authorityresearch.com

"Bloom's Taxonomies," An Exposé.
See also If You Want To KNOW What Is Going On. (pdf) ... Mao's Long March Across America. (pdf) ... It Is All About The Father. (pdf)
The "Weltanschauung" of "Bloom's Taxonomies" is Marxism (the "Frankfurt School").

by

Dean Gotcher
(Personal note.)

If you do not remove the 'teachers' and administrators (facilitators of change') who are using 'Bloom's Taxonomies' (Marxist curriculum) in the classroom your children will turn against you and your authority in the home—with their lusts transcending the father's/Father's authority system.

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain—commonly known as "Bloom's Taxonomies")

"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

"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

"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

"Old school," i.e., trust in/doing what you have been told, having faith in the one who told it to you, i.e., in the father/Father vs. contemporary education i.e., leaning to your own understanding (when it comes to right and wrong behavior), 'justifying' "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., "all that is in the world."

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

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

In traditional education, when it comes to KNOWING right from wrong behavior you start with the father's/Father's authority, requiring children 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 (doing what they have been told—reasoning is objective, i.e., subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth that the child has been taught—"I KNOW because I have been told."). In transformational education ("Bloom's Taxonomies"), when it comes to knowing right from wrong behavior you start with what all children have in common, i.e., their 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, 'justifying' their dissatisfaction with, resentment and hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'justifying' their questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father's/Father's authority for getting in the way (doing what makes sense to them—reasoning is subjective, i.e., made subject to their understanding/perception of the situation at hand—"I think, therefore I am.").

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself [one's natural inclination to "lust ..."] 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)

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

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

The unredeemed heart, i.e., the carnally minded child thinks pleasure, i.e., lust is the standard for "good" instead of "doing the father's/Father's will," hating anyone who prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks him from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he is lusting after. He can not see his hatred toward the father's/Father's authority as being evil, i.e., "wicked," i.e., "desperately wicked" because his lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' his hate. (Mark 7:21-23)

"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 law of the flesh, i.e., the child's carnal nature vs. the law of God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. The classroom environment (curriculum) establishes one over and therefore against the other.

"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

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

"Laws must not fetter human life [lusts]; 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')

"The philosophers [parents] have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change [children responding to the current situation and/or people or person present according to their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)

When facilitator's of 'change' (using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum) 'create' a "positive" classroom environment where children can share their lusts, i.e., their self interests, i.e., their "affective domain" without fear of being judged, condemned, and/or cast out (for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) they "own" them. All the facilitator of 'change' has to do is discover, through dialogue what children lust after (covet) and offer to "help" them actualize it (fulfill it) and their paradigm (how they feel, think, and act toward their self, others, the world, and authority) is 'changed.'

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you ["own" you, i.e., turn you into 'human resource' (into one of Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats, Pavlov's dog)]." 2 Peter 2:3

Those "of and for the world" know that apart from the authority of the Father all you have is your lust for pleasure—dopamine emancipation—and your lust for the approval aka the affirmation of others, 'justifying' your lusts. They know 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 other children, 'justifying' his lusts. "Bloom's Taxonomies" (leaving the father's/Father's authority out of the curriculum, other than to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack it) establishes lust (the child's/man's "affective domain") as the 'drive' of life, making the augmentation of lust the 'purpose,' turning the children/men against the father/Father and his/His authority. Despite what anyone (in denial) might think or say they have no other 'drive' or 'purpose.'

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are "... a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values" ... "which are not shaped by the parents." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box' [a 'Box' full of evils, which once opened can not be closed]." "[W]hat we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs." "[E]ducation in an open [socialist/Marxist] society" ... "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 Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) "Bloom's Taxonomies" establish the children's/students "feelings," i.e., their lusts (lust for pleasure and lust for one another's approval, i.e., affirmation) and hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., their "affective domain," i.e., "Pandora's Box" over and therefore against parental authority, i.e., over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of (are equated to being 'prejudiced' against) their lusts, 'justifying' their (and the facilitator of change's) dissatisfaction with, resentment and hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority system. "Bloom's Taxonomies" (as Benjamin Bloom pointed out) are based upon the ideology i.e., the "Weltanschauung" (world view) of "Erich Fromm" and "T. W. Adorno," i.e., Marxists whose agenda was to use the classroom (Marxist curriculum) to 'liberate' the next generation (future voting citizen) from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., from individualism, local control, limited government, and nationalism (under God) so they could use "the people" as "human resource" to satisfy ('justify' and support) their lusts, without restrain, i.e., without the father's/Father's authority getting in the way telling them how to think and act, i.e., how to behave (judging, condemning, and/or casting them out for doing wrong, disobeying, or sinning).

"We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Benjamin Bloom, simply paraphrasing Karl Marx ("In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred.") made Marxism the curriculum in the classroom.

It all begins in the classroom. Whoever determines (selects) the curriculum for the classroom (how student's are to think and act) controls the nation and eventually the world. Despite what those who use "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom (the "group grade"), in the workplace (TQM, COPS, etc., aka "sight based management"), in government (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process aka bipartisanship), and even in the "church" ("youth groups," "cell groups," etc.,) might think or say (in denial), they have no other 'purpose' than 'liberating' children/students (and their self) from having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., from having to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., from being held accountable for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning so students (the next generation of citizens/voters), facilitator's of 'change, and they can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating without having a guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders), i.e., without being "prejudiced" against, i.e., judging, condemning, casting out those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, with everyone's approval aka affirmation—engendering worldly peace and socialist harmony. They have no other "Objective."

(If you skip to the heart of "Bloom's Taxonomies" (if you go directly to pg. 45) remember to return and read pgs. 1-45 which give you the development of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., why and how they came to be—more quotations from "Bloom's Taxonomies" are included in them [pdf] and explained.)

To understand "Bloom's Taxonomies" you must first understand what their main 'purpose' is—the negation of parental authority, i.e., respect for the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts of the students, especially when it comes to right and wrong behavior, directly effecting their behavior (actions) in the classroom, in the home, and in society. Instead of putting (doing right and not wrong according to) established commands, rules, facts, and truth (according to those "of and for the world" equated to being 'prejudiced'), i.e., respect for the father's/Father's authority into practice (as in traditional education) they 'liberate' the students from the father's/Father's authority system (the Patriarchal paradigm; Hebrews 12:5-11) so they can "think" for their self, i.e., from their lust for pleasure (that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating) without having a guilty conscience (what the father's/Father's authority engenders), putting theory, i.e., their opinion into practice (called "theory and practice," rejecting "belief-action," a dichotomy since man can not overcome his carnal nature despite his efforts [Romans 7:14-25] with God saying, "I have. Believe in me, i.e., have faith in me."), with man (with the help of a facilitator of 'change'; Genesis 3:1-6) 'justifying' his sinful nature manifesting dissatisfaction with, resentment and hatred toward authority (and anyone defending it) that gets in the way of, i.e., that inhibits or blocks, i.e., that prevents 'change'—'change' meaning in this case not from one position to another (by persuasion) but 'change' taking place in the 'moment,' i.e., continuously in response to the current situation or people present, guided by the persons feelings, i.e., stimulus-response, i.e., responding with approval to the current situation and/or people stimulating and/or 'justifying pleasure and responding with disapproval aka dissatisfaction, resentment, or hatred toward anyone stimulating pain (pain meaning the missing out on or fear of missing out on pleasure), with "right" being those who stimulate and/or 'justify' (initiate and/or sustain) pleasure, i.e., lust, "wrong" being those who correct and/or chasten or cast out, i.e., judge, condemn, reject anyone who is lusting after pleasure, thereby inhibiting or blocking, i.e., preventing pleasure, i.e., lust, i.e., self, i.e., 'change' from taking place, i.e., from becoming "actualized"—the meaning of "self actualization."

"Teachers and other adults in the home or school sometimes blithely assume that they are the significant figures in the environment…. becomes less true as the individual frees himself from the domination or control of the adult [as the student, with the "help" of the facilitator of change 'liberates' his self from the father's/Father's authority (system)]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

All educators (if they want to keep their job) are grounded upon what few parents ever hear of or have knowledge of, i.e., "Bloom's Taxonomies." Therefore the process of 'change,' i.e., attack against parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system goes on unabated, i.e., without parents knowing of the source. Any commands, rules, facts, truth based child placed in a classroom environment (or educator placed in a school system) establishing right and wrong behavior based upon feelings, i.e., upon self interests, i.e., upon lusts, i.e., upon the "affective domain," i.e., using "Bloom's Taxonomies" is going to be either converted (to socialism, building relationships upon self interest, 'justifying' lust), silenced (out of fear of rejection by "the group"), censored, and/or martyred (excommunicated without writ) if they (refusing to participate) insist upon (are 'prejudiced' toward) established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system in establishing right and wrong behavior. It is the only options "Bloom's Taxonomies" allows. The same applies in the workplace, government, and even the "Church." Unlike traditional educators, who recognize individualism, sovereignty, and nationalism, under authority (God), transformational educators, i.e., socialists, i.e., those pushing "Bloom's Taxonomies" do not consider their effort successful until no one can escape (all must participate in 'liberating' themselves and others from the father's/Father's authority system—if they want the job or to keep their job, be promoted, etc., i.e., not to be labeled for life "a resister of 'change,'" "not a team player," an "extremist" [which this website is labeled, i.e., I am labeled by Google], antisocial, "mental," etc., i.e., the truth is liberating, liberating you from your job, promotion, next term in office in a dialectic, i.e., "Bloom's Taxonomy" world, where dialogue, i.e., the persons feelings [lusts] of the 'moment' instead of discussion, i.e., established commands, rules, facts and truth define right and wrong behavior). To those "of and for the world," i.e., using "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, lust (the "affective domain") and those affirming it are "positive," the father's/Father's authority and those defending and supporting it, inhibiting or blocking lust are "negative," needing to be removed from the environment (with the facilitator of 'change' in charge, "helping" the children/students identify and remove the father's/Father's authority system from the classroom) for the sake of the children's/students physical, mental, and social health aka "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life."

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

'Change,' i.e., stimulus-response negates being told, i.e., doing what you are told (which engenders prejudice against those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., "lusting ..."), i.e., negates the father's/Father's authority system. Stimulus-response, i.e., "lusting 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—hating (questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking) anyone who inhibits or blocks lust from being "actualized" (from now on abbreviated "lusting ..." or "lust ....") is antithetical to doing what you are told, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (the system itself), i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your 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, holding others accountable to the same commands, rules, facts, and truth (from now on abbreviated "doing the father's/Father's will"). Both are political systems (different forms of government), with the father's/Father's authority (where the father/Father corrects and/or chastens the child [or man—child or children from now also meaning man or mankind] for doing wrong or disobeying or casts him out [grounds him] for rejecting [questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking] his/His authority, holding him accountable to his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth) being at odds with the facilitator of 'change' (who 'justifies' the child's and his natural inclination to "lust ....," "helping" children 'liberate' their self [and him] from the father's/Father's authority system, thereby initiating and sustaining change, i.e., anarchy, rebellion, and revolution—overthrowing the father's/Father's authority system in the thoughts of the children, i.e., "the people," 'justifying' their "lusting ..." without having a guilty conscience [which is a product of the father's/Father's authority]). For those of and for the world peace is being able to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., "lust ..." without having a guilty conscience with everybody's approval aka affirmation.

"[I]t is not so much what is learned, but how it is learned, which will determine the affective objectives that will be attained at the same time as the cognitive objectives." (Book 2: Affective Domain) Only those commands, rules, facts, and 'truth' that 'justify' the students carnal nature, i.e., that support the students natural inclination to "lust ..." become of value to (are worth listening to by) the student aka "values clarification." Appropriate information is any command, rule, fact, or 'truth' that 'justifies' the child's natural inclination to "lust ...." Inappropriate information is any command, rule, fact, or truth that inhibits or blocks, i.e., that prevents the child's natural inclination to "lust ..," i.e., that prevents the child's self interest from becoming actualized.

"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

It is the guilty conscience, that retains the father's/Father's authority in the individual and therefore in society that has to be negated if 'change' is to be initiated and sustained in the individual and in society. It is one or the other, with most (I want to say all) education books (including, unfortunately home schooling and "Church" material) now siding with the child's carnal nature, promoting children "building relationship" with one another on their common "self interests," i.e., "lusts" (instead of "doing the father's/Father's will"). This theme will be repeated again and again and again throughout the following pages, since that is all there is to choose from. This exposé is just to let you know what is going on "behind closed doors, " i.e., without your knowledge, in the classroom. It is up to you to decide what to do about it. Beware, the process of 'change' has teeth, i.e., those using it are desperate to keep it, so choose your battles well, i.e., let the Lord lead/direct you in your response.

"Qui tacet consentire videtur," "ubi loqui debuit ac potuit" ("to be silent is to consent" or your "silence gives consent"). The objective of "those of and for the world," since all that is real to them is "of the world" anything in the environment that does not favor human nature, i.e., "lusting ..." must be silenced or removed. In order to gain or retain respect with those "of and for the world," "lusting ..." those under the father's/Father's authority set aside the father's/Father's standards in order to "get along," i.e., "What can I get out of this situation and/or this person or people for my self?" and/or "What will happen to me if they reject me and/or turn on me?" not realizing that by being silent in the midst of unrighteousness, unrighteousness becomes the norm—fear of man replaces fear of God—the intended 'purpose' of those "of and for the world." The "protestant" in Protestant Reformation means "Thou doest protest to much," i.e., no matter what it costs you you will not be silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e., you will not tolerate unrighteousness when it comes to defining/establishing right and wrong behavior.

"The public-private status of cognitive vs. affective behaviors is deeply rooted in the Judaeo-Christian religion." With the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, Bloom writes "the simple dichotomy" ... "between cognitive and affective behavior would no longer seem as real as the rather glib separation of the two suggests." (Book 2: Affective Domain)

All opposition to "doing the father's/Father's will" sides with "lusting ...," and visa versa. (All opposition to parental authority sides with "Bloom's Taxonomies," and visa versa.) You can not have both (unless your father is the devil; "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." John 8:44). When I say the father/Father, the father's/Father's authority, or "doing the father's/Father's will" I mean the authority system itself (the Patriarchal paradigm), which is the same pattern or method for the earthly father as it is for the Heavenly Father. Although the earthly father is subject to "lusting ...." it is his KNOWING right from wrong behavior (that is not known by the child)—enforced upon the child (the child is to do what he his told)—(which is the same system as the Heavenly Father) that is of issue here, i.e., what "Bloom's Taxonomies" are all about, i.e., out to negate. While the father/Father KNOWS the cost of being wrong the child, "lusting ...." does not—needing correction or chastening by the father/Father in order to focus upon doing things right. The scriptures are clear on this. Hebrews 12:5-11

1 John 2:16 reveals the two political systems (forms of government) that are at odds with one another. How children are taught in the classroom has direct bearing upon their political view, in the present and in the future. Those submitting their self to "doing the father's/Father's will" are conservative, i.e., prejudiced toward the father's/Father's establish commands, rules, facts, and truth, insisting others do his/His will as well, alienating themselves from those who are doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., who are "lusting ...." Those "of and for the world," i.e., 'justifying' their "lusting ...." are 'liberal,' i.e., prejudiced toward feelings, i.e., toward the "affective domain," i.e., toward their (and others) "lusting ....," converting (seducing, deceiving, and manipulating), silencing, censoring, and/or removing those who are prejudiced against them, i.e., who judge and condemn them for "lusting ...." For them, alienation is not between the father/Father and his/His children (that is what they desire) but between the children divided between one another, with those "doing the father's/Father's will" judging, condemning, and rejecting those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., "lusting ..." (making them feel "bad," i.e., guilty).

Of key interest to those doing this process is money, i.e., stored up "dopamine emancipation" (pleasure). If the father/Father controls it (independent business), they have limited access to it (they can not spend it on their "lusts"). If they get rid of the father/Father they control it (they can use it to satisfy their "lusts" 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). In a dialectic world, doing right and not wrong according to feelings ties money to self interest, i.e., "lusting ...," (national-international-corporate-socialist-communist businesses),where control of "the people," i.e., "human capital/resource," i.e., negation of the father's/Father's authority system (independent business) is essential in order to keep the money (entertainment) 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, i.e., the "the improvident, unskilled, and vicious," converting, silencing, censoring, and/or removing those who judge, condemn, and/or who attempt to cast them out—insisting they do good work first and foremost.

"… 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" ... "'folklure'" ... "can be replaced by" ..."affective behaviors." (Book 2 Affective Domain) In other words belief in God, i.e., in the Father's authority, i.e., in established commands, rules, facts, and truth "can be replaced" with the child's carnal nature, i.e., with the child's feelings, i.e., with his lusts and hate of the 'moment,' responding to the world around him.

According to Hegel and Marx (and "Bloom's Taxonomies") the moment parents tell their children (or traditional minded teachers tell their students) what they can and can "not" do they are alienating the children (the students) from their carnal nature. (Likewise, when God told Adam what he could and could "not" do He was alienating him from his carnal nature. When He drove Adam and the woman from the garden He was alienating them from their inheritance, i.e., eternal life, resulting in their replacing eternal life with the "eternal present," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" which are passing away, dying in their sins if they did not repent and turn from their wicked ways). The use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom is to remove fear of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "objectification," i.e., everything that the child submits himself to that is external to (that represses) his carnal nature, i.e., "top-down" authority from his thoughts, directly effecting his actions.

"Every form of objectification results in alienation." "Alienation is the experience of 'estrangement' (Verfremdung) from others." "Alienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation." "Alienation will continue so long as the subject engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

"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." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

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)

"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)

"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." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

In the some five thousand meetings I have had over the years everyone was attentive to what I was sharing, regarding "Bloom's Taxonomies" until I shared the scriptures. Then they went to sleep on me. Especially the "Christians"—I could see it in their eyes ("We have heard those before"). It was believers who thanked me after the meeting for sharing the Word, i.e., for exposing "Bloom's Taxonomies" for what they are out to negate, i.e., out to remove from people's thoughts, i.e., "doing the father's/Father's will," directly effecting their actions. After taking years of college and University classes on European history and philosophy (as well as Constitutional law) and attending Seminary (which was about studying men's opinion of God's Word rather than God's Word itself—the reason I left before finishing, I could not stomach it any more) I spent five years on my own reading over six hundred social-psychology books, in the light of God's Word (over one hundred listed here), starting with the sources Bloom used for his "Taxonomies" (following the book trail). Having the opportunity to speak in liberal Universities, exposing "Bloom's Taxonomies" with the Word of God it always amazed me to hear liberal professors tell (not me in secret after the meeting but) their students (openly in the lecture hall) "We can not refute a word he said." They just did not invite me back to speak again. The most flack I have received is from "Christian" Universities, even refusing to let me speak on campus, "Bloom's Taxonomies" having become the appropriate form of education endorsed by the administration—"Don't touch our sacred cow." Anyone claiming to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ would be upset, very upset with its use in the public, private, home school, College, or University classroom or in the workplace or in government—establishing policy and making law—taking away their rights of private conviction, property, and business (freedom of assembly, speech, and religion). When we reject God's authority all we have is men, like those promoting "Bloom's Taxonomies" leading us into totalitarianism, where everyone must tolerate if not participate in immorality (deviancy, perversity), i.e., unrighteousness. God is patient, that we might repent, but He does not tolerate unrighteousness, i.e., the "Educational Outcome" of "Bloom's Taxonomies."

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

The scriptures are essential in order to understand the 'change' that has taken place in education—'changing' the classroom from an either-or (either you are right or you are wrong), facts (position) based, objective learning environment to a subjective (mostly agree, agree, disagree, i.e., open ended, not-directive), feelings (opinion) based learning environment—the difference between either the father's/Father's authority in control of the outcome or the child's carnal nature. Being 'judgmental' has two options, either 'judging' the person from established commands, rules, facts, and truth or 'judging' him from your feelings, i.e., whether they make you feel good, i.e., like God (only God is good) or not—when people tell you not to be (or accuse you of being) 'judgmental' they are being 'judgmental,' 'judging you from their feelings, i.e., their "lust" for pleasure and resentment toward restraint. When it comes to behavior both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father require faith on the part of those under their authority, making them subject to what they are told. Obedience to the earthly father (after his death) results in inheritance (you hope). Obedience to the Heavenly Father (after your death) result in inheritance, i.e., eternal life (providing your hope was in Him). Both require faith.

"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

"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

"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 "

"Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p.12)

Aristotle ('justifying' man's sinful nature, as all philosophers, psychologists, sociologists do) believed by creating a "healthy" environment a "healthy" person could be created. The conflict is between the father's/Father's authority (being told), i.e., having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts and truth and your flesh, i.e., "lusting ...". I am addressing "Bloom's Taxonomies" right here—which side with "the law of the flesh," i.e., with only that which is "of the world," i.e., with "lusting ...," i.e., with "sense experience," i.e., with the "affective domain," i.e., with stimulus-response which negates "doing the father's/Father's will" in the thoughts of the children (students), directly effecting their actions. Negate the law from above and all you have is the law below (until you die, then the law from above appears, i.e., judges you).

"... for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10

The only reason "Bloom's Taxonomies" have not been removed from the school system (no one to my knowledge has challenged them) is because (since the 50's) "Christians" (having separated academics from the Word of God, i.e., from God who created what academics are all about) want(ed) to have relationship with the world, i.e., the respect of men rather than doing God's will, i.e., exposing and condemning "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., unrighteousness with the Word of God. There is no other reason.

"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

"I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalms 40:8; 119:11

When it comes to true logic and science, i.e., the laws of nature, which are established by God, God reveals His work (order in the creation) for our good (that we might know and use them, thanking, praising, and worshiping Him, not them).The scientific method, when applied to rocks, plants, and animals works because their nature is established (set once and for all) by God. When applied to man the "scientific method" negates the soul (which is made in the image of God), making man subject to stimulus-response, i.e., to his carnal nature, i.e., to that which is only "of the world." Apart from "doing the father's/Father's will" all you have is your self, i.e., your lust for pleasure and your hatred toward restraint, with those "of and for the world" agreeing with, i.e., 'justifying,' i.e., affirming you, i.e., it, i.e., themselves. You can not defend your position. Your position, as a "shied of faith" defends you, i.e., gives you your rights. Drawing the student into defending his position, when it comes to right and wrong behavior negates his rights given to him from above when he responds with his feelings, i.e., his opinion (the trickery of the process of 'change' is there is no position in an opinion, which is always subject to 'change,' i.e., to "sense perception"). I am still discussing, i.e., exposing the classroom environment, i.e. the method of instruction, i.e., the type of curriculum, i.e., "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., the "group grade" system, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process being used in the classroom today—where right and wrong behavior is established via con-sensus, i.e., with feelings instead of the con-science, i.e., with established commands, rules, facts, and truth. When dialogue (how people feel and what they think) is used to establish right and wrong behavior anyone insisting upon their position, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth will always be perceived as being argumentative. What You Lose In Dialogue.

The gospel message is all about "doing the father's/Father's will," with His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ establishing His authority over the earthly father and those under his authority—who, without the Heavenly Father directing their steps are subject to their carnal nature, i.e., "lusting ...." God gave us dopamine emancipation that we would enjoy His creation, thank, and praise him, not that we would worship and serve it (instead of Him), doing our will (instead of His). The trickery of the process of 'change,' i.e., of "Bloom's Taxonomies" is, if the authority of the earthy father is negated, the system itself (that is the key) the authority of the Heavenly father is negated as well, i.e., the One above is replaced with the two or the many below, i.e., "the group." Anything more than One engenders confusion (as any child can tell you, playing "the game" between two parents). If you negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the one/One above, i.e., the "old" world order all you have is the "new" world order, i.e., children "lusting ...." The scriptures are clear regarding the authority of the Father above, over the authority of the father below and those under his authority (all of mankind), starting with the Son—all authority is of God (under God the Father's authority—who will judge those under His authority according to their thoughts and actions, i.e., whether they did His will or not).

"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

"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

"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 truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 You fellowship with He who is external to your carnal nature. You have relationship with he who is in common with your carnal nature.

The father/Father is the author and the enforcer of commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., demanding those under his/His authority humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do right and not wrong according to them, i.e., obey him/Him, holding them accountable for their actions, i.e., chastening them for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting ...," casting them out (grounding them) if they question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack his/His authority. The same is true for the traditional educator—why those "of and for the world" want to negate him or her, i.e., remove their way of thinking from the environment, i.e., from the classroom, i.e., from the students thoughts, directly effecting their actions.

"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

Being told is different than discovering it for your self. The soul KNOWS from being told. The flesh from "sense experience." 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). If you reason from the command, you obey (truth, i.e., right and wrong are objective). If your reason from your self, i.e., from your self interest, i.e., from your lusts you disobey ('truth,' i.e., right and wrong are subjective). Your ability to reason comes from God, choosing to use it to do His will, i.e., what He commands or your will, i.e., 'justifying' your self, i.e., your lusts—something no animal does (it can not be evolved). Romans 1:18-32

"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

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 man subject to stimulus-response (only that which is of the world, what "Bloom's Taxonomies" does) man is (deceptively) equated to an animal (approach pleasure and avoid pain) denying the fact that man does what animals can not do, i.e., reason from being told, which requires faith in the one giving the command, rule, fact, and/or truth. For man to "'think' for his self," i.e., 'discover what is right and what is wrong (which includes behavior) he must "reason" from his perception of what is and what is not in the world before him. For those "of and for the world," 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" (according to the flesh, which the situation and/or people are stimulating) making you a god amongst god's.

"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 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

This makes man, "lusting ...," (acting as God, making law in concord with his carnal nature, glorifying his self according to his nature) an enemy of God.

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another." Isaiah 42:8, 11

"... 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

"And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:15-18

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." 1Co 15:50

God's order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system is rejected by those of and for the "new" world order, i.e., "lusting ...." What we all have in common, our natural inclination to "lust ..." is the basis of socialism/common-ism. What divides us from one another is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., being personally (individually) accountability to the one/One above us, holding us accountable to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth. This, those "of and for the world" reject (wanting everybody to be like them, "lusting ...." without having a guilty conscience, removing anyone who does not 'justify' and support them—the reason so many have and continue to suffer and die who refuse to follow and support them or get in their way (with them, like Cain not really caring, i.e., being indifferent to what happens to them, i.e., to what they have done to them, i.e., not speaking up for them, their feelings and approval, i.e., the praises of men being more important than their lives). Whoever defines "good" is God. Only God is good.

"… the greatest good for the greatest number"). (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive Domain).

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

"The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6)

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

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

"... 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 National Training Laboratories of America; A definition of Tavistock by Tavistock. (Clear cookies before accessing.)

"Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) After therapy, i.e., the "group grade" classroom, he asks himself, "What will 'the group' think?"

According to those "of and for the world" (you can attach any name or title you want to them—people get lost here, chasing after organizations and/or people, never getting to the root of the problem, i.e., the human heart and sin—but they are all the same in method or formula) when the father/Father tells the child what is right and what is wrong behavior, holding him accountable if he does wrong or disobeys he prevents the child from discovering it for himself, i.e., according to his carnal nature, i.e., according to his "sense experience." 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") makes man 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 participating 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 process of 'change,' i.e., "Bloom's Taxonomies" 'redeems' you from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' you to the world that you "lusting ..." might die in your sins, spending eternity in the lake of fire that is never quenched prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow him.

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

While traditional education, as the Law can not save you (only the Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled it, for your soul sake; works prior to and following salvation can not save you, salvation being the righteousness of Christ imputed to you by 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').

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

In the garden in Eden the whole process of 'change' was carried out, replacing "doing the father's/Father's will" with the child's perception of what is right and what is wrong behavior. You persuade with facts. You manipulate with feelings. As will be explained below, 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 ...," i.e., stimulus-response.

Laws of nature are set, i.e., established by God. We use the scientific method to 'discover' them in order to use them. Behavior is not set, 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') 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 pattern of Genesis 3:1-6.

"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? 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, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 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, 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

If you make what you want, i.e., your self interest, 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") 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 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 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 and "the group" 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

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)

Rejecting being told (when it comes to right and wrong behavior, i.e., what you can and can not do), turning to stimulus-response, i.e., "reasoning" from the flesh instead is sin.

"Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" Genesis 3:8

The liberal response is not to admit you are wrong, i.e., is to blame someone else or the situation:

"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 caught, like 'liberals' they both blamed someone else for their "bad" behavior, with Adam blaming the woman—"throwing her under the bus" (along with "the Father" for creating her, i.e., for creating an "unhealthy environment" for him to live in)—and the woman blaming the master facilitator of 'change'—"throwing him under the bus" for "helping" her 'justify' her lusts.

"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

A loving God, parent, teacher, etc., chastens and/or corrects those who are under their authority, when they disobey or do things wrong instead of turning their head, letting them do what they want. 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').

In the Patriarchal paradigm, the child reasons from the commands, rules, facts, and truth that he has been taught (told), suffering the loss of the pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates that are in opposition to them as well as the loss of fellowship with others who disagree with them, while in the Heresiarchal paradigm (of 'change') the child "reasons" from his carnal desires of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, i.e., "What can I get out of this situation and/or this person or these people for my self," building relationship with those who have the same self interests, i.e., lusts as he. Whether you realize it or not the negation of the father's/Father's authority is the ONLY agenda that has been going on (in the home to the highest office in the land) since the garden in Eden and will continue to go on until the Lord's return (so the child, i.e., the carnal child in man can "lust ..." without having a guilty conscience). This is why the youth and the "improvident, unskilled, and viscious" are so susceptible to it, "lusting ...." Everywhere you turn today lust is the agenda, with people removing ("tuning out," censoring, counting as of no value) anyone who inhibits or blocks them from having "fun," thus 'justifying' the "removal" of the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous, negating the guilty conscience, i.e., having any sense of guilt for their actions (which the father's/Father's authority engenders; Romans 7:14-25—more on this later). Having rejected the father's/Father's authority, i.e., accountability for their carnal thoughts and actions, lust is all they have. Taking "ownership" (in their mind) of all they see (that engenders lust)—seeing no wrong in it—their agenda is to remove (silence, censor, refuse to listen to, kill, etc.,; question, challenge, deny, defy, disregard, attack) anyone who gets in their way, i.e., who is "unreasonable," therefore "irrational" (in their mind not being practical, i.e., not serving their self interest—made manifest in the child's response to the father's command that prevents him from doing what he wants, i.e., "Why?" "You don't understand," "Your not being reasonable," "I'll just die." "I hate you.").

The father's/Father's authority (the system or paradigm itself) 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 desire (lust) for approval (acceptance) from others is an elixir, seducing you into setting side the truth for the sake of the relationship.

"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)

If I have twenty students in my class, from twenty different families, whose fathers differ from one another on personal and social issues I have twenty students, if they are loyal to their father's authority who are divided from one another. If I am "of and for the world" (which I am not) for me to move their loyalty to my way of thinking I must move communication in the classroom away from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, sustaining the father's/Father's authority system to where the students can share their carnal desires, i.e., their lusts with one another without fear of being judged, condemned, or cast out, i.e., without fear of the father's/Father's authority, thereby replacing their loyalty to the father/Father with loyalty to one another, i.e., "the group" (and to me), 'justifying' (affirming) their (and my) carnal nature, i.e., their (and my) natural inclination to "lust ...," making all the children "children of disobedience." This is the education system we have today, explained in greater detail below—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

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.

"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

"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

"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

"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

Now to "Bloom's Taxonomies." It is all about the Father, i.e., us humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating our self in order to do right and not wrong according to His established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do His will or us doing our will instead, i.e., "lusting ...." "Bloom's Taxonomies" are all about us doing our will instead, i.e., "lusting ..."—as Karl Marx et al, including Sigmund Freud advocated and put into praxis.

"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 us to the world. Self is actualized in lust and the world that stimulates it (this is where "self-actualization" comes from). While Karl Marx built his ideology on Georg Hegel's dialectic reasoning he rejected Hegel's use of "Spirit," implying there was something besides man's carnal nature (and the world that stimulates it) guiding (drawing) man through history. (Hegel's real meaning of Spirit was "human reasoning," i.e., "Reasoning" with a capital "R" being used to 'liberate' man from anything that comes between him, i.e., his senses and the world that stimulates them—the same reasoning God gave man so he could reason from the Word of God, doing the Father's will instead of reasoning from his flesh and the world that stimulates it, 'justifying' his "lusting ...." see Romans 1:18-32).

"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)

Society therefore replaces the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "doing the father's/Father's will," negating individualism, under God. Beware, when someone says "We can reach more people if we ...," you are about to sell your soul, "lust," i.e., self interest being the means to achieving it. Every ministry that has gone down this road has become 'liberal,' i.e., a friend with the world.

"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 and for a time director of the "Frankfurt School." 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" engendered individualism under God—the nemeses to socialism.

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas, another member of the "Frankfurt School" wrote:

"If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss," confirming the Word of God "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." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice; Romans 1:32 )

For the Marxist when the child humbles, denies, dies to ,,, his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will he "destroys" himself. It is the child's desire for approval from others, i.e., from society (requiring him to compromise in order to "get along," i.e., in order to "build relationship") that "freedom" from the father's/Father's authority and "freedom" to lust after pleasure (without having a guilty conscience) "are made reality."

"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)

"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)

When a person is "self-actualized" they have "transcended" (rejected) their parent's/God's authority aka the father's/Father's authority system, they have become "of and for the world" only. What is wrong with Maslow's "Hierarchy of 'Felt' Needs?" He leaves "doing the father's/Father's will" out, replacing it with society. How can you tell if someone is a socialist/Marxist? They are more concerned about their and your children's social life than where they will spend eternity, i.e., "doing the Father's will." .

"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)

For the Marxist what the father/Father says must be put aside for the sake of "the group," i.e., for the sake of "the people," i.e., for the sake of unity (worldly peace and socialist harmony).

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

For the Marxist it is the traditional family that "regenerates" the father's/Father's authority system in society. As Lenin stated: "We must learn how to eradicate" the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the traditional family (the "middle-class" that retains the father's/Father's authority system). Millions, hundreds of millions of people have died (and continue to die) violent deaths as a result of this ideology.

"The peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920)

"The Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie [the traditional, "middle-class" family] produces its own grave-diggers [children/students, dissatisfied with their parent's authority, 'justifying' their "self," i.e., their "lusting ..." before one another, killing their parents (at least not caring what happens to them)].'" (Lukács)

"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12 "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12

"Revolutionary violence [overthrow of the father and his authority] reconciles the disunited parties [the children] by abolishing the alienation of class antagonism [the father's authority over the children, dividing the children from their natural inclination to "lust ...," dividing them from other children "lusting ..."] that set in with the repression of initial morality [the child's natural inclination to "lust ..."]. … the revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life [hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father], which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers [the parents, the property owner, the business owner, etc., i.e., the father]. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate [hate and violence toward them], divide society into social classes [parents over children, owners over workers, God over man, etc.,], suppress justified interests [lusts], call forth the reactions of suppressed life [hate and violence], and finally experience their just fate in revolution [violence against and overthrow of their right of person (individuality, under God), right of conviction (speech and religion), property, and business]." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

Capitalists establish facts over feelings, making feelings subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., making the child subject to the father's/Father's authority. Marxists establish feelings over facts, making commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to feelings (their feelings), making everyone subject to the child's (and the facilitator of 'change's) feelings, i.e., "lusts." How did they know who to shoot in the Russian Revolution? If you said "Get off MY property." BOOM!!! Your dead.

"Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." (Heraclitus)

In other words: "feelings," i.e., lust (the child's carnal nature, "lusting ...") should direct the steps of man, not established commands, rules, facts, and truth (the father's/Father's authority) that get in the way, i.e., that inhibit or block 'change.' Karl Marx built his ideology off of Heraclitus (as did the stoics—which the Supreme court turned to in ROE V. WADE.).

In "Bloom's Taxonomies" the students' feelings (what Karl Marx called "sense experience"), i.e., their affective domain is the driving force in education, negating the father's/Father's authority, turning the students against "doing the father's/Father's will" in the process. Therefore established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of the affective domain must be compromised or set aside in order for the students to participate, making "truth and knowledge" subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the situation they find themselves in and/or the people they find themselves with (the meaning of situation ethics). Benjamin Bloom paraphrasing Karl Marx wrote in his "Taxonomy" (without giving Karl Marx credit, for obvious reason).

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

Karl Marx's ideology, as explained by Friedrich Engels:

"In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred."

Using dialogue, i.e., "feelings" to come to the "truth" negates that which is external (eternal), i.e., that which is absolute or sacred. In a classroom (or meeting) of dialogue the truth is drowned (negated) in an ocean of opinions.

"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)

Karl Marx defined dialogue, i.e., man "reasoning" from his senses, i.e., from his "sense experience" as man's ability to "set up a sinful world in his own home" in a world of sinners condemning him for being a sinner. It is dialogue (dialectic reasoning), which is "intolerant of any influence from without" (with only the senses having meaning), what Karl Marx called "Critical Criticism" that 'liberates' man, i.e., a sinner from being condemned for being a sinner. Those promoting "Critical Race Theory," the "Lincoln Project," etc., and all who follow them drink this l' eau de sentine (bilge-water).

"The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx MEGA I/3)

For Karl Marx (rejecting the child being created in the image of the Father—an issue of the soul) it is the child (by his obedience to the father) who 'creates' the father's/Father's authority. Until the child's feelings, i.e., his "affective domain," responding to the world around him ("lust ...," which includes lust for the "the group's," i.e., for the approval of other's aka affirmation) guides his thoughts and actions the father's/Father's authority remains in place. Benjamin Bloom made the "affective domain," i.e., the heart of the carnally minded child, "lusting ..." the 'driving' force in his "Taxonomy," therefore the 'driving' force in education, therefore the 'driving' force in society. Bloom made it very clear what he was letting loose in the classroom—"Pandora's Box," i.e., a box full of evils.

"The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box'. It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found." "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." "The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Pandora's Box" is a fable regarding a "box" (originally a jar) which is full of evils, which once opened can not be closed—once parental authority, i.e., once the father's/Father's authority, i.e., once fear of judgment, i.e., once "the lid" is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again. According to Bloom the "Box" must be opened in order to 'liberate' the student's "feelings" (his natural inclination to "lust ...") from his parent's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority system (equated to prejudice). It is therefore the duty of the teacher, using "'good teaching'" methods ("Bloom's Taxonomies") to pressure the student (out of fear of group/social rejection) to publicly, i.e., in "the group" evaluate himself and the world around them through his carnal desires, i.e., through his lusts, i.e., through his "self interests" of the 'moment' (that which he has in common with the other students), for the sake of "the group's," i.e., their approval, i.e., their affirmation, questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., his parents commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of his and their "lusting ...," i.e., negating his parent's authority (respect for their authority) in his thoughts, directly effecting his actions. In doing so not only is he 'changed,' the world he lives in is 'changed' as well. It is no enough for him to feel and think about doing it. He must do it (experience it for his self).

Coming between the father and the children 'changes' the children, i.e., 'liberates' the children from the father's authority (the same is true for the husband and his wife, but that is another issue—Divorce; all I can add here on the subject of divorce is it used to be parents told their children right from wrong, holding them accountable for being wrong but now they want them to have a "better life," not that it is wrong to have a "better life"—as long as you are doing right and not wrong in order to have it—so the marriage vow, which one said "for better or for worse till death do you part" now has an added unwritten clause "till someone better comes along"). Coming between the Father and man 'changes' man, i.e., 'liberates' man from the Father's authority. Even Jesus came to divide the father from the son, but instead of negating the father's/Father's authority he made His Heavenly Father the authority over all. Anyone who comes between the child and the father, establishing right and wrong behavior upon the child's carnal desires (dialogue), 'justifying' the child's carnal nature 'liberates' the child from the father's authority (discussion). The same is true for man and God (as was done in the garden in Eden by the master facilitator of 'change').

". . . 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)

Using science, i.e., the "scientific method," i.e., "behavior science," i.e., "oppositions [antithesis in Gr.] of science falsely so called" to determine right and wrong behavior negates the father's/Father's authority in the students thoughts, directly effecting their actions.

"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

Believing only that which is "of the world," i.e., "only" that which is "of nature" (stimulating the child's "sensuous needs," i.e., his "lust of the flesh," his "sense perception," i.e., his "lust of the eyes," and his "sense experience," i.e., his "pride of life") Karl Marx negated the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negated being told what is right and what is wrong behavior in the child.

"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)

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are not a true science. They are only the facilitator of 'change's' effort to liberate his self and those who listen to him out from under the father's/Father's' authority, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating all who listen to him into following, affirming, and supporting him, 'justifying' his and their natural inclination to sin, i.e., to "lust ...."

"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.

Bloom's "describ(able)" makes science (and man) subject to an opinion, i.e., subject to a person's perception of what "seems to" be (a theory not yet proven), making it subject to 'change,' i.e., not absolute, i.e., not repeatable, yet force is used to negate those who do not accept his opinion, i.e., his theory. Carl Rogers wrote:

"The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior ['liberating' the child/man from who "IS"]." (Rogers)

Abraham Maslow wrote:

"We don't know the answers to the question: What proportion of the population is irreversibly authoritarian?" "We will know that our knowledge of the authoritarian character structure is truly scientific when an average authoritarian character will be able to read the information on the subject and regard his own authoritarian character [faith in God] as undesirable or sick or pathological and will go about trying to get rid of it." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

Maslow's solution to the "authoritarian character" in his classroom was:

"I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." ibid.

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 ["Bloom's Taxonomies"]."

His earlier stance was:

"So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness. It's the easiest to take. Must encourage it. Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm. I certainly enjoy nudism as at Esalen & have no trouble with it. And I certainly think sex is wonderful, even sacred. And I approve in principle of the advancement of knowledge & experimentation with anything." "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) And Christian parent's have difficulty trying to figure out why students would have sex in cars in the school parking lot (during lunch period) at a "Christian" school—which was using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum. You "sow" deviancy in the classroom, you "reap" deviancy in the parking lot.

"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)

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)

"Obedience and compliance are hardly ideal goals." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

All Tyler, Bloom, Kuhn, et al. did was 'shift' communication in the classroom (the laboratory) 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., shows the theory to be wrong. Kenneth Benne, in Human Relations In Curriculum Change (a precursor to "Bloom's Taxonomies") advocated the same ideology. True science is gone when theories or opinions have taken its place, forcing everyone to submit to them. The only, and I mean the ONLY reason for the theory of evolution and climate change is so the person up front, telling you how to think can live his life without having to deal with the issue of sin. There is no other reason.

"No hypothesis in this body of writings has been fully tested. Nor will it be tested fully until it has been used widely in thoughtful experimentation with actual social changes. The school offers an important potential laboratory for the development of a truly experimental social science. Experimentally minded school workers can develop and improve the hypotheses suggested in these readings as they put them to the test in planning and evaluating changes in the school program." "Experiments on groups and leadership training suggest the following conclusions: (a) The change of a group atmosphere from autocracy or laissez faire to democracy through a democratic leader amounts to a re-education of the followers toward 'democratic followership.'" "(b) The experiments show that this shift in roles cannot be accomplished by a 'hands off' policy. To apply the principle of "individualistic freedom" merely leads to chaos. Sometimes people must rather forcefully be made to see what democratic responsibility toward the group as a whole means." "It is true that people cannot be trained for democracy by autocratic methods. But it is equally true that to be able to change a group atmosphere toward democracy the democratic leader has to be in power and has to use his power for active re-education. The more the group members become converted to democracy and learn to play the roles of democracy as followers or leaders, the more can the power of the democratic leader shift to other ends than converting the group members." "(c) ... lecture and propaganda do not suffice to bring about the necessary change. Essential as they are, they will be effective only if combined with a change in the power relations and leadership of the group. For larger groups, this means that a hierarchy of leaders has to be trained which reaches out into all essential subparts of the group. Hitler himself has obviously followed very carefully such a procedure. The democratic reversal of this procedure, although different in many respects, will have to be as thorough and as solidly based on group organization." (Benne)

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are treated as being scientific, requiring all to support its outcome, resulting in the negation of faith and the damnation of the soul for all who participate—the reason I call "Bloom's Taxonomies" secularized Satanism, intellectualized witchcraft. It is not how far down the pathway you have traveled, i.e., "I am not as bad as he." It is that you are on the pathway in the first place. Stepping on it (like in a pig pen) you stink.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14

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 Without the One above, who truly loves you, all you have are the many below, who are interested in what they can get from you (pleasure aka the stimulation of lust).

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 (as I explained above) 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.

It is all about replacing the guilty conscience (which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority system) with the "super-ego" (which eminates from the child's carnal nature).

"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.

"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)

Kurt Lewin explained what effect removing the father's/Father's authority from the students' thoughts (regarding right and wrong behavior) would have on their actions.

"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)

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

Those "of and for the world" know it is the guilty conscience that carries the father's/Father's authority system into the future, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' at least rapid 'change.' Without negating it, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and therefore the guilty conscience it engenders (for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for "lusting ...") globalism (transcending local and national control) can not become a reality. It is only in 'change,' i.e., in setting aside absolutes, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth for the sake of relationship that "worldly" unity can become a reality.

"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.

According to Karl Marx, parents, cultures, nations insisting those under authority obey establishing commands, rules, facts, and truth inhibit or block 'change,' i.e., prevent people from uniting upon what they have in common, i.e., their natural inclination to "lust ...."Without the "help" of the facilitator of 'change,' 'liberating' "the people" from the father's/Father's authority, the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting ...," would stay in place, inhibiting or blocking 'change.' The father refusing to let his children question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack his authority, prevents his children from 'discovering' their identity in the world. The same is true for the traditional educator (that is why they have to be either converted or be removed for the classroom).

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

"Change' from 'loyalty' to the father/Father to 'loyalty' to "the group" (and to the facilitator of 'change') can be accomplished by using both dialogue and discussion at the same time (in defining, i.e., establishing right and wrong behavior), which 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) The "pressure," i.e., desire for "the group's" approval moves the student to dialogue ('justifying' his and "the groups" behavior, i.e., carnal desires, receiving "the groups" approval, i.e., affirmation) instead of discussion (holding to his belief, facing "the group's" rejection). This is no different than what happened in a garden in Eden, where, with the "help" of the master facilitator of 'change' two "children" put aside the "Father's authority," so they could be their self, i.e., be of the world (stimulus-response) only. Genesis 3:1-6

"Change in organization 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)

"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) Dialogue tolerates "ambiguity," discussion does not.

The facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the group psychotherapist, i.e., the Marxist engenders a political system that is hostile toward the father's/Father's authority. KNOWING by being told and knowing by "sense experience" (when it comes to defining and/or establishing right from wrong behavior) are both political systems. They are antithetical to one another. One is based upon the father's/Father's authority (system) the other upon the facilitator of 'change,' 'justifying' "human nature."

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 self, i.e., his lusts, i.e., his self interests, in the name of "the people," converting, 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.'"

All facilitator's of 'change' and their followers are intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed by lust, 'justifying' all who think and act like them, converting (seducing, deceiving, and manipulating), silencing, censoring, removing all who get in their way (including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous) so they can "lust ..." without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation, needing your money and time to support their habit. They will do whatever it takes to keep their position of authority (source of income) as others (traditional educators, staff, and parents) realize what they are doing and seek to stop them from achieving their "Outcome." Being desperate to protect their lusts, i.e., being "desperately wicked" they will "turn and rend" whoever threatens to remove them from their position of authority, using whatever means possible. (Mt 7:6)

"Divide and conquer" is simply bringing up what people disagree on—who (if united) would remove them from control—dividing them, i.e., creating confusion, uniting with those who agree with them in ignoring or mocking them, bringing their emotions to the front (labeling, i.e., discrediting, i.e., slandering them as being "unreasonable," "irrational," "impractical," "out of touch with the times," prejudiced, extremists, backwards, "barnacles on the ship of progress," "relicts of the past," dinosaurs, divisive, emotional, rigid, arrogant, "intolerant of ambiguity [intolerant of deviancy]," "unadaptable to 'change,'" etc.,.).

This is done in the classroom (and in meetings) through the use of language. When it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior, by replacing discussion, where the father/Father (parent, traditional educator) has the final say with dialogue, where the students (with the "help" of the facilitator of 'change') have the final say, the father's/Father's (the parent's, the traditional educator's) authority is negated, i.e., is replaced with the students natural inclination to "lust ...," 'justifying' their opinion, i.e., their emotions over and therefore against those who are getting in the way—exposing the student to wicked thoughts and behavior he would not be exposed to, tolerate, and participate in otherwise. With those "of and for the world" (stimulus-response), i.e., facilitators of 'change' (using "Bloom's Taxonomies") in control of the classroom environment students must be exposed to (experience) all that is "of the world," therefore it is up to the parents to "opt out" of what is going on (which often they become aware of only after the fact, i.e., after the child has participated—when the child brings it up at home or other parents complain). With the facilitator of 'change' in control of the classroom (or meeting), those who adhere to "doing the father's/Father's will" lose out (are silenced, censored, or removed, i.e., negated, i.e., not worth listening to, i.e., "to be taken with a grain of salt," i.e., trivialized) in the outcome. "The end justifies the means" has real meaning here, revealing the "desperate" part of "wicked."

"We are not entirely sure that opening our 'box' is necessarily a good thing; we are certain that it is not likely to be a source of peace and harmony among the members of a school staff." (Book 2: Affective Domain)

Discussion divides upon being right and not wrong, i.e., KNOWING, which is formal, i.e., judgmental, i.e., 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.

"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)

Dialogue unites upon "feelings," i.e., "I feel" and/or "I think," i.e., an opinion, which is informal, i.e., non-judgmental, i.e., the child retains his carnal nature in dialogue, having the final say (against authority, i.e., absolutes, i.e., the father's/Father's authority). There is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, or in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is only the child'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.

"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)

At a buffet, for example 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 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.

To participate IS to abdicate.

"Eliminate" the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the traditional channels of top-down decision making and society falls apart. According to the Marxist a solution does exist—replacing discussion, which sustains the father's/Father's authority with dialogue, i.e., the children's opinions, i.e., theories when it comes to right and wrong behavior, negating the father's/Father's authority system and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "lusting ...." in the process. For those 'loyal' to the father's/Father's authority to even consider participating they have to perceive the child as being equal with them (both they and the child "lusting ...,") negating their authority over the child.

"Eliminate these relations and you abolish the whole of society; … a scientifically acceptable solution does exist … For to accept that solution, even in theory would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint other than that of the bourgeoisie. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely." (Lukács)

You can not use the process of 'change' itself against it (like fighting fire with fire). To participates neuters your ability to stop it. The process itself is the agenda. Your participation 'justifies' it, making law subject to the your and the child's feelings instead of KNOWING by being told. For the Marxist, law prejudices a man against his carnal nature, preventing him from becoming his self, i.e., of the world only.

"... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (Lukács)

For the Marxist, laws must be subject to man's (his) natural inclination to "lust ...," i.e., subject to 'change' as his abilities 'change.' What the citizen, subject to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the laws of the father/Father could not do as a child, he can with the "help" of the facilitator of 'change' and others like him, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority in their thoughts, make laws negating the father's/Father's authority in society, in the classroom, and in the home—using "social-environmental forces" to 'change' the "parent's behavior toward the child," establishing the child's feelings over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority. (Adorno)

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

In other words, laws must be based upon the child's (the Marxist's) natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' not the father's/Father's authority. 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 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)

'Shift' communication in a meeting or classroom from discussion to dialogue (when it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior) and the father's/Father's authority, i.e., private convictions are negated.

We "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Benne)

For Karl Marx, 'justice' is not found in the father's/Father's authority, i.e., in "Christianity" but in the child's carnal nature, i.e., in "societies" natural inclination to "lust ...."

"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 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.

"I am nothing and I should be everything," (expressing 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." "The fruits of the earth belong to us all [i.e., to the one making this statement], 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), voiced in defiance to "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26). "The proletariat [i.e., the one making this statement] thus has the same right as has the German king [the father/Father] when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse" (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 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]."

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 ...." becomes the foundation for behavior, making all equal, your spouse, your children, including you become subject to the Marxist, i.e., there are no 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)

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 is "guilty of oppressive violence." The child, according to Freire must be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority in order to "lust ...," i.e., in order to "experiment" and experience being his self.

"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).

When "Bloom's Taxonomies" are applied to the classroom, the traditional minded student experiences "terror," i.e., rejection by (and fear of hostility from) "the group" for not 'justifying' their lusts. He must accept "loosely defined rules" and "spontaneous changes in rules to best suit" "the group." Lawrence Kohlberg's "life raft moral dilemma," for example, where the student must kill someone or his self in order to save everyone else on the raft, requires the student to commit murder, i.e., to damn his soul in order to save "the group." To answer the questions and get the grade he must participate in murder (of his soul). When social worth becomes the grade for the individual then there can be no justice for the individual—the criminal becomes the victim and the victim becomes the criminal.

"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 so called "taxonomy" is used to evaluate where along a spectrum of 'change' the student (the parents, the community, the county, the district, the state—politicians pay for this information in order to know what to say and what not to say to "the people" in order to get their vote and support) resided at any given moment in any given situation, from 'loyalty' to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (prejudice)—inhibiting or blocking 'change'—to 'loyalty' to his and the other students carnal nature, i.e., their natural inclination to "lust ...," i.e., his tolerance of ambiguity (deviancy). Bloom writes:

"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." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

In this way the educator (and school) can be graded (along a spectrum—Redding Scale) based upon his or her (its) effectiveness in applying the process of 'change' ("Bloom's Taxonomies") in the classroom, 'changing' their students 'loyalty' from 'loyalty' to the father's/Father's authority system to 'loyalty' to "the group," affirming their natural inclination to "lust ...." What gets in the way of the process of 'change' is the Word of God—why it must be removed from the room (discredited or watered down with the opinions of men).

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself [one's natural inclination to "lust ..."] 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)

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.

"(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." "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 unite 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 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)

Whoever develops the test questions controls the outcome (the outcome is in how the questions are asked, i.e., in what they are asking for, i.e., the students feelings or the facts they have learned)—if the local teacher develops the test questions, control is local but if the state or nation, i.e., ETS develops the test questions, local control, i.e., parental authority is lost, leaving parents out of the loop. Not only is the student being graded (evaluated), the class, the teacher, the school, the school district, the parents are being graded as well (positively or negatively) based upon the students answers—which reveals their participation in, cooperation with, or resistance to the process of 'change,' i.e., their tolerance or intolerance of ambiguity (deviance). Here is where money, big money comes into play. Play the game and it is coming your way, resist and you will be punished or closed down—the developers of the test demand your participation, i.e., their profits (control).

"[T]he Taxonomy will provide a bridge for further communication among teachers and between teachers and evaluators, curriculum research workers, psychologists, and other behavioral scientists." (Book 2:Affective Domain)

Back to "Bloom's Taxonomies":

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

All "educators" are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" i.e., Marxist curriculum in the classroom—including "Christian." Questioning their use in the classroom will put the teacher's employment in jeopardy. By 1971 over one million of Bloom's "taxonomies" were published for the Communist Chinese education system. (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) The "taxonomies" are used to evaluate who is 'loyal' to the father's/Father's authority system and who is 'loyal' to the process of 'change,' in order to know how best to 'change' (convert) the former into the latter.

"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." (Book 2: Affective Domain)

Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm were Marxists, i.e., members of the "Frankfurt School" aka "The Institute of Social Research." Kurt Lewin, who was not an official member, edited their newspaper. They came to the states, fleeing Fascist Germany in the early 30's, entering our universities and "assisted" our government in making policy, moving education out from under parental authority (the father's/Father's authority system), i.e., local control ("in loco parentis") to government, i.e., their control. What made them unique amongst the Marxists was their merging of psychology (Sigmund Freud—'liberating' the individual from the father's/Father's authority) and Marxism (Karl Marx—'liberating' society from the father's/Father's authority).

"As the Frankfurt School 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)

It was Theodor Adorno's and Erich Fromm's works that were instrumental in defining what they called "the authoritarian personality," 'changing' the focus of education from learning facts and truth by being told to 'discovering' them through "sense experience."

"In Escape from Freedom, Fromm offered the sado-masochistic character as the core of the authoritarian personality." "The antithesis of the 'authoritarian' type was called 'revolutionary.'" ["revolutionary" means overthrowing the father's/Father's authority system] "By The Authoritarian Personality [Theodor Adorno's book] 'revolutionary' had changed to the 'democratic.'" (Jay)

"Fromm gave the humanitarian, idealist, and romantic proponents of the New Left a Marx they could love." (Bronner)

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

Theodor Adorno generalized that Fascism, i.e., National socialism (which he equated to Traditional Communism or Traditional Marxism where people are told what to do) was a result of the father's/Father's authority when in fact all forms socialism negate the father's/Father's authority in the home/in the "church." People think the Berlin wall came down, for example because Communism was defeated when in fact it came down because Communism (in its global form aka Transformational Marxism—in the praxis of dialoguing opinions to a consensus) had succeeded in replacing the father's/Father's authority (equated to National Communism aka Traditional Marxism) in establishing policy and making law. Transformational Marxist's had succeeded in replacing Traditional Marxist's—their eradication being the result of getting "the people" to focus not upon a race or national culture but of a way of thinking (paradigm). Adorno's "problem" (which he wanted to solve) was the traditional parent in the home/the traditional teacher in the classroom telling the children/the students what was right and what was wrong behavior and enforcing it, engendering nationalism aka "authoritarianism."

Adorno wrote: "Authoritarian submission [humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulate your "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." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Sigmund Freud, 'justifying' his natural inclination to "lust ...," like Karl Marx, hated the father's/Father's authority, 'justified' the children "killing and devouring" the father in order that no trace of the father's/Father's authority remain in history.

"'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the husband/father no longer exercises his God given authority in the family]." "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]." (Brown)

"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)

Marxism and psychology have this in common, 'justification' of the child's natural inclination to "lust ...," 'justifying' the negation, i.e., "eradication" of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "prejudice" that gets in the way. "Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. Eradication means re-education." (Adorno) ;"We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere." (Lenin)

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

"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)

By 'creating' a classroom environment where students could set aside established commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "build relationship," "Bloom's Taxonomies" "developed" "attitudes and values" in the students "not shaped by [their] parents." "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." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain and Book 2: Affective Domain)

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."

"Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain was the publication of Jacob's Changing Values in College (1957)." (Book 2: Affective Domain)

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." (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) "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 the following 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)

"Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose."—

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." (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)

"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)

"One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates, and to consider itself no longer subject to the demands of parents and teachers." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society)

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.

"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." "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 36:1-4; 10:3, 4

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

"Here [Colossians 2:8] it is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard. Who does not see how the universities read the Bible? ... it has been so bothersome to read and respond to this filth." "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds ... let us reject the word of man." "I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p. 259, p.217; Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207)

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" 1 John 2:22 Many have set out to prove that Christ never lived only to be overwhelmed by the evidence of his existence. "I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history." H. G. Wells

"Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it." Jeremiah 6:10, 13-19

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

"... the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge ....'" (Marcuse)

"Members of the taxonomy group spent considerable time in attempting to find a psychological theory which would provide a sound basis for ordering the categories of the taxonomy." (Book 1, Cognitive Domain) Those living in sin love psychology because psychology 'justifies' their "lusting ...."

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

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 persons 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.

"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

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 (lusts) of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world (including your desire for approval from others, 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" 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—which is the real agenda.

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

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2022 (last revision, 2023-1-31)