, i.e., the child's natural inclination to "lust . . .," i.e., to approach pleasure and avoid pain (which includes the pain of missing out on pleasure). If the father/Father is in control of the environment (reflected in traditional education) then children are divided between those who are doing what they are told, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will and those who are doing their will instead, i.e., doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., "lusting . . .." If the facilitator of 'change' is in control of the environment (reflected in contemporary/transformational education), converting, silencing, censoring, and/or removing those children who continue to adhere to the father's/Father's authority then the children who follow after him and willingly participate are united upon their carnal nature, i.e., their natural inclination to "lust . . .."

Traditional educators recognize, reflect, and enforce the father's/Father's authority (the system itself) which divides children between those who are doing what they are told, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will and those who are not—which engenders prejudice against the children who are "lusting . . .," dividing them from whose who are doing the father's will, alienating them. According to the facilitator of 'change' prejudice, division, and alienation are therefore a product of the father's/Father's authority system, engendering nationalism, i.e., division and war between people and nations. Therefore, only by children building relationship with one another (upon their common self interests, i.e., upon their lusts) can the father's/Father's authority be negated in their thoughts, directly effecting their actions, negating prejudice, division, and alienation (resulting in prejudice from then on being against the father's/Father's authority, division being between those who adhere to the father's/Father's authority and those question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack it, alienating those who adhere to it from society, i.e., from "the group"—resulting in them having to suffer and endure the facilitator of 'change's and "the group's," i.e., "the people's" disapproval and rejection, i.e., condemnation, i.e., being labeled as "unfit," a resister of 'change,' not a "team player," etc.). To the facilitator of 'change' prejudice, division, and alienation began in a garden in Eden where the "Father," demanding that His "children" do as they were told, cast them out for their disobedience, i.e., for "lusting . . .." (Genesis 3:1-6—where the master facilitator of 'change' made his first appearance in the lives of the "children," 'liberating' them from the "Father's" authority so they could "lust . . ." without having a guilty conscience.)

"Sin is the estrangement of man from man." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) "Sin," for the facilitator of 'change' is anyone judging others and separating themselves from them because of their carnal thoughts and carnal actions, engendering "alienation." "Alienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) For the facilitator of 'change' pleasing others must therefore replace any desire to please God if the child is to become his self, i.e., is to think and act according to his carnal nature. "Concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God." (Wheat). Sin, for God is your "lusting . . ." instead of pleasing Him, i.e., doing His will. "Do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 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 6:14-18

Facilitators of 'change,' displacing the father's/Father's authority system take the place of the father/Father in the classroom. Instead of authoring and enforcing commands, rules, facts, and truth that are hostile (are "negative") to the child's carnal nature they "suggest" that the children, i.e., "the group" come up with commands, rules, facts, and 'truth' that are in line with (are "positive" to) their carnal nature, letting them, i.e., the children, i.e., "the group," 'justifying' their natural inclination to "lust . . ." enforce them, i.e., pressure the "negative" children to either be "positive" or be rejected by "the group," thereby negating the father's/Father's authority system in the thoughts of the children, directly effecting their actions. "Appropriate information" is that which 'justifies' the child's carnal nature, i.e., is "positive" to the child. "Inappropriate information" is that which inhibits or blocks the child from becoming his self, i.e., that prevents him from thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, i.e., is "negative" to the child. The facilitator of 'change' recognizes, reflects, and enforces only that which all children have in common, i.e., their natural inclination to "lust . . .," i.e., "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," aka "physical, mental, and social health" aka the "cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor domains" aka stimulus-response, i.e., that which is only "of the world" (treating all that is not carnally understood as a "phenomena"), making their and the children's natural inclination to "lust . . ." right and the father's/Father's authority system wrong (to be rejected and removed from the environment, i.e., from the classroom, i.e., from "the group" meeting, i.e., from society—in order for children to become their self, according to their natural inclination to "lust . . ."). Instead of humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating his self in order "to do the Father's will," insisting others do the same the facilitator of 'change' 'justifies' "the group's" and therefore his natural inclination to "lust . . .," establishing his self, i.e., his lusts, i.e., his self interest over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. Having 'liberated' his self from having to do the father's/Father's will the facilitator of 'change' and those following after him are 'justified' in their mind in questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority, removing anyone who gets in the way of their "lusting . . ." (including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous), without having a guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders), with each other's approval, i.e., affirmation.

"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 [lust] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

"Every one that is proud in heart [who establishes his self, i.e., his natural inclination to "lust . . ." over and therefore against the Father's authority] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

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

Your heart, thinking pleasure (dopamine emancipation), i.e., lust is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will hates anyone preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that it is lusting after. It can not see its hatred toward the father's/Father's authority as being evil, i.e., "wicked," i.e., "desperately wicked" because its lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. (Mark 7:21-23) The child is not in love with the toy. He is in love with the dopamine emancipation that the toy stimulates, hating (even striking out against) anyone who takes (or attempts to take) it way from him.

"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." James 4:1-3 (Read James chapters 4 and 5 for the total picture.)

The guilty conscience vs the "super-ego."

Traditional education (traditional educators), i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., "doing the father's/Father's will" engenders a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting . . .," i.e., engenders individualism, under authority, i.e., under God (all authority, the system itself, i.e., having to do what/as you are told is of God).

"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:'" (Brown) A definition of the guilty conscience from a Marxist's perspective.

Transformational education, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., 'justifying' the child's (their) carnal nature, i.e., the child's (their) natural inclination to "lust . . ." engenders the "super-ego." The "super-ego" is the child's natural dissatisfaction with authority, i.e., with having to do as he was/is told, both in the past and in the present, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting . . .."

". . .the superego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" (Brown)

When it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior the facilitator of 'change' knows when you remove (from the environment, i.e., from the classroom) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of being judged, condemned, and/or cast out (rejected) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting . . ." the guilty conscience is negated.

"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 (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality)

Removing the father's/Father's authority from the environment, i.e., from the classroom, i.e., from the students' thoughts (when it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior)' creates' an environment in which they can 'discover' what they have in common—establishing their carnal nature, i.e., their natural inclination to "lust . . ." over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., over and therefore against having to do what they are told—directly effecting their actions.

Discussion vs dialogue.

The traditional educators focus upon students learning and obeying established commands and rules, accepting and applying established facts and truth. Therefore traditional educators go to discussion (when students have any questions regarding what they have been told, i.e., regarding right and wrong behavior) in order to sustain established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to sustain their position of authority, i.e., in order to have the final say.

"In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

Discussion emanates from established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Discussion divides upon either being/doing right or being/doing wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., KNOWING from being told, which is formal, i.e., judgmental. The father/Father retains his authority in discussion, i.e., has the final say, i.e., "Because I said so," "Never the less," "It is written." Majority vote retains the father's/Father's authority system although the father might lose out on the particular issue at hand.

The facilitator's of 'change,' on the other hand focus upon the student's (and his) "feelings," making commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to his "sense experiences" of the past and the present, i.e., to his "sensuous needs" ("lust of the flesh") and "sense perception" ("lust of the eyes") i.e., to his natural inclination to "lust . . .." If the student has any questions regarding right and wrong behavior the facilitators of change goes to dialogue, i.e., to the student's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' that the current situation and or people or person is stimulating in order to 'liberate' the student (and himself) from the father's/Father's authority system.

"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)

Dialogue emanates from the child's (and the facilitator of 'change's) "feelings," i.e., from his "I feel" and/or "I think," i.e., from his opinion, which is informal, i.e., non-judgmental. The child (and the facilitator of 'change) retains his carnal nature in dialogue, i.e., has the final say against authority, i.e., against absolutes that get in the way of his natural inclination to "lust . .," i.e., against the father's/Father's authority (system). There is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is only the child's (and the facilitator of 'change's) natural inclination to "lust . . ." being 'justified.' Dialogue moves opinions to a consensus, negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience it engenders in the process.

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

At a buffet you discuss with your self and/or others what is good for you to eat and what is not good for you to eat. You dialogue with your self and/or with others what you like and do not like. If you want to eat something that you like, that is bad for you to eat you dialogue with your self and/or with others. If you discuss it with your self and/or with others you will more than likely not eat it. By bringing dialogue ("I feel" and "I think") into a environment establishing what is right and what is wrong behavior the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "obedience to law," i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth is negated. What You Lose In Dialogue.

"Change in organization [from 'loyalty' to the father/Father to 'loyalty' to "the group" and the facilitator of 'change'] can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior [between dialogue and discussion, which when used together (in establishing right and wrong behavior) engenders confusion i.e., cognitive dissonance—"The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief" (Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology)]." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development) By moving communication in the classroom away from discussion, which retains the father's/Father's position, i.e., absolutes toward dialogue, which reveals the participants carnal desires, when it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior the individual and the group are moved from 'loyalty' to the father's/Father's authority system to the lusts, i.e., the carnal desires, i.e., the self interests they have in common with one another.

Twenty students, for example, from twenty different homes, with father's who disagree with/differ from one another on personal-social issue (regarding right and wrong behavior) results in twenty students, holding onto their father's position (authority) refusing to get along with one another when it comes to right and wrong behavior (personal-social issues). By switching ("shifting") communication, i.e., curriculum in the classroom from the preaching, teaching, and discussing of established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which are to be learned by faith and obeyed as given, which retains the father's/Father's authority system to the students dialoguing their opinions, i.e., their carnal desires (lusts) of the 'moment,' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or students are stimulating to a common "feeling" of agreement (at least tolerance), i.e., to a consensus, unity negates division.

"Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people." (Mao Zedong)

The agenda of the facilitator of 'change' is to establish dialogue, your "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e., your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating as the means to knowing right from wrong behavior, establishing lust over and therefore against discussion, i.e., what you have been told. His agenda is to 'create' an environment that "prevents someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) Caps are in the original. Bion is of Tavistock—the British version of the National Training Laboratories of America; A definition of Tavistock by Tavistock. (Clear cookies before accessing.)

"Lusting . . .," i.e., what all children have in common engenders socialism (where what "the group thinks" is in control of the child's thoughts, directly effecting his actions)—where "the people" becoming one, not on having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., not in having to do the father's/Father's will but in their carnal nature, i.e., their natural inclination to "lust . . .."

The child's carnal nature, i.e., "lusting . . ." is the basis of common-ism. You build relationship with those around you according to your and their "feelings," i.e., your and their self interests. You fellowship with those around you according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth that you and they have learned and accepted as right or true. You manipulate with "feelings." You persuade with facts and truth. Treating "feelings" as facts (establishing behavior upon "feelings," i.e., upon stimulus-response) makes you subject to "lusting . . .," i.e., makes you subject to manipulation.

When the facilitator of 'change' discovers (through dialogue) the child's lusts of the 'moment' i.e., what he covets and offers to "help" him attain it he has turned the child into 'human resource' (into one of Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats, Pavlov's dog). Gaining his truth (in the child's mind, 'justifying' his lusts he has his "best" interest in mind) he now "owns" him, i.e., he is able to use him to satisfy, support, and defend his lusts.

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." 2 Peter 2:3

The facilitator of 'change' knows that apart from the authority of the Father all the child has is his lust for pleasure—dopamine emancipation—and his lust for the approval aka the affirmation of others, 'justifying' his lusts. The facilitator of 'change' knows he can gain control of the child (who listens to him, i.e., who comes under his influence) when the child no longer fears judgment, damnation, and rejection for his carnal behavior, i.e., for "lust . . .."

"If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do." "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." (Rogers) emphasis added

The heart of the facilitator of 'change.'

The facilitator of 'change,' perceiving his self to be the personification of "the people," who like him "lust . . ." sees it as his duty to 'justify' his (he will say "the people's") natural inclination to "lust . . ," i.e., his self, i.e., his lusts, i.e., his self interests. If he can not convert them, silencing, censoring, removing anyone who gets in his way, i.e., in "the people's" way. When he says "It is not about you" when you question his actions he is saying "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, i.e. 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.'"

For the facilitator of 'change' it is all about money, i.e., stored up dopamine emancipation, i.e., pleasure, i.e., lust. If the father/Father controls it (independent business), the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the Marxist, i.e., the child of disobedience has limited access to it (he can not spend it on his "lusts"). If he gets rid of the father/Father he controls it (he can use it to satisfy his "lusts" without restraint, i.e., without having a guilty conscience). In a didactic world, doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth ties money to doing the father's/Father's will (independent business, i.e., individualism under authority—where you get fired [get cast out of the garden] for your bad behavior, i.e., for not doing what you are told, i.e., for "lusting . . ."). In a dialectic world, doing right and not wrong according to feelings ties money to self interest, i.e., to "lusting . . ." (national-international-corporate-socialist-communist businesses aka "sight based management"), where control of "the people," i.e., "human capital" aka "human resource," i.e., negation of the father's/Father's authority system (independent business) is essential in order to keep the money (entertainment; fancy houses, fancy boats, fancy women, etc., i.e., dopamine emancipation) flowing—the difference between being producer driven (doing the father's/Father's will) and consumer driven ("lusting . . ."). As in traditional education, capitalists reward those who do good work, correcting, reproving, rejecting those who do bad work while in transformational education, socialists aka facilitators of 'change' reward those who think and act like them, i.e., reward those who do bad work as well as behave immorally, i.e., reward the "the improvident, unskilled, and vicious," converting, silencing, censoring, and/or removing anyone who judges, condemns, and/or who attempts to cast them out, i.e., who attempts to remove them from having access to and control of cash, i.e., dopamine emancipation. Facilitator's of 'change' not only lust after the support (financial support) of "the people," in order to fulfill their lusts, they also lust after their praise, i.e., their affirmation.

Regarding 'change' and the facilitator of 'change.'

'Change' is all about negating the father's/Father's authority so children (and the facilitator of 'change') can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can "lust . . ." without having a guilty conscience—with everyone's approval (affirmation). Thus the "need" to convert traditional educators, i.e., turn them into facilitator's of 'change' or remove them from the classroom (from the environment).

"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3)

According to Karl Marx, the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the traditional educators must be negated (either be converted or no longer recognized) if children are to become their self, i.e., only "of the world," i.e., self actualized.

"Once the earthly family [where children have to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family [where the Son of God and those who follow Him humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do the Father's will], the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, i.e., negated] in theory and in practice [in the person's thoughts, directly effecting his or her actions]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

'Change' (as in facilitation of 'change'), i.e., stimulus-response, i.e., "lusting . . ." negates doing what you are told, i.e., negates the father's/Father's authority system. Stimulus-response, i.e., children "lusting . . ." is antithetical "to doing the father's/Father's will."

Both paradigms, i.e., ways of feeling, thinking, and behaving (acting) toward self, others, the world, and authority are political systems (different forms of government), with the father/Father (who authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed and enforces them) correcting and/or chastening the child who is doing or has done wrong or disobeyed or grounds him (casts him out) for rejecting (questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking) his/His authority being at odds with the facilitator of 'change' who 'justifies' the child's (his) natural inclination to "lust . . .," "helping" them 'liberate' their self (and him) from the father's/Father's authority system, thereby initiating and sustaining 'change,' i.e., the system of 'change' itself, engendering anarchy, rebellion, and revolution—overthrowing the father's/Father's authority system in the thoughts of the children, i.e., in "the people," removing anyone who makes them feel guilty for or get in the way of their "lusting . . .," without having a guilty conscience. For those "of and for the world," i.e., for the facilitator of 'change' peace is being able to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., to "lust . . ." without having a guilty conscience, with everybody's approval aka affirmation.

"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 [the opposite of "right" is wrong, not "badly," i.e., an opinion], then peace and affirmation have come to him." (Georg Hegel in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel) "Right" from then on is made subject to opinion, i.e., to his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' (which are subject to the world that is stimulating them) making anyone who questions his "lusting . . ." wrong, thus negating his being held accountable for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth).

Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, etc., i,e., the facilitator of 'change's way of thinking is not new. It is simply being promoted as being a "science," which it is not (as you will see—in those who promote this way of thinking own words). If you start with "human nature," i.e., with stimulus-response, making your natural inclination to "lust . . ." your foundation for "reasoning" then all you will have in the end is only that which is "of the world" (that which is passing away), negating the soul (which is eternal). Where you spend eternity depends upon who you listen to, believe in, and follow.

The consequence of 'change,' i.e., the 'change' process itself.

"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." ". . . the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21)

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:26, 27

The "human nature" is antithetical to the Word of God, i.e., to doing the Father's will.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalms 119:11

The gospel message is all about "doing the Father's will."

"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

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33 ". . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; . . . Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." John 14:9-11 ". . . for my Father is greater than I." John 14:28 "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." John 15:23 ". . . the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" John 18:11 "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine be done." Luke 2:49; 22:42 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." "for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." John 14:16, 17, 20, 26, John 16:7

"But he answered and said, 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

While dad (your earthly father) is not perfect—he may be (or might have been) a down right tyrant (or MIA/AWOL), thinking and acting as a child, "lusting . . ." without restraint (no longer being a loving and caring father, i.e., a benevolent father, being only a "father" in the flesh, "of the world," i.e., for his self interest only)—his office of authority is perfect, having been given to him by God (the Heavenly Father), who is perfect in which to do His will. While the father can be wrong and the child right, regarding an issue it is the office of authority itself that those "of and for the world" are after, i.e., seek to negate. While those having faith in and obeying the father/Father not only humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do the father's/Father's will, they also "encourage" others to do the same (referred to as a Patriarchal paradigm; where a person's feelings, thoughts, and actions toward his self, others, the world, and authority are subject to the father/Father—which inhibits or blocks change, especially rapid change) those "of and for the world," i.e., "of and for self," rejecting (hating) the father's/Father's authority side with the child, i.e., with the child's carnal nature, i.e., with the child's (and their) natural inclination to "lust . . .," establishing "human-'of the earth'-nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (referred to as a Heresiarchal paradigm; where a person's feelings, thoughts, and actions toward his self, others, the world, and authority are subject to his carnal desires, i.e., his lusts and hate of the 'moment' which are ever changing in response to the current situation and/or people present, affirming "lust," rejecting "doing the father's/Father's will"—which initiates and sustains 'change,' i.e., rapid 'change').

"As the Frankfurt School [Theodor Adorno, Erick Fromm, etc., including Kurt Lewin, who edited their newspaper] wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950)

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are ". . . a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values . . . which are not shaped by the parents." "Ordering" "different kinds of affective behavior," i.e., "the range of emotion(s)" "organized into value systems and philosophies of life." "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 [true science is "observable and repeatable," i.e., objective, i.e., constant not "observable and describable," i.e., subject to an opinion, i.e., subject to 'change']." "Only those educational programs which can be specified in terms of intended student behaviors can be classified." "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." "The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box' [a "box" (jar) full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed—once parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment, i.e., "the lid" is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again].' 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 ['liberating' the student's "feelings" from his or her parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [pressuring the student (out of fear of group rejection) to publicly, i.e., in "the group" (for the sake of group approval) question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack, etc., his parents commands, rules, facts, and truth] and getting them to discuss issues [evaluating the world through his carnal desires, i.e., his lusts, i.e., his "self interests" of the 'moment,' that which he has in common with "the group"]." "The affective domain [the student's natural inclination to "lust . . ." and hate restraint] contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain; David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy [true science] 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. . . . observe(able) and discrib(able) therefore classifi(able)." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain) True science is observable and repeatable.

Benjamin Bloom made science (and man) subject to an opinion, i.e., subject to his perception of what "seems to" be (to a theory not yet proven), making man and science subject to 'change,' using force to negate those who do not accept his opinion, i.e., his theory. If you question his taxonomy your job or any promotion you are hoping for is in jeopardy.

Benjamin Bloom dedicated his first Taxonomy to Ralph Tyler, who's student Thomas Kuhn (quoting Max Planck) wrote: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution) Kuhn continued: "If a paradigm [a 'change' in culture, from Patriarch to Heresiarch] is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied" which eventuates "an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances" whereupon "the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." "Thomas S Kuhn spent the year 1958-1959 at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavior Sciences, directed by Ralph Tyler, where he finalized his 'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods.'" "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology [which found its way into the classroom]." (Kuhn)

"Hardheaded arguments" make it difficult if not impossible to respond to this process, especially when those advocating it are in a position of authority—any response with facts and truth will only be perceived as being "argumentative." Ralph Tylor, who was adviser to six U.S. Presidents wrote: "Should the school develop young people to fit into the present society as it is or does the school have a revolutionary mission to develop young people who will seek to improve the society?" Perhaps a modern school would include in its statement [that] it believes that the high ideals of a good society are not adequately realized in our present society and that through the education of young people it hopes to improve society." "The school can also continue its long-accepted role of providing within its environment a democratic society closer to the ideal than the adult community has yet been able to achieve. It can provide a setting in which young people can experience concretely the meaning of our democratic ideals. It is crucially important for children to see firsthand a society that encourages and supports democratic values [negating parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system]." (Ralph W. Tyler, "Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction," Trends in Student Personnel Work)

All Tyler, Bloom, Kuhn, et al. did was 'shift' communication in the classroom from discussion, which holds everyone accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., to limits and measures to dialogue, which makes opinion the outcome, putting theory into practice (praxis), silencing any true scientist who (using established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., limits and measures, i.e., "rule of law") questions and/or rejects the outcome, i.e., who shows the theory to be wrong or questionable.

An Overview of "Bloom's 'Cognitive' Taxonomy:" knowing, comprehending, applying, evaluating, synthesizing, analyzing.

In traditional education, i.e., "old school" knowing is being told, comprehending is understanding you will be held accountable for being or doing wrong, applying is, if you disobey or do wrong, evaluating is, as you are being "taken to the wood shed" you now KNOW you need to do what you are told. Bloom added synthesizing and analyzing (the children 'reasoning,' i.e., evaluating, i.e., aufheben right and wrong behavior from their "affective domain," i.e., from their flesh and the world around them that stimulates it aka stimulus-response) negating "doing the father's/Father's will" in the students thoughts, directly effecting their actions. All Bloom did, when it comes to right and wrong behavior was remove the father's/Father's authority from the classroom, removing it from the students thoughts and therefore their actions, 'justifying' their thoughts and actions instead, thereby turning them against the father/Father and his/His authority in the process. In the process of 'change' the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father, i.e., for questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth is negated, making it possible for students to 'discover' their identity in what they have with one another, i.e., their natural inclination to "lust . . ."—initiating and sustaining 'change." By adding synthesizing and analyzing the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting . . .," i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth are negated​​​​, i.e., there are no absolutes, i.e., there is no objective truth. Charts on the differences in education: chart 1, chart 2. diaprax chart 3, dopamine cycle 1, dopamine cycle 2.

The heart of "the beast."

"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." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

In dialogue (what Karl Marx called "Critical Criticism") we are god ("a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without."), making law (right and wrong behavior) subject to our carnal desires (lusts) of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. In dialogue, "hell, fire, and damnation," i.e., God's judgment upon the sinner, i.e., upon "the children of disobedience" is replaced with "I am OK." "You are OK." i.e., your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating.

In the garden in Eden the master facilitator of 'change' said to the woman "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." After making right and wrong subject to her carnal nature, i.e., lusts (along with Adam) the Lord God said ". . . Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden," Genesis 3:5, 22, 23

In man's effort to make himself god (good in his eyes) he redefines God, making God subject to his carnal nature, i.e., to his "feelings," i.e., to his lusts. "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." (The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, translated by Dennis W. Hauck.) "The Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." (Tobias Churton The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucian's, and the First Freemasons.)

Even Martin Luther understood the use of Gnostic writings (Aristotelian philosophy) in the corrupting of the fellowship of believers. Luther wrote: "Aristotle condemns us. In short, philosophers know nothing about God the creator and man made of a lump of earth. Augustine says that he found all things in the Platonic books except this one thing, that the Word was made flesh. But Hermese Trismegistus composed that book for Plato. That book reached Augustine and he was deceived by its persuasion. [foot note concerning Tristmegistus an Egypto-Hellenic theologian. (Augustine has an extensive discussion of Trismegistus in the City of God, viii, 22-27)]" (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.143) Man can not become "good" (righteous) by doing good works, no environment (amount of education or training or "good works") can make a man "good." Only God is good. For man to become good, i.e., righteous he must either repent of his sins, turn from his wicked ways, turn to the Lord, doing the Father's will, with righteousness being imputed to him by his faith or become "good" by perceiving his self, i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., lust and the world that stimulates it as "good," making him god (righteous) in his own eyes.

It is all about control of the environment.

When the facilitator of 'change' senses he is about to loose control (or at least loose what control he has) he becomes "desperate," i.e., "desperately wicked," doing whatever it takes to regain or retain control. The same is true for those following after him.

"Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." (Heraclitus) Karl Marx, as did the Stoics (rejecting the father's/Father's authority) built his ideology off of Heraclitus,

"Laws must not fetter human life [the child's natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates and hate restraint]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [lusts] of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

"Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) The soviet is a diverse group of people (which must including the deviant), dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process, there is only the participants self interests, i.e., lusts of the 'moment' that the situation and/or people or person is stimulating), over social issues (when social worth becomes a part of the courtroom decision the individual has lost his rights as an individual, under God—the individual has no value outside of social cause), to a pre-determined outcome (that no policy or law be made without the soviet system, i.e., the consensus process, preventing the father's/Father's authority from establishing policy or making law). When policy and law are established according to the self interests of those in authority the victim, whos individual rights were violated by the criminal becomes the criminal, forcing his laws upon the criminal, who, breaking "their" laws, becomes the victim—having to obey established laws preventing him from becoming his self (subject to his carnal nature, i.e., 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 experiences terror as his individual rights, under God are replaced (negated) with social cause, i.e., social worth (as his soul is replaced with his flesh and the world that stimulates it).

By the facilitator of 'change' using role-playing experiences in the classroom, such as the "life raft moral dilemma," where the students must kill someone or their self (commit suicide) in order to save everyone else on the raft, i.e., in order to save "the group," he requires the students to damn their souls for the sake of "the group," i.e., for the sake of society.

This is reflected in the 'change' of "policy" regarding the value of human life by our highest court, changing it from "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 the Father's authority]. 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 friction's and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." (Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, 1941) to "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." (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973) Only two nations have common law, England and America, a product of the Protestant Reformation (individualism, under God), where you do not infringe upon your neighbors rights (private convictions, private property, private business) as he does not infringe upon yours, likewise the same being true between the government and the citizens. The American revolution and the constitution that followed is unique amongst the nations, making the father of the home the King over his home, property, and business, having sovereign jurisdiction over his convictions, property, and business. Individualism has only two sources—from the traditional family with the father's authority in the home and from the fellowship of believers, with the Heavenly Father's authority over all.

"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)

Being pressured to leave religion out of your communication with others, i.e., being told to be tolerant of "ambiguity," i.e., of deviancy, i.e., of the child's, i.e., of your natural inclination to "lust . . .," i.e., of immorality is a religion. The agenda of the Marxist, i.e., the facilitators of 'change' is to replace the law of God, i.e., righteousness with the law of the flesh, i.e., sensuousness in the children's communication with one another (in your communication with others), negating the law of God in the children's (in your) thoughts—'liberating' them (and you) from the judgment of God (in your and their thoughts) so they (and you) can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can "lust . . ." without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without having any sense of accountability for their (and your) carnal thoughts and carnal action, other than to 'justify' (affirm) one another, i.e., the law of the flesh, i.e., sin.

"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')

This is Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of the flesh without the law of the father/Father getting in the way. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

"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." (Rogers)

Abraham Maslow left "doing the father's/Father's will" out of his "Hierarchy of 'Felt' Needs," replacing it with society. You can tell someone is a socialist/Marxist by their being more concerned about children's social life, i.e., their "right" to "lust . . ." than where they will spend eternity, i.e., "doing the Father's will." .

"Every form of objectification results in alienation." "Alienation is the experience of 'estrangement' (Verfremdung) from others." "Alienation will continue so long as the subject engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

"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)

In other words the 'liberal' is 'justified' in judging you from his feelings, i.e., from his lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint but you have no right to judging him from any established command, rule, fact, and truth that get in the way of his lusts.

"Personal relations between men have this character of alienation. Hegel and Marx have laid the foundations for the understanding of the problem of alienation." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

"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." (Brown)

By shifting the focus of education from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., from doing the father's/Father's will to focusing upon "building relationship upon common self interests," i.e., upon the children's (the facilitator's) natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, "human nature" becomes "reality," the father's/Father's authority an "illusion."

". . . 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)

A traditional educator teaches student's, i.e., those under their authority to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth which they have been taught (told)—reflective of the father's/Father's authority system (authoring commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed, and enforcing them). A facilitator of 'change,' by drawing the students into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus 'liberate' them from the father's/Father's authority system so they (including the facilitator of 'change') can do wrong disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders).

"I am nothing and I should be everything" (Karl Marx expressing his feelings, i.e., the feelings of "the people.") (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

In other words: "I am called a sinner, condemned, and cast out when I should be recognized as being in 'ownership' of all things, i.e., as God and worshiped." As Jean-Jacques Rousseau voiced, in defiance to "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26) "The fruits of the earth belong to us all [i.e., to the one making this statement, i.e., to the facilitator of 'change' "lusting . . ."], and the earth itself to nobody [i.e., there is no higher authority above the one making this statement]" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality), . "The proletariat [i.e., the one making this statement] thus has the same right as has the German king [as the father/Father] when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse [when he calls his children his children]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') What the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the psychotherapist sees, he "owns." In this way your spouse, your children, your property, your business, even you (your soul) belongs to Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, . . . Mao, i.e., the facilitator of 'change.' Like the woman and Adam in the garden in Eden, what they see they "own"—to be used for their pleasure, i.e., to satisfy their lusts, negating you if you get in their way, i.e., if you disagree. While you might work by "the sweat of your brow," Mr. Rousseau and his friends (who have never worked a day of their lives "by the sweat of his brow") can pick fruit off your tree, in the name of "the people" and walk away eating it, saying, "It belongs to us all." You dare not complain (saying "Mine. Not yours"). After all, in their mind you are working for them, to satisfy their lusts. As in the garden in Eden, all that they see belongs to them, to satisfy their lusts. While you reach into your pocket to help someone in need, they encourage you to help others in need with them in charge, living off of what you give (taxes and the plea for donations comes in here). As J. L. Moreno stated it in his book Who Shall Survive?: "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality [to him and those who think like him, i.e., facilitators of 'change']."

Beware all who board this train, this train has no brakes.

If I am "of and for the world" (which I am not), if I (via dialogue) gain awareness of your lust, i.e., your hearts desire, i.e., your self interest, offering to "help" you achieve it, I gain your trust, i.e., I gain control over you, making it possible for me to use you as natural resource ("human resource") to satisfy my lusts, casting you aside when you get in my way or no longer serve my purpose, i.e., satisfy my lusts (as you did to the father/Father for getting in the way of your lusts—it is the outcome you choose when you choose to leave "doing the father's/Father's will" out of your life, i.e., out of your thoughts, letting your lusts and the world, i.e., "the group" take his/His place). The moment the master facilitator of 'change' drew the woman in the garden in Eden into dialogue, regarding right and wrong behavior he "owned" her. The moment the facilitator of 'change' draws you into dialogue, regarding right and wrong behavior, he "owns" you. The same is true for your spouse (if your married), "a patient might, with further change, outgrow . . . his spouse . . . unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse." (Yalom), your children (if you are married and have children), your parent's, your teachers, your elected officials, etc.,.. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7

By going into dialogue, when it comes to right and wrong behavior you abdicate your God given rights to those "of and for the world," from then on, as "human resource" working for them, i.e., for their pleasure, i.e., to satisfy their lusts. When "lusting . . .," i.e., stimulus-response becomes the foundation for behavior, making all equal, your spouse, your children, including you become subject to the Marxist, i.e., to the facilitator of 'change,' there are no longer any rights of the individual, under God.

"On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Since all lust, the facilitator of 'change' and all who think like him "own" whatever they see, i.e., your spouse, your children, your property, your business, your soul.

"The school must make room for the deviant student." "This person will be able to discriminate among values and to deviate from the moral status quo." "How such persons can be discovered, and, above all, how such persons can be produced in greater number is the major problem for research in character formation." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba, Adolescent Character and Personality)

"There is no type of past behavior too deviant for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established." (Yalom)

"[We] must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"During the period of innovation ['change,' where emotions, desires, and hope, i.e., "self interest" is at the forefront], an environment is invisible [awareness of the 'changes' going on around you, i.e., the 'changing' of leadership methods is unnoticed]. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it. It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment [when the new leadership has taken control and you can not back out for fear of loosing out on your "self interest"]." (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969, Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program)

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 [resisters of 'change']." (Ronald Havelock, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education)

"Working through the resistances to change is the key to the production of change." (Yalom)

"Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with groups and even for use on a mass scale." (Adorno)

Individualism, under the father's/Father's authority or what "the group" thinks, i.e., society.

"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, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)

Bloom based the student's development (his "Taxonomies") upon the "superego," i.e., the voice of the "village," i.e., the voice of "the group" instead of upon the guilty conscience," i.e., the voice of the father/Father. The "superego" is readily adaptable to 'change,' the "guilty conscience" is not.

"Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society [socialism, which requires compromise for the sake of relationship]. Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development." (Book 2: Affective Domain) Underline not in original.

The "superego" is the student's impulses and urges, i.e., his lust for pleasure and resentment toward the father/Father, i.e., toward "doing the father's/Father's will" in the past, telling him what he could and could not do is the same lust for pleasure and resentment toward authority he has today, toward anyone telling him what he can and can not do. It is therefore his lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "human nature" that must guide his actions in the present as well as in the future.

"The individual is emancipated [liberated from "doing the father's/Father's will"] in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority] be assuaged." (Brown)

"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)

As Carl Rogers explained it, "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity [from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, truth, changing their position only when persuaded with facts and truth, Roger's, rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., being persuaded with facts and truth makes 'change' only possible through "sensuous need" and "sense perception," i.e., lust, i.e., sense experience], though such a process is indeed possible [in other words, rejecting God and Spirit, "We do not want to think about/focus on/accept that way of thinking," i.e., the father's/Father's authority as a viable option]. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness [from belief, i.e., faith and obedience to theory, i.e., opinion], from rigid structure to flow [from "What does the father/Father want me to do?" to "What do I want to do?" to "What will 'the group' think?"], from stasis to process [from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth to self (lust) 'justification']." "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships [with those who are deviant, i.e., doing wrong, disobeying, sinning], which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others [those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning], guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing [his lust for pleasure and his lust for "the group's" affirmation, 'justifying' his lusts]– he has become an integrated process of changingness [stimulus-response]." (Rogers) The "continuum" or "spectrum," or "taxonomy" evaluates the level of a persons 'loyalty' "to doing the father's/Father's will" and their susceptibility to 'change,' i.e., their willingness to compromise (not bring up) the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth that will get in the way of relationship with someone they like or have something to gain from—who are doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. Knowing this information the facilitator of 'change' is able to bring the person (or "the group") to a "deeper" level of commitment to the process of 'change' without them resisting, rejecting, and/or attacking it (him).

While in "old school" what the father/Father would say—regarding a person's thoughts and actions—comes to mind while you are having a discussion with them, causing division between you and them if they did not adhere to (rejected/opposed) the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, in the "new" world order what the father/Father would say does not come to mind, i.e., is irrelevant. "Building relationship on self interest," which is a Marxist construct, requires the negation (the setting aside) of the father's/Father's authority system in order to build unity between one another. With the power of the group, i.e., the desire to belong, individualism, under God is negated, the individual now finding his identity in what he has in common with "the group," i.e., his carnal nature.

"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 Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"(T)he group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions" (Kurt Lewin, Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics)

"One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." "There is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members." "To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance." [cognitive dissonance—"The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief" (Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology)]"Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity." (Yalom)

"Group members must be able to synthesize individual 'felt' needs [lusts] with common group 'felt' needs [lusts]." (Bennis)

"Only when the immediate interests [lusts, i.e., self interests] are integrated into a total view and related to the final goal of the process do they become revolutionary [overthrowing the father's/Father's authority]." (Lukács)

In Marxism, not until children can find their identity in one another can they be united as one in overcoming the effect of the father's/Father's authority in themselves and in society.

"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." "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right)

Without consensus, i.e., children (through dialogue) finding their identity in one another the father's/Father's authority remains in place, establishing policy and making law. Ervin Laszlo—who conjured up (fabricated) the theory of "Climate Change," the 'crisis' being used to 'change' man's way of thinking, excluding the father's/Father's authority in the process, i.e., excluding the issue of sin and where man will spend eternity—defined the consensus process this way.

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [bypassing the father's/Father's authority] our objective centers upon transforming public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

Change the curriculum, i.e., how children are taught and you change the world.

"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." (Benne)

"The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

"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, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development)

"Change in organization [paradigm, i.e., way of feeling, thinking, and acting toward self, others, the world, and authority] can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development) By bringing dialogue, i.e., "I feel" and "I think" into and environment establishing right and wrong behavior, the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "I KNOW because dad said so (because I have been told)" is negated, i.e., replaced with the child's natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating.

Parent's today are sending their children to Colleges/Universities (including "Christian") they believe reflect their values not knowing professors are required to use "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the development of their curriculum/syllabus, liberating their children from the father's/Father's authority system. Traditional minded professors are labeled resisters of 'change,' arrogant (Mayhew, Lewis B., Arrogance on Campus), not a "team player," etc. and fear losing (and do lose) their job if they do not participate. Jacob's publication "Changing Values in College" was a catalyst for the use of the "affective domain" in education—the students natural inclination to "lust . . .," being used in the classroom in order to 'liberate' them from "doing the father's/Father's will."

The student's "beliefs" are 'changed' by participating in the environment 'created' by the "educator," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as his or her curriculum in the classroom.

"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)

*See the issues on Kurt Lewin, Unfreezing, Moving or Changing, Refreezing People, Force Field Analysis, and Group Dynamics; "Unfreezing. This term, also adopted from Lewinian change theory, refers to the process of disconfirming an individual's former belief system." (Yalom) "A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing group life on the new level." (Kurt Lewin) "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) "Unfreezing" engenders cognitive dissonance. It is the desire for group approval (affirmation) that belief is sacrificed at the altar of self, i.e., lust preservation.

The following section is from a book explaining how the Communist Chinese brainwash their victims through the use of "Lewinian change theory," which is being used in the "group grade," facilitated, "Bloom's Taxonomy" classroom.

"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)

P.O.W. Major David F. MacGhee wrote "Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point. . . serves no useful purpose." on his cell wall, responding to the Communist North Korean's attempt to use the above method of brainwashing, i.e., the "group grade" to get him to replace a didactic "right-wrong," truth based paradigm with a dialectical "opinion," i.e., "feelings" based paradigm, making truth ever subject to 'change,' i.e., to whatever "the group" would affirm., i.e., make everyone in "the group" "feel" accepted. (January 19th, 1953)

"Without exception, [children] enter group therapy [the "group grade" classroom] with the history of a highly unsatisfactory experience in their first and most important group—their primary family [the traditional home with parents telling them what they can and can not do]." "What better way to help [the child] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment, hostility] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [the facilitator of 'change]? The [facilitator of 'change'] is the living personification of all parental images [takes the place of the parent]. Group [facilitators] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions [teach right from wrong from established commands, rules, facts, and truth], they urge the group [the children] to explore and to employ its own resources [to dialogue their "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., their desire for "the group" approval (affirmation)]. The group [children] must feel free to confront the [the facilitator of 'change'], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation [rebellion and anarchy]. He [the child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [brainwashing—washing respect for and fear of the father's/Father's authority from the child's brain (thoughts) ] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role [submitting to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will] he once occupied. . . . the patient [the child] changes the past by reconstituting it ['creating' a "new" world order from his "ought," i.e., a world which "lusts," i.e., a world void of the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience which the father's/Father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting . . ."]." (Yalom)

Group therapy, i.e., the "group grade," facilitated classroom applies the same procedure. "In the group not only must the individual strive for autonomy 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. . . . few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity 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. One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views in the service of denial. The ‘third force' in psychology . . . which emphasized a holistic, humanistic concept of the person, provided impetus and form to the encounter group . . . The therapist assists the patient to clarify the nature of the imagined danger and then . . . to detoxify, to disconfirm the reality of this danger. By shifting the group's attention from ‘then-and-there' [parental authority] to ‘here-and-now' [their feelings of the 'moment'] material, he performs a service to the group . . . focusing the group upon itself. 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. Patients should be encouraged to take risks in the group; such behavior change results in positive feedback and reinforcement and encourages further risk-taking. Members learn about the impact of their behavior on the feelings of other members. . . .a patient might, with further change, outgrow . . . his spouse . . . unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse." (Yalom)

The "educator," i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the group psychotherapist 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,' i.e., for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order), all they have to do is use a curriculum in the classroom that "encourages," i.e., pressures the students to participate in dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, 'justifying' their carnal nature, i.e., "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 student's love of pleasure and hate of restrain, doing so in order to be approved, i.e., affirmed by "the group," resulting in "the group" labeling those students who, refuse to participate in the process of 'change' or who fight 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., i.e., "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 as well. 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.

By the facilitator of 'change' redefining the soul as "the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains" (equated to physical, mental, and social health, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life" aka "self esteem") he makes the child subject to the world instead of to God, replacing eternal life (and death), i.e., the "there-and-then" with the "eternal present," i.e., the "here-and-now," with all participants dying in their sins. While the Son of God, Jesus Christ came to redeem you from the Father's wrath upon you for your sins, i.e., for your "lusting. . .," with the Father reconciling you to Himself in His resurrection, that you might partake in His Holiness throughout eternity, the facilitator of 'change,' using the process of 'change,' i.e., "Bloom's Taxonomies" 'redeems' you from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' you to the world; resulting in you, "lusting . . ." dying in your sins, i.e., spending eternity in the lake of fire that is never quenched prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow him.

While traditional education can not save you, as the Law can not save you (only the Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the law, i.e., doing the Father's will in all things commanded for your soul sake; your works prior to and following salvation can not save you, salvation being the righteousness of Christ only, imputed to you by your faith in Him) it teaches you you need to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., to do the Father's will for your soul's sake—instead of doing your will, "lusting . . ." ( which seems "right" in your own eyes at the time, i.e., in the 'moment').

In the garden in Eden the whole process of 'change' was carried out, replacing "doing the father's/Father's will" with following after the facilitator of 'change,' with the child establishing right and what is wrong behavior upon his carnal nature, making his self and everyone else subject to the world that stimulates it. Remove the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment for doing wrong (which includes behavior) and the child will "Reason" from his carnal nature, 'justifying' his natural inclination to "lust . . .," making his (and everyone else's) behavior subject to stimulus-response, i.e., to that which is only "of the world."

Laws of nature are set, i.e., established by God. We use the scientific method to 'discover' the laws of nature in order to use them. Behavior is not set by the laws of nature. You have the ability to reason from what you were told or how you feel in the 'moment,' leaving it up to you to decide who you will follow (obey), "doing the father's/Father's will" or your own, "lusting . . . ." By using the "scientific method" to determine/establish right and wrong behavior (which makes it "so called science," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., ever subject to 'change' according to the current situation and/or people or person present) in an environment using it on rocks, plants, and animals (as it is intended), all participants are 'liberated' from "doing the father's/Father's will," making their natural inclination to "lust . . . ." the outcome of their "classroom" experience. This is the difference between traditional and transformational education, i.e., "old school" and contemporary education. The latter following after the method or formula of Genesis 3:1-6.

If you, as a facilitator of 'change' make what you want, i.e., your self interest, i.e., what you covet, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., that which is "of the world" the foundation of your thought ('Reasoning' from your feelings, i.e., from "sense experience," i.e., from your lusts) all you have to work with is "stimulus-response," i.e., what the master facilitator of 'change' seduced the woman into participating in, 'justify' her natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulated, establishing lust, i.e., her self interest, i.e., stimulus-response over and therefore against the Father and His authority ("doing the Father's will"), i.e., over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to God's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., being told, i.e., "Thou shalt surely die," believing a lie instead "Ye shalt not surely die," i.e., that she would not be judged for her carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., that she would not be cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him. If you, following after the ideology of the facilitator of 'change' embrace stimulus-response, 'justifying' your self, i.e., your "lusting . . ." you can not follow after the Lord, "doing the Father's will." When you are "asked" (in a facilitated meeting, establishing right and wrong behavior) to be "positive" and not "negative" you are being pressured (out of your fear of "the group's" rejection of you) to set aside the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth for the sake of "the group," 'justifying' "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., what you, "the group," and the facilitator of 'change' have in common.

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself [deny his lusts], and take up his cross [denying the lusts of others enduring their rejection of him for doing so], and follow me [doing the Father's will]." Matthew 16:24

"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

When man does not do the Father's will, but his own will instead he is a child of disobedience, i.e., walking in sin, facing the wrath of the Father for his thoughts and actions.

"Let no man deceive you with vain words [self 'justifying, i.e., 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

This is the education system we have today, 'justifying' "the children of disobedience"—an education system I earned my teaching degree on, i.e., "Bloom's Taxonomies" which I had to repent of in order to do the Father's will. All Bloom did, when it comes to right and wrong behavior was remove the father's/Father's authority from the classroom, removing it from the students thoughts, 'justifying' their "lusting . . .," thereby turning them against the father/Father and his/His authority in their actions. After explaining it, in brief to a kindergarten teacher, a relative of mine, who uses it in her classroom, her response was "You make me feel wicked. You make me feel like I am doing something wicked." which was the proper response. I rarely hear people be so honest, although I sensed no repentance on her part as she walked away.

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Isaiah 55:7

"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." "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 10:3, 4; 36:1-4

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

Facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychologists, i.e., behavioral "scientists," i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Marxists (Transformational Marxists)—all being the same in method or formula—are using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from/through their "lust" for pleasure and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval, i.e., 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/Father's authority from the children's thoughts and actions, i.e., "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience, which the father's/father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation" since the father's/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/Father's authority, i.e., no established aka absolute command, rule, facts, or truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed; there is only the person's carnal desires, i.e., lusts of the past and the present being verbally expressed and 'justified'), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings," i.e., their natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—dopamine emancipation—which the world stimulates, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their "sense experience," selecting "appropriate information"—excluding, ignoring, or resisting, i.e., rejecting any "inappropriate" information, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome, i.e., 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, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm)—as predators, charlatans, pimps, pedophiles, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them as chickens, rats, and dogs, i.e., 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, i.e., can "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, with impunity.

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, i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning," i.e., 'reasoning' from/through your "feelings," i.e., 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, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your "self" (your lusts) in order to do the father's/Father's will, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., your having a guilty conscience when you do wrong, disobey, sin, thereby negating your having to repent before the father/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," i.e., 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates 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

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2023 (2023-5-1)