If A = B and B = C and C = D then A ⇒ D by Dean Gotcher

If A = B and B = C and C = D then A ⇒ D

Dean Gotcher

(In the following issue the symbol (=) means equals, (⇒) means engenders, and (≠) means does not equal or negates.)

"My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." Proverbs 3:8

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

A syllogism is a way of communicating a logical conclusion from a major and minor premise. For example: If the barn is painted and the paint is red then the barn is red. I present this formula of logic (with an extra premise) to explain how dialectic 'reasoning' works. The key to dialectic 'reasoning,' is the freedom to 'change' from what "is" (from that condition which sustains the "past," preventing 'change' in the "present" and the "future") to what "ought" to be (to that condition which 'recalls' the desires of the "past," and when 'liberated,' initiates 'change' in the "present," i.e. giving hope for 'change' in the "future") to what "can be" (to that condition which sustains 'change' in the "future").

The condition of 'change' is essential to dialectic 'reasoning.' Without it there is only the "past," "present," and "future" united as one, in one condition, doing what "is," preventing what "ought" to and "can" be. Dialectic 'reasoning' therefore 'liberates' a person (and society) from what "is," allowing them to do what they "ought to be" and "can be" doing, according to how they "feel" and what the "think" about the things of the world, i.e. according to the flesh, i.e. according to "human nature." It is what happened in a garden in Eden, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6 (dialectic 'reasoning') negating the conditions of Hebrews 12:5-11 (the Father's Authority) and Romans 7:14-25 (the Guilty Conscience), thereby 'liberating' and engendering 'change.'

The condition or environment of the earthly father is the same as the Heavenly Father in that both give commands to their children, commands to be obeyed "as given," i.e. by faith, and then chasten any who disobey, casting out, as "bastards," those who refuse to accept his/His office of authority. It is a system of righteousness. It is only a system of and not righteousness itself—which is of God only, as God is only righteous in and of himself, i.e. righteousness can not come from the earthly father, in that he is of flesh (righteousness only be imputed by God to men of faith in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. faith in the Heavenly Father and His only begotten son, Jesus Christ). Therefore, while the earthy fathers (parents) are not perfect, their office of authority is, being given to them by God. Genesis 3:1-6 (dialectic 'reasoning') is all about negating the "top-down" system of the Father's Authority (God's authority) in the thoughts and actions of the children (mankind), thereby negating the Guilty Conscience which inhibits 'change,' i.e. which restrains the flesh, "repressing" "human nature," "alienating" a man from himself and from mankind.

The syllogism above is used to define the "top-down," "'old' world order" (the system of righteousness, with right and wrong being established by the father/Father), i.e. identifying how the Father's Authority is initiated and sustained, i.e. how it is able to restrain the "'new' world order," i.e. how it is able to inhibit or block the "'new' world order" of "equality" from coming into its own, as well as how to initiate and sustain the "new" world order in its praxis (social action) of negating the "'old' world order." While the "'old' world order" drives the "'new" world order" out from its presence, restraining it, preventing it from controlling its life (doing so by holding itself accountable to the "past," i.e. to the Father's authority, no matter the cost, Matthew 4:1-11; 7:21; 12:50; John 5:30; John 12: 49, 50), the "'new" world order" negates (as Marx put it vernichtet, i.e. annihilates, i.e. destroys) the "'old' world order," i.e. initiating and sustaining itself as being all that there is to life (Genesis 3:1-6). The "'new' world order" is not successful until the "'old' world order" (in the thoughts and actions of its citizens) no longer exists, making the formula a bloody one. While people celebrate the arrival of the "new" world order, i.e. 'liberating' themselves from the "'old' world order," i.e. from the way it "was," they do not notice the body bags waiting for them, their family, and their friends along the way.

The classroom of the "past," the "present," and the "future" (which will be explained below) is based upon how this formula is used. It all depends upon whether the letter A represents FA (a Father's Authority—the "old" "top-down" world order with the Father ruling over his family, directing his children's steps, protecting them from the world) or the letter A represents CA (the Children in Authority—the "new" world order of "equality" with the children in "control" of their own lives and the world, i.e. with the world in "control" of them). If the A represents FA (the Father's Authority) then D becomes GC (the "Guilty Conscience," i.e. preventing the "new" world order from taking "control"), i.e. engendering a "civil society" of stability. If the A represents CA (the Children in Authority) then D becomes SE/SC (the Super-Ego, i.e. the Seared Conscience, i.e. 'liberating' the "new" world order to become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment'), i.e. engendering a "revolutionary society" of 'change.' Note: The CA is actually the facilitators of 'change' in authority, manipulating the environment, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the children in the process of 'change,' negating FA and the GC so that they can live a life of pleasure (stealing, killing, and destroying, i.e. John 10:10) without GC. Carl Rogers wrote: "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature [the child's "human nature" unrestrained by the Father's Authority, vacuous of a GC], is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes. The whole problem of therapy [removing the Father's Authority from the child's thoughts and actions], as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner ['liberating' the child's Id by redirecting it toward a "human relationship" cause, i.e. using "incest, murder, and other crimes" to further the cause of socialism, negating the Father's Authority] , rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [where the Father's Authority engenders "neurosis"—where the child's Id, i.e. his "human nature" is "repressed" as the child is "forced" to submit his will to his Father's Authority]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

By changing the classroom experience of the students from a teacher positioned up in front of the classroom, preaching and teaching facts to be learned "as given," i.e. giving commands to be obeyed, rewarding the students who obey and chastening the students who disobey by 1) giving them a bad grade for not doing their homework or not doing it right, 2) spanking them for bad behavior, and 3) expelling them for disrespecting authority, which engenders a guilty conscience, i.e. the "voice of the Father" in the thoughts and actions of the student, i.e. when the student is thinking of doing wrong or is doing wrong or has done wrong (which produces individualism in that the student learns that he is personally accountable for his thoughts and actions, i.e. that the reward or punishment he receives is a result of his behavior alone) to a classroom experience of the "teacher" or "teachers," i.e. the facilitators of 'change' moving amongst the student's, working in "partnership" with the students, "discovering" truth with them through the dialoguing of opinions (how they "feel" and what they "think" regarding socialist issues—there is no Father's "top-down" authority in dialogue) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. a "feeling" of comradeship, i.e. a "feeling" of "equality"), i.e. via. a "group grade" (where all are punished for one student's refusal to, resistance against, or non participation in the "group experience," i.e. it is everyone's 'duty' to get him, i.e. pressure him into participation, i.e. to "help" him to set aside his individualism, i.e. to suspend his position, i.e. his "prejudice" for the 'moment,' so that "the group" can advance, for everyone's "good," i.e. for the "good" grade), where the commands and chastening (disapproval of and punishment of "the group") are arrived at through the collective ("group experience"), insuring that what one student does or does not do affects all the others, engendering a super-ego, i.e. a seared conscience, i.e. the "voice of the village" in the thoughts and actions of the student, which produces socialism in that the student learns that he is accountable, along with everyone else, not to his Father's position, but for the success of the team, i.e. for the success of the collective, to the "groups position," their reward or punishment, i.e. their success or failure being the result of everyone's, including his own participation or lack thereof), you change the way the next generation of students think and act, i.e. from respect for and the honoring of his Father's "top-down" authority to the question of it or rebellion and revolution against it, i.e. regarding it as being 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant' in the "light" of the 'changing' times (in the "light" of the child's personal "feelings" and "thoughts" in the "light" of the "feelings" and "thoughts" of "the group," in the current situation or social crisis). Karl Marx called it the "ether of the brain," where the child, through the "group experience," no longer sees the individual as an individual but, through identifying his commonality with society, as an essential component of society, sees the individual as an essential contribution to the success of the collective, needing to contribute to its cause in thought and in action to be of worth—success not necessarily being resolving the project or crisis at hand, but the collective experience in attempting to resolve it. Without the "collective experience" any resolution to the crisis or problem at hand would be perceived as being a failure. That is how the "group grade" is determined.

It is not that teacher's do not discuss issues with their students. They do. It is that they do not dialogue with their students, especially when it comes to establish facts or truth which the student is to learn. Discussion is different than dialogue, in that in discussion the teacher never sets aside his or her position of authority (it does not mean he or she does not learn from the students, only that he or she does not 'change' their paradigm, i.e. move from their Patriarchal Paradigm of the Father's "top-down" Authority to the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' i.e. of the Children's "equality" Authority—in "equality" there is no "ingroup-outgroup" in that all are to be in the "ingroup," thus those who refuse to participate in the "ingroup," those of the "outgroup," need to be "converted" or negated so that there is only the "ingroup,' i.e. the difference being FA 'drives out' any who are not subject to its will, making it an "outgroup," while CA must "convert" the "outgroup" into the "ingroup" or negate them) while in dialogue all participants, both teacher and students, are "equals," 'discovering' "truth" together, making "truth" dependent upon their "feelings" and "thoughts." While discussion restrains dialogue (as a Father must restrain his child if he is to initiate and sustain His authority), dialogue negates discussion (as the children must "fix," i.e. neuter the Father or negate Him and His Authority to initiate and sustain their authority). "Dialogue is really aimed at going into the whole thought process and changing the way the thought process occurs collectively." (David Bohm, On Dialogue) Discussion sustains FA while dialogue reveals the child's dissatisfactions with it. Without dialogue, i.e. the child's dissatisfaction with the FA being expressed, 'change' can not be engendered. "The individual may have ‘secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Just be aware that the word discussion is often interchanged with the word dialogue in an environment engendering dialogue.

The classroom experience of the teacher-student relationship (either "top-down" or as "equals") directly affects how the next generation of student will think and act as an outcome. Whoever controls the classroom environment, i.e. shaping the classroom experiences of the students, i.e. determining how they will learn (how they are learning directly affects what they are learning), controls the nation. By adding the affective domain (how the student "feels" and what he "thinks," i.e. his "thinking" is in the "light" of his and other's "feelings" regarding socialist issues), the cognitive domain (the facts or truth learned) is moved from the Father's "top-down" authority (absolute) to the Children, as "equals," in authority (relative to the situation), with a facilitator of 'change' in control of the environment, i.e. in control of the students, i.e. in control the next generation of citizens, i.e. in control of the world, i.e. initiating and sustaining the "new" world in the thoughts and the actions (theory and practice) of all its citizens. "Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society." "Socially useful work and its results determine a persons status in society." (Articles 66 and 14 of the "former" USSR Constitution)

"A group becomes a group fully only as it forms a common purpose and decides on a course of action appropriate to that purpose. The purpose of discussion involves, therefore, the remolding of habits, attitudes, understandings and ways of working . . . in relation to the process of problem definition and solution as a whole." "'What is our purpose at this point?' is recognized as one of the most helpful questions that can be asked . . ." "Purpose: . . . the building of group-centered attitudes and . . . the perpetuation of such group-centered behavior." (Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

The education system of the "past" represented a Father's Authority in the classroom experience of the child. The teacher created an Environment of learning where they Preached and Taught facts and truth, to be learned "as given" and applied properly by the students, charging them with "top-down" (established) Ccommands to be followed without question, Chastening any (individual student) who disobeyed, i.e. with a bad grade (for giving wrong answers), spanking (for behaving badly), or expulsion (for disrespecting authority), thereby engendering a Guilty Conscience within each individual student when they thought of disobeying or did disobey the teacher, i.e. engendering the "voice of the Father" in the student's thoughts and actions (honoring the Father, respecting His authority), thereby restraining the student from participation in the process of 'change.' The classroom of the "present" and "future" represents the Children (including those in adult bodies) in Authority in that the facilitator of 'change' creates an Environment where both the "teacher" (the 'change' agent) and the students (in partnership, i.e. in comradeship with one another) " feel "free," i.e. are encouraged, i.e. are seduced, deceived, and manipulated, i.e. are 'pressured' into Dialogue their Opinions to a Consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") which produces collective (situational, readily adaptable to 'change') Commands (demanding "equality"), Chastening any group of students who do not perform "collectively," i.e. Chastening "the group"—which the individual student is in—which does not perform the process of 'change' property, i.e. any student fighting against, restraining, resisting, or refusing to participating in the 'change' process affects the grade of all the other students in "his group," thereby engendering the Super-Ego (or Seared Conscience), i.e. the "voice of the village," "What will the group think?" in the student's thoughts and actions, i.e. disrespecting the Father's Authority (which engenders individualism, i.e. "repression," "alienation," "neurosis"), i.e. the student from then on considering the Father and His Authority as being "irrational" (of the "past" not fitting in the "present") and therefore "irrelevant" (not to be respected and honored) in the 'changing' times, i.e. killing (negating) the Father (along with any who support Him) if and when He (or they) get in the way of 'change.'

While Traditional Marxists killed you if you represented or honored the Father's Authority (look at your history books, this is what it was all about), Transformational Marxists (who incorporated Sigmund Freud with Karl Marx and vice versa) will try to convert you first, neutralizing you, marginalizing you, and removing you if that does not work (neutralizing you by getting everyone to share their opinion, thereby reducing your facts, truth, or belief to an opinion amongst opinions, marginalizing you by treating your persistence in holding to your position, i.e. your "opinion" as being obstinate, uncaring, and even hateful, i.e. "prejudiced" and uneducated, i.e. due to your lack of "listening skills," with even your friends distancing themselves from you for fear of "collateral damage" (fear of backlash from the group on them by being associated with you), and removing you either by the group "extruding" you in their mind's, as having nothing relevant to invest in the "group experience," or physically by "disinviting" you or by your leaving. Only killing you by not allowing you to buy or sell, i.e. not allowing you to have "health care," i.e. for not contributing to or refusing to contribute to or not being able to contribute to or not having the potential of contributing to the socialist cause. That little "group grade" has more to do with the student's and your life than just "learning to get along." It is being used to "program" the youth into a "new" world order, where individualism no longer has relevance. If you make flesh, "human nature" the standard from which to evaluate what is "good" and what is "evil," then anyone outside of the "group" experience of consensus must be converted or negated for the sake of the flesh, i.e. for the sake of the world only). As Abraham Maslow explained it: "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) As Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx) "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') Therefore, according to Maslow, Marx and the "group grade" process, the individual (student) can only 'discover' his identity, i.e. his 'purpose' in life and therefore 'reality,' "in a socialist society" (Karl Marx), i.e. within the "group grade" experience.

The introduction of Bloom's Taxonomies into the education system in the 50's and 60's brought Transformational Marxism into the classroom, 'changing' the classroom learning environment from the Father's Authority (of restraint) to the Children's Authority (of 'change'), i.e. classifying the former as "lower order thinking skills" and the latter as "higher order thinking skills" to deceive the parents and the general public. As the scriptures warn us, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump," so a class of math, science, etc. might sound like an "old fashioned" classroom of "higher order thinking skills," but by adding a little "higher order thinking skills" regarding morals and ethics, the classroom is 'changed' into a "new" world order of Children (anarchy and revolution) in Authority. What sounds innocent in the beginning can become deadly in the end.

The National Training Laboratories (NTL's) assisted in this 'change' in education methods, training school administrators, superintendents, staff, and teachers amongst others on how to do it (giving them hands on experience). The first National Training Laboratory began in 1947 in Bethel, Maine (working with the NEA at that time) produced the manual Human Relations in Curriculum Change, edited by Kenneth Bennie. It is a "cookbook" on the methods used to 'change' students, teachers, staff, etc. The 'change' was so dramatic that participant's, i.e. school superintendents, etc. would commit suicide after the sessions (until methods were developed to assist in "preventing" them). There are now 10 NTL's in the US alone.

History has proven, whoever controls the classroom, controls the outcome, i.e. controls how the next generation will think and act. In the 50's we removed the Father's Authority from the classroom. Now the Children (in adult bodies) are in Authority, i.e. "the children of disobedience" are in control of the nation, with no Guilty Conscience for their thoughts concerning (and their actions against) those citizens (of the "past") who retain the Father's Authority, restraining 'change,' i.e. "repressing" the "present." Have you seen the Father and His office of Authority esteemed lately? Especially in the public domain. I didn't think so. It did not happen by accident. The following pages explain the formula that was used to "help" it take place.

It is not that the 'change' in the classroom environment, from the Father's Authority to the Children's Feelings of the 'moment,' has not been noticed in the past. It has been. Back in 1921 Will Woods wrote: "Has authority been banished in these later days? Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of pupil soviets?" (Will C. Woods, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California, March 1921; as sited in the California Legislature 1959 Budget Session, Sixteenth Report, Senate Investigating Committee on Education, Curriculum Changes) Woods warned us back in the 20's: "No school worthy of the name can exist unless the principle of respect for authority is observed. No school can exist without discipline, without subordination of pupils to reasonable rules and regulations. Anarchy in school means anarchy in the nation later on."

A soviet is a public-private partnership meeting with a facilitator of 'change' in control of the meeting, i.e. controlling the environment, making sure that there is a diverse group of people (with some more advanced in the process of 'change' than others, "helping" to bring "their more backward members," who are not yet "programed," into the process of 'change'), dialoguing (there is no Father's Authority in dialogue) their opinions (how everyone "feels" and what everyone "thinks," i.e. treating every belief, truth, or fact as an opinion amongst opinions, i.e. as a theory amongst theories) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. comradeship, i.e. 1) with liberté of the flesh, i.e. with "human nature" being 'liberated' from the Father's Authority, 2) with égalité, i.e. with all "willing" participants being treated as equals in regards to the flesh, i.e. with a "positive feeling" of approval regarding their carnal "human nature," and 3) with fraternité in the flesh, i.e. with a "feeling" of "oneness" as all experience and embrace "tolerance of ambiguity," i.e. "tolerance of diversity/deviancy," i.e.. "tolerance of abomination"), over socialist issues (with the social crisis of the day "driving," i.e. "herding" everyone together, with everyone having to participate in the 'change' process for the "purpose" of solving the "crisis," i.e. for the "good" of everyone, i.e. for the "good" of the "party," the "group," the school, the business, the "church," the "community," the "village," the county, the state, the nation, the world, and especially the "environment"), in a facilitated meeting (with one in "authority" who knows how to initiate and sustain the 'change' process, preventing the Father's Authority from taking over the meeting and preventing 'change," i.e. stopping the 'change' process from taking over the meeting, controlling their lives and livelihood), to a pre-determined outcome (that no decision be made without the process of 'change' being used—in the thoughts and actions of all participants—with all non-participants needing conversion or else neutralized, marginalized, and/or removed, for the "good" of "the people, i.e. "the village," etc., i.e. communitization, conscietization, democratization, synergism, etc.). While most who attend the meeting think that it is a meeting to fix a problem, they do not realize that the meeting is all about "fixing" them, i.e. neutering/negating the Father's Authority (the Guilty Conscience) in them. The same procedure for 'change' is used on the students in the "group grade," preparing ("programing") the next generation to "willingly" participate in the "new" world order, with the "children of disobedience" "controlling" the environment, voiding the environment (the world) of the Father's "top-down" Authority by 'changing' the thoughts and actions of the students in the classroom.

But, for 'change' to take place, as the Transformational Marxist Theodor Adorno noted: "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents' behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) The "game plan" was to first 'change' the classroom's "learning" environment, i.e. creating a socialist/soviet/group grade/group think classroom experience for the children, in order to 'change' their behavior toward their parents, engendering a crisis in the home, in order to initiate 'change.' To use Bloom's Taxonomies in the classroom is "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents," which, according to Bloom, is designed to produce "conflict and tension between parents and children" in the home. (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 2 Affective Doman)

The following syllogism is the formula being used in education, in the workplace, in government, and in the "church," for the 'purpose' of 'change' (it is quite chilling/sobering once understood). It is a formula which has "cost much blood" over the last century (Communism and Fascism, with Socialist Fascism's one man dictator being only an alteration of Socialist Globalism, with its "directorate" dialectating 'change,' i.e. both coming from the same mother, i.e. Socialism) and is "costing much blood" in the present (abortion, euthanasia, "Making the world safe for Democracy," are not Christian concepts but are Stoic, i.e. Socratic concepts instead, which the Courts turned to to 'justify' 'change' in the classroom environment, i.e. removing the Father's Authority, i.e. the Ten Commandments, prayer in Jesus name to the Father, the Holy Scriptures, and spanking, all for the 'purpose' of 'change,' all for the 'purpose' of common-ism) and will "cost much blood" in the "future" (with the "health care package," i.e. government control over the citizens, removing any socially unhealthy person, i.e. removing anyone born or unborn who are perceived as not contributing to or not being able to contribute to or hindering the advancement of the socialist cause, i.e. being unable to or unwilling to contribute to the process of 'change,' i.e. augmenting pleasure for the masses).

"Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking Handbook) "Reconstructing and transcending concepts" means to materialize all ideas, treating all beliefs as opinions, making them subject only to the "sense experiences" (the "'life history") of the child. The child, being unable to comprehend the FA in the "light" of his own "human nature," can only "sense perceiving" it as being spiritual, i.e. not of the flesh, i.e. not of the world, not of 'reality.' With 'reality' being based upon the child's own "sensuous needs" of the 'moment,' the augmentation of pleasure and attenuation of pain becomes the sole 'drive' and 'purpose' of life. The experiences of the child's life (the child's life history) therefore becomes the only foundation from which he is able to learn to separate 'reality' from 'illusion.' Therefore, while claiming to seek the truth, he can never come to know it, "truth" for him being only of the pleasure and pain sensations of the 'moment,' with pleasure being the 'drive' and the augmentation of pleasure being the 'purpose' of life. As the Word of God warns us of dialectic 'reasoning' and its outcome, we are now living amongst foolish people, who, professing to be wise, are: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22 But in opposition to the Word of God, Benjamin Bloom, paraphrasing Karl Marx, wrote: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places." (Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain, pg. 32) Karl Marx wrote: "In the eyes of dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx) As righteousness (FA to give Commands to His children and Chasten them when they disobey) is negated in the classroom, sensuousness (CA to Dialogue his Opinions to a Consensus) is augmented in the thoughts and actions of the children, and as sensuousness (CA to DOC) is augmented in the classroom, righteousness (FA to CC) is negated in the thoughts and actions of the children.

While the the field of "education" was claiming to be promoting "academics" in the classroom, it was, in reality, negating the issue of righteousness (FA), supplanting it with the issues of sensuousness (CA). Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy" of the "felt needs" of the child's carnal nature therefore become the only measuring stick from which the child was to separate 'reality' from 'illusion,' with any introduction of "religion" into the classroom being for the purpose of augmenting dialogue. i.e. the Dialoging of the children's Opinions to a Consensus (DOC). Marx wrote: "The abolition of religion [FA], as the illusory happiness of men [Freud called it "substitute gratification," while Marx called it an "opiet"], is a demand for their real happiness [the child's carnal pleasure unrestrained by FA]. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition [that the Father has authority] is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions [calls for the negation of FA]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/1/1) According to Marx, by the child submitting his will to FA, the FA becomes reality and the child's nature becomes illusionary. "The life which he has given to the object [the Father] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3, pp. 83-84) Only by reversing this condition (negating the condition of FA] can 'reality' become 'reality' again, in the child's life. Leonard Wheat, explaining Paul Tillich's dialectic attitude, explained it best: "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will." (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) The classroom experience therefore became the same experience advocated by 'liberation theology,' i.e. the 'liberation' of man from God, from FA, making himself (collectively, according to his own "human nature") God instead. "An act of violence is any situation in which some men prevent others from the process of inquiry [when the Father prevents the child from becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment']...any attempt to prevent human freedom is an 'act of violence.' Any system which deliberately tries to discourage critical consciousness [which refuses to allow the children the "right" to question and challenge, i.e. overthrow the Father and His Authority] is guilty of oppressive violence. Any school which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry is guilty of violent oppression." (Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed)

Abraham Maslow noted the source and the effect of dialectic 'reasoning.' He wrote in his journal: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa [psychology allowed Marxism to come in the back door of the education system and take over the classroom]." "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." "A caretaker government [a "shadow" government of departments controlled by facilitators of 'change'] 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.)" (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

(The following formulas are explained by quotations by Hegel, Marx, Freud, Maslow, Rogers, etc. below. But first the formulas.)

If A= the Father's Authority (FA) and B = Preaching and Teaching (PT) and C = Commands and Chastening (CC) and D = the Guilty Conscience then If FA = PT and PT = CC and CC ⇒ GC then FA ⇒ GC, preventing 'change.'

If the Father's Authority (FA) is Preaching and Teaching (PT) and PT is Commands and Chastening (CC), and CC produces a "Guilty Conscience" (GC) for disobedience, then FA (the Father's Authority) produces GC (the Guilty Conscience) which prevents 'change.' Note: It is the Guilty Conscience (GC), which is engendered by the Father's Authority (FA), that prevents 'change.' Without negating the GC, and the condition which engenders it, i.e. the FA, 'change' can not be initiated and sustained.

Therefore, If E = FA then the E = PT, CC, and GC, preventing the world from 'changing.'

Therefore, if the environment (E) is ruled by the Father's Authority (FA) then the environment (E) is ruled by Preaching and Teaching (PT), Commands and Chastening (CC), and the Guilty Conscience (GC), preventing the world from 'changing.' Note: By 'changing' the environment (E) you can 'change' the world.

By 'changing A from the Father's Authority (FA) to the Children's Feelings of the 'moment' (CF) and B from Preaching and Teaching (PT) to the Dialoguing of Opinions to a Consensus (DOC) and C from Commands and Chastening by the Father, i.e. by one authority (CC) to "Commands and Chastening (group rejection of approval)" by the group ("CC") and D from the Guilty Conscience (GC) to the Super-Ego, i.e. the Seared Conscience (SE/SC) then If CF = DOC and DOC = "CC" and "CC" ⇒ SE/SC then CF ⇒ SE/SC, engendering 'change.'

If the Children's Feelings of the 'moment' (CF) is made manifest through the Dialoguing of Opinions (how the children "feel" and what they "think," affected by their feelings regarding the social, i.e. human relationship issues of the 'moment,' i.e., approval of "the group" controls their feelings, thoughts, and actions) to a Consensus (DOC), i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness," and DOC is the children's (collective) Commands and Chastening ("CC"), i.e. their solution to the problem being the only right one for the 'moment,' and the collective Commands and Chastening of the children ("CC") produces the Super-Ego, i.e. Seared Conscience (SE/SC), i.e. the "voice of the village" controlling their head, then the Children's' Feelings of the 'moment' (CF) produces the Super-Ego, i.e. Seared Conscience (SE/SC). While the Father's Authority engenders individualism, i.e. "Mine, not yours," "top-down," nationalism, inhibiting 'change,' the Children's Feelings in Authority engender socialism, collectivism, i.e. "We working for Us," "equality," globalism, engendering 'change.' This does not happen naturally (as all sources point out) so a facilitator of 'change' is necessary to keep the FA from taking control over the environment and preventing 'change.' Without the facilitator of 'change' initiating and sustaining DOC, i.e. negating PT, the FA and the GC would prevail. It is the facilitator of 'change' who controls the CF, actually controls the environment which controls the CF of the 'moment.' It is the facilitator of 'change' who seeks to control the world through the children negating their Father's Authority.

Therefore, If E = CF ≠ FA, E = DOC ≠ PT, E = "CC" ≠ CC, and E ⇒ SE/SC ≠ GC, then the world can be 'changed.'

Therefore, if the environment (E) is controlled by the Children's Feeling of the 'moment' (CF) and not ruled by the Father's Authority (FA), if the environment is controlled through the Dialoguing of Opinions to a Consensus (DOC) instead of being ruled by Preaching and Teaching (PT), if the environment is controlled by the children's (the "group's," i.e. "the people's") Commands and Chastening ("CC") and not ruled by the Father's Commands and Chastening (CC), and if the environment (E) is controlled through the Super-Ego, i.e. the Seared Conscience (SE/SC) and not ruled by the "Guilty Conscience" (GC), then the world can be 'changed,' i.e. readily adaptable to 'change.'

Therefore, for 'change' to take place the E = CF ≠ FA, DOC ≠ PT, "CC" ≠ CC, and SE/SC ≠ GC.

Therefore, for 'change' to take place the environment (E) must be controlled by facilitator of 'change' controlling the Children's Feelings of the 'moment' (CF) and not ruled by the Father's Authority (FA), it must be controlled through the Dialoging of Opinions to a Consensus (DOC) rather than ruled by Preaching and Teaching (PT), it must be controlled by the children's, i.e. "the peoples," i.e. the collectives, Commands and Chastening ("CC") rather than ruled by the Father's Commands and Chastening (CC), and it must be controlled by the children's Super-Ego, i.e. Seared Conscience (SE/SC), which engenders 'change,' rather than ruled by the "Guilty Conscience" (GC), which restrains 'change.' You have to remove FA, PT, CC, and GC, by replacing it with CF, DOC, "CC," and SE/SC, if 'change' is to become the way of life. Faith (in the Father and His Authority) prevents 'change.'

Whoever controls the environment (E) controls the outcome, i.e. determines how the next generation will think and act.

According to Kurt Lewin, "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." "A new world is not built by changing the 'old' to the 'old' [from the Father's "top-down" Authority, which engenders "division," i.e. individualism and nationalism] ..., but ... by freeing the child to build his generation from his new blueprint [from his own "human nature," which engenders "equality," i.e. socialism and globalism]." (Wilbur Brookover, Socialization in the School) Carl Rogers wrote: "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity [from one faith to another, keeping the FA in place], though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process [from the Father's commands to the child's opinion, i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts," making him adaptable to 'change']." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

Therefore, the children (the "children of disobedience") can control the world, i.e. negating the Father and His Authority without a "Guilty Conscience," only if the E of learning is 'changed' from FA, with its PT, CC, which engenders a GC, which prevents 'change,' to an E of "learning" based upon CF, through DOC, "CC," which engender SE/SC, which initiates and sustains 'changed.' Then the CF can negate the FA without a GC. It is a bloody and immoral formula when put into praxis (socialist action), with facilitators of 'change' acting as "Innocent Bystanders" as their" servants," CF negate FA (first in the home and then in the factories, government, churches, and streets). With the patricide (the negation of the FA) comes incest ("human nature" unrestrained, i.e. engendering abomination). As Irvin Yalom wrote: "Freud noted that … patricide and incest … are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

By bringing Freud and Marx into the classroom, under the camouflage of "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics, the educator became a therapist, structuring the classroom environment in such a way as to "help" the children 'liberate' themselves from their parent's authority (seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the children into questioning their parent's authority, challenging their parent's authority when they went home). Yalom explained it this way: "What better way to help the patient [the child] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [the facilitator/"teacher"-student partnership, 'discovering' truth together]? The therapist [facilitator/"teacher"] is the living personification of all parental images [takes the place of the parent]. Group therapists [ facilitators/"teachers"] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group [the children/students united as a team, i.e. as "one"] to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [the children/students united as on in a team must] feel free to confront the therapist [the facilitator/"teacher" must help the children/students gain experience, courage, and support in confronting their parents "old" way of thinking and acting by convincing them that it is 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant' if it is "out of touch with the times"], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the child] reenacts early family scripts in the group [how he "feels" and what he thinks"] and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied ['liberating' himself from his Father's restraints upon his carnal nature] … the patient [student-child] changes the past by reconstituting it [deciding for himself what was rational and relevant in the past which fits with, or lines up with the present time, i.e. which augments pleasure, i.e. which initiates and sustains 'change']."

As Karl Marx wrote: "Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated. The changing of circumstances and of self [the changing of the classroom environment and the educator and their students] can only be grasped and rationally understood as revolutionary practice." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #3) Carl Rogers new of the importance of controlling the classroom environment if the "changing of the circumstances and of self" was to take place. He wrote: "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions [if we are able to 'change' the "circumstances"], the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Rogers wrote: "Prior to therapy [prior to the "new" classroom experience] the person [the student] is prone to ask himself 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy [during the "new" classroom experience] the individual [the student] comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" ibid. A persons worth is not only in his talents or skills, or lack thereof, but in his participation in the process of 'change,' "All of them [management or facilitators of 'change'] have to make human strengths productive in performance and human weaknesses irrelevant." (Peter Drucker, The Essential Drucker) As Karl Marx put it: "The philosophers [those dissatisfied with the way things are under the FA, i.e. coming up with how the world "ought" to be, under their authority, engendering the FA in them] have come up with many different views of the world, the objective however, is change [preventing FA from existing]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)

Immanuel Kant, in Critique of Pure Reason, placed man's hope in the things of this world only (not in God above), stating that hope is found in happiness, happiness is found in pleasure, pleasure is found in the mind, and now we know that the brain, when it experiences the sensation of pleasure as the result of dopamine "emancipated" in the synaptic gaps of the nervous system when we come into contact with or think upon gratifying things of the world, makes us aware of the pleasures of the world. He therefore elevated human 'reasoning,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' (which ties man to the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment'), making the world of sensation "equal" with faith (placing 'reasoning' over and against faith), 'justifying' hope in this world (in the "here-and-now," augmenting pleasure) over and against hope in the world to come (in the "there-and-then"—having to do without pleasure and enduring pain along the way). The object of dialectic 'reasoning' is to 'discover' that which is of the present and future (which engenders and augments pleasure) as well as that which was of the past (which engendered pleasure), negating that which is of the past which prevents 'change,' i.e. which inhibits or blocks pleasure or "enjoyment" (or as George Hegel wrote in German, "Lust") from taking place. The dialectic question is: "What is the condition which keeps things as they are" (engendering pain, including and especially the pain of missing out on pleasure) and "How can a condition be created that will negate it (the restrainer of "lust") so that 'change' (man's carnal nature) can become 'reality' ('liberated') in the "present" and the "future."

The syllogism above will explain the 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning.' First there is the understanding that the object of pain, i.e. including that which prevents (inhibits or blocks) pleasure, must be identified. In this case it would be the Father's Authority (FA). Then there must be an understanding of what the Father's Authority is, i.e. the giving, i.e. Preaching and Teaching (PT) of Commands to be obeyed without question, and the use of Chastening to enforce there fulfillment (CC). Then there must be an understanding of what keeps the FA in place, preventing 'change' from taking place (what inhibits or blocks 'change'), i.e. the "Guilty Conscience" (GC). While the FA is based upon giving commands, i.e. PT commands (to be obeyed without question) and chastening when they are disobeyed, engendering a right-wrong, good-evil, top-down way of thinking and acting, the child's nature is based upon the approaching of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, with pleasure being "good" and pain being "bad." Without 'change' becoming the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, i.e. the child's nature becoming the foundation for right and wrong, the FA prevents 'change' from taking place, i.e. prevents the child from experiencing 'change.' With these premise's the dialectic formula for 'change,' i.e. what inhibits or blocks it? can then be laid out as such:

If FA = PT and PT = CC and CC ⇒ GC then FA ⇒ GC, preventing 'change.'

That is: If the Father's Authority (FA) is the Father giving, i.e. Preaching and Teaching (PT) Commands to His children (to be obeyed without question) and His Chastening of them when they disobey (CC), and His Commands and Chastening engender the "Guilty Conscience" when they disobey or think about disobeying their Father's commands (GC), then it is the Father's Authority which engenders the "Guilty Conscience," i.e. it is the GC which prevents 'change,' i.e. prevents the child from 'changing' when he is out from under his FA, i.e. when he is in the environment of 'change.' Without creating a condition where the GC is negated, 'change' cannot become a 'reality,' i.e. the child's nature (his "natural inclination" to be-at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment') can not become the bases for determining what is right and what is wrong behavior. As Dr. Trojanowicz wrote: "The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing) Therefore if "deviant behavior," i.e. behavior of 'change' is to take place, the "personal conscience" must be negated. He then identified the environment which engenders the "personal conscience" (the "Guilty Conscience"), i.e. the traditional family setting where the Father's Authority of giving Commands and Chastens when they are disobeyed is put into practice. He wrote: "The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." ibid. From there on, having identified the A, B, C, and D of the syllogism, i.e. the FA, PT, CC, and GC, Trojanowicz set out to negate the FA, His PT, His CC, and the GC. He wrote: "social control is now often more dependent on external control [the police state], than on internal self-control [the "Guilty Conscience]." ibid. It is this dialectic 'logic' which we now see being put into praxis (socialist practice) around us.

You can apply this formula to all setting today. In the classroom environment, for example, the Father's Authority, i.e. the teacher teaching facts (Commands) to be learned and applied "as given," "or else" the student is disciplined (Chastened, i.e. the student is given a bad grade for not learning the facts, spanked for bad behavior, expelled for disrespecting authority), has been replaced with facilitators of 'change,' who dialogue their opinions with their students opinions, i.e. how everyone "feels" and what everyone "thinks" (including the deviant) concerning a current social issue, to a "general consensus" (to a "feeling" of "oneness"), 'discovering' the "truth" together (teacher-student partnership). It is what Bloom's Taxonomies and the common-ist (Communist) education system is all about (Common Core = Communist Curriculum, with the "commune" working together for the "commune's good").

The same dialectic pattern is being applied in all organization, institutions, and political offices today. It is known as a soviet: a diverse group (deviants included as "equals"), dialoguing opinions (how everyone "feels" and what everyone "thinks") to a consensus (there is no FA in dialogue), over social issues (materializing all things), in a facilitated meeting (with an expert who knows how to prevent the FA from taking over the meeting, preventing 'change'), to a pre-determined outcome, i.e. that no decision be made without a diverse group of people, dialoging their opinions to a consensus, over social issues, in a facilitated meeting, to a predetermined outcome...., i.e. the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' negating the FA and the GC in everyone's thoughts and actions (theory and practice), i.e. 'changing' everyone who 'willingly' participated in the "special meeting." This is all done by preventing the use of PT of CC to come to the solution of a problem (in solving a crisis), at least the PT of CC of the FA, i.e. the "CC" of DOC now being of the "group think," i.e. now being used against any individuals refusing to support the soviet system. This is the consequence of the consensus process being put into practice, i.e. into socialist action (praxis), the negation of the FA and the GC.

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order) "By dialectic, I mean an activity of conscious, struggling to circumvent [the children in the classroom, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus are "bypassing" their Father's Authority regarding right and wrong behavior], the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction."

The dialectic solution to the FA and the GC is the negation of the environment (E) which consists of PT of CC, the environment of the "past," i.e. the "old" world order. By replacing it with the E of the "present," i.e. the E of the Children's Feelings of the 'moment' (CF) which is achieved through the Dialoguing of Opinions to a Consensus (DOC), i.e. creating a Collective Authority AKA a Common-ist Authority AKA a Communist Authority AKA a Communitarianist Authority), 'change' can be initiated and sustained. The dialectic 'logic' is: If E = CF (the E consists of DOC, i.e. to 'discover' right and wrong behavior in the 'moment') then E ≠ PT, E ≠ CC, E ≠ FA, and E ≠ GC. "CC" will remain in the "new" world order (over and against the FA), but it will be carried out through DOC, i.e. through group approval without a GC (there is no GC in DOC), i.e. with the CF (of the 'moment') negating the FA, without having a GC. The Children's Feelings of the 'moment' can not have a Father's Authority and therefore can not have a Guilty Conscience (GC) even though they can arrive at Commands and Chastening ("CC") through the Dialoguing of Opinions to a Consensus (DOC). Commands and Chastening can only be collective in 'drive' and in 'purpose,' i.e. the reason for the consensus meeting over and against majority vote (unless the majority vote was manipulated through the consensus process, i.e. in the disguise of "bipartisanship"). The CC of the FA can be replaced with the "CC" of the CF of the 'moment' because the GC, i.e. the voice of the Father, can be replaced with the Super-Ego, i.e. the Seared Conscience (SE/SC), i.e. the voice of "the people," i.e. the conscience seared, being replaced with empathy for the "common cause" only. The GC ties the child to the FA while the SE/SC ties the child to the "voice of the village," i.e. to the CF of the 'moment.'

Norman O. Brown, quoting Sigmund Freud, wrote (regarding the difference between the conscience and the "super-ego," i.e. the seared conscience): "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: the super-ego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "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) The merging of the "present" (the child's "feelings" of the 'moment') with the "past" (the Father's commands) sears the conscience, i.e. making it subject to the socialist agenda of the "present" and the "future," i.e. 'change.'

Typical of those of the Common-ist mindset, i.e. redefining (manipulating) words to engender their pre-determined outcome, the Transformational Marxist Theodor Adorno wrote: "It is a function of the ego to make peace with conscience, to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony [there is no FA, CC, and GC in the child's carnal impulses and urges and in his will to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment']." "When this synthesis is not achieved [the Father's commands, the child's "feelings" and his "will" to satisfy his "desires"], the superego has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality, and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above [it remains a GC, keeping the child subject to his FA]."" (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

In his book, which is still being used to train our educators to seduce, deceive, and manipulate the students into becoming common-ists today, Benjamin Bloom wrote: "The superego is conceived in psychoanalysis as functioning substantially in the same way as the conscience [both need an external source of influence, one source being from the one, i.e. from the FA, the other source being from the many, perceived as being "one," i.e. from the CA]." "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society [the "feelings" and "thoughts" of "the people"]." "Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book I Cognitive Domain)

When PT (the Preaching and Teaching of) CC (Commands and Chastening, i.e. "Thou shalt not," and "Because I said so") is removed from the learning (the policy setting) environment, then the FA is prevented from taking over the E and the GC is negated, i.e. the FA is no longer able to prevent, i.e. inhibit or block 'change,' i.e. stop common-ist takeover. If E ≠ CC then E ≠ FA then E ≠ GC.

Kurt Lewin, the father of "group dynamics," "force field analysis," "Unfreezing, Moving, and Refreezing (seducing, deceiving, and manipulating)," wrote: "The negative valence [GC] of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult [FA to CC]." "If this field of force [FA to CC] loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) [if the CC environment is replaced with an environment of dialoguing opinions, i.e. the environment becomes a "safe-zone," i.e. if it is "open-ended," where the child can talk (dialogue) about anything he desires, including his desire to have the "forbidden object" (the "forbidden fruit") without the fear of being chastened, as well as being "non-directed," where he can set the course of discussion, making it subject to his "wants," i.e. his "felt needs"], the negative valence [GC] also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality) By create an environment where the PT of CC is negated, the FA is negated and the GC is negated. There is no FA in DOC, i.e. the dialoguing of opinions (to a consensus). Therefore by creating an environment of the dialoging of opinions, i.e. how the children "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness," the FA is negated, i.e. the voice of "the village," the collective superseding, the voice of the Father in the child—group approval, which 'justifies' "human nature," supersedes the Father's approval, who restrains it).

Therefore if E ≠ GC (or If E = SE/SC) then those in the environment can do whatever they "feel" or "think" is "good" for the E, including and especially removing the Father along with His authority, without a GC. If E ≠ PT then E ≠ CC then E ≠ FA and E ≠ GC then E = CF. The sole 'drive' and 'purpose' of the facilitator of 'change' is to initiate and sustain an E which ≠ PT, ≠ CC, ≠ FA, ≠ GC thereby making CF = E and E = CF (the child in and for himself) only (with himself as a member of the "vanguard party"). Whoever controls the E controls the outcome (Outcome Based Education). Either the FA controls E, through PT producing CC and GC, producing an outcome of the past with respect for authority or the CF of the 'moment' (actually the facilitator of 'change') controls E, negating PT, CC, FA, and GC, using "CC" "(group approval) without a GC, producing an outcome of the "new" world order, "questioning authority," hating the FA with His PT and CC, having no GC while negating Him and it from the face of the earth. The trickery of dialectic 'reasoning' is negating the CC under the FA while keeping them under control of the CF, i.e. the CF won't kill you in the meeting, they will do it latter through their "new" laws which were passed through the consensus (soviet) process to "serve and protect" "the people" (the collective), negating you without a GC.

If CF ≠ FA and E = CF then E = DOC, "CC," and SE/SC ≠ FA, PT, CC, and GC, initiating and sustaining 'change.'
While this formula might take some to time to think through, it will send chills down your spine once understood, considering the consequence of it use.

The negating of the FA to PT and CC His children (Hebrews 12:5-11), i.e. the FA with His CC engendering the GC (Romans 7:14-25), can only be 'justified' through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' (through 'justifying' the child's nature, i.e. "human nature," as being the only standard from which to determine right and wrong, good and evil from). Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the child's 'self-justification' of his feelings of the 'moment,' i.e., CF over and against FA, was first put into praxis in a garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6). That is how new the "new" world order (the "new" age) is. And you thought education was all about academics and business was all about making a living. It is all spiritual, either under the Father's authority or under Satan's control (SC). By negating the FA to PT and CC, i.e. engendering the GC, you guarantee a world under SC (Socialist Control, i.e. the Seared Conscience AKA the Super-Ego).

"Freud [and] Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression. Under the conditions of repression the essence of being lies in the unconscious." "Psychoanalysis, mysticism, Freud, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Marx – the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen." "Common to all of them is a mode of consciousness that can be called the dialectic imagination." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic, and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle. 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." "Infants are absorbed in their own bodies; they are in love with themselves." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." "Life is of the body and only life creates value; all values are bodily values." "The true life of the body is also the life of the id." "In the id, says Freud, there is nothing corresponding to the act of negation." "The key to the nature of dialectical thinking may lie in psychoanalysis, more specifically in Freud's psychoanalysis of negation." "Freud saw that in the id there is no negation, only affirmation and eternity." "In the id there is nothing corresponding to the idea of time. A healthy human being, in whom ego and id were unified, would not live in time." "Only the abolition of guilt can abolish time [the "past" preventing the "present" and the "future from becoming "one"]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the future does not reside in the Father's Authority but in the child's carnal nature, i.e. in his "natural inclination" to relate with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment.' It is therefore imperative that the child's nature ("human nature") be exalted over and against the Father's Authority if 'change' is to become a 'reality.'

George 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 (Id, i.e. "human nature" unrestrained by righteousness) becomes the 'drive' of and the 'purpose' for life]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [the earthly father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family [the Heavenly Father's authority], the former must be destroyed [annihilated] in theory and in practice [the Father's authority must be negated in the child's personal thoughts and in his socialist actions through the dialoging of opinions to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") being put into social action, i.e. praxis, negating the Father's authority of the "past"]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

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 [the "father" no longer functions with a father's authority in the home, with the family now dialoging opinions to 'discover' what is right and what is wrong behavior for the 'moment']." (Sigmund Freud quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

What they all had in common was their hate toward the Father's Authority (which they correlated to God's authority). They were all 'purposed,' as Satan, in the "eradication" of the Father's authority (God) from the face of the earth. Thus their formula was: by 'changing' (controlling) the E, preventing the FA (with its CC) from gaining authority over the environment, so that the GC can be negated in the child's thoughts, setting the child's action's in motion, united as "one" with all the children of the world, in negating the Father's Authority from the face of the earth. It is what philosophy, psychology, sociology, and common-ism AKA communism AKA communitarianism (and Common Core) is all about.

The Transformational Marxist Erick Fromm clearly articulated the 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning': "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods)

It is the same 'drive' and 'purpose' of psychology today: "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)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

This is the path we have chosen as a nation, following after the formula of CA negating FA, i.e. the SE/SC negating the GC, creating a world of abomination. It is why we are seeing our children think and act they way they do today, i.e. without Godly restraint, i.e. without a 'guilty conscience" for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions, 'justifying' themselves and their carnal ways. "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5

Carl Rogers made it clear, i.e. his agenda of replacing the FA with CA and its outcome: "Walden Two: 'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [dialogue opinions (how you "feel" and what you "think," to a consensus with other opinions, building a socialist society upon the "super-ego"], and why negative doesn't' [chastening the individual for doing wrong, engendering the GC, building the individual upon the voice of the one, upon the FA]... '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 [Genesis 3:1-6, according to "human nature"], not what they are forced to do [Hebrews 12:5-11, by the Father's Authority and Romans 7:14-25, by a Guilty Conscience] 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)

James Coleman, who our Supreme Court turned to on matters of education, wrote: "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The 'natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." "Strengthening the family to draw the adolescent back into it faces serious problems, as well as some questions about its desirability." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." "Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood." "In order to [improve those institutions], one must know how adolescent societies function, and beyond that, how their directions may be changed." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) Note: Bloom used Coleman as well as H. H. Remmers to support his Taxonomies. Remmers wrote: "Child development experts [mental hygienists] have discovered that the most important step in producing a mentally healthy child is to select for him parents." (H. H. Remmers and N. L. Gage, Educational Measurement and Evaluation)

Whoever determines the E of education (the classroom experience of the students) determines the outcome. They will determine the thinking and acting of the next generation, whether they will be in support of FA or CF, i.e. supportive of liberty under law, i.e. under God (under the FA, having a GC) or supportive of liberty from law, being subject only to the law of the flesh, i.e. to man's carnal sinful nature, having no GC only a SE/SC—engendering a nation and a world of abomination, serving and protecting a "police state" of 'change,' i.e. serving and protecting the liberté, égalité, fraternité of the French Revolution, i.e. liberty of the flesh only, equality of those in the flesh only, and the brotherhood of those of the flesh only ("of Nature only," Karl Marx). When you walk into a room of people and you see a facilitator of 'change,' CF, DOC, and "CC," i.e. a facilitator of 'change' helping the Children to initiate and sustain Authority through the Dialoguing of their Opinions to a Consensus, establishing collective Commands and Chastening, you know you are in a room full of people (a room full of children in adult bodies) without a Guilty Conscience, ready and willing to negate you if you stand in their way, in the way of 'change.'

As Irvin Yalom put it: "One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views [turns to his Father's Authority] in the service of denial." [According to Yalom the "fundamentalist" holds to that which is not of "human nature," holds to that which is not adaptable to the 'changing' times, and is therefore is labeled as a 'deviant,' i.e. the 'deviant' is not the homosexual who, according to Yalom, adds "depth" to the therapy session, i.e. adds "depth" to the classroom experience]." "Communication toward a deviant [any child holding to FA] is very great initially and then drops off sharply as the group rejects the deviant [sees no hope in converting him, making him "one" with them]. Eventually, the group will extrude the deviant. They may smile at one another when he speaks or behaves irrelevantly; they will mascot him, they will ignore him rather than invest the necessary time to understand his interventions." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

The environment of the common-ist classroom, with its "group grade," is a hostile environment for any children with a GC to have to endure. As Maslow wrote, responsed to those who think and act like Jesus, doing His Father's will to the death, labeling such behavior as "authoritarian": "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [the student who still holds to his Father's values] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians [those who hold to their Father's authority, which initiate and sustain private business, property, family, i.e. and advocates limited government, i.e. restraining government from usurping the authority of the Father over his family] is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) If their parent's only knew (or cared) they would come between the facilitators of 'change' and their child, rescuing their child from a SE/SC.

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:22-25

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