Communist seizure of power
Dealing with the Community Development Block Grant.
(Abdicating our inalienable rights to "humanist rights," i.e. to "common-ism")
(Fill out the survey and send it in and you abdicate your sovereignty. A survey is the eye of the beast. Like the Babylonian emissary in the temple, what he sees he owns. Government by survey circumvents representative government and is an act of treason. You can worn the people but, being blinded by the "free money"—the "Trojan horse"— they will not listen. They will fill out the survey on their way to the "promised land," only to learn, when they get there, that they have sold themselves into slavery.
Because of the need to help those who want to know what is happening (or has happened), what started out as six pages has turned into a fifty page article, full of the facts of the process. For the rest, being blinded by their "lust of this world," it won't be read, being to offensive to their carnal "feelings" and to challenging (formal, logical, and contradictory) to their 'reasoning' abilities.
"For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." 1 Corinthians 10:26
"And God said, LET US make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" Colossians 1:16
Rousseau (the 'logic' behind the principles of the French Revolution) wrote: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' [as God placed two angels at the gate to his garden, in essence declaring "This property is mine and not yours"] and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society." "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) As two in the garden in Eden said God's tree is everyone's tree so Karl Marx said the kings horse is everyone's horse so the UN, Agenda 21 (YouTube explanation), "Sustainable Development," and those who developed the Community Development Block Grant say: "Your property, water, business, family, life is everyone's property, water, business, family, life," i.e. if your not working for the "betterment" of the environment and the collective, i.e. for "the earth ... and the fulness thereof" (referred to as communitization ['Vergemeinschaftung' or 'communal' social relationship, i.e. involving emotional values, i.e. feelings motivated not just 'Vergesellschaftung' or 'associative' social relationship, or societalization, i.e. union of interest, i.e. business motivated (Historical Destiny and National Socialism in Heidegger's Being and Time, Johannes Fritsche)], i.e. democratization [a sustainable development of 'changingness' from a "top-down" form of government (capitalism, i.e. private property, business, etc.) to an "equality" form of government (socialization, public-private partnerships, regionalization or networking of business, i.e. economics, and towns across jurisdictions, confusing and circumventing their sovereignty)], i.e. conscientization [thinking about one's feelings in the "light" of the feelings of others, concerning the given (current) situation, coming to a common agreement through compromising one's position, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" with others on how to respond to the issue at hand, acting upon and supporting social-ist issues, resolving the 'crisis' of the 'moment' through collectivism, i.e. through the consensus process, i.e. through the voice of "the village," the voice of "the people"—crying "crucify Him," crucify the one holding God above man, the Father above His children, the citizen's rights, under Gods above the governments power]), you are of no worth, i.e. you have no value, i.e. you have no rights.
"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
All that man has in common with man is his "lust of the world," i.e. his carnal "human nature." Common-ism can only be built upon this "ground." This is the only "ground" upon which "equality," "liberty," and "community" (égalité, liberté, fraternité) can be built. Therefore, the Father's "top-down," above-below, right-wrong authority (to give commands and judge and chasten those who disobey, casting out those who disrespect His authority, rewarding those who obey, i.e. sustaining his "top-down" authority) must be negated if common-ism (the "new" world order) is to become a 'reality.' The consensus process based upon "human nature" (that which is of the world, i.e. that which is of the many only) negates inalienable rights, based upon a higher authority than "human nature," restraining and judging "human nature" (that which is of the Father, i.e. that which is of the one only). This is what the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is all about. Networking community-world unity via the attributes of "human nature," i.e. through the dialoguing of men's options, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" in the given 'moment,' in the given situation ('crisis'), in the given environment of 'change,' i.e. in an environment of instability. With no Father's authority being allowed to guide their way, man is only able to find "stability" ("sustainability") in the socialist agenda of consensus (in a 'momentary' "feeling" of "oneness"), initiated and sustained upon "human nature" only, i.e. finding "stability" only in "that which is Nature [of the flesh, i.e. of the world] only." (Karl Marx). This process negates what our Framing Father's gave us, i.e. our limited, representative form of government. Through the use of departments, it circumvents the "separation of the branches of government," giving departments power to legislate, judge, and execute laws of their own making, i.e. through the use of the consensus process initiating and sustaining laws of "human nature," of "humanism" only. Welcome to the "new" world order of 'change.' It will take care of you "from cradle to grave" as long as you are needed (and support the cause). Maybe.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36
George Hegel (the 'logic' behind the principles of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and the "new" world order) wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [all are of one nature, i.e. of "human nature," i.e. of and for the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain, i.e. subject to the environment, i.e. to the "flesh," i.e. to nature only] where there is no antithesis [no "top-down" authority] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them [the husband, the father, the parent's, the property owner, the business owner, and even God can not claim rights or jurisdiction over anything or anyone—As J. L. Moreno (if you have ever "role-played," as all federal agents have, Moreno is the Marxist who came to America from Vienna, Austria in the late 20's, who developed "roll-playing" to 'change' your paradigm from a "top-down," "above-below," right-wrong, sovereignty, way of thinking and acting to a "thinking through your feelings" for the "common-ist cause," "equality," "group think," socialist way of thinking and acting—the rolls he developed, to seduce, deceive, and manipulate you and your representative are the "positive" "group building and maintaining rolls," i.e. encourager, harmonizer, compromiser, gate-keeper, standard setter, follower, observer and "group task rolls," i.e. initiator, information seeker, opinion seeker, information giver, opinion giver, elaborator, coordinator, orienteer, evaluator, and the "negative" "individual rolls"—a socialist description of the attributes of the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ and those who follow Him, i.e. who think and act "Under God"— the sovereignty, right-wrong, above-below, private property, under God, thinking person, i.e. an aggressor, blocker, recognition seeker, playboy, dominator, help-seeker, special interest seeker, are all explained in the change agent book, Human Relations in Curriculum Change, developed for the first, of now ten, National Training Laboratories, i.e. training facilitators on how to 'change' the "community" and the "church" from thinking and acting "under God" to thinking and acting "for the people," i.e. for the common-ist "good") stated in his book, Who Shall Survive: "A creator, as soon as his work has emanated from him, has no right to it any longer except a psychological right [tell this to the patent or copyright office]. He had all rights upon it as long as it was growing in him but he has forfeited these as soon as it is gone out of him and becomes a part of the world. It belongs to universality." "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children [your children, your spouse, your property, your business, your life] belong to universality." "We propose, therefore, the specialization of the notion of parenthood into two distinct and different functions-the biological parent and the social parent. They may come together in one individual or they may not. But the problem is how to produce a procedure [the dialectic process of everyone dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, to a "feeling" of "oneness"] which is able to substitute and improve this ancient order."], since their indifference [the husband's, wife's, and child's love of pleasure] is not a formal or a legal one [being equal to all]. So too all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality [individualism, private property, and inalienable rights, i.e. where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is for the individual alone, with limited government protecting the individual rights of all citizens, under God]. Instead the surplus, labour, and property [economics, ethnicity, and environment] are absolutely common to all [are all bound up in "equality" of the flesh], inherently and explicitly." "The obduracy [inflexibility] of the German character has never yielded sufficiently for the individual parts to sacrifice their particular characteristics to society [for the individual to sell his soul to the collective, i.e. to the beast], to unite in a universal, and to discover freedom in common [in common-ism], free subjection to a supreme political authority [find identity in the Antichrist, i.e. in another Christ, i.e. in the Fatherless Christ, i.e. in the Christ of "equality," where Christ and man (the world) become one in the "brotherhood," i.e. in the liberté, égalité, fraternité of the "community" of "brotherly" love, where liberté is of the flesh, "égalité is sodomy," and fraternité ("community" or "common-unity") is everyone participating, as in Sodom, as "one" in liberté and égalité]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
If you begin with "feelings," i.e. pleasure, "enjoyment," "lust" (the flesh and the world—being at "peace" with the world or being at-one-with the "environment") as the platform of "equality," than anyone who inhibits or blocks "lust" (inhibits or blocks dopamine emancipation) becomes the source of antithesis, i.e. the source of tension, disharmony, and division (engendering "negativity," "repression," "neurosis"). For Karl Marx, they become the source of "repression" and "alienation" i.e. separating man from his own nature, i.e. his own "sense experience," and therefore from the world of the same nature. For Sigmund Freud, they become the source of "neurosis," i.e. dividing man between what he "wants to do" (by nature) and what he "has to do" (by authority which restrains nature). When "happiness" (pleasure, "enjoyment," "lust") becomes the driving 'purpose' of life, liberty becomes based upon 'liberating' the flesh from the restraints of the "past," i.e. from the restraints of the Father, i.e. the boss, i.e. the constituents, under God, making life subject to a socialist agenda, no longer sacred in and of itself. Sin is then no longer of a person's own thoughts and actions before the Lord (personal sins for a man's own personal thoughts and actions before God or a child's own personal thoughts and actions before the parent) but rather the standards of restraint ("repression") of the Father, i.e. giving commands to His children which restrain their carnal impulses and urges and chastening them when they disobey, i.e. passed onto the next generation his "top-down" way of thinking and acting, i.e. the "sin's of the Father" being not his immorality but his "top-down," above-below way of thinking and acting being passed on to his children, inhibiting or blocking 'change.' Anything which inhibits or prevents "human relationship building," i.e. "represses human nature," is therefore "sin." Mother earth, Sophia, Gaia, and the cosmic force of "oneness," of wholeness, i.e. cosmic consciousness, from then on grips the minds and souls of all who participate, with a euphoric "feeling" of "oneness with the universe" (consensus) guiding their thoughts and actions. [Satan hides behind our desires. Only when we give them all to the Lord can he be exposed. As long as the facilitator of 'change' makes our desires (our "ought's") the center of attention (our desire for 'change,' i.e. for 'liberation' from right and wrong, black and white, either-or,' i.e. desiring a world of "color" or "gray," i.e. desiring a world which is adaptability to 'change') he remains in a position of authority, i.e. he remains in control.] As Carl Rogers explained it: "The good life is not any fixed state. The good life is a process. The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality." "When the individual is inwardly free, he chooses as the good life this process of becoming." "The major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the other person, or the other group." "The whole emphasis is upon process ["getting along" in the here-and-now], not upon end states of being [where we will spend eternity] … to value certain qualitative elements of the process of becoming [freeing ourselves from Godly restraint], that we can find a pathway toward the open society [a world of abomination]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Jürgen Habermas wrote of "Universal Reconciliation - where reconciliation includes the interaction of human beings with nature, with animals, plants, and minerals." "Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or 'impulse.'" (Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action) Abraham Maslow, in Maslow on Management, explained it this way: "To identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." Freud explained the pathway which was necessary if man was to attaining universality: "One day, the brothers who had been driven out [by the Father because of their incestuous relationship with one another and with their mother] came together [came to consensus], killed and devoured their father [committed patricide, i.e. negated their Father's "top-down," right-wrong, above-below authority which they had to re-present in society] and so made an end of the patriarchal horde [annihilating the traditional home, i.e. "civilized society" with its patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the Father's authority, which separated the child from his own nature and therefore from the world, i.e. which engendered the "guilty conscience" which prevented the children from becoming at-one-with (in consensus with) the universe]." ( Freud, Totem and taboo) Sigmund Freud considered all children sexually active, that the Father's attitude that such behavior was "polymorphously perverse behavior" was the cause of "neurosis," separating man not only from his own true nature, but from that which he had in common with all of mankind. "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, ... leads to neurosis." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "If society imposes repression, and repression causes the universal neurosis of man, . . . there is an intrinsic connection between social organization and neurosis." "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." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (Normal, O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) The common platform of dialectic 'reasoning' is: not until you 'liberate' the children from their Father's restraint ('liberate' man from God), can the children (and mankind) become "normal."
As we find in liberal education (contemporary education), we find the same ideology, i.e. the socialist agenda of re-culturing America, i.e. negating the Father's (the constituent's) "top-down" authority, i.e. the negation of representative, limited government, in the town hall meeting: "For equality of opportunity [socialism, common-ism] to exist, the family as a unit ["top-down" authority, traditional customs, patriarchal culture, representative, limited government] must be weakened." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) Instead of simply being used in the classroom to 'change' the student's paradigm, the policy setting environment of city ("community") planning was be 'changed' to expedite the 'changing' of the representative's paradigm. "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed." [Moving the meeting from using Roberts Rules of Order, where a citizen can preach and teach truth and facts, i.e. attempting to persuade others of his position, shorter periods of time are allotted everyone (3 minutes) so that everyone can share their opinions, negating position, treating everyone's truth and facts as just another opinion amongst opinions] "...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 [the preaching and teaching of one's position, where truth and facts are to be accepted "as given"] is in some ways brought into question while more rational and non-authoritarian behaviors [the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. sharing personal "feelings" and "thoughts" on the given subject, in the given situation, i.e. desiring "'group' identification" and "'group' approval," i.e. affirmation] are emphasized [negating the "guilty conscience" for ones opinion]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 2, Affective Domain)
"'Sin' is the estrangement of man from man." (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God— The "God" above individual man is mankind himself, i.e. society, of which an individual man is part. Therefore "top-down," right-wrong, above-below thinking and acting, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. which separates man not only from himself but from society as well, is the source of "sin.")
"The dialectical method [Universalism] was overthrown―the parts [the children under their parents authority, government under the individual citizens control, limiting it, preventing it from bringing all together as one, i.e. majority vote, based upon protecting private, prevents consensus, based upon engendering public] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." "... a scientifically acceptable solution does exist [i.e. the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process] … For to accept that solution, even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [observing the world from the children's perspective, i.e. the disenfranchised perception rather than the Father's, i.e. the private land owner's, the private business owner's, which would effectively negate the Father's, the private landowner's, the private business owner's office of authority, i.e. negating sovereignty] other than that of the bourgeoisie ["top-down," above-below, "Mine. Not yours."]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely." "... as soon as the bourgeoisie [the Father's "top-down" authority system, private business, representative government] is forced to take up its stand on this terrain [in the consensus process, in the public-private partnership, i.e. the Father, having to find "common ground" with the children's "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. creating "equality" through the use of dialoguing opinions], it is lost." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?)
"For one class to stand for the whole of society [the "have not's," the disenfranchised], another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits [the "haves," the independent businessman and private property owner]." "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." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) [The grant consolidates the disenfranchised while dividing the business world, shifting power from private (independent) to public (socialist) control—by focusing upon the disenfranchised, the private becomes perceived as being hateful, oppressive, divisive, etc. if it does not participate, with grant money being spent to support the private who do, the private, in the public-private partnership, sacrificing their independence at the trough of Federal "handouts," bringing all into a "new" world order of totalitarian (Universal) government control. You can then kiss your inalienable rights and limited government, which go hand in hand, i.e. your liberty, under God, good by.]
"'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [dialogue opinions, i.e. "feelings" and "thought's" to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" or sensation or "sense experience" of "oneness," i.e. a heresiarchal paradigm of revolution, i.e. of 'change'], and why negative doesn't' [preaching and teaching truth to be accepted "as given," and chastening when it is rejected, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm of revelation, i.e. of "It is written ..." and "Because I said so," i.e. engendering a "guilty conscience" for disobedience—there is no re-presentation without a "guilty conscience"] ... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement―there's no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
"In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id [man's carnal impulses and urges], man's basic and unconscious nature [his "lusting" after the gratifying things of the world], is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner [requiring a police state], rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [the Father chastening his child for disobedience, engendering a "guilty conscience" in the child for behaving "immorally," i.e. "normally," i.e. "repressing" his "human nature," "alienating" himself from the world and the world from himself]."
"The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the Hebrews are decisive.)" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History—history not being what parents pass on to their children, to be passed on to their children, engendering a "guilty conscience" for not doing so, but rather the child's resentment towards his parent's authority, for restraining his carnal nature, i.e. for detaching him from that which he needs if he is to "connect" with, i.e. if he is to become at-one-with, in consensus with the world, history is man progressively 'liberating' himself from the Father's, i.e. God's authority. "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason [thinking through his feelings] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation [the revelation of the Father] nor that authority of the church [the Son of God] in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) This is why all history books have been rewritten, removing the principles of western civilization from them, referring to it as an archaic period of "repression."
As the environment in the school building 'changed' from "gum under the desk" to shootings, directly correlated with replacing the conscience (the voice of the Father) with the super-ego (the voice of the group, which has no conscience, only group pressure, i.e. "group approval") the same has happened in the neighborhoods of America. By removing accountability to a higher authority than "human nature," restraining "human nature," i.e. preaching and teaching facts and truth (using the paddle, i.e. getting fired, to reinforce doing right and not doing wrong, engendering the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong), to making room for the "deviant," i.e. dialoguing opinions, "top-down" authority was 'changed' into "facilitators of 'change.'" In the classroom, with teachers partnershipping with their students to 'discover' common ground on "human nature," making "room for the deviant student," the school system was 'changed' from a "top-down" to an "equality" way of thinking and acting, with deviancy (questioning and challenging authority) becoming the right way of thinking and acting. This was also applied in the neighborhood, i.e. student-teacher partnership in the classroom becoming public-private partnership in the neighborhood, with "deviance" becoming the accepted "norm." In this way, the socialist/Marxist classroom became the way of the neighborhood. "The school [the neighborhood] must make room for the deviant student [immorality, i.e. sin, i.e. "human nature," i.e. abomination]." "This person [the citizen] will be able to discriminate among values and to deviate from the moral status quo [from the traditional way of doing business, from working hard and doing what is right, from the restraints of the Father]." "How such persons can be discovered, and, above all, how such persons can be produced in greater number is the major problem for research in character formation." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba, Adolescent Character and Personality, 1949) The solution to the problem of "intolerance of abomination," according to Havighurst and Taba (socialist Marxists), was to replace middle-class teachers, who insisted students work hard and discipline themselves to get ahead (making life a moral issue) with lower and upper class teachers, who, according to them, tended to tolerate deviant behavior, deviant behavior being an accepted part of their "culture," freeing culture of restraints upon language and content (making life a socialist issue).
While this way of thinking and acting can be theoretically applied to all professions, it is not true. It is not a persons "class" that forms his thoughts and actions. It is his heart. Not all lower and upper class people are tolerant of deviancy, just as not all middle class people are intolerant of deviancy. But then socialist have to 'justify' their socialist ideology (their generalized theories) with opinions, not facts or truth. A pile of opinions (a room full of opinions), even a mile high, does not change an opinion into a fact, it just appears to do so. Thus, in an effort to "help" people "get along," the "guilty conscience", which holds a person accountable to a Father figure for this thoughts and actions, i.e. to one person, i.e. to the teacher who has authority to give commands, to be accepted as given, and uses chastening to enforce them, as God (according to dialectic 'reasoning' holding people to the "past," what they really mean is a "past" way of thinking and acting), was replaced with the "super-ego," which holds a person accountable to the 'changingness' of society for his thoughts and actions, i.e. holding man accountable to not only his own personal "feelings" and "thoughts" in the given situation, but to the "feelings" and "thoughts" of others in the same situation. Tolerance of deviancy thereby becomes part and parcel of man's way of thinking and acting, i.e. with society itself becoming God.
Carry this into culture and the culture is 'changed,' i.e. Western civilization is negated. Some call it a "culture war." Crime, instead of being stopped, as we are now experiencing, is used "to gain access" to the community, forcing community leaders into dialogue with the "deviant," seeking "common ground" to "save" the community, negating God (who does not tolerate deviancy) in doing so. Even the media knows that the "appropriate information" affects a persons perception of themselves and the world, i.e. 'changing' how they "think" and "act." The Community Development Block Grant perpetuates the same way of thinking and acting, 'changing' how our leadership "does business," overcoming "alienation" of deviancy by overcoming the tradition way of thinking and acting, i.e. which is doing what is right and not doing what is wrong no matter what comes your way (like the traditional marriage, "for better or worse," today adding "until something better, more pleasurable, comes along"), making social-ist issue a priority over and against morality. The issue of the heart (man before God) being replaced with the issue of pleasure, i.e. "lust" (man before man) becomes the only answer to man's problems. The pursuit of happiness is not found in government handout (which makes you complacent), it is doing your best as unto the Lord no matter what comes your way. Traditional businessmen, on town councils, have this attitude (doing your best unto the Lord or unto the boss or parent), which inhibits the socialist agenda of 'change,' i.e. 'liberating' man from Godly restraint, i.e. augmenting abomination. As you will see, it all goes back to what happened in a garden in Eden.
"Alienation is the experience of ‘estrangement' (Verfremdung) from others, . . ." "Alienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "Alienation, according to Feuerbach, derives from the externalization (Entausserung) of human powers . . ." "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." "Every form of objectification [faith in parent or God]... results in alienation. Transcending alienation involves transcending objectification..... Alienation and reification destroy both the dialectical interrelation of being and consciousness and, as a necessary consequence, the dialectical interrelation of theory and practice."(Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)
"The life which he [the child, man, the laborer] has given to the object [the Father, God, the landowner, the boss] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)
"Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God.)
According to Hegel, the traditional parent-child "top-down" relationship engenders the individualization of the child (engenders the "guilty conscience," i.e. the parent's voice in the child, i.e. an "inner negativity" in the child for disobeying or thinking about disobeying his parents, i.e. for thinking about or going with the pleasures of the world, i.e. for becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, i.e. for being "human," being "normal" in the 'moment,' against their will), and thus engenders "a greater inner negativity and therefore a higher individuality," inhibiting the socialist's universal cause of creating a one world government, a "new" world order based upon "human nature" only, i.e. united all mankind upon the augmentation of pleasure, i.e. 'purposed' upon the "enjoyment" of the flesh, i.e. founded upon "lust" (the word Hegel uses)—initiating and "sustaining" abomination. Thus the "greater" the strength of the conscience, the stronger the individuality of the person, the less he is adaptable to 'change.' The conscience does not stop the child or adult from questioning the statement of the one in authority, if it is in conflict with a higher authority, i.e. God, it stops him from questioning the authority position of the one in authority, under God. Freedom of the conscience of the individual, i.e. the right of the individual to question the King's decision, i.e. to question the government's decision, under God, without fear of punishment (punishment from God being greater than the punishment of the King or government), came from Roger Williams, while freedom from the conscience, i.e. the right of the individual to question the authority of the King, i.e. to question the authority of the government, without fear of punishment, comes through dialectic 'reasoning,' through the consensus process. The consensus process (the dialectic process of 'change' where man determines right and wrong according to his own "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. according to "human nature") requires (and engenders) a disrespect (and therefore a disregarding) of "top-down" authority, restraining "human nature." Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' love of God (who's authority restrains what all men have in common, i.e. "human nature") is hate of man and the world, i.e. hate of nature. Any mention of God's authority to judge man's carnal nature, i.e. condemn "human nature," i.e. judging it as being sinful, thus engendering a "guilty conscience" in man for being "human," i.e. for being carnal, is therefore perceived as being "negative" and therefore must be responded to as being hateful, i.e. responded to as being a "hate crime." In a dialectic world, i.e. in a world of consensus, a world based upon the "feelings" (the sensuousness) of "human nature," it is a "hate crime" to love a God who hates sin, i.e. who, instead of "tolerating" abomination, abhors it.
"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4
The CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), as you will see (if you can see), brings all who participate, i.e. all who go through its door, i.e. who participate in its system of thinking and acting (what is hard if not impossible for those who accept the "free money" to see, i.e. to understand), into hate of Godly restraint, hate of the Father's restraint of his children, i.e. hate of the constituent's restraint of his representative, i.e. hate of those engendering the "guilty conscience," i.e. hate of representative government, i.e. hate of limited government. It is based upon the principles: "All activities must meet one of the following national objectives for the program: Benefit low and moderate-income persons [creating an above-below, "upper class - lower class" consciousness amongst the people, where typically the middle class, who support the "upper class," in the hopes of arriving there someday themselves (through hard work and opportunity), the "lower class" instead resents the "middle class" who keep the "top-down," "upper class -lower class" system in place, undermining in their mind the desire to work to achieve an "upper class" position through the middle class mentality of hard work without any handouts, sustaining a "top-down" structure in society, i.e. handouts tend to initiate and sustain complacency in one's way of thinking and acting in life despite what socialist believe and want everyone else to believe, i.e. parents who buy their child a house, with the hopes they will pay them rent or pay them back, find out quickly it does not work out], Prevent or eliminate slums or blight [thereby giving the local/State/National/UN government the power of immanent domain, i.e. high taxation, fines levied, and heavy regulation on homeowners who rent their homes out, along with restraining building codes (for example: some cities require you to fix the entire plumbing system of the house you are renting if you repair a part, i.e. in some cities and states if you rent your house out, the renter owns you, they can even tear the house up and leave you with the mess—I am not excusing the homeowners who take advantage of renters, the courts are overburdened with both sides, the deceitful and wicked heart of man being the real issue here, which is and can not be addressed if we are no longer "under God," subject to a "guilty conscience"), moneys which are then used for government socialist programs, along with increase in crime as the housing area goes down in value and/or repair, forcing homeowners to abandon their homes as they move out of the 'crime' zone—the abandoned house does not just increase crime, the increase of crime also created the abandoned house—the homeowner leaving the abandoned house to the city, engendering "blight"], Fulfill community development needs that have a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community [not just the health of the physical infrastructure but of the people infrastructure as well, but also mental health (the citizen's adaptability, i.e. his 'willingness' to 'change' with the 'changing' times, willing to abdicate sovereignty, representative, limited government to "community" AKA "common-unity," communist AKA "all in the same boat," common-ist ideology), and social health (the citizens ability and desire to contribute his "physical, mental, and social capital" to the socialist cause) as well, i.e. a UN mandate]." This is the platform of socialism, focusing local government upon support of socialist ideology, bringing local government to the trough of Federal government dependence (socialism), i.e. handouts, 'justifying' the Federal debt (networking local-national government, i.e. our indebtedness to and interdependence upon UN ideology, i.e. creating a government and a people dedicated to "humanist" causes, void of "So help me God," from where we derive our sovereignty—interdependence voids independence as public-private voids private as socialism voids "So help me God").
"Quality of community," the aim of the grant, is based upon circumventing the traditional policy setting environment (shaped by a "top-down" way of thinking and acting), with the "hope" of creating "healthy cities," i.e. "one-stop-shop communities," across the nation and around the world. In the whole process, the Father's authority, the representative's re-presenting of the citizen's position, all "under God" (including God Himself) is negated or minoritized in the public policy setting environment. The "Delphi" method was a method of how to attain a consensus perception while still having a minority of opposition. "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [belief in parent or God] in the face of apparent group unanimity [consensus]; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Cognitive Dissonance is: "The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one's behavior or ones belief [to belong with, i.e. to be accepted by the group]." (Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology) "Group members must be able to discriminate between social "felt" needs [opinions dialogued to consensus] and non-social or anti-social "felt needs [the Father's, i.e. constituent's commands preached and taught, to be obeyed as is]." "Group members must be able to synthesize individual 'felt' needs with common group 'felt' needs ['discover' and build unity upon common-ism]." (Warren Bennis, The Planning of Change). "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 [his traditional right-wrong way of thinking and acting] may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) "A unanimous majority of three [a consensus] is more powerful [in the eyes of the public] than a majority of eight with one dissenting." (Dennis Coon, Introduction to Psychology)
Disguised as loving the children, i.e. as loving the constituents, i.e. as loving the "community," the Father's authority, i.e. the citizen's authority over his family, his land, and his business is considered as being "irrational" in the given situation, i.e. in the given 'moment,' in the current "crisis," in the consensus, therefore his rejection, suffering, and death is considered as being "irrelevant," i.e. what comes of him is his own fault for not being "rational," i.e. "emotional," i.e. a "humanist," a socialist, an environmentalist, a globalist working for the common-ist AKA communist (common-unity AKA community) cause. "Revolutionary violence [overthrowing the Father's, the constituents authority] reconciles the disunited parties [unites the children of the community, separated from one another by their parent's differing standards] by abolishing the alienation of class antagonism [by negating above-below thinking and acting, i.e. parental authority over the family, that engenders limited government so parent's can train their children up in their image, so that they can have dominion over their family, their land, their business, etc.] that set in with the repression of initial morality [if "morality" lies within man, based upon his "feelings," i.e. his "sense experience," and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. upon sight only, then God or the Father, i.e. the landowner, the businessman, etc., who divides and alienates man according to his "top-down," i.e. "above-below," i.e. right-wrong, "good-evil," faith based morality (His "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting which engenders respect for private property, i.e. "Yours, not mine") must be abolished]. … the revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life [the child striking out at the parent for taking away his toy or preventing him from going out with his friends], which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers [community wrath upon the "authoritarian" parents, landowners, businessmen]." (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) "It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate, divide society into social classes [the "have's" and the "have not's," the children not able to do as they please but only receiving money or right's when they do the parent's will, those without, having to work to have with the idea they should have without having to work, i.e. offer to feed, cloth, house, and entertain someone and give them work, why should they work], suppress justified interests [man's or the child's "lust" for pleasure], call forth the reactions of suppressed life [hate of the Father's authority], and finally experience their just fate in revolution [the killing of the Father, the King, i.e. limited, representative government where the Father is the king over his domain, i.e. his family, his property, and his business, i.e. kill the Father and those in government get all three]." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest; Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) "Only when the immediate interests [of the "disenfranchised"] are integrated into a total view [created through dialoguing opinions to consensus] and related to the final goal of the process [overcoming the 'crisis' of division caused by the "haves," i.e. the Father's authority, i.e. God] do they become revolutionary." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness) "The goal of revolutionary activity [overthrowing limited government, i.e. representative government, which supported the Father's authority over his family, the landowner's authority over his land, the businessman's authority over his business, keeping private from public control] was understood as the unifying of theory and praxis [the emotion of resolving the 'crisis,' overcoming the division, i.e. in the private and the public and between the private and the public (overcoming the duality of either-or, right-wrong, if-then, i.e. the "top-down" authority where the Father divides the child's, or God man's thinking through his feelings from his actions, i.e. holding him accountable to a higher authority than his impulses and urges of the 'moment,' through the plurality, i.e. the "equality" of "what if," where faith becomes sight, belief becomes opinion, fact becomes theory, i.e. man becomes God, all 'driven' by "feelings," with everyone uniting in consensus, i.e. with a "feeling" of "one," for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. progressively 'liberating' the world from God as it 'liberates' the children from the Father's authority, i.e. the representatives from their constituents platform, i.e. from limited, representative government—from that which inhibits 'change'), being the unifying factor]." (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination)
The whole purpose of the consensus process is to put opinion into action (theory into praxis), i.e. to put carnal feelings, i.e. "vanity" and "envy" into thought, and then thought, 'justified' by consensus, i.e. by "group approval," into socialist action negating the parent's, the citizen's, the landowner's, the businessman's authority, under God, i.e. to put hate of God's judgment upon "human nature" (his hate of the flesh's law of sin—"flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God" Corinthians 15:50), i.e. hate of God's hate upon sin, into hate of authority, i.e. not only of God's authority, but of all who believe upon Him and hold not only themselves but all others accountable to Him and his standards as well (standards which are not subject to the flesh, i.e. to the 'reasoning' of man, i.e. not subject to 'change'). Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' love of God is hate of sin, i.e. love of God is hate of "human nature," therefore love of God is hate of man (which is not true), then love of man (love of "human nature," love of sin) must engender, i.e. must initiate and sustain hate of the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. hate of righteousness, i.e. hate of believers, hate of right-wrong, good-evil thinking and acting. As Karl Marx wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [having to obey my parents (God's) authority I don't fit in with the world], Critical Criticism ["Questioning Authority," i.e. the children questioning and therefore challenging and negating parental authority in their thoughts and actions, i.e. man questioning and therefore challenging and negating God's authority in their thoughts and actions] must set up a sinful world in its own home [accomplished through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, to a "feeling" of "oneness"]." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) If you establish right or "truth" upon "human nature," upon sensuousness, upon pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. "lust," upon dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. upon men's opinions only (how he "feels" and what he "thinks," i.e. his impulses and urges in the given situation, i.e. in the given 'moment'), then to love the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (who establishes himself as right and truth forever, never changing) is to hate man (who is ever 'changing' according to his current situation, i.e. finding pleasure, "enjoyment," "lust," wherever he can).
This Marxist structure of thought is even being used in the classroom, training (conditioning) the next generation of citizens to question authority, i.e. to question parental authority (the patriarchal system itself). Human Relations in Curriculum Change ("What is Role Playing; Reality Practice as Educational Method," pages 224-241—"It is from the spontaneity of reaction that 'reality' arises. . . .") shows how the children can 'liberate' themselves from their Father's authority in a classroom experience of "roll-playing." To love the child's (man's) carnal nature, his impulses and urges of the 'moment,' you must hate the parent (God) who restrains it. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. Marxist theory, truth is not established above man's nature, never changing, but is instead 'discovered' in man's nature, in his 'reaction' to a crisis, forever subject to his 'reaction' to the social crisis of the 'moment,' i.e. ever changing. "Truth is a moment in correct praxis." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks)
"But, as has been pointed out before, we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative [situational] and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain) Bloom simply paraphrased the philosophical view of Karl Marx, making his paradigm of 'change' the desired paradigm for all to be 'changed' into. "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx) When all is "feelings" based, all you have is 'change.' "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain) Common Core is based upon the use of Bloom's Taxonomies in all the classroom of America and around the world.
Without an understanding of the paradigm of 'change' (some call it a 'shift" when in truth it is a 'change'—"It is no how far down the road you have gone. It is the road that you are on that is of issue." One step on the dialectic road, as in a pig pen, and you have "stepped in it."), which takes place in the consensus meeting, i.e. 'changing' participants from the preaching and teaching of truth (the representative re-presenting his constituents position), which inhibits 'change,' to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, (the "representative's" personal "feelings" and "thoughts," impulses and urges of the 'moment,' becoming subject to those controlling the situation, establishing the environment for setting policy in the 'moment,' liberating him from his constituents position) which initiates and sustains 'change,' you will never understand the agenda those who are propagating (initiating and sustaining the development of) the grant (the Community Development Block Grant) have, i.e. turning all participants from a recognition of a higher authority than the "feelings" and "thoughts" of the moment,' i.e. restraining "human nature," to "human nature" only, i.e. to the "feelings" and "thoughts," the impulses and urges of the 'moment' only (from Godliness, from a sense of authority above man restraining "human nature" to Godlessness, to a sense of man becoming at-one-with man and the world only, 'liberating' "human nature" from Godly authority).
Therefore, to love man you must not only become tolerant of abomination (the flesh 'liberated' from Godly authority), you must also become intolerant of those who are intolerant of abomination, i.e. you must hate those of who hate sin (who inhibit 'change,' 'change' being man 'liberating' himself from Godly restraint, the child being liberated from parental restraint). Thus, you must hate the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (hate the obedient Son of God who obeyed his Heavenly Father to the death and has called all men to follow Him, doing the same: "Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:3 overcoming being taken captive to the sensuousness of the flesh, to "human nature"). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' to love man you must hate (treat as "irrational" and therefore as "irrelevant" those who are "extruded," i.e. "excommunicated without writ," from "the group" for their refusal to participate with "the group," refusing to tolerate abomination) those who love and follow the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (above man), who hold men accountable to God for their sins (correlated with men holding men or the Father holding his children accountable to morals established by an authority higher than, and "hostile" towards man's carnal nature, i.e. as in, the individual citizen's, under God, holding the community leadership and therefore the community "hostage" to their beliefs and values, repressing "human nature, i.e. judging abomination as sin).
The consensus process, which initiated and "sustains" the Community Development Block Grant, 'changes' the paradigm of the minds and action of all who 'willingly' participate (and all who thereby come under its authority) from a love of right-wrong thinking—which "suppresses" the flesh, i.e. restrains the "lusts" of the 'moment,' establishes a "top-down," "Mine, not yours" and therefore "Yours, not mine" way of thinking and acting—to a love of men's opinions, 'liberating' and exonerating the flesh (making all equal, i.e. "tolerant of abomination"). What I am pointing out here is: it is not just the money that is of issue here, it is also what is coming with it, i.e. the strings attached (the CDBG is the string itself, attaching the citizens to government aid, engendering dependence upon governmen which can no create but only can take, i.e. taking from the citizens their tax dollars, i.e. usurping over their land and their business in order to "create" a "new" world order "developed" and "sustained" upon the backs of the citizens). The grant was designed to 'change' the paradigm of the citizens in the first place, i.e. to "shift" their paradigm from independence from government control to dependence upon government control.
God chastens those he loves. He does so to get them off of "thinking through their feelings" and onto doing what is right. Chastening produces a "peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:11. While "thinking through our feelings" blinds us to God's or the Father's authority, His chastening of us clears our mind of our "feelings," i.e. gives us sight, restoring His authority in our lives (rescuing us from our carnal selves and the world). By generalizing ("thinking through his feelings and the feelings of others," making that, "the approval of men," i.e. based upon feelings, the standard for determining right from wrong, i.e. what Karl Marx called "the either of the brain"), man is able to "purge" his thoughts and actions of God's love , i.e. correlating God's hate of sin, hate of unrighteousness, hate of "human nature," as being equal to God hating man himself (which is not true). But that is the only 'illogic' dialectic 'reasoning' (beginning with human "feelings") affords man, i.e. turning love of man into hate of the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ and all who follow Him, and love of God into hate of man (again, which is not true, i.e. God hates sin, not man). Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the lover of God must be negated if a world of 'change' is to become 'reality,' i.e. if the 'change' process is to be "initiated" and "sustained" in the thoughts and actions of all men. It is why all meetings are affected by and decisions are filtered through the dialoguing of opinions, aiming toward a consensus where there is no Godly authority, restraint, or "guilty conscience" for disobedience.
"Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matthew 13:12 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." John 15:18 "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." John 15:23
In Hegel's dialectic 'reasoning,' all that is of value is the process of 'change,' all else must be "purged" from life, even man when he gets in the way of nature becoming "one" with itself (with man becoming "one" with his own nature i.e. with his nature becoming "one" with all men as all men become "one" with his nature) through the dialectic process of 'change.' For Hegel, pleasure, "enjoyment ("lust") is only the means whereby man can be 'liberated' from God, from that which is not of nature. The end, is man 'justifying' to himself that there is only man, i.e. that there is no God except man, i.e. that dialectic 'reasoning' (man 'realizing'/'actualizing' a world of Godlessness and abomination, i.e. patricide and incest, i.e. theory and practice) is all that there is in the end, i.e. that all that there is is man "thinking through his feelings and the feelings of others, i.e. 'feeling thinking' and 'thinking feeling,' i.e. with 'feeling' and 'thinking' becoming 'one' in the 'moment.'" It took Karl Marx to take 'change' from theory (Hegel) and put it into praxis (into socialist action), i.e. putting thought (theory) into action, thereby negating, through the use of force, the Father's authority in the public arena, negating God's authority in the actions of society. It took Sigmund Freud to take 'change' from theory (Hegel) and put it into praxis (into individual action), i.e. putting action ("human nature") into thought, negating, through the dialoguing of the persons opinion, how they "feel" and what they "think" in the given 'moment,' the Father's authority in the individual thereby negating God in his thoughts. By uniting both as one, i.e. by putting consensus (Godlessness in the thought and action of all the people in the room) into social action (putting individual thought, i.e. "human nature" into individual action over and against the Father's authority, i.e. the individual compromising for, i.e. 'driven' by "the approval of 'the group,'" and collective thought, i.e. "human nature" into social action over and against the Father's authority, i.e. the group 'purposed' in 'liberating' society from the Father's authority, into socialist action, i.e. engendering a public-private partnership) private and public, under God, was/is negated. In the public-private partnership, private, under God is negated . Private, under God, no longer being able to restrain the public, becomes scarified to the public (now Godless through the praxis of consensus—the consensus process filters God from those establishing public policy over the private individual, the same is true when it is used in the "church").
This is the stuff (the pattern or system) of which the Community Development Block Grant is made. With its introduction into our representative form of government, our civil and religious liberties are at stake. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. having no Godly restraint (having no fear of God and love for His Word) in their thoughts, i.e. having no "guilty conscience" for their praxis, will do as they please, i.e. controlling "the earth ... and the fulness thereof" with no comprehension of the citizens sovereignty or jurisdiction, under God, that is, until the Lord returns to judge them for their praxis. The works of Hegel, Marx, and Freud are not academic, as they (and those who worship at their feet) would like you to believe, they are spiritual. They would like you to believe that there is no Devil, only God (regarded as a devil) getting in the way of 'change,' getting in the way of pleasure, getting in the way of the "new" world order, getting in the way of abomination. After all, regarding man's feelings and thoughts in the garden in Eden, all trees (all things) being "equal," i.e. of nature, it was just another tree.
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." Jude 7, 8
Over the past seventeen years I have spoken all across the country regarding (exposing, through the Word of God) the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. the consensus process (explaining Bloom's Taxonomies as being the source for 'change'). I have spoken to all kinds of groups, even to liberal groups, who admitted they could not refute my facts (I read their books), but did not want to give up on their use of the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. they did not want to repent of their sins. I have even spoken to state and national representatives as well as to town councils on the matter. All agreed that I was right, but, because of the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the process, many have since abdicated to the process of 'change.' I am now rarely invited to speak to town councils because most "Christians," who used to set up meetings for me, fear that the gospel message (which I do share) will be offensive to those they need to work with to solve their social issues of concern. That is the nature and the power of the beast, to either "convert" you (seduce, deceive, and manipulate you) or "negate" you (neutralize, marginalize, and remove you), negate your way of thinking and acting in the thoughts and actions of "all the people," including the "Christians," thereby negating you in their minds, having no "guilty conscience" as they negate you through their actions, i.e. in their inaction of defending you and your God given inalienable rights—there is no action taken to feed the child on the side of the road, i.e. whether in the "state" or in the "church," no effort to communicate with the excommunicated citizen or member of the "church" is taken by the citizens or the members, because they are of no socialist worth, i.e. they serve no socialist (brotherhood, "fellowship," fraternité) 'purpose.'
No one will come to your door and ask you why you have taken the stand you have, already having decided that taking a stand apart from the "brotherhood" (from the community) is not good for the "brotherhood" (for the community), and therefore not good for them. When you make the 'purpose' of the "church" the "fellowship," i.e. the collective, i.e. the fraternité, the believer, under God, must be sacrificed for the "fellowship," i.e. for the brotherhood, i.e. for the common-ist cause, with égalité from then on negating the message of the gospel message (the saving of men's souls from judgment, for God), making it a socialist gospel instead, used for the sake of liberté, liberating the flesh of man ("enjoyment") from Godly restraint, negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong (not doing right) in the end. The "Tower of Babel" was all about man (collectively) making "a name for himself" so that he would not be "scattered" rather than the individual man being accountable to God himself, living and "doing" under His name only, i.e. living and "doing" according to His will. The same is true for government. If you make the 'purpose' of government "the people," i.e. the collective, the individual citizen, under God, must be sacrificed for the common-ist cause, i.e. for "the people," i.e. for the brotherhood, i.e. with égalité from then on negating the reason for limiting the power of government (done to protect the individual citizen from "the peoples" deceitful and wicked heart, i.e. the tyranny of the masses and dispotism), with the liberté of man's heart, i.e. the flesh 'liberated' from Godly restraint, from then on being used to "sustain" the common-ist cause, "sustaining" a "new" world order of abomination. Inalienable rights, under God, must therefore be sacrificed for "humanist rights," i.e. for "human nature," i.e. for "the people" (and the environment they live within), i.e. for the "common-ist good." The "guilty conscience" and therefore representative government (the individual's accountability to God) is lost in the exchange. If you divide the church on the "have's" and the "have not's" (upon relationship with man and nature, i.e. negating sound doctrine) instead upon the save and the lost (upon relationship with the Lord, i.e. upon sound doctrine), you conquer the "church." If you conquer the "church," you conquer the nation, i.e. public policy, like "church" policy, being made from then on without a "guilty conscience," making "so help me God" some archaic phrase, having no 'purpose' other than to deceive the innocent or ignorant.
The same is now happening in the town I live in, i.e. Herndon, Kansas. I don't expect any more results from my effort to warn people about the dialectic process of 'change,' and stop it's use here in Herndon, Kansas (much less in America), than those who tried to warn the German people of Hitler (of national socialism), the excitement of the 'moment' and the promises of 'change' overwhelming them (blinding them) to where they were going (being lead)—in this case, to global socialism. Both "ism's" having one major feature in common, the sacrificing of the sovereignty of the individual, under God, to the socialist cause, where man (individually and/or collectively) becomes "God." As a U.S. Senator told a friend of mine, "When it comes to persuading people to do what is right, get used to losing."
"The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God. This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God)
I must confess that I write in a way that only those who really want to know what is happening will read what I write through to the end, the rest, labeling me as being 'irrational' (not relevant to their interests), deciding up front that the truth about where the dialectic process of 'change' is taking them is not worth knowing (being happy in where they think it is taking them). In the following pages I explain how the dialectic process of 'change' works and how and why it is being applied and who is guiding it along. I don't want to stand in the way of Armageddon. I only want to encourage those who are in the Lord to remain faithful in Him and not become part and parcel of the "new" world order (which is not "new") and participate in its outcome.
"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 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 2:3-4, 9-12
God's way of thinking and acting, which was understood by the framers of our nation, has been "practically" washed from the brains of the American public today. It is what 'change' is all about.
"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
The dialectic process of 'change' (the consensus process, i.e. determining right from wrong according to man's "feelings," i.e. his "felt needs" of the 'moment') is a subtle and complex process until you correlate it, as Hegel, Marx and Freud did, to the Father-child relationship, i.e. with the Father's authority to give commands to His children, commands to be obeyed "as give" (by faith), and to chasten them when they disobey (or cast them out if they disrespect his authority), i.e. Hebrews 12:5-11, and the ensuing "guilty conscience" in the child for disobedience, i.e. Romans 7:14-25, with either the child repenting, receiving the Father's chastening, mercy, and grace, or the facilitator of 'change' seducing, deceiving, and manipulating him for his own gain (as was done in a garden in Eden, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6—with the children thinking and acting dialectically, i.e. 'justifying' themselves in their own eyes, i.e. 'justifying their disobedience and their unrighteousness, establishing themselves, i.e. esteeming their carnal nature, i.e. deciding right from wrong, according to their "feelings" of the 'moment' over and against their Father's authority, establishing sensuousness, i.e. the child's carnal nature ("human nature," i.e. what all men have in "common," i.e. "equality" in the flesh) over and against righteousness, i.e. the Father's authority (doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will, i.e. who divides man between those walking in the flesh, i.e. being "equal" in sin (with some being "more equal," i.e. not just sinning but promoting, i.e. initiating and "sustaining" it as the way of life) and those walking in the spirit, i.e. being subject to His "top-down" order, as a Father directing His children).
"[S]elf-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
This is not only a conflict (a tension or antithesis) between patterns (or systems, as in what is called "systems analysis" or "general systems theory") in the political realm (the secular or temporal domain) but in the religious realm (the sacred or spiritual domain) as well. In the sacred domain, i.e. religious vs. "anti-religious" ("humanism"), the child either re-presents, i.e. preaches and teaches his Father's will, engendering personal accountability to a higher authority than "human nature," i.e. to God, or the children opinionate, i.e. dialogue their "human nature," i.e. their opinions, i.e. their "feelings" and "thoughts" only, engendering socialist harmony (which according to the book Human Relations in Curriculum Change by Kenneth Benne, does not "come 'naturally' to people," thus the need for a 'facilitator' of 'change,' i.e. Satan in the garden, to initiate and "sustain" the 'change' process). Likewise, in the secular domain, i.e. representative vs. "anti-representative" (the consensus process), the child either re-presents his Father's position, i.e. the elected representative re-presents his constituent's position, or the children opinionate, i.e. dialogue their opinions, i.e. discloses their personal "feelings" and "thoughts" on the given subject, in the given situation only, i.e. with the the facilitator of 'change,' the 'change agent,' "helping" the representatives disclose their "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' orchestrating the meeting in a way (modeling the environment in a way so that) that they all can become "one" in "feelings," in "thoughts," and in outcome. The "big brother" concept is a world controlled by the facilitators of 'change' (the "big brother") ensuring that man no longer finds himself subject to Godly restraint, i.e. subject to his Father's authority.
The facilitator of 'change,' the propagator of dialectic 'reasoning,' is there to "help" the representatives "think through their feelings and the feelings of others" in the given situation thereby negating "inappropriate information," i.e. negating "top-down" information, i.e. negating their constituents inflexible position (private convictions), i.e. negating the "negative" in the name of "tolerance" (in the act of being "positive"), thereby engendering consensus,. i.e. with all the compromisers present in the meeting experiencing a "feeling" of "oneness" in the 'moment,' in the "here-and-now." Therefore, in the consensus process, both sacred and secular end up having either a "top-down" pattern (being "negative" toward 'change,' therefore "irrational," "irrelevant," and non-negotiable and therefore rejected by "the group") or a pattern of "equality" (being "positive" toward 'change,' therefore rational, relevant, and negotiable and therefore accepted as one of "the group") with those propagating the dialectic process, i.e. the facilitator of 'change,' "helping" all present to make the two," "top-down" and "equality," "one" (synthesis), letting him ("top-down") "help" them become all "equally" under his control (he does not directly control them but by controlling the environment where policy or decision is being made he controls the outcome, i.e. he controls the people present, i.e. through 'changing' the way they think and act, from "top-down" to "equality" with him on "top," facilitating 'change,' he ends up controlling their property, their family, their business, and their very own soul, etc. Bringing all the representatives "feelings," "thoughts," and social action together as "one" negates the "top-down" pattern (true re-presentation) in both their sacred and their secular realm, making God and man, the sacred and the secular "one," making all men (including their constituents) subject to "human nature" only, i.e. subject to man's carnal "nature" only, i.e., i.e. subject to "self-social 'justification' only, i.e. subject to the "new" world order only, i.e. making all servants to sensuousness only, making all land, water, creatures, and people, i.e. "the earth ... and the fulness thereof" subject to the master facilitator of 'change' only.
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Ephesians 6:11-13
But, before I go any further, it is important to note that while earthly parent's (who Karl Marx called the "earthly family") are not perfect (some are downright tyrants) the office of authority they serve in is perfect, i.e. given to them by God (who Karl Marx called the "Holy Family"). It is this pattern of "top-down" authority (which those of dialectic 'reasoning' want to negate) that engenders in man (in the child), the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong (for sinning), which engenders individualism, which inhibits or prevents 'change.' It is the same pattern shown to us by Jesus Christ (the only begotten son of God) in His relationship with His Heavenly Father. While "dividing" the earthly family, i.e. the father from the son, the mother from the daughter, etc., i.e. dividing all between the opinions of men and the Word and God, i.e. the flesh and the spirit, the lost and the saved, He did not negate the Father's authority, i.e. he did not negate the patriarchal paradigm. He only made His Heavenly Father the Father above all earthly fathers. He did not negate "children obey your parents, in the Lord." The gospel messages is all about the Father's authority and His obedient Son, who, through His shed blood, 'redeemed' us from His Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience, i.e. for our sins, 'reconciling' us, as children, to His Father. It is Jesus saying: "I want you to meet my Father. I want you to know His love for you." If you don't understand this pattern, this patriarchal paradigm, as explained and lived by the Lord Jesus Christ, you will never understand the agenda of those who 'reason' dialectically, i.e. the facilitators of 'change' who seek to negate the Father's authority, i.e. who seek to 'liberate' man, i.e. "human nature" from the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, 'reconciling' man, i.e. through his "human nature" back to the world, to nature, to the environment, to their control, to their carnal pleasures only.
The Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ's paradigm is:
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49
"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50
"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
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13
"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." 1 John 4:9
Man's paradigm, in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ eyes, is:
"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 16:5
"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5-6
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." " And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15, 17
The synthesis of the dialectic process, according to the trickery (deceitfulness) of dialectic 'reasoning,' is the conflict between the Father's position of authority (thesis) and the child's "human nature" (antithesis) being reversed. The child's "human nature" must become the thesis and the Father's authority, restraining "human nature" ("repressing" it according to Karl Marx) must become the antithesis or else thesis (the Father's "top-down" authority) will forever be sustained, continuing the condition of antithesis (the child remaining subject to his Father's position, i.e. the re-presentative remaining subject to his constituents position, preventing 'change'). Reversing the order, starting with the child ("human nature," sensuousness, i.e. "feelings") first, instead of with the Father (doing right and not wrong, righteousness, i.e. faith), i.e. making the child's nature ("human nature," i.e. the child's 'natural inclination' to approach pleasure and avoid pain, i.e. to be at-one-with the world, with nature in the 'moment') the thesis, 'justifies' the negation of the Father's authority by the children, 'justifies' in their thoughts and in their praxis (in their collective socialist action) the attaining of synthesis, i.e. creating a "new" world order built upon "human nature" only, i.e. a "new" world order without the Father's authority, i.e. a "new" world order of "equality," i.e. without Godly restraint. If you understand this you understand the agenda of common-ism, i.e. the so called "new" world order (initiating and sustaining the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6), seeking to negate the Father's authority, i.e. the Father giving commands to His children, commands to be obeyed without question (by faith), chastening those who disobey, condemning, judging, and casting out those who hold his authority in contempt ("the children of disobedience"). Dialectic 'reasoning' (the consensus process) is "the children of disobedience" (the fraternity or brotherhood of the French Revolution, the comradeship of the Russian Revolution, the bipartisanship of the Second American Revolution) 'justifying' their disobedience, i.e. 'justifying' "human nature," establishing the "questioning of authority" as being the "norm," negating the Father's authority in their thoughts and actions, 'purposed' in their action to negate the Father's authority in all the children of the world. There is no representing of the father's authority in the praxis of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, only the covetousness of man's wicked and deceitful heart. There is no other 'purpose' for dialectic 'reasoning' (for the consensus process) than the negation of the citizen's authority over his representative (limiting government so that he can serve God in the private and public domain), than the negation of the Father's authority over His children, i.e. negating God's authority over His creation.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:" Mark 7:21, 22
"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." 2 Peter 2:3-10
"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 22:14, 15
In my research on the dialectic process of 'change' I have read books and articles over several times just to make sure my bias was out of the way (that I was not distorting what they were saying) and their ideas were clear in my mind. This is something most 'liberals' (and unfortunately "conservatives") will not bother to do with what I write, having already decided up front that the truth is not worth knowing (blinded by their "feelings," deciding that ignorance is bliss, i.e. "loving and making lies"). With the blind following the blind, refusing to know the truth, I find myself wanting to step aside and let them sink their ship. The only problem is, I happen to be on the same ship they are sinking. But I know in the end God will judge their thoughts and actions (just as He will mine), i.e. judging them for their carnal human reasoning abilities, i.e. attempting to 'justify' themselves, i.e. 'justify' their dialectic thoughts and actions (deceiving themselves and those who follow them), judging them for their lies, according to His righteousness, i.e. according to what is right and true.
"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Romans 1:17, 18
"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
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence [desires], and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Colossians 3:1-11 bold added
One of the textbooks which was required reading in a college class I took on Fascism was the book The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience Of A Single German Town, 1922-1945 by William Sheridan Allen. Allen researched the town of Northeim, Germany, documenting its 'change' from a typical small German village to its becoming a part and parcel of the Fascist "dream." The truth being known, as Dr. David Poteet pointed out in class, it was not a seizure but rather an abdication by the citizens, their representatives, and the "church" to tyranny against the human soul, with the citizens (and the "church") placing their hope in carnal man and the world instead of in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. loving "the approval of men" instead of "the approval of God," i.e. fearing men (the "here-and-now") instead of God (the "there-and-then").
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:36-38
"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." Luke 12:2-5
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28
Having read over 600 social-psychology books (over a five year period), i.e. studying the dialectic process of 'change'—the foundation for not only Communism ("socialist globalism") but for Fascism (an anomaly of "socialist globalism," i.e. "socialist nationalism") as well—it is troubling to see how easily the same way of thinking, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' has taking over the thoughts and actions of many of the citizens of the town I live in. Their having become addicted to the dialectic process (hopes) of 'change,' i.e. "thinking through their feelings and their perception of the feelings of 'the village'" (what Karl Marx called the "either of the brain"), it is futile to start a discussion with them. People do not take serious that the dialectic process of 'change' is all about 'changing' their lives forever, and not in the way they think. It is about 'changing' how they think and act, i.e. 'changing' them from a right-wrong, "top-down" way of thinking, engendering a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, restraining and chastening them for their thoughts and acts of immorality, to a "shades of gray," "equality" way of thinking, having no "guilt conscience" for doing wrong because there is no absolute right or wrong to feel guilty about, only opinions to be dialogued, i.e. tolerating their own and others acts of immorality, providing it does not hinder or it furthers the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. initiates and sustains the common-ist cause for 'change,' for unrighteousness.
The ambiguity and spontaneity ("changeability") of opinions being dialogued to a consensus through 'facilitated' meetings and put into social action negates the representative form of government our founding father's gave us, i.e. negates the representative's "guilty conscience" and thereby his duty, as a representative, to re-present his constituents principles of right and wrong. Bertrand Russell said that a day would come when men's opinions would be manipulated in such a way that he would be convinced that "snow is black." "The subject which will be of most important politically is mass psychology [the "group dynamics" of the consensus meeting]. Social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that ‘snow is black'. The opinion that ‘snow is black" should be treated as a morbid taste of eccentricity. This science will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." (Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society)
We have now arrived where when you claim that snow is white, what you state as fact or truth, will be treated as just another opinion amongst opinions, making it possible, in the eyes of all present, that snow might just possibly be black. During the Korean War, P.O.W. Major David F. MacGhee, while being "re-educated" by the North Korean facilitators of 'change' (his brain being "purged" or washed of the concept of sovereignty, of right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" and "Yours, not mine" thinking, of what "is" and "is not," left only with what "ought to be" or "could be," called brainwashed), wrote on the wall of his block house, so wretched the guards would not come in: "Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose." That is unless you want to "purge" society of those who think "top-down," sovereignty, right-wrong, "Mine not yours," private property, business, etc., under God, from having any input into society, preventing them from impeding 'change," i.e. inhibiting or blocking global socialism.
Carl Rogers wrote: "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 buying behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." Rogers boasts of "our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups. If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
"We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." (Carl Rogers, as quoted in People Shapers, by Vance Packard)
Inalienable rights or Unalienable rights (meaning the same, which no man or group can put a lean upon because they are unchangeable, since they are established by God, "self evident" to all men yet up to man to "secure," i.e. if you don't "secure" them you "suffer" the loss of them to tyranny or dispotism) are founded upon a right-wrong way of thinking and acting (upon the issue of righteousness, i.e. upon doing right and not wrong, according to God's will, i.e. why the oath of office ends with "So help me God," where those under oath are, at the end of the day, accountable to God for their private thoughts and public actions) which engenders a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong. "Humanist rights" which are founded upon a sensuous ("sense experience") way of thinking and acting (upon the issue of sensuousness, i.e. upon that which is common to all men, making man subject to the "common"-ist cause, i.e. seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable by the 'change' process) are founded upon the "shades of gray" way of thinking and acting (upon unrighteousness, i.e. upon man's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature" only, i.e. upon men's opinions which are ever 'changing,' i.e. subject to the 'changingness' of the situation, making man subject to those who can "engineer" the environment they find themselves in) which engenders the use of self-social (socialist, man and environment) 'justification' only, making laws subject to or 'adaptable' to 'change,' subject to nature only, advancing socialist cause over and against the individual's rights under God, i.e. the "freedom of the conscience" where a man can stand alone in disagreement with "the group" and be respected, i.e. whether he is right or wrong, regarding his position, his right of position (his right "Not to agree," and especially his right "Not to agree to disagree") is recognized and respected in the inalienable rights paradigm.
What is called a paradigm 'shift' is in actuality a rejection of right-wrong thinking (inalienable rights) as a right way of thinking (classifying it as 'prejudice'), accepting instead that there is no absolute right or wrong, i.e. that all things are situational, i.e. are relative and therefore "equal," environmentally, economically, and socially, i.e. all thoughts and actions are relative in value, i.e. are based upon the need of all men to work together to save the earth from individual man's (the citizen's) rule over it (the individual citizen having private property, i.e. a part of the earth as his dominion, under God)—"Under God" engenders individualism and independence (that all men are accountable to God and not to the environment only, thereby dividing man and land: separating land from "all men having 'ownership'" and "all men" having 'ownership' of land, i.e. engendering nationalism, and therefore separating a man from "all men" and "all men" from man, i.e. engendering sovereignty while negating universalism). There is no representation, sovereignty, inalienable rights, "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. for being unrighteous, in this 'change' of paradigm, i.e. in universalism. Any government that uses the consensus process (determining right and wrong from the sensation of the flesh, in the 'moment'), from the home to the national government, has declared war upon its own citizens inalienable rights under God, enslaving them to the "new" world order of 'changingness.' It, being a paradigm of "liberty," i.e. "liberty" of the flesh from God, is a paradigm of enslavement to the flesh and the world ("equality" in the world can only be established upon the flesh). Instead of 'redeeming' man from God's judgment upon him for his sins, 'reconciling' him to God (according to the works of God, through Jesus Christ His only begotten son), it is a paradigm 'redeeming' man from God (from the one above), 'reconciling' him to the world (to the many below, united as "one" in the flesh). "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." 2 Peter 2:18, 19
"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
"History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower [God above man granting him inalienable rights which restrain "human nature," i.e. inhibiting 'change'], but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum [man as God 'liberating' "human nature" from the restraints of inalienable rights, i.e. from God, engendering 'change'], in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow, ed. Richard J. Lowry)
"A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism [God over man, i.e. the father over his children, the employer over their employees, the landowner over his land, the constituents over their representative, initiating and sustaining established rules of conduct] to extreme liberalism [man 'liberated' from God, now as God himself, i.e. "the children of disobedience," the anarchists, the environmentalists, and the facilitators of 'change' 'liberating' "human nature," letting it rule over them and all of society, initiating and sustaining 'change'], and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) While preaching and teaching 'conserves' dialoguing opinions to a consensus 'liberates' man from right-wrong thinking, from the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong.
"All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity [the child's rebellion against parental authority, i.e. how the child "feels" and what he "thinks" in the 'moment'] be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical [that God's authority over man, the Father's authority over his family, the employers authority over his employees, the landowners authority over his land, i.e. all under God, be negated in the individuals thoughts and in his socialist actions, replaced with his thoughts and actions being united with and working for the "common-ist" cause]." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)
The three "E's" (Equality, Environment, and Economy) of the UN, the Rio Conference, Agenda, 21 (Typical Agenda 21 rhetoric which negates property rights is: sustainable development, smart growth, bio-diversity, agricultural land trust, blight - another word for eminent domain, community development, harmony, collaboration, partnership, pubic/private partnership aka economic prosperity, density - meaning dwelling/housing density, environmental justice, Green, human rights, income re-distribution, infill development, livable communities, multi-species habitat and corridor plans (UN Agenda 21: Sustainable Development in California), Sustainable Development, HUD, and the Community Development Block Grant are now the platform being used to bring all villages, towns, and cities around the world under the umbrella of globalism, i.e. working from the ground (and the water under your feet, the great "equalizer") up in circumventing the representative form of government our framing Father's gave us in the Constitution. It is what I warned the town council of in a recent meeting (falling on deaf ears, their being enamored with the "free money").
"All the issues that will be on the table in Rio – climate change, energy, water, food, global health, women's empowerment – are intertwined. We cannot make progress in one without progress in the others. Rio offers a tremendous chance to expand economic opportunity, strengthen equity and protect the environment – the three 'E's'. But to make the most of this moment, we need global investors who take the long-view and invest for sustainable prosperity." "Thank you again for your presence here at UN Headquarters and your deepening engagement in our efforts to build the future we want." (New York, 12 January 2012 - Secretary-General's message to Investor Summit on Climate Risk and Energy Solutions [Delivered by Mr. Robert Orr, Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Planning])
"Ms. Engel noted that all three E's (Equity, Environment and Economy) need to be addressed. She recommended that the HUD grant should focus on Equity, the Climate and Energy Resilience Project should focus on the Environment, and the business community should focus on the Economy. The three efforts should be integrated before they are implemented. She opined that in order for this process to be effective, it will be expensive and funding for this effort will have to be identified. In response to a question from Ms. Flemer about the cost of such an effort, Ms. Lyon said the Bay Area Council Economic Institute has estimated it would cost about $500,000 to formulate a regional economic development strategy over a one year period." (Summary of Bay Area Business Coalition/Joint Policy Committee Meeting December 3, 2012)
"The practice of sustainability reflects the intersection of three areas of concern for local governments: economy, environment, and equity -- often referred to as the 'triple bottom line' or 'the three e's.' Sustainability requires a fresh look at balancing all three areas that in the past may often have been viewed as competing against one another rather than being complementary." (Sustainable Cities Institute of the National League of Cities)
"Idea that strengthening a region's governing bodies and political powers within a larger country would create efficiencies of scale to the region, promote decentralization, develop a more rational allocation of the region's resources for benefit of the local populations, increase the efficient implementation of local plans, raise competitiveness levels among the regions and ultimately the whole country, and save taxpayers money; Three e's, economic growth, environmentalism, equity." (Regionalism; Quizlet.com)
"Sustainability: to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. A sustainable community fosters the three E's; environment, economy, and equity by not letting the interest of one be considered above the others." (City of La Mesa)
"Additionally, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that localities utilizing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. (2012 Draft Marin County Housing Element Appendix)
"In 1993, the University of Colorado established the Wirth Chair in Environmental and Community Development Policy. It is the first Chair in public policy in the University and the only Chair at the University of Colorado Denver. It honors the environmental and sustainable development achievements of former Senator and Undersecretary of State Timothy E. Wirth. Wirth's work in Congress, in the State Department and now as President of the United Nations Foundation has truly made a difference. His efforts have helped foster an improved quality of life for individuals in Colorado, in the United States and throughout the world." (School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, Denver)
All across America today, small towns are following the same pattern, not to local, State, or National sovereignty, under God, which those of the "new" world order (in error, but for the sake of 'justification') equate to Fascism (national socialism), but to Globalism (global socialism), i.e. negating local, State, and National sovereignty under the banner of the three "E's": Environmentalism, Equality, and Economics—"Sustainable Development," i.e. initiating and "sustaining" the "development" of an "equality" system of covert authority, a heresiarchal paradigm of "changingness" way of thinking and acting, empowering government, i.e. socialism over and against a "top-down" system of overt authority, a patriarchal paradigm of "fixity" way of thinking and acting, which under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights made the individual citizen the King (the French and Russian Revolution killed the King, we just made the citizen the King over his property and life, limiting the power of government in order to protect the individual citizen from "despotism," i.e. from national socialism and global socialism (or both united as one as is now being done under the guise of "Equality," "Environmentalism," and "Economics"), determining how the 'citizen' is to think and act.
"Socially useful work and its results determine a person's status in society." "Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society." (former Soviet Union Constitution—now being put into praxis in education, i.e. Common Core)
"In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." "The goals of democratic education can be nothing else but development toward psychological health." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management—Maslow's ideology was Marxist and his "psychological health" was abomination: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the humanistic. (Better add to definition of 'humanistic' that it also means one species, One World.)" "Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers." "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." "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 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)
American's are abdicating their sovereignty to programs of 'change' which offer "free money," i.e. grants such as the Community Development Block Grant, as some in the small town of Herndon, Kansas are now wanting us to do. What the citizens do not know or are not willing to accept (enamored, i.e. blinded by the offer of "free money," the "Trojan horse," i.e. "hooked" on dopamine) is that the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG ("the longest continuously run program at HUD," which has a track record of corruption) circumvents our representative form of government, with our elected representatives turning policy making over to a foreign entity (where public policy is being made for the citizens of Herndon, Kansas through the use of polls, surveys, feasibility studies and nonelected people, some not of our town—regionalizing, confusing, and circumventing jurisdictions—which makes it an act of treason, i.e. joining the town of Herndon, Kansas to a global agenda, making the town part and parcel of a "global village" way of thinking and acting, implanting federal, international, and UN policies, i.e. Agenda 21, into our local activates, bypassing our representative form of government and local control—which some citizens seem to have no problem with, stating "We are doing it already," making it impossible for me to warn them of its outcome, having already labeled me as being "irrational," i.e. standing in the way of the "free money," i.e. standing in the way of progress, i.e. standing in the way of 'change.'
People mistakenly think that the Berlin Wall came down because Communism was defeated. The truth is, the Berlin Wall came down because Communism succeeded. What most people do not realize is that Marxists came to the United States in the 30's, men from "the Frankfurt School," Kurt Lewin who edited their papers (who came from Germany), and J. L. Moreno (who came from Austria in the late 20's)—all National Training Laboratories (NTL's) in America, what I call "Marxist training camps," as well as the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colorado, and Tavistock in the UK, are the outcome of their work—who bothered to study Karl Marx with "a fine tooth comb," understanding that you do not have to shoot the landlord (the private property owner) but instead you just need to neutralize, marginalize, and manipulate him into participation within the global "village," i.e. "convert" him through his 'willful' participation in the consensus process. And then, when that does not work, remove him or have him remove himself, becoming perceived by the general public as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" (an anti-socialist, anti-common-ist, hard headed, uncaring individualist, i.e. an "extremist," not worth listening to) when it comes to "matters of importance."
While the traditional paradigm of thinking and acting (the "top-down" patriarchal paradigm of unchangingness) divides a person's feelings from his actions (making his affective domain, i.e. his "feelings" subject to his cognitive domain, i.e. the established facts and truth he has learned to believe in), with the use of chastening directing him in doing what is right despite his "lusts" or his "felt" needs of the 'moment,' therefore engendering an attitude of persuasion by facts (through discussion) if he is to change his position (resulting in what is called a "belief-action dichotomy" where the persons belief in God's Word or in his parents standards is in conflict with his carnal actions, i.e. his flesh, and his carnal actions are in conflict with his belief, creating a state of tension, i.e. a state of antithesis where his affections are toward God or his parents instead of toward the natural world, i.e. his own carnal nature), the transformational paradigm of thinking and acting (the "equality" heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness') reunites a person's feelings (his affective domain) to his actions thus making him seducible, deceivable, and therefore manipulatable, i.e. readily adaptable to 'change' through the dialoguing of his opinion (how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the 'moment') with others, making it easier for him to 'change,' to come to consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") with others. It was this factor, the addition of "felt" needs (psychology), what Marx called "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience" (not knowing how to apply it from the individual to society through seduction, deception, and manipulation, only knowing how to apply it from society to the individual by force), to Marxism that allowed Marxism to become acceptable in the public eye and therefore able to enter into the public's life through education, entertainment, the workplace, government, and even (especially) through the "church."
As Martin Jay explained, in his book, The Dialectical Imagination. A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institution of Social Research, Transformational Marxists (social-psychologist, i.e. facilitators of 'change') realized that the solution to the failure of Marxism was to be found in Sigmund Freud, i.e. in psychology (what Jay called "the missing link"), i.e. switching from Traditional Marxism, i.e. killing the preachers and teachers of truth, annihilating the advocates of accountability to and sovereignty under God, negating the ideology of doing right and not doing wrong according to a "higher authority" than "human nature" itself, i.e. restraining "human nature," i.e. dictating the use of commands, i.e. "Karl Marx said" and the use of force (equating them to the same "top-down" system as Fascism, i.e. Nationalism), to Transformational Marxism, i.e. getting people, through the dialoguing of their opinions, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" ("thinking through their feelings and the feelings of others") in the 'moment,' to focus upon "human nature," i.e. theirs and others "felt" needs only, i.e. upon the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain for the 'purpose' of augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain only, so that all 'willful' participants can come to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. to a "we" working for "us" feeling of "comradeship"). This turned Traditional Marxists, who shoot the infrastructure of society, to "purge" it of the traditionalists, i.e. to cleanse it of individualism (as Lenin did), into Transformational Marxists (what I call "user-friendly Marxists," "Communists with a smile"), where they "convert" the traditional citizen (and his representative), through his 'willful' participation within the consensus process of 'change,' transforming them into a "common-ist," i.e. into a continuous state of 'change' (there are not absolute, i.e. belief in the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. how one "feels" or what he "thinks," only a state of "equality," with "position" always subject to 'change,' always adaptable to 'change,' i.e. the current situation, the environment of 'moment'—in this way whoever shapes the environment, controls the outcome, i.e. facts to position and belief or feelings to opinions and 'changingness'; there is no representation in the environment of 'change' except the representation of the 'change' process itself). After all, Karl Marx was all about 'change.'
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11
Have you heard the word 'change' recently? The issue of 'change' is about people who come into meetings, insisting that their position is right, dividing the community between party lines (between beliefs, right and wrong, i.e. "I'm right, your wrong," "My property, not your property," i.e. sovereignty, inalienable rights, etc.), when they should instead, according to Karl Marx, practice 'change' (what he called praxis) by coming together and focusing upon what they have in common, i.e. dialoguing their common "felt" needs, i.e. their social (socialist) needs, i.e. their common-ist, "sensuous needs," i.e. flesh/environment (materialist) needs only, setting aside their position, i.e. their belief, i.e. their traditional way of doing business, i.e. their individualism, i.e. their "judgmentalism" of doing right and not doing wrong, i.e. thinking and acting according to God's way (for the child, their parent's standards, for the citizen, their upbringing standards, i.e. their "accustomed way of doing things," for the believer, God's standards, etc.), unwilling to put aside their "My land, not your land" attitude, i.e. their beliefs, i.e. "holding men accountable to standards which they did not create and therefore can not 'change' in the 'present,'" i.e. standards of the "past" which are not "adaptable to 'change,'" thereby preventing 'change' because the individual is unwilling to 'change,' i.e. is unwilling to give up right-wrong thinking, i.e. is unwilling to give up God, that is he is unwilling to give up the "past," unwilling to set truth aside for the sake of the community (communitization), for the sake of the present crisis and the future dreams.
Those of "equality" can not perceive of God above man, restraining man, directing his steps, as a Father above his children, restraining them, directing their steps, and the man or children being free at the same time. They can only perceive of belief, right-wrong thinking, as being the result of a person holding onto experiences of the "past," preventing him from 'changing' with the 'changing' conditions of the "present" (from where we get "situational ethics"). Instead of thinking from Heaven to earth (starting from "top-down," from the Father's or God's authority), dividing man according to right and wrong, the Marxist (actually Hegelian) idea is to think from earth to Heaven (starting from "equality," i.e. from "human nature"), uniting man with man and man with nature only, uniting man and child upon the idea that nature ("sensuous need") is all that there really is. Dialectic 'reasoning' 'liberates' man and nature from the "top-down" restraining authority of God, i.e. 'liberates' the child and nature from his Father's authority, under God, i.e. 'liberates' the representative and the environment from his constituents authority, under God—negates our guaranteed rights, recognized by the Constitution with its Bill of Rights)—thereby creating a dialectic (Fatherless, Godless) world of 'change.' Hegel's statement "purposiveness without purpose" and "lawfulness without law" simply means that life has 'purpose' only because the nature of man is to approach pleasure and avoid pain, that "human nature," the law of the flesh, i.e. not God, is the only law which is common to all men (of men's opinions, which is always subject to 'change,' with man therefore always needing to be subject to 'change') and not of God (according to His word, i.e. "It is written," which inhibits or prevents 'change').
"In direct contrast to German philosophy, which descends from heaven to earth [with one above ruling over the many below, restraining man/children (according to Marx, "repressing" and "alienating" man/the child from his own nature, i.e. from that which he has in common with all the world, according to Freud the source of "neurosis," i.e. man not being able to act "normal" because of standards his parents taught him which were "abnormal," i.e. restraining "human nature")], here we ascend from earth to heaven [with the many becoming "one" in consensus, uniting men/children upon "human nature" only, 'liberated' them from the restraining authority of God, i.e. from the Father's "top-down" authority—instead of 'redeeming' man from God's wrath upon him for his disobedience, 'reconciling' him to the Heavenly Father through Christ Jesus only, Karl Marx, through the "logic" of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the dialectic process of 'change,' 'redeems' man from God, 'reconciling' him to the world only]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/5)
Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must be destroyed [annihilated] in theory and in practice [the Father's authority and beliefs must be negated in the child's thoughts and in his social-ist actions when he is deciding what to do in the 'moment,' i.e. the constituents authority and beliefs must be negated in the representatives thoughts and social-ist actions when he is deciding what to do in the 'moment,' etc.]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)
Not to be outdone by Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud wrote: "'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." (Sigmund Freud quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) It is not a matter of whether the father is alive or dead, it is the fact that he no longer functions with a father's authority. Freud's psychology is based upon "the children of disobedience," who, after having been driven out by their Father because of their incestuous behavior toward one another and his wife (their mother), come to consensus in not only killing their Father but eating him as well, leaving no trace of his existence (in the thoughts and actions of the children—removing, i.e. rewriting history that would restore 'civilization' to his "top-down" system) in the future, and, with those children still in the family they can seduce, deceive, and manipulate into joining with them, carrying out the deed (praxis, putting into social-ist action the praxis of negating the Father's authority over the children, negating God's authority over man, negating of the constitutes authority over the representative, negating the effect the "guilty conscience" has over the individual for disobedience to God, his Father, his constituents, etc.—Machiavelli emphasized the need to "initiate" and "sustain" the power of government without a "guilty conscience," i.e. without holding loyalty to that which is of the "past," of the "old," making alliances with whoever would sustain the "new" order, i.e. the CDBG, in like fashion, makes alliances with the "disenfranchised" (feelings based), circumventing the "old" order of representative government, making all subject to a "new" world order, freed of the restraints of the "past," i.e. no longer limited by the standards of the "ruling class," i.e. with government no longer controled by the citizens who believe in and support inalienable rights of right and wrong and limited government, under God, now considered the "enemy," the resisters to 'change').
"Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification' [with gratification being placed in God or the Father, restraining "human nature," having dominating over nature, rather than in "human nature" and nature itself, i.e. in that which is natural, i.e. carnal only]– the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.' " "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression.... Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression – in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body. The resurrection of the body [the 'liberation' of the flesh from Godly restraint] is a social project." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud built upon George Hegel's dialectic 'reasoning.' Hegel wrote: "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 [when the child's "natural inclination" to become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment' is 'liberated' from his Father's authority, i.e. when his Father no longer has authority to make "human nature" subject to His will, i.e. "repressing" it, the child ("human nature" unrestrained by righteousness) becomes the 'drive' of and the 'purpose' for life not only in the child's/adult's private life, but in his public life as well]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
Hegel wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [all equal according to "human nature," all lusting after pleasure with the world] where there is no antithesis [no "top-down" authority of husband as head over his wife and the parents ruling over their children, under God] 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. So too all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality [in the Father's authority, i.e. the citizens authority to defend that which is His, i.e. His family, His property, His business, etc. expressed in the private property phrase of "Mine, not yours" and "Yours, not mine" under God]. Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." "The obduracy of the German character has never yielded sufficiently for the individual parts [of Germany] to sacrifice their particular characteristics [the fathers restraining the children, training their children and the next generation up in their image] to society [the children becoming cognizant of being universal with all the children of the world], to unite in a universal [whole], and to discover freedom in common, free subjection to a supreme political authority." According to Hegel, the traditional parent-child relationship produces the individualization of the child, and thus "a greater inner negativity and therefore a higher individuality," inhibiting the socialists universal cause. (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
"God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Get rid of parental "top-down" authority to give commands to their children and chasten them when they do wrong you get rid of Godly authority not only in the home and the workplace, but in the government and the "church" as well.
"The 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) By 'changing' the environment in which policy is being made, i.e. in the home, in government, in the workplace, and even in the "church" (from the "top-down" authority figure of the Father over his children to the children, in "equality," 'discovering' and deciding upon action for themselves) you 'change' the people who are involved.
"The rights of private judgment can be defensibly defined and enforced on a democratic basis only by processes of collaborative planning. They cannot be guaranteed by dogmas concerning the nature of man." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
The CDBG was engendered through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. George Hegel's quotation above making it's agenda clear. Dialectic 'reasoning' "justifies," in the thoughts of man, the dialectic process of 'change,' 'liberating' man and environment, society and the world, from private, i.e. "Mine, not yours" and "Yours, not mine" ownership. The use of dialectic 'reasoning (the real 'purpose' of the CDBG) is the praxis (socialist action) of negating "top-down," representative form of government which sustains sovereignty rights, i.e. inalienable rights under God. It is a structure or system (way of thinking and acting) whereby men, children, those in government negate God's, the Father's, the citizen's right to rule over that which is His. It is the praxis (socialist action) of children making decisions, i.e. satisfying their own and their "friends" sensuous needs with their Father's money, without recognizing their Father's authority, i.e. negating, in their thoughts and actions, His authority to say "Can not" and "Because I said so," negating, in their decisions, their Father's authority to use force to restrain them, removing them from the things they desire, including their "friends," for their use of dialectic 'reasoning' It is the praxis (socialist action) of "representatives" making decisions, i.e. satisfying their own and their "friends" sensuous needs with their constituents money, without recognizing their constituent's authority, i.e. negating, in there thoughts and actions, their constituents authority to say "Can not" and "Because we said so," negating, in their decisions, their constituents authority to use force to restrain and chasten them, i.e. to remove them from office for using it to satisfy their own and their "friends" desires, or trying them for treason for their use of dialectic 'reasoning.' It is the praxis (socialist action) of man making decisions, i.e. satisfying his and his friends sensuous needs with God's creation, without recognizing God's authority, i.e. negating, in their thoughts and actions, His authority to say "Thou shalt not," "It is written," "Because I said so," negating , in their decisions, His authority to use force to restrain and judge them, i.e. casting them into Hell for their use of dialectic 'reasoning.'
"Philosophy [man thinking about how the world "ought" to be, i.e. according to how he "feels" in the 'moment,' i.e. a world void of God's, the Father's, the constituent's restraints, i.e. men and children 'liberated' from "top-down" beliefs and values] is not outside the world; it simply has a different kind of presence in the world. The world is its ground; it is the spiritual quintessence of its age. The world is the object of its enquiry and concern.; it is the wisdom of the world." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' )
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' by starting with man's carnal needs (his flesh) and the environment (nature), i.e. only that which all men have in common, all men around the world can live and work together as "one" (WE working for US"). But man, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' can only create Heaven on earth by negating property rights, by negating "My town, not your town," by negating right-wrong, "top-down" thinking and acting, by negating sovereignty, by negating that which divides man from man. Division, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' was created when man divided nature amongst himself saying "This is mine. Not yours," as God did in the garden in Eden, regarding a tree, i.e. setting the standards for right and wrong, demanding obedience or else, and then eventually, regarding the garden itself, driving them out when they chose wrong, i.e. became "children of disobedience." through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. self 'justification', establishing right and wrong according to their "felt" needs (the flesh) and nature (that which they could naturally relate with and wanted to have).
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality)
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' only through his use of the dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. the "scientific method" (making all things material, i.e. with flesh and nature, men's opinions, being the only "appropriate information" for "discussion," i.e. dialoguing opinions or theories to a consensus in the "light" of man's "feelings" in the at-present environment, making "human nature" the only pathway to 'truth') can man 'liberate' humanity, i.e. 'liberate' the carnal man and the earth from "top-down," right-wrong thinking and acting, i.e. 'liberate' carnal man from the standards of God, who is not of "human nature," i.e. who instead restraints man from becoming at-one-with nature in the 'moment.'
"Truth is a moment in correct praxis." (Antonio Gramsci in Martin Jay, The Dialectic Imagination) "'The philosophy of praxis [putting dialectic 'reasoning' into personal-social, public-private action] is the absolute secularization of thought [the removal of God's, the Father's, the constituent's authority], an absolute humanism of history [removal of God's, the Father's, the constituent's "top-down" information].' Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action." (Introduction to Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks)
Thus, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through his use of the consensus process, man can become united as one, i.e. uniting the world as one in the praxis of negating God and His authority by negating right-wrong thinking and acting from the face of the earth. Without right-wrong thinking and acting there can be no "guilty conscience," i.e. the voice of one above restraining the individual's thoughts and actions, i.e. one God, one Father, one constituent, i.e. one position. Without a "guilty conscience" there can be no true representation. A "representative" without a "guilty conscience" can negate his constituent's inalienable rights (for the sake of "human rights" and "the environment") without a "guilty conscience," having only a "super-ego," i.e. the voice of the many, i.e. the voice of "the village" (the collective, "the people," the world) to 'justify' his thoughts and his actions.
"Why hast Thou come now to hinder us? [the "Great Inquisitor" speaking to Jesus] For Thou hast come to hinder us, and Thou knowest that... We are working not with Thee but with him [Satan]... We took from him what Thou didst reject with scorn, that last gift he offered Thee, showing Thee all the kingdoms of the earth. We took from him Rome and the sword of Caesar, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth... We shall triumph and shall be Caesars, and then we shall plan the universal happiness of man." (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov)
"In the process of history man gives birth to himself [man 'discovering' himself and creating a "new" world order (building upon his own "human nature" only) by negating "top-down" Godly restraint]. 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)
"To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
"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:" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated." "The family 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)
"The super-ego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"Only if and when the new set of values is freely accepted, only if it corresponds to one's superego, do those changes in social perception occur which, as we have seen, are a prerequisite for a change in conduct and therefore for a lasting effect." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society. Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development." "The major impact of the new program is to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [how the children "feel" regarding their parents authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues [dialoguing current social issues to find "common ground" negates their parent's principles which divide them]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain, p. 39)
"Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"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)
"Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, . . . leads to neurosis." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"Freud noted that … patricide and incest [negating the Father and His authority so that the children can praxis abomination with themselves and the world without a "guilty conscience"]… are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
"The basic task of [the consensus process] is to change the individual's social perception, thereby changing the individual's social action." The consensus process "aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group." "The objective sought will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen." "New facts and values have to be accepted as an action-ideology [theory-practice], involving that particular, frequently non-conscious system of values which guides conduct—the way I really feel—the super-ego." "An outright enforcement of the new set of values and beliefs [Godly, Fatherly, parental authority] is simply the introduction of a new god who has to fight with the old god, now regarded as a devil." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
Like "children of disobedience," united as "one" in thought and action in negating their Father's Authority (so they can "remove" their Father as well as his way of thinking and acting from their thoughts and actions, and use His money for their own "pleasure," all without a "guilty conscience"), those who use the "scientific method," i.e. who use dialectic 'reasoning' on moral issues and ethics (to solve socialist-environmentalist issues), can only focus upon man ("the child of disobedience"), i.e. upon his carnal "felt" needs, and nature only, making the environment and man's common carnal "felt" needs, i.e. his approaching of pleasure and avoiding of pain, i.e. his "sense experience, i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' (which are not of faith, which are not founded upon belief but upon sensation only, negating faith and belief by turning faith into sight and belief into an opinion or theory), the only 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, materializing him, making him of value or of worth only if he is 'willing' to work with the group to "better" the world, i.e. to free it of the "top-down" authority of Godly restraint. In the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, only the "appropriate information" or "appropriate material" is allowed into the room for "discussion," religion (faith in and belief upon God) is therefore negated as a means to the solution. Man's religious liberty to preach and teach the truth (engendering a "guilty conscience") in the public domain is negated in the outcome.
"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)
"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." (Habermas, Theory)
Karl Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. [Therefore the believer lives] not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply [he lives to obey God, but according to Karl Marx, he lives to initiate and sustain the "top-down," Patriarchal family structure which engenders religion, i.e. which initiates and sustains belief in God. Get rid of the family structure and you get rid of God, i.e. if you can liberate man's "sensuality," you can 'liberate man from God, i.e. the dialectic 'logic' being: if you can 'liberate' the child's "sensuality," you can 'liberate' the child, and society from the source of religion, i.e. his Father's authority]." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)
According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' money, instead of being spent in favor of "human nature" and nature itself (equated to beauty, i.e. pleasure and justice, i.e. freedom to enjoy it in the 'moment'), is instead being spent on restraining "human nature" and dividing the land (restraining man from being at-one-with nature in the 'moment,' i.e. work being drudgery, i.e. by the sweat of the brow, instead of "enjoyable"). Therefore, for 'change' to take place, socialists must gain access to both the money and the property of the citizens, doing so, in this case, through their tax dollars (to pay for the debt) and government grants (which add to the debt), making them accountable to government regulations over their land. The truth is, without property rights, i.e. "My family, my land, my business, etc. not yours," i.e. restraining man (the flesh) and nature (and the government), there can be no freedom for the individual. Only freedom from the flesh, doing right and not wrong, is freedom. Freedom of the flesh is slavery to the flesh, slavery to those who know how to seduce, deceive, and manipulate it for their own gain. By starting with "human rights" (equality), income (economics), and the environment (environmentalism), sovereignty, property rights, and freedom (individualism under God) is sacrificed to the "common good" (the common-ist good, with man from then on under the control of the UN and Agenda 21).
"The community needs, therefore, [need] to be explored and, if necessary, purged from undesirable cultural conserves .... The community must be 'deconserved' from the pathological excesses of its own culture, or at least, they must be put under control." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive)
"Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) It is this pattern (God over man, restraining/directing man, Fathers over families, restraining/directing families, owners of property and business' over employees, restraining/directing employees, constitutes over representatives, restraining/directing representatives, the Lord over the "church," restraining/directing the "church," etc.), begun in the traditional home, which, according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' must be remove, i.e. must be negated in the thoughts and actions of "the people," not only in the home, but also in the workplace, in the government, and even in the "church," if the dialectic process of 'change' (a "new" world order) was to be not only be initiated but also "sustained."
The three pillars of the CDBG are the three "e's," i.e. "equality, economy, and environment." "Equality" is everyone working for the "common good," i.e. the "common-ist good." "Economy" is everyone united as one in a "public-private partnership," "investing" their lives (their time, property, and money) in solving socialist problems, i.e. using a soviet system (the consensus process) in setting public-private policy, solving pubic-private problems by negating private-public division, where money is spent and land is used on the private at the expense or exclusion of the the public. And "environment" is everyone conscious of doing their "public" duty to save the earth, i.e. saving the land and the water from individualism, i.e. from private control by 'changing' the environment in which policy is made, i.e. from a representative form of government, with its majority vote, to a consensus form of government, i.e. government based upon the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus where there is no true representation of the constituents position, i.e. no sovereignty of the citizens, because policy is being made for them without their full input or ability of recourse, resulting in taxation without representation. CDBG, i.e. "equality, economy, and environment" depends upon 'change,' i.e. 'changing' the way people think and act, i.e. 'changing' how they set policy and do their business. Thus a persons physical, mental, and social capital (health), i.e. his physical and financial attributes which can assist the "common-unity," his mental attributes, i.e. his education, which can assist the "common-unity," and his social attributes, which the "common-unity" depends upon, determines a persons worth or value, not his individuality—using these attributes to further himself, i.e. his family, his business, and his belief (with his belief being the biggest "problem" for 'change').
"Other questions center on the technology of bringing about change, questions of how to accomplish it. It is widely recognized that changes ... cannot be brought about without the organization and use of groups—committees and meetings of various kinds and sizes—for discussion, study, planning and decision about changes which are possible and desirable." "How can a situation be brought about which would permanently change social interactions?" "To bring about change the old constellation of forces have to be upset." "Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions." "A successful change includes therefore three aspects: unfreezing (if necessary) the present level . . . moving to the new level . . . and freezing group life on the new level." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"Unfreezing the present level" is detaching the individuals in the group meeting from the "past," i.e. detaching the child from 'loyalty' to his parents, the representative from 'loyalty' to his constituents, etc., detaching them from right-wrong thinking and acting by "helping" them to identify and associate with those who have similar desires in the "present," which requires 'change' to attain, i.e. which the parent, the constituents, etc. inhibit or prevent, holding the child or representative to the parents or constituents "old" ways of doing things, i.e. to the "Do what I say or else" way of doing things of the "past." By "helping" the individuals in the group meeting build identity with one another, i.e. guiding them in building "human relationships" based upon similar interests and dissatisfactions, i.e. all wanting a solution to the common problem (the current 'crisis') yet who are all dissatisfied with the restraints of the "past," group unanimity is engendered, in favor of 'change.'
"It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
It is important to point out here that the use of "group dynamics" is essential if 'change' in people, i.e. 'change' in the way they think and act is to be engendered. The dynamics of the group (people concerned about how other's perceive them, i.e. how others "feel" about them or what others "think" about them) has an affect on all participants in the group meeting, as well as on its outcome (we are all caught between our "play" and "barrier" behaviors, i.e. between our "feelings" and "thoughts" and our belief). If the meeting is about right and wrong (belief), i.e. about sovereignty issues, then the group environment has to be about right and wrong (belief), majority vote (limiting the power of government to bare essentials, because all sides want to limit governments encroachment upon their belief) becomes the way issues are resolved. But if the meeting is about opinions, i.e. about everyone's "feelings" and "thoughts" on the issue, then the group environment has to be about compromise (negating right-wrong thinking and acting because everyone has to set aside, i.e. suspend their belief, making belief an opinion amongst opinions, for the sake of group harmony), consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness") becomes the way issues are resolved. It is the role of the facilitator, in the latter meeting (in the consensus meeting), to analyze the "fields of force" ("force field analysis") in the room if 'change' is to be made. Those who are resistors of 'change,' i.e. the right-wrong people, are the "negative force fields," preventing or inhibiting 'change,' and those who want 'change,' i.e. the compromisers for the sake of socialist harmony and worldly peace are the "positive force fields." By focusing upon the "positive," i.e. discouraging (not recognizing or supporting) judgmental statements, i.e. right-wrong statements, i.e. "I'm right and you are wrong" from having authority in meeting, the "negative" are negated (why the process is called "negation of negation" with representative government, i.e. belief, being negated for the sake of socialist harmony and worldly peace, i.e. with "equality" negating "top-down" thinking and acting, with opinions negating belief). In the consensus process, "right and wrong" (belief), i.e. being "negative" becomes the wrong way of thinking and acting and being "positive, "compromising right-wrong" thinking and acting, i.e. setting aside belief (and majority vote), i.e. making it an opinion amongst opinions for the sake of everyone's "feelings," for the sake of socialist harmony, so that the group can to attain consensus, becomes the right way of thinking and acting when solving a 'crisis.' It is essential then that the facilitator of 'change' knows how to "unfreeze" the "negative" and move them down the "positive" (Godless) road of 'change.'
"Unfreezing ... adopted from Lewinian change theory, refers to the process of disconfirming an individual's former belief system." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)
"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)
"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest)
"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"Moving to the new level" is bringing the people in the group meeting, i.e. the children, the representatives, etc. into the "present," i.e. giving them "freedom" to "be themselves," i.e. to freely share with one another (freely express) their "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. their desires, i.e. their opinions regarding the "present" issue at hand as well as their dissatisfactions regarding the restraints of the "past," i.e. their parents, their constituents, etc. and what they can do to initiate the attaining of their desires in the "present" and sustain them in the "future," i.e. what they think the world can be like if the restraints of the "past," the resisters of 'change,' were absent, i.e. were negated (would give up), all being done without fear of reprimand, i.e. without right-wrong attitudes of judgment getting in their way. The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to get everybody's opinion , i.e. get everyone's "feelings" and "thoughts" on the issue, thereby neutralizing the resister of 'change,' i.e. treating his truth and facts as being just another opinion amongst opinions. If the resister of 'change' refuses to abdicate his position, i.e. if he holds to his right-wrong way of thinking his attitude comes across to others in the room as being uncaring and even hateful. He is then marginalized, his behavior is regarded as being 'irrational' and therefore his information (warning) is regarded as being 'irrelevant.' His friends will even find a seat two or three chairs away from him, refusing to defend him for fear of collateral damage. He either abdicates his position, sits down in rejection, or leaves in disgust.
"A change in methods of leadership is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of a group." ibid.
"Kurt Lewin emphasized that 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." (Wilbur Brookover A Sociology of Education) The same is true for adults, especially when offered "free money" which is tied to being "freed" from the restraints of the "past."
"Freezing group life on the new level" is re-attaching the people, i.e. the children, the representatives, etc. to those who are facilitating them into creating a "new" world order, a world freed of the restraints of the "past," freed of "authoritarian" parents, constituents, God, etc., i.e. shifting their 'loyalty' from the "past," to the "present" and "future," establishing themselves upon 'liberating' all the earth from the "past," i.e. uniting it as "one" in the "present" for the sake of the "future," all done through the praxis (through the social action) of negating the "old" world order (which inhibits 'change'). By everyone's participation in the dialectic process of 'change' all are learning how to identify, engender, and/or perpetuate the conditions which are necessary for the 'change' process, as well as how to perpetuate the dialectic process of 'change' itself, i.e. knowing how to identify and use 'crisis,' i.e. wherever there is a crisis, or a crisis can be engendered, knowing how to use it, i.e. knowing how to identify those who are adaptable to 'change' and those who are not, i.e. those who are resistor's to 'change,' knowing how they can be neutralized, marginalized, and/or removed or 'changed,' i.e. seduced, deceived, and manipulated, i.e. converted into 'willfully' participate in the dialectic process of 'change,' in their effort to solve the 'crisis.'
"No class of civil society can play this role [as 'emancipators of society'] unless it arouses in itself and in the masses a moment of enthusiasm, a moment in which it associates, fuses, and identifies itself with society in general, and is felt and recognized to be society's general representative, a moment in which its demands and rights are truly those of society itself, of which it is the social head and heart." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)
The three steps of "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing," (re-attaching you to your "feelings" which were made subject to principles established, i.e. according to Karl Marx which were "repressed" by your parents or God, moving you into experiencing this 'change' in the way you think and act with others having the same experience as you in the 'moment,' and then putting your "new" way of thinking and acting into social action "with the group" thereby 'justifying" sensuousness, i.e. how you and others "feel" in the 'moment' over and against righteousness, i.e. doing what is right according to a "higher authority" than "human nature" and society, i.e. liberating you from God and country) which are used during the DCBG experience, are the same three steps used in brainwashing, i.e. washing from the brain 'loyalty' to the things of the "past," i.e. individualism, sovereignty, "top-down," right-wrong, God, parents, your country, i.e. the "old" world, "Mine, not yours" and "Yours, not mine" way of thinking and acting. Isolating you from your "support base," i.e. those of the "old" way of thinking and acting is essential if you are to be 'liberated' from the fear of judgment, i.e. fear of God, parent, etc. for "doing your own thing" with "the group" over and against their will, i.e. if the many are (socialism, the "super-ego," i.e. "the people," i.e. "the village" is) to replace the one (God, parent, and/or the nation) in directing your steps, i.e. your thoughts and actions. These are the same steps used in Common Core education, built upon the use of Bloom's Taxonomies in the school system (which have been used in education from the 50's on, i.e. why so many are enamored/addicted/possessed with the dialectic process of 'change' today)
"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." (Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, ed. Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele)
"Once a member [a student] realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs;" (Irvin Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
While people working together can accomplish great things, group's do not have a conscience. Only individuals have a conscience. If, to be a part of a group, a person must compromise (set aside) what he believes is right or participate in that which he believes is wrong, he sacrifices his conscience to the group, i.e. he sacrifices his belief to an opinion, where right and wrong is adaptable to 'change.' When what the group thinks in the 'moment' takes the place of right-wrong, in regards to a persons thoughts and actions, his consciences is transformed into what is called the super-ego, where" feelings," i.e. the approval of men," instead of position, i.e. "the approval of God, parent, or constituent," becomes the "position" for one's thoughts and actions. While 'change' is not easily participated in, and more than likely resisted with the conscience, it is easily participated in with the super-ego, where "feelings," "will," and the environment of compromise coincide. True re-presentation of the constituents can only emanate from the conscience otherwise representation is only of the dialectic process of 'change' itself. A representative form of government (limited government) is negated with the advancement of the consensus process (unlimited government), i.e. advancing the dialectic process of 'change,' where leadership can do that which is unconscionable, all in the name of the group, i.e. all in the name of "the people," for the "goodness" of mankind. But in that case you must start with the premise that man is basically good or has the potential for becoming good providing he is given the right opportunity, i.e. providing he is placed in and is willing to participate in the right environment, i.e. in the environment of consensus, advancing the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. advancing the cause of society (man's carnal nature) over and against the individual, i.e. individualism, under God (the soul of man subject to the righteousness of God's).
"It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx)
"Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' )
"The individual is emancipated in the social group." (Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
Our representative form of government was the result of a King (one) turning that which was of his jurisdiction, the thirteen colonies, over to a foreign body, i.e. over to the British Parliament (a collective, i.e. a group who were not accountable to the colonies as far as the consciences was concerned). After winning the American Revolution, instead of the colonies chopping the King's head off (getting rid of the "top-down" authority structure), as was done in the French Revolution (the praxis of the consensus process, i.e. the dialectic process of 'change,' initiated and sustained, i.e. 'justified' by the directorate, i.e. the soviet, i.e. the consensus process of today), the King remained in the colonies, i.e. in the city, county, State, and Federal government, only this time not in the form of one man over the many but in the inalienable rights of the citizens, in the individual citizens themselves, restraining government. It was the genius of our framing fathers to limit government, breaking the three branches of government up, from the village to the federal, so that the king, i.e. the citizens could have dominion (retain authority) over that which is his i.e. his family, his property, his business, and his very own life. It is only through a representative form of government, limiting the power of government (As George Washington warned us of men's hearts in his Farewell Address: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them." (George Washington, Farewell Speech)), that the individual can retain his freedom, his liberty, and his inalienable rights, "any other method, even for good, is whereby good government [representative government, limited government] is destroyed." (George Washington, Farewell Address) The CDBG (under HUD, following after the UN, Sustainable Development, and Agenda 21) uses another method, i.e. the consensus process, circumventing, i.e. destroying our representative form of government, i.e. negating our sovereignty, i.e. individualism, i.e. our freedoms and our liberties.
"Protestantism [the priesthood of all believers under God] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung)
"For the men who made the Constitution there was no principle that did not derive its authority from a religious ["top-down"] source." (Max Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason)
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams, 1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts)
It is through the use of the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the consensus process (the voice of "the group" representing the voice of "the village" representing the voice of "the collective" representing the voice of "the people" and "the earth," representing the voice of "tyranny") that limited government (representative government) is negated. The three pillars of the CDBG, "Equality, Economy, and Environment," represent the dialectic process of 'change.' "Equality, Economy, and Environment" are the same three pillars of the UN and Agenda 21. CDBG meetings use the same three steps and pillars used by the UN (seduce, deceive, and manipulate and "equality, economy, and environment"), to initiate and sustain 'change,' to circumvent the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of Herndon. Kansas, to control their affairs, controlling their lives. It circumvents their control over their property, i.e. their land, their water, and their life, under God, abdicating it to Federal departments which propagate UN regulations and mandates. All for the 'purpose' of 'change' i.e. establishing "humanist rights," i.e. "Equity, Ecology, Ethnicity" (i.e. the same principles of the French Revolution, i.e. liberté, égalité, fraternité, i.e. liberating the flesh, i.e. liberating it from "top-down," right-wrong thinking and acting," i.e. from the Father's, i.e. God's authority, establishing equality and unity in the flesh only—the flesh, i.e. men's opinions, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the given 'moment,' is the only "ground" from which universal unity can be 'realized'—which are replicated in the Supreme Court's decisions using the "Lemon test," i.e. Lemon v. Kurtzman ("First, the [practice] must have a secular... purpose [it must be Godless, i.e. not have a "top-down," spiritual, right-wrong 'purpose but instead by 'liberating of the flesh," "tolerant of ambiguity, i.e. of diversity, i.e. of deviance"]; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion [not to advance religion, i.e. not to propagate right-wrong thinking and acting, negates religious liberty by treating it, i.e. God's authority correlated to the Father's authority, correlated to the citizen's authority and visa versa, as being 'irrelevant' when it comes to knowing right from wrong, making religion external to social action, 'irrelevant' in the thoughts and actions of those in government setting policies in the present, for the future]; finally, the [practice] must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion [government leaders can not invest their conscience, i.e. be exposed to or attempt to expose others to right-wrong thinking, while establishing government policy, since basing public policy upon the "feelings" of "the brotherhood," i.e. the consensus process, i.e. common-ism, can not function with right-wrong, "top-down" thinking—In a 'change agent' book for education, as well as for the workplace, government, the "church," etc. we read: "We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions [people with a conscience, i.e. right-wrong thinking and acting, i.e. "un-adaptable to 'change'"] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)].'" 403 U.S. 602 1971 p. 2658-59, protecting the secular over and against the sacred, i.e. protecting "human rights" over and against inalienable rights, i.e. protecting collectivism over and against sovereignty, i.e. protecting freedom of abomination over and against freedom of the conscience (which can not come from the many—who demand compromise, but can only come from one—from God, the Father, or the citizen who demands obedience, and accountability for disobedience) and religion, with those in government no longer recognizing and establishing the citizens inalienable (God give) right of life and property, i.e. no longer protecting the principles of the American Revolution (individual sovereignty), under God—why all public oaths end with "So help me God." The "tripartite test," i.e. the three "E's" of the CDBG, "purges" the citizens not only of their sovereignty but also of their religious freedoms (freedom of religion, i.e. of belief in government of the persons freedom of religion in both private and public life, is now freedom from religion, i.e. from belief in government of the persons right of religions freedom in his public life, which negates his right of freedom in his private life since if you have no right to be public about your religion your religion is no longer religion but an opinion), i.e. negating their right-wrong way of thinking and acting, negating their positions and beliefs regarding their public lives and private property, with the conscience being the persons most sacred property. Liberals blame "Christians" for the ills of the world when the truth is the Lord has called no man to kill or oppress another man for the faith (He has only called man to proclaim His Word and live by faith). The apostate "church" has used the state (the "sword") to promote man's carnal desires but that is not the gospel message the Lord has given us. The "Salem witch hunts," for example, was not gospel, i.e. Christian, but simply carnal man using scripture out of context for his carnal ways, calling himself and his actions "Christian," as is going on today. Liberals, blinded by the truth, can not understand the gospel message, requiring them to repent of their sinful "human nature," therefore they can not do anything else but pervert the reading of the word of God, slandering any who live by it, hating the believer because they preach of a God who will condemn them (the unbeliever) for their carnal ways.
"Liberals tend to view social problems as symptoms of the underlying social structure [the problems of society are caused by "top-down," right-wrong thinking and acting], while conservatives view them as results of individual incompetence or immorality [the problems of society are caused by refusing to recognize and honor "top-down," right-wrong thinking and acting, by man refusing to repent of his sins before God]. In short, [for the conservative] political problems tend to be seen in moral [individual, under God] rather than sociological [social, freed from God] terms." "What characterized the left and distinguishes it from the right is the desire for a change, slight or great, in the balance of power [from individualism, i.e. inalienable rights, under God, to socialism, i.e. "human rights," 'liberated' from God, i.e. from God who judges man for his sins]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
Not only will we become subject to regulations and mandates controlling our property and our lives, which we, the citizens of Herndon, Kansas did not establish (nor did our framing Fathers), we will also end up abdicating our sovereignty to a global authority (to a foreign entity hostile toward our religious freedoms—the Supreme Court called "humanism" a religion but it is not, "human nature," man's sinful nature, being common to all men, is of nature only, only being worshiped as a religion, i.e. no one dare question it if the want to "get ahead"), i.e. just so we can get some "free money." (It is called servitude.) The "free money" is our debt money being used to support Ervin Laszlo's "Sustainable Earth" agenda, where he calculated how much energy the sun puts out, how much the earth absorbes, how much is needed to sustain the earth, how much man wastes, and then established the "healthy earth" (read "Health Care Package") with only five hundred million people being allowed to live to "sustain" the healthy earth (don't take my word for it, go to the source, read his books which 'justified' the Earth Summit, Sustainable Development with the structure of thought showing up in the Community Development Block Grant), i.e. the "healthy earth" being the goal to be reached by the UN, agenda 21, Sustainable Development with HUD and its CDBG's assisting in the effort, i.e. getting "the people" on the train of 'change' and then switching tracks on them along the way to what they thought was "the promised land." Next will come grants for sewer problems, etc. until our lives are totally under the surveillance and control of the powers that be. It is how serfdom came into being in Europe (but then who bothers to study history, even if you can get your hands on good history books these days). As you will see, this is the direction the town council has taken us with their turning us over to the CDBG (Agenda 21 and the UN) to "solve" our water problem.
"The seeds of change are taking root—and with the support of policymakers, advocates, and other stakeholders, it can spread and flourish in even more communities across the nation." (www.policylink.org, regarding the use of CDBG and other programs like it.)
"From national objectives and eligible activities to the details of administration, financial management, and other federal requirements, the manual is a valuable resource for every CDBG program practitioner." ("Basically CDBG" Course Training Manual; HUD.GOV)
Although people think the "soviet" disappeared with the "collapse" of the Soviet Union, what they do not realize is that a soviet is simply a way of setting policy. It requires a diverse group of people, meaning some people are further along, i.e. more skilled in the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. more adaptable to 'change,' i.e. more "tolerant of diversity (deviancy)" than others, there to help their "more backward members" of the "community" along the way of 'change,' dialoguing opinions to a consensus, where dialoguing, which negates any absolute (traditional, sovereignty) position since there is no absolute position (sovereignty) when a person dialogues his opinion, i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' with the dialoguing of opinions guiding the way to a consensus, where everyone "feels" good about the facilitated, i.e. manipulated outcome or decision of the meeting (the participants choosing the consensus process over and against representative form of government without even knowing it), over social (socialist) issues, with any position (right-wrong attitude, "My land not yours") strongly held to (preached and taught, i.e. which prevents dialogue) being regarded as being 'irrational,' i.e. the person is perceived by the town as being out of touch with the times, as being a barrier to (hateful of) the "needs" of the community, in a facilitated meeting, with the facilitator needed to prevent "It is written" and "Because I said so," "top-down," patriarchal paradigm, i.e. a right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" and "Yours, not mine," "authoritarian" way of thinking and acting from taking control of the meeting, that is, the method being used to solve the "crisis" is more important than solving the "crisis" itself (socialist needs are more important than individualist needs so if the meeting goes in favor of sovereignty it needs to be closed and reconvened when and where socialist needs, i.e. environmental needs, i.e. outcome, can predominate), to a pre-determined outcome, that henceforth, no policy is to be made without the afore "prescribed" soviet (consensus) procedure being used. Having studied the Mir system (dealing mainly with agriculture) which Lenin came out of in the turn of the 19th century it is absolutely jaw dropping to see the similarities of the Mir system and the consensus process today. The same is true of the directorate of the French Revolution. The same procedure is being used in Common Core, preparing the next generation to "sustain" the dialectic process of 'change,' which comes through the teachers use of Bloom's Taxonomies in establishing curriculum in the classroom.
"The immediate task is to unmask human alienation ["top-down," re-presentative thinking and acting] in its secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form." (Karl Marx Selected writing in Sociology and Social Philosophy)
The soviet was to prevent majority vote, i.e. to prevent "haves" (correlated with "right-wrong," "lower order," "It is written," "Because I say so," "top-down," "Mine, not yours" and "Yours, not mine," i.e. "capitalist" thinking people) from taking control of the meeting and setting policy supportive of the "haves," i.e. preventing the disenfranchised, i.e. those with no "feeling" of "ownership" from setting public policy (making laws while "thinking through their feelings," i.e. being impulsive), therefore, preventing "the people" from establishing laws while being manipulated through their emotions, i.e. controlled by their "feelings" of the 'moment,' engendering what is called "the tyranny of the masses." By merging both "have's" and "have not's" as one, away from using Roberts Rules of Order (which promotes position, sovereignty, majority vote, individualism), through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, which promotes "feelings" over and against position, position, i.e. "right-wrong" thinking and acting, "Mine. Not yours," i.e. sovereignty is negated. When you start with "The earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof" you start with individual man accountable before God for his thoughts and his actions, engendering individualism, sovereignty, "My family, property, business," under God (why elected officials swear "So help men God" at the end of their oath). When you start with "Protecting the earth from human abuse," you start with the individual accountable to the environmentalists, the socialist engineers, working for the common-ist good, i.e. "Your children, property, business, and even you are only of the earth, now subject to those who are the guardians of it." (Read Hegel's take on it.) Laws supportive of the "have not's" negates traditional representative form of government (individual freedom). In the traditional representative form of government it is not a matter of the "haves" and the "have not's," it is a matter of having done things right and not wrong, i.e. having proven yourself dependable in a crisis or in an environment tempting you to compromise, i.e. you have proven that you are not readily adaptable to 'change' based upon "feelings" but dependable to hold to your position, i.e. the position of your constituents who voted you into office because your position was their position, being 'unchangeable' in the midst of a crisis, i.e. retaining the citizens sovereignty). Laws supportive of (focusing upon) the "have not's" negates sovereignty, i.e. negates "Mine. Not yours," negates private property rights, negates representative government. Hegel worded it (the negation of sovereignty, i.e. the negation of "Mine. Not yours," i.e. the negation of "Do it right, i.e. my way or else," i.e. the negation of representative government) this way.
"When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener, source Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)
Have you ever been told you are to "negative" and you need to be "positive?" This is where that ideology comes from. Run your business on this way of thinking and acting and you will go into debt. It is why the Federal government has run us into debt, now asking the town of Herndon to join it, 'justifying' this (it's Hegelian, i.e. Marxist-Freudian/social-individual/public-private/humanist-collectivist-environmentalist) way of thinking and acting.
When there is no right or wrong (either-or, light and dark, black and white) there can be no "guilty conscience" for doing wrong and therefore no true representation (there can be no child re-presenting his Father's position when he is confronted with compromise, no representative re-presenting his constituents position when he is confronted with compromise). During the Korean War, P.O.W. Major David F. MacGhee, while being "re-educated" (brainwashed, his brain being washed of the concept of sovereignty, right and wrong) by the North Korean facilitators of 'change', wrote on the wall of his block house, so wretched the guards would not come in: "Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose." In the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus there is no true representation, i.e. there is no black or white, there is no right or wrong, i.e. there is no "guilty conscience" for doing wrong against the citizens sovereignty since there is no wrong (there is not citizens sovereignty), i.e. there is only shades of gray, i.e. there is only loyalty to the system of compromise, i.e. compromising the citizens sovereignty to the socialist cause, i.e. initiating and sustaining the dialectic process of "change" for the "good" of all (for the "good" of the earth and humanity).
The only way you can "sustain" 'change' is to require the use of dialoguing opinions to consensus to negate (neutralize, marginalize, and remove) right-wrong thinking citizens. 'Changing' the paradigm of the citizens from a "top-down," "preaching and teaching doing right and not doing wrong or else" (facts based) way of thinking and acting to an "equality," "lets put aside our differences and focus upon what we have in common and built unity upon that" ("feelings" based), way of thinking and acting requires the moving of the meeting from discussion (persuasion from position) to the use of dialogue (compromising because of "feelings"). Religion ("top-down," above-below," right-wrong, black-white) is negated as we turn to humanism, i.e. to "equality," where "there is no absolute right or wrong," no "top-down" way of thinking but only opinions, only 'change,' only "feelings," only flesh, only man "thinking through his feelings" to find the solutions to his problems i.e. only "equals." When there is no right and wrong (sovereignty of position, i.e. inalienable rights) there is "guilty conscience" for doing wrong. When your representative comes to consensus throught the dialoguing of opinions, your "representative" is no longer a representative, now doing that which is wrong (harmful to you) with no "guilty conscience." Since "peace and affirmation have come to him," i.e. he can "peacefully" sleep at night (or spend the night thinking up more ways and better ways to do the dialectic process of 'change' on his constituents), after having betrayed his constituents trust, i.e. betraying those who put him into office to re-present their position, with no "guilty conscience," i.e. his compromising of his position, i.e. his compromising of his constituents position, being 'justified, i.e. "affirmed" by a room full of compromisers, a room full of "emotionalists" (who call themselves "intellectuals," the "enlightened"), i.e. those who came to consensus with him (and him with them) through the dialoging of opinions. The Transformational Marxist, Antonio Gramsci calling it the "velvet revolution," i.e. a "passive revolution" or "Trasformismo."
"This term [Transformation, i.e. sustainable 'change'] was used to describe the process [the consensus process] where by the so-called 'historical' Left and Right parties converge [through dialoguing their opinions, how they "felt" and what they "thought" in the 'moment,' to a consensus] until there ceased to be any substantive difference [no right or wrong]—a 'revolution' without a 'revolution' or a 'passive revolution.'" (Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks)
Somebody once said trying to figure this process out was like "trying to nail Jell-O to a wall." That is the wrong analogy. You don't nail Jell-O to a wall. You either eat it or throw it away. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. those who designed the CDBG, can only live in a world of gray (and more than 50 shades of it) and can not live in a world of black and white, right and wrong, i.e. a world of position, i.e. a world of "Mine, not Yours" and "Yours, not mine" of private possession (outside of their surveillance and control). Thus the dialoguing of opinions, where there is no black and white, is the only political game they bring to town. There is no respect for sovereignty, inalienable rights, i.e. property rights, business rights, Father's rights over his children, i.e. citizens rights, in an opinion, i.e. in a world of gray for which this grant stands. All there is is seduction (the "free money"), deception (coming into Herndon with a water issue and then switching it to a social issue), and manipulation (sustaining the language of opinions being dialogued to a consensus, i.e. the soviet system, setting up special meetings outside of the town councils, i.e. outside the citizens Constitutional guaranteed control, keeping the citizens perpetually under the socialists, the facilitator's of 'change' control).
By removing representatives from position language, i.e. right and wrong, i.e. "My town, not yours" ("My towns water, not the UN's water"), i.e. "negative" language, and placing them in opinion language, i.e. "positive" language ("Can't we all just get along," i.e. we "feel" and we "think" the earth's water "should" be under the control of those who are watching over it "best," who know best what is good for all the earth, i.e. keeping it safe from local control, i.e. from abuse, i.e. from hording, etc., i.e. from the individual citizens control) there is no absolute right or wrong, i.e. there is no sovereignty, i.e. the powers that be (who are no longer you, and your town council) taking "ownership" of all things above, around, and under you for the goodness of the earth and "the peoples of the earth," with the earth (and those who are "saving" it from your abuse) coming first (with you funding them through your tax dollars, as their slaves). This is the slavery the citizens of Herndon were sold into by the town council when they performed an act of treason, giving our water rights, our sovereignty, over to socialists control ("nice" and "caring" people they might appear to be, but the truth be known, what they are doing is not. It is evil, making them and all who are deceived by them evil, i.e. lovers of lies, i.e. to deceive someone is to lie to them, i.e. a half truth is a lie).
"Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13
For example, by turning Herndon's water issue into a social (socialist, i.e. low income, i.e. the repressed, i.e. the disenfranchised and a race) issue (read the survey) you change the dynamics of the outcome from a representative form of government, dealing with our water problems, to a socialist ("have's vs. have not's") form of government, with principles (right and wrong, i.e. individualism) being replaced with group dynamics (social-economic consciousness), i.e. with group dynamics (how the "village" feels and what the "village" thinks about you if you hold them accountable to principles, i.e. prevent them from practicing an act of tyranny in their anxiety of obtaining "free money" to solve a "crisis," i.e. restraining the emotionally 'driven' citizens from abdicating their and your sovereignty). (If the town council had sent the survey out they would have been removed on the spot for snooping into the citizens private lives.) By using the methods of "group dynamics," (our desire for approval from others in the town, i.e. receiving approval by "saving" the town from the "crisis," through the "gift" at hand, i.e. the "free money," i.e. the "Trojan horse"), facilitators of 'change' control of the outcome of the meeting by manipulating the participants "feelings," with the citizens, who need a representative form of government to remain free from tyranny, losing their right of sovereignty, i.e. the right of individualism in the process. Socialist based (consensus) meetings determine policy for the citizens from then on. Citizens of the future will be moved in from other areas to help us "sustain" a profile of "equality." It is being done through CDBG meetings across the nation. For now, others, outside our town, acting as though they are citizens of our town, will "help" set policy for us, circumventing our Constitutional Republic, i.e. representative form of government. This is what "Sustainability" and "Community Development" really mean. "Divide and conquer" means: divide the town between the "have's" and the "have not's" (the position based, i.e. the "negative" and the "feelings" based, i.e. the "positive") and, by setting policy on the behave of the "have not's," i.e. basing the meeting on "feelings," the voice of the "haves" is negated, i.e. making the issue a social issue (a socialist issue) not a water issue, i.e. using the water issue to initiate and sustain a social issue (socialist issue). And you thought the water issue was just about fixing the water problem, not knowing that the way you think and act is the real problem, according to those who developed the grant. Silly you. The issue I am addressing here is not the water problems, i.e. which is the real problem for Herndon, it is how it is being resolved. We either resolve it through true representation (according to the Constitution, i.e. limited government, i.e. a representative form of government) or by an act of treason. The town council has chosen to do the latter.
As Richard Bandler described in his book, Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, the sorcerer (the facilitator of 'change') gets all the marbles on one side of the persons brain (gets him caught up in sensation, in his "feelings") and the person never knows what hit him, he never sees the 'change' until it is over, i.e. until it is to late. He writes: "Stopping the internal dialogue [stopping the person from asking himself 'What would my parents [or God, or framers of the Constitution, or in this case the constituents] want me to do?'] is, however, the key to the sorcerers' world." Karl Marx, in his book, The Holy Family, called it the "ether of the brain," where the medium of perception (thinking through one's feelings) allows the person to synthesize God and man, the individual and society, the town and the environment, making the two one and the same—sacrificing the individual and the town of Herndon, to the "felt" needs of "the global village." Prior to the consensus process, as Karl Marx put it in "The Holy Family," the individual see's the apple, orange, almond, etc. tree as an individual tree but after perceiving their commonality, through the consensus process, he can only perceive them as a product of their commonality. This is the heart and soul of common-ism AKA communism, i.e. looking at the individual, i.e. his family, his property, his business, his life, as part and parcel of the community, i.e. with individualism, i.e. the private alone thereafter becoming the enemy of the public, i.e. an enemy of "the people," resisting the process of 'change'. In The Change Agent's Guide to Innovation In Education, a federally funded project by Ronald G. Havelock, Havelock wrote: A "change agent... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations [of 'change']."
In the benchmark work for all Federal Grants, i.e. including CDBG, Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program (referred to as B-STEP—which interestingly did feasibility studies for the years 1984, 2000, and 2100—projecting what a "healthy world" would look like by those years, and then, through the use of the consensus process, pursue achieving it) we read: "During the period of innovation, an environment is invisible. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it. It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment." In Theodor Adorno's book, The Authoritarian Personality (the Weltanschauung, i.e. the world view, paradigm, or foundation for Bloom's Taxonomies, which all teachers are trained—certified—in to develop their classroom curriculum) we read: "Another aspect of traditionalism [those who hold to sovereignty] is the tendency to oppose innovations ['change'] or alterations of existing politic‑economic forms [socialism]." Benjamin Bloom in his book, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 2 Affective Domain (built upon Adorno's ideology), wrote: "The affective domain [a persons "feelings"] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evils, which once opened can not be shut]. It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found. The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." "To keep the 'box' closed is to deny the existence of the powerful motivational forces that shape the life of each of us." Without the 'liberating' of the affective domain, i.e. opening Pandora's box, i.e. getting people to think "through their feelings," the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator can not do his work of 'change.'
You persuade people through the preaching and teaching of facts while you seduce and deceive them through manipulating their feelings, i.e. through the dialoging of their opinions to a consensus. 'Change' (of paradigm, i.e. from individualism to socialism, from sovereignty to globalism) can not take place in an environment where policy is determined according to the ideology that individuals have the right to hold to their position and voice it publically to set policy (which is why the Constitution was written the way it was, limiting the power of government by dividing the branches of government to make it more difficult for the Federal government to make rapid 'changes' to laws—George Washington, in his Farewell Address, recognized the wickedness of man's heart, i.e. his "feelings," and his propensity to bring all branches together engendering despotism, i.e. departments are being used to network the branches of government together as one, as this grant is networking the towns of Herndon, McDonald, and Atwood together as one entity, and need to be stoped—thereby allowing the citizens to hold to their positions, i.e. their beliefs, their faith, their sovereignty). Therefore the environment of policy making had to be 'changed' from representative (position) to consensus (feelings) if 'change' was to become a 'reality.' We need to heed the warnings of R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, who in their book, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law, wrote: "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." In our case it is the "mission statements" and consensus meetings which are being engendered from the UN and Federal Government down to the local town (under environmentalism and health care) that is negating our inalienable rights (our sovereignty) as a nation and a people.
"It is proposed that no facts or opinion be considered by the Congress [in this case the UN, which is the same procedure being used from the UN to the town of Herndon (if it turns to the CDBG, i.e. the "free money")] unless the facts and opinions be the established consensus of a group of collaborators [not by representation]." (Harry Stack Sullivan, The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science [the fusion of Freud and Marx])
Limited government (true representative form of government, which is the basis of the Constitution of the United States of America, with its Bill of Rights) gives you the greatest amount of sovereignty over your home, your business, your land, and your life, while the consensus (soviet) process negates it, i.e. circumventing (going around) limited government and sovereignty, making all things (all people, i.e. public and private) subject to socialist, i.e. common-unity ("community"), i.e. environmentalist, i.e. globalist laws.
"The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets." (György Lukács, The Process of Democratization)
"Private" is nobodies business. "Public" is everybody's business. "Public-private partnership" means that what is nobodies business is now everybody's business and that it is now everybody's business to negate private, making everybody accountable to "the global village," i.e. answerable to the public-private partnership. Your income, for example, is your private business. By filling out a survey regarding your private income for a public project, your income becomes public (at least the collectives) business. You should be upset if your town council sends out a survey for you to fill out telling them your private income, etc. but the deceived, ignorant, or gullible are willing to let some foreign entity, i.e. some stranger, survey the whole town without second thought, as long as they can get "free money" by doing so. When it involves your private life that is one thing, you can do as you please, but when it involves the whole town, i.e. your neighbors included, that is wrong. That means the grant is not about fixing the water problem it is about fixing (dividing) the citizens of the town between the socialist who want the "free money" and those who believe in sovereignty who are willing to find some other way to get the money (with no strings attached) to remain free. The purpose of the soviet was to identify those who were sovereigntists (individualists), i.e. "drawing them out," so the socialists, the citizens who wanted the "free money" could label them as being "uncaring," 'irrational,' "nut cases," out to harm the community by their preventing the citizens from having access to the "free money,' which is the bate for the soviet (consensus, i.e. dialectic) process of 'change.'
The book Have's without Have Not's, by Mortimer Adler, explains how it is done. Leaders of the world (including US Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, owners of the major media outlets, etc.) are loyal members of the Aspen Institute (and Marxist ideology) after attending its week long training summit on Transformational Marxism (merging Marx and Freud as one) and the 21st century (Agenda 21). It is all about creating a world of "haves" without the "have-nots," a world without the patriarchal paradigm of sovereignty, private property, capitalism, "This is mine and not yours," which is the cause, according to dialectical "reasoning," of the world of "have-nots," i.e. equating the chastening father as engendering the world of "neurosis," "repression," and "alienation" upon his children. The trickery was not to attack capitalism openly but rather (through the use of dialoging opinions to a consensus) to synthesize it with socialism (making all subject to the needs of the poor, the disenfranchised), thereby effectively circumventing (negating) the issue of sovereignty, turning people from "Mine. Not yours," to "Ours, not just yours." Public-private partnership circumvents (negates) the private as a Father-children partnership ("equality") circumvents (negates) the Father's ("top-down") authority. Adler wrote:
"In my long experience of conducting Aspen seminars [in Aspen, Colorado], in which the Communist Manifesto is read and discussed, I have always begun by saying that Marx is more right than wrong;" [As the demolition expert, whose tombstone reads "He was more right than wrong," so is anyone who turns in the direction of Karl Marx for answers, i.e. they are dead wrong. But we are so Marxist now, most people, while not even knowing what it is, would not see it as being evil or wrong, i.e. as being the ideology of the "evil empire."]
While some meetings are traditional (representative) they often turn decisions (policy setting) over to committees or individuals who go to represent the board in meetings which are soviet in structure (department, regulatory, or special meetings as is done for the grant money), bringing 'change' into the town without the citizens knowledge until it is too late. Once decisions are made by the town council in regards to grants, for example, those of the grant process, like a camel with its nose in the tent, push their way into setting public policy for the town, taking polls, surveys, doing feasibility studies, to gain access to (information from) the citizens of the town, circumventing the powers that be (circumventing limited government, having little if any respect for the individual citizen with his set position, resisting 'change,' i.e. the individual being pressured to "participate or become labeled as a socialist misfit," i.e. accused of fighting against the towns "best interests," by those blinded by the "free money," who can not see beyond it for the solution to the crisis).
It is not that we do not need to solve problems but that in the traditional way of doing business, majority vote allowed the majority, with one position, to win the day, allowing the people (all the people, including those who lost) to hold to their position, i.e. to hold to their belief. In the transformational (soviet, consensus) way of doing business, the citizen eventually has to set aside his position, i.e. what he believes is right and what he believes is wrong, to focus upon the opinion of others, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' having to abdicate (set aside) his position (his belief, his sovereignty, his individuality) for the sake of common-unity, i.e. engendering common-ism.
"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
The point is: the 'moment' you set aside your belief (which restrains impulsive "feelings" and "thoughts"—why we are in such debt today is because leadership has freed itself from self-restraint through the consensus process, like children with their Father's money freed of His restraints spending it as they please, according to their impulses and urges of the 'moment') for the sake of your opinion (which is not based upon belief but rather upon your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment'), for the sake of "the village," you abdicate your belief in what is right (and what is wrong) to the opinions, i.e. to the "feelings" of men, i.e. to men controlled by their emotions of the 'moment,' i.e. "thinking through their feelings and the feelings of others," 'driven' by the crisis of the 'moment.' In this way whoever controls the environment of the meeting, controls the outcome (as Carl Rogers' quote below explains). I remember, as a child, when our TV broke, by brother (who had a brilliant mind, a true genius, but lacked scruples) bought my parent's a new TV for their wedding anniversary. What he forgot to tell them was that he used their credit to purchase it (so he could watch TV), leaving them to pay it off. The "free money," is debt money, what you and your children have to pay off. The money you owe, which is being used by brilliant but unscrupulous people and institutions, who's loyalty is not to you but to themselves, is supporting them and their clandestine (cunning) work to control you and your use of "their land" (so that you can maintain it for them). Cool plan, huh. We are being seduced, deceived, and manipulated into building our own gallows to hang ourselves on, that is what the "free money" (your debt money) is all about. If you accept it, you 'justify' their method, i.e. using polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and the consensus meetings to initiate and sustain the negation of sovereignty, from here on out.
This is what 'change' is all about. Getting people to 'change' the way they think and act (to change their paradigm from belief in doing right, i.e. in absolutes, i.e. having a "guilty conscience" for not doing right or for doing wrong, to opinions, making everyone adaptable to 'change' in the so called "rapidly changing times," i.e. having no absolute right or wrong and therefore not "guilty conscience" for doing wrong). No longer holding to a position to the death, but rather learning (being conditioned through the consensus process) to abdicate position (and sovereignty) for the sake of the "feelings" and "thoughts" of others, for the sake of worldly peace and socialist harmony (common-ism), towns can be turned into communities, i.e. common-unity's (a part of the global village), where the individual must focus upon the "common good" (the "common-ist good," i.e. his "perception" of the "feelings" of "the village" in the 'moment' controlling his thoughts and his actions) rather than upon what he believes is right (common sense). Sovereignty lies in the latter, i.e. in position, in true representative form of government (from beginning to end all policy must be made by representation). Socialism (globalism) is in the former, i.e. in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. by committees and departments setting policies outside of the citizens control, i.e. by non-elected people, i.e. by public-private partnerships, i.e. by soviets.
There is no position in an opinion. Inalienable rights (which no man or common-unity can put a lean upon) are negated (abdicated) in an opinion. Only "human rights" (which are adaptable to 'change,' subject to the 'moment') remains. There is no sovereignty, i.e. no "Mine. Not yours." in an opinion. There is no private property, i.e. no "My property. Not your property." in an opinion. There is no private business, i.e. no "My business. Not your business." in an opinion. There is no traditional family, i.e. no "My children. Not your children." in an opinion. Again: there is no sovereignty, i.e. no "My home, my property, my business, my country. Not yours," in an opinion. There is no Constitution of the United States of America, with its Bill of Rights (which all elected officials swear to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, "So help me God") in an opinion. And most important of all: there is no condemnation, conviction, contrition, "guilty conscience," repentance, fear of God, love of His Word, or salvation (or even a "So help me God") in an opinion. Without your position ("It is written," and "Because I said so"—given to you by God), you have nothing but the 'moment' of "feelings" and "thoughts," chasing after "the winds of 'change'" (audio of Shirley McCune at Kansas Governors Conference, 1998),in the end you have nothing.
"For the men who made the Constitution there was no principle that did not derive its authority from a religious source." (Max Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason) This statement, made by a Marxists, is considered wrong by most citizens of America today.
Engendering class warfare (class consciousness), by making the disenfranchised aware of their commonality, is key to the dialectic process of 'change.' Karl Marx knew that those who did not have cash flow would more easily be united for social change if they became aware of their social condition as one class (against another). Surveys are key to the 'changing' (negating) of the sovereignty of the individual, i.e. of both rich and poor and anyone in between, by turning the poor against the rich, engendering the "felt need" for 'change.' For Herndon to gain the grant, socialist engineers must become aware of those who "have" and those who "have not," making the water issue (which everyone needs solved) a political, i.e. a socialist issue. The "middle-class" retains a "top-down" way of thinking and acting in their efforts to "have," which sustains the "have's." By focusing upon the "have not's," the middle class and its desire to "have" is undermined, creating a disparity between the "have's" and the "have not's." The focus then is moved from the water issue, which has nothing to do with whether a person "has" or "has not" (we all pay according to what we use), to a socialist issue, i.e. moving the citizens of Herndon into a globalist agenda of "ethnic" and "economic" "equality" (with what you are allowed to plant and water on your property and how much water you can use being determined, not by the citizens of Herndon via their local representatives, who can be voted out of office, but by globalists who see your land use according to their perception, i.e. their agenda, determining what is fair for all and good for the environment, i.e. creating a sustainable, i.e. a common-ist world based upon their general assumptions for the 'purpose' of globalist control over all the towns of the world, including Herndon—it doesn't see so far fetched when you see it happening before your very own eyes, but by then it is usually to late to stop it from happening).
It is called bait and switch. You came to the meeting to fix the water problem not knowing that the meeting was fixed to fix you. Without the survey, i.e. the taxonomizing (classifying) of the citizens, which is the eye of the beast, 'change' (from sovereignty to globalism) can not be easily initiated and sustained. Without the survey you don't know who you can activate, i.e. get emotionally involved, supporting you and your program of 'change,' i.e. drowning out the voice of restraint. "Achieving sustainability will depend ultimately on changes in behavior and lifestyles, changes which will need to be motivated by a shift in values and rooted in the cultural and moral precepts upon which behavior is predicated." (UNESCO, 1997, p. 34) Without the survey, class consciousness, i.e. the poor becoming the issue, "equality" can not be engendered, with the rich having to abide by the regulations (and procedures) assisting the disenfranchised (including the homosexual, i.e. why abomination has become so prevalent today), making all people the same, i.e. bound by the laws of socialism, all done for the sake of the "good" of "the people," and especially for the "good" of "the earth."
Now to the point. Grants (Community Development Block Grants read Communist Development Block Grants) are coming into towns like Herndon to "help" them solve problems. The strings attached bring the town's leadership (and the town) into an environment of dialoguing opinions to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness"—social-ism). There is no representation in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus. The sovereignty of the citizen is abdicated in such acts of treason by their representatives. Decisions are made outside of public view in special meetings, under departments designed to control the outcome in favor of socialist control— books like Human Relations in Curriculum Change, by Kenneth Benne, explain how it is done (a book I call "A cookbook on human's," i.e. on how to cook you without you knowing it). It is here that 'change' is made, not only in the individual(s) participating but also in the policies that are established for all to adhere to from here on out. History has shown, once you "opt in" to the program of slavery, you can not "opt out" because you don't like it later.
The Common-unity Development Block Grant, which the leadership of Herndon is looking at, comes through HUD, which is tied to Sustainable Development, which is under the mandates of Agenda 21, all tied to the UN. The language is all the same, i.e. the language of opinions dialogued to a consensus. It is not "free money." It is money which takes away your freedom, i.e. which negates your sovereignty to a foreign entity (who is more interested in the land or water that is under you than you and your family, although up front they say they "care" about you, like the spider and the fly, a poem children once learned in school, warning them about those who say they have their "best interest" in mind).
You have no right to complain about the national debt, what we owe to someone else, i.e. they own your land, your property, you life, if you accept the "free money," because the moment you turn in the direction of those who offer you the grant (who use surveys to see into your life to find what they can use to control you with) you turn in the direction of slavery, i.e. slavery to the system of 'change,' you become the reason for the national debt, i.e. justifying it (and the abdication of the sovereignty of your land, i.e. circumventing true representative form of government) for the "common-ist good." As Ervin Laszlo, the man who set up the Rio-Conference, wrote:
"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform[ing] 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)
Herndon is now going in the direction of loosing it sovereignty, not by strong-arm but because of those who are weak concerning the knowledge of how we gained and maintain our freedom, i.e. being ignorant of the meaning of freedom, thinking it has to do with the "feelings" of the 'moment,' when in reality it has to do with doing what is "right," under God, whose name our representatives were sworn into office under, i.e. "So help me God." They have become subject to the psychology of Marxism instead, subject to their "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' (and the "feelings" and "thoughts" of others of the 'moment'), no longer cognizant of what freedom means and requires, no longer cognizant of what is right. As Carl Rogers, referencing B.F. Skinner, wrote, regarding freedom, that is, the losing of it:
"'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [the "positive" is you dialoguing your opinion (how you "feel" and what you "think") with others doing the same, to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness"), building a socialist society upon the "super-ego," i.e. upon what the "village" thinks, i.e. upon what the common-unity thinks (which is an enigma in that there is no individualism in the word "community," i.e. you have no worth or value, i.e. identity outside of common-unity, i.e. the hallmark of common-ism AKA communism, AKA communitization], and why negative doesn't' [the "negative" is where the citizens chastens his representative, as the Father chastens his child for doing wrong, engendering the "guilty conscience," making him an individual, accountable to his Father, i.e. his constituents, for this thoughts and actions (there is no true representation without a "guilty conscience," i.e. there is no true representation of the citizens in the consensus process, where those in government can negate our sovereignty, refusing to recognize it, taking us into debt to other nations with no "guilty conscience"), with the citizen holding the representative accountable to the voice of the one, to the citizen's authority, i.e. to the Father's authority (where the constituent is the Father and the representative is the child sent to the store by the the Father, i.e. by the citizen, to purchase the Father's, i.e. the citizen's needs with His, i.e. the Father's, i.e. the citizens money, but if the child, i.e. the representative misuse the Father's, i.e. the citizens money, the child, i.e. the representative is no longer trusted and sent to the store—but if the child, i.e. the representative gets the Father's credit card and puts him into debt, as is now being done with "free money" (the debt being paid through Federal and International regulations which will follow, to pay the national debt, i.e. like being on the Titanic, accepting the "free money" is like grabbing the railing of the sinking ship and holding on tight), you no longer have family, property, business of your own, i.e. you no longer have sovereignty]... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design [bringing the citizens of Herndon under UN control]. 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 [the rules which come with the grant, i.e. with the "free money," is oppressive, why no one can see the full grant without much effort], nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do [what happened in Genesis 3:1-6 was "freedom" according to "human nature," two "children" determining what is right and what is wrong according to how they "felt" and what they "thought" in the 'moment,' i.e. determining what to do according to their opinion of the 'moment'], not what they are forced to do [as what happens in Hebrews 12:5-11, where the children are under the Father's Authority (the representative is under the constituents authority, i.e. are held accountable for doing wrong) and Romans 7:14-25, where they develop a "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for doing "their own thing" with the Father's, i.e. with the citizens money]. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement ["positive reinforcement" is being seduced, deceived, and manipulated with "free money" like a drug pusher handing out "free drugs" to your child down at the street corner]―there's no restrain and no revolt [who can turn it down, i.e. only the "irrational" and "irrelevant" would turn it down]. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
The question is: How many of you woke up this morning saying: "I can't wait to be manipulated. I hope whoever does it, does it so well I will never know it happened." If you consider yourself "human resource" (making you equal with nature, i.e. labeling individualist, i.e. those who believe in God and inalienable rights and sovereignty as anti-socialist, divisive, "neurotic," "irrational," psychotic, paranoid, "conspiracy theorists," misfits, fringe people, potential terrorists, negative, hateful, intolerant, uncaring, maladjusted, etc. needing counseling—read "Health Care Package") which those of this grant do (having no respect of jurisdiction or honoring of sovereignty), you have no right to complain when they seduce, deceive, and manipulate you and your "representatives," because that is what you do with natural resource, i.e. you manipulate it to make it into what you want to create (natural resource has no right other than going along, i.e. being 'changeable' or being cast out, i.e. being aborted or receiving no life support, i.e. being regarded as worthless). But then you are no longer accountable for your thoughts and actions under God, but are "free" to be controlled by the "whims of the times," tolerating abomination (like tolerating cancer)—the big print promises to solve our water "crisis," the small print is why Homosexuality (like in Sodom where "equality" was the name of the game) has become such a hot issue today. Just know this: it is God who gives us property rights, placing two angels at the gate of his garden, saying "My Garden. not your garden." But like two in the garden in Eden, saying "Your tree is our tree," as Karl Marx said "the Kings' horse is the peoples horse," your land is not your land but "Our land," your children are not your children but "Our children," your business is not your business but "Our business," whoever the "Our" happens to be in the 'moment.'
If you lean to your own understanding, trusting not in the Lord with all your heart, all you have is "human reasoning," justifying the negation of the Father's rights, i.e. negating the citizens right to establish the conditions of what is right and wrong for those under their authority. The water under the town of Herndon will no longer be the citizens of Herndon water, but the UN's water, to be used for the "good of all." Sounds warm and fuzzy doesn't it. The truth be known, it's not. The "free money" is debt money, tying you to NGO's (contractors and grand writers), who support the UN with your loan money, i.e. all 'directed' through facilitated meetings orchestrated though the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, negating sovereignty all along the way. But then who is going to listen to my warnings, who is going to turn down "free money" for the truth when the truth requires self restraint and faith, not in man, but in God. Carl Rogers explains the affect "free money" has on the people, "helping" the facilitator of 'change' to bring the people under his control.
Religious liberty is tied to our inalienable rights. We lose all rights (under God) when we turn to "human rights" and the consensus process, for which this grant stands (CDBG). Communism (common-ism) is alive and well in America today, even making itself known in Herndon, Kansas. It comes, not by seizing freedom by force, but by seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the citizens into abdicating freedom for "free money," which in the end is not free at all. "Free money" is like your child getting a "free" drug down at the street corner. They are never satisfied with just one. They will be going back for more (with your money). While we are to love everyone. We are to trust no one. Including our representatives, i.e. least of all them. Trust in the lord only and you can stand alone, if need be, with the truth, going to bed at night, while being rejected by the citizens or being "dispatched" by the authorities, with a clear conscience. Those who do this process (along with those who are blinded by the "free money") have no "guilty conscience," so they can have a good night's rest as well (at your expense). You can go with the grant, i.e. abdicating your sovereignty to socialists "dreams," preferably moving to another town to do it, but as for me, I will stay with my God given sovereignty as long as I can. A guy I knew put it this way. "They send your representative off to a 'special meeting,' and they come back with a lobotomy. You can't talk to them any more. While they say they have listening skills they're not hearing a word your saying."
I did not move to Herndon, Kansas to become someone's enemy but anyone who seeks to undermine my sovereign rights (and theirs as well) is my enemy. They are not only being contemptuous towards me but toward every solider who died for my (and their) sovereignty as well. Just be forewarned, the track record of those who brought this process of oppression upon their neighbors and eventually realized what they had done, i.e. regaining a "guilty conscience," is not good. It is a track record of depression and suicide (the media is refusing to cover it but it is a pandemic across the nation—Dr. William Coulson, who worked with Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, has been warning us for years with little avail). The Lord has a better solution. He will forgive you if you repent. It is just sad that your actions, like a pilot, out of ignorance, i.e. full of self pride, making the wrong decision, will cost so many others their rights and possibly their lives. If you don't have a "guilty conscience" in putting yourself into bondage, then you won't have a "guilty conscience" in bring others (forcing others into bondage) with you. The 'justification' for abortion, euthanasia, and even eugenics comes out of this same way of thinking, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' if you want to put a name to it. "If you have no 'guilty conscience' in killing the unborn, then you will have no "guilty conscience" in killing the elder and the socially unfit or useless, i.e. depriving them of "health care." Government by consensus is government where the ends justify the means, where removing barriers to 'change,' i.e. negating "resistors of 'change,'" with no "guilty conscience" is the dialectic way.
I don't expect many to read this article or hear my warnings. I write this article so that someone later on, in bondage, will know that someone understood and tried his best to warn people in his effort to stop it.
"Cursed is the man who trust 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
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:16-21
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2013-2015