If You Do Not Evaluate Your Self And The World Around You From The Word of God You Can Not Understand Your Self And The World Around You, i.e., Marxism, Socialism, Globalism, Much Less Properly Respond To Your Self And It.

authorityresearch.com

If You Do Not Evaluate Your Self And The World Around You From The Word of God You Can Not Understand Your Self And The World Around You, i.e., Marxism, Socialism, Globalism, Much Less Properly Respond To Your Self And It.
(Personal note.)

by
Dean Gotcher

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

During my senior year in Highschool my history teacher explained communism, i.e., Marxism to the class. I KNEW he was wrong in his definition. I did not KNOW why at the time. I just KNEW he was wrong. I now KNOW why. (Discernment does not give you the answer at the moment. It simply tells you that something is wrong. It is up to you to find out what is wrong.) After an accumulative eight years of college and University classes, including Seminary, and five years researching over six hundred social-psychology books (major works foundational to earning a Doctorate in psychology and sociology), weighing them from the Word of God, to where when I lectured in liberal Universities the liberal professors responded not just to me but in front of their whole class (which amazed me since I had thoroughly thrashed their profession) "We can not refute a word you said," you too will KNOW why he was wrong. He was wrong in his definition of communism, i.e., Marxism because he did not evaluate it from the Word of God.

"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

Today academics is synonymous with Marxism, i.e., the exclusion of God's Word when anything of the creation (which God created) or behavior (which God has established the standards for) is being taught or talked about—except to deny the Word of God and turn a deaf ear to, mock, silence, reject, censor, remove anyone sharing it, i.e., preaching, teaching, and attempting to discuss it. Marxism is the praxis of building relationship on self interest, i.e., upon what people have in common, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," requiring all parties to negate (to question, challenge, disregard, leave out, defy, attack) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., what they have been told is right and wrong behavior by their parents/by the Word of God, i.e., any established command, rule, fact, or truth that creates division, i.e., that creates a guilty conscience, i.e., fear of being chastised, judged, condemned, cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning., i.e., for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating instead of doing the father's/Father's will.

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

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

The human heart, perceiving pleasure, i.e., lust as the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will (which gets in the way of lust) can not see its hatred toward the father's/Father's authority as being evil, i.e., "wicked," i.e., "desperately wicked" because its lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. (Mark 7:21-23)

Marxism is the building of relationship on self interest, i.e., upon what all men have in common, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," negating the father's/Father's authority, and the guilty conscience it engenders in the process. While "conservatives" are going after "liberal's" in politics they are void of understanding that their children are under the influence of Marxism, i.e., 'liberalism' in the classroom, not only in the public schools, but also in the private, parochial, and even home school environment, with the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., Marxist curriculum (student's being taught to build relationship upon the affective domain, which will be covered later), which negates the father's/Father's authority in the child's learning environment, directly effecting how he or she thinks and acts not only in the classroom but also at home. This is even true in the "church," i.e., the apostate church (with its "youth groups") where members are asked to share their opinion, i.e., what they "think" a verse in the Bible is saying, making it subject to their "feelings," i.e., to their understanding, doing what the Lord Jesus Christ did not do himself—in all three temptations, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," he responded with "It is written . . . ." You weigh the Word of God with the Word of God. It is God's Word not yours. What the Father says, goes. Even His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ KNOWS that, doing what he is told, requiring the same of you.

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

"Let no man deceive you with vain words [self interest words, i.e., words you lust after, i.e., words you want to hear]: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Ephesians 5:6, 7

By replacing God's Word, i.e., what the Father says with vain words, i.e., with words that 'justify' your self interest, i.e., that 'justify' what you are lusting after you are deceived in making pleasure, i.e., lust the standard of life (which, having no life in and of itself is only a sensation of the 'moment') instead of doing the Father's will, which deals with your soul, which is eternal.

"For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches [giving you words you want to hear, i.e., words that 'justify' what you are lusting after] deceive the hearts of the simple." Romans 16:18

Through dialogue, i.e., by asking you for your opinion, i.e., how you "feel" and what you "think" when it comes to right and wrong behavior the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' is able to gain access to what you are lusting after, i.e., to your self interest. Gaining your trust in their offering to "help" you attain it (using "feigned words," i.e., plastic words—Greek meaning of πλαστός, i.e., ambiguous words) they are able to take ownership of you, i.e., they are able to buy and sell your soul, using you, as "human resource" to support their lifestyle, i.e., their self interest, i.e., their lusts., i.e., their "belly's." All the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' has to do is ask you for your opinion, i.e., how you "feel" and what you "think" when it comes to right and wrong behavior, something the father/Father who KNOWS will not do and he "owns" you. It is all that the master facilitator of 'change' did with the woman in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6, as will be explained below). Being "tolerant of ambiguity" is the praxis of 'justifying' wrong, i.e., of 'justifying' unrighteousness, something the father/Father will not do. In all the classes I have ever attended and the books I have read not one teacher or professor or author has ever explained the dialectic process (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process) as the exclusion of the parent's standards/God's Word, .i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth (when it comes to right and wrong behavior), other than (in 'justifying' one's lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint) to reject them in a persons conversation with his or her self and with others, which it is. There is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process, there is only the participant's propensity to lust after pleasure and to hate restraint (to hate missing out on pleasure—for having to do the father's/Father's will instead) being 'justified.' (What you lose in dialogue.)

Either the father rules in the family or the children rule. You can not have both. In the American Revolution and the Constitution that followed, with its Bill of Rights (limiting the power of government), the father, as a King ruled over his family, his property, his business, according to his private convictions, under God (and thus in the Nation). In the French Revolution, with its directorate, i.e., its diverse group ("group's") of people, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, over personal-social issues, in a facilitated meeting, to a pre-determined outcome (which is a soviet, so the father's/Father's authority, i.e., a King would have no input in the outcome) the children ruled (the facilitator of 'change' ruled over "the people"). Marxism, i.e., the facilitation of 'change,' i.e., the consensus (dialectic) process, now being put into praxis in all activities of life in America (in the home, in education, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church") sides with the children, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the Marxist—with "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"—negating the father's/Father's authority (individualism, under God) in all activities of life.

The following is a brutal read of what I now KNOW. It is long and involved—with many verses from the Bible and quotations by Marxists, socialists, globalists, i.e., facilitators of 'change' throughout the whole issue, with many major ones included not only in the middle but also in the last third of the issue, with my emphasizing (repeating over and over again—the brutal part) their agenda and how they are accomplishing it, which I know makes this a very long and difficult read to get through (enduring and suffering come to mind). Read the verses and their statements (quotations) at least. I am convinced that most people have not read, who say they have read what I have written, to the point of understanding since the questions they ask me I have answered in the writing. I read several social-psychology books three times over (some were over nine hundred pages long) to the point I could defend them, as though I was the author—which I would not—in order to KNOW what they were saying and doing that would effect me and others. It is not that anyone can quote these philosophers and psychiatrists. It is that they KNOW, according to the Word of God the error of their way, in order to help themselves and others not be deceived, with them doing right and not wrong according to God's Word, i.e., doing the Father's will instead. Many "Christians" are following down and letting their children follow down the Marxist pathway not KNOWING what is happening to them and their children. This is written in order to help them KNOW, with them and their children doing the Father's will instead. The information (verses and quotations) given here would be helpful (good source material) for any student (Highschool, University, and beyond) wanting to write a paper exposing the "theory and practice" of Marxism, i.e., our carnal nature and God's condemnation of it (as well as to any minister who wants to know what is happening to the congregation, i.e., to the fellowship, in and outside "the building").

"What about your children's social life?"

Without first starting with (and remaining with) the Word of God. i.e., with what God says you can not understand, nor properly respond to the Marxist, i.e., the socialist, i.e., the globalist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' (all four being the same in structure of thought, i.e., a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change'), i.e., to our current generation—who assail parents with "What about your children's social life?" who are training their children up in the admonition of the Lord, teaching them to humble, die to, discipline, control, capitulate their self, i.e., deny their lusts, i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating in order (as in "old" world order) to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth (which engenders a guilty conscience in them, i.e., fear of judgment, condemnation, being cast out when they do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., when they, lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating—from now on referred to as "lusting" or "to lust"—do their will instead of the father's/Father's).

Social life (social-ism) is based upon compromise, i.e., disobedience, i.e., freedom to compromise, do wrong, sin, i.e., to lust without having a guilty conscience. Everyone knows that in order to keep relationships, even within the family (who are no longer under the father's authority in the home) compromise is required (which includes being silent when they are wrong). If you keep telling someone they are wrong (when they are wrong), if they do not accept the fact that they are wrong and repent they are more than likely, if they are not under your authority or they can leave or "escape" (with somebodies encouragement and help) not going to stay around for long (their opinion, i.e., their "feelings" and "thoughts" being more important to them than being right and not wrong). They may, being "intolerant of any voice from without" even attempt to "remove" you from the environment in the 'moment' of hate, especially if they "feel" like they can not "get away" or they "feel" like they can "get away with it," with support. The father's/Father's authority (doing what you are told in the home/individualism, under God) demands no compromise, i.e., obedience, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, engendering a guilty conscience when you do compromise, i.e., disobey, i.e., do wrong, i.e., sin, i.e., lust. It is the difference between "belief-action dichotomy," where, while you do not always do what you say you believe, your intent is to think and act according to your belief, i.e., according to what the father/Father says, i.e., according to what you have been told (the there-and-then, i.e., accountability for your thoughts and actions being more important to you than the here-and now, i.e., your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment') and "theory-practice" where your thoughts, in harmony with your "feelings" are reflected in your behavior, with both thought and behavior in harmony with nature, i.e., with the world (known as stimulus-response), 'justifying' your carnal nature, i.e., establishing lust over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., establishing doing what you want over and therefore against doing what you are told., i.e., establishing sight over and therefore against faith, i.e., establishing "feelings" over and therefore against being told.

Your soul KNOWS by being told. Your flesh knows by "sense experience." "Belief-action dichotomy" deals with your soul, i.e., with the father's/Father's authority, i.e., with being told. "Theory-practice" deals with your flesh, i.e., with your carnal nature (your impulses and urges, i.e., lusts of the 'moment' that the world stimulates), i.e., with "sense experience." The Word of God sides with the father's/Father's authority, i.e., with doing the father's/Father's will (with the Father having preeminence) while Marxism, socialism, globalism, i.e., the facilitation of 'change,' i.e., contemporary education, the workplace, government, even the "church" sides with the child's/your carnal nature, i.e., with the child's/your natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, i.e., with the child doing his or her will/you doing your will with indifference to (I could say in defiance to) the father/Father and his/His authority.

I say the father's/Father's authority (the Patriarchal Paradigm—the author and enforcer of established commands, rules, facts, and truth) in that while the earthly father (your dad) is not perfect, he may be (or might have been) a down right tyrant (or MIA/AWOL)—as a child lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the world is stimulating without restraint—his office of authority is perfect, having been given to him by God (the "Heavenly Father") who is perfect, in which to do His will, both have the same "top-down" authority system which makes right and wrong behavior (and therefore reasoning) subject to being told, i.e., to "Because I said so"/"It is written," i.e., to established commands, rules, facts, and truth instead of subject to "sense experience," i.e., to stimulus-response., i.e., to the child's carnal nature, i.e., to his impulses and urges of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. Without the father's/Father's authority, i.e., chastisement, i.e., fear of judgment, i.e., accountability for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting, i.e., for doing his will instead of the father's/Father's there is no guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting. The question might be asked "Where have all the father's gone?" As children, off to lusting every one. When will they ever . . . .

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

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

In brief the father's/Father's authority engenders sinners in a sinful world having a guilty conscience for sinning, with them either repenting, doing the father's/Father's will or continuing to sin, doing their will instead, but with a guilty conscience (engendered by their still recognizing and accepting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., wanting to please the father/Father). Marxism, on the other hand engenders sinners 'justifying' their sins in a sinful world, removing the father's/Father's authority and anyone supporting it (who judges, condemns, and attempts to cast them out for their praxis of sinning), thereby they have no guilty conscience for sinning as well as no guilty conscience for judging, condemning, silencing, censoring, removing (killing) anyone who judges, condemns, and attempts to cast them out for sinning—removing anyone, including the unborn, elderly, innocent, righteous who get in the way of their lust for pleasure, doing so without having a guilty conscience. Marxism is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, negating Hebrews 12:5-11, negating Romans 7:14-25 in the process. The "old" world order is children doing the father's/Father's will. The "new" world order is children doing their will instead, without having a guilty conscience, which requires removing the father's/Father's authority from the environment ('justifying' their violence toward, i.e., their removal of the father/Father and his/His authority, and anyone who supports and propagates it from society) —if they are to sin, i.e., lust without having a guilty conscience. As the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' affirms "the people's" lusts (in his words), he' affirms their violence toward the father/Father and his/His authority (in his silence). They are simply doing what comes naturally to them, i.e., "thing and acting" according to their carnal nature, i.e., responding to the current situation and/or people or person that is stimulating it.

According to the Marxist it is the guilty conscience (fear of judgment, condemnation, being cast out) that sustains the "old" world order of children doing their parent's will and man's God's, i.e., doing what they are told, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., stimulus-response. (This is the conflict between capitalism, i.e., capitulation to a "higher authority" and socialism, i.e., building relationship with others upon common self interest, i.e., upon lust.) Therefore it is expedient for the Marxist to remove the father's/Father's authority (the parents commands, rules, facts, and truth/God's Word) from the environment (the classroom, the workplace, the neighborhood, town, city, state, and nation, government, the "church"), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting from "the people's" thoughts, directly effecting their actions in order (as in "new" world order) for them, i.e., the Marxist to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., to lust without being judged, condemned, cast out, with "the people's" affirmation. When the Marxist says "the people" he means his self—whatever he is doing or he gets others to do for "the people" is to satisfy his lusts, i.e., is to fulfill and sustain his self interests. 'Change' is simply stimulus-response where the Marxist can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can lust, removing anyone who gets in his way (including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous) without having a guilty conscience, with "the people's" affirmation. (It is the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, for sinning, i.e., for lusting that inhibits or blocks stimulus-response, i.e., that prevents 'change.') The larger the Marxist's "portfolio," i.e., the more people who know of and follow him (for 'justifying' their lusts, i.e., their self interest—the more he knows of, i.e., gains access to "the people's" particular lusts, i.e., specific self interests and speaks to them [the reason for polls, surveys, and feedback loops]) the more powerful he becomes, i.e., the more "human resource," i.e., money and people he has to feed his lusts and are willing to remove anyone who gets in the way of his lusts. Those who gather around him (for his supporting, i.e., 'justifying' their lusts) will protect him "at all cost," i.e., with "whatever it takes," i.e., relentlessly and ruthlessly in order to sustain their lusts—"The end 'justifies' the means." By the Marxist dividing those who are in his way (or he perceives as going to be in his way) from their own (for example in politics)—by (ruthlessly and relentlessly) focusing on what they have done wrong according to their (local) standards and focusing on that which others in their group agree with him (the Marxist) on, i.e., what they have in common with him, i.e., what they are lusting after (the more he generalizes aka double speaks, i.e., uses "fusion" words that can mean different things to different people, for example the educator (facilitator of 'change') saying to the parent "Your child has leadership skill," which in detail can be for good for the parent, retaining their authority, i.e., supporting the father's/Father's authority system or for evil for the parent, promoting Marxism, i.e., negating their authority, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority system)—he is able to overcome any opposition to his agenda, i.e., the 'liberation' of lust, i.e., his self from the father's/Father's authority system, with "the people" (both sides) supporting him (sustaining his position of power over and control of them).

"Transparency," to the Marxist is knowing what people are thinking about (lusting after) in the 'moment,' without them knowing what his intent is, i.e., how he is going to seduce, deceive, and manipulate them (use them as "human resource") to support his lusts. Putting people of differing political views together, "encouraging" them be "positive," i.e., to be "tolerant of ambiguity" in order to get to know one another as "people," i.e., in order to build relationship with one another, based upon self interest (engendered from both parties lusting after the approval aka affirmation of one another, establishing lust over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority), negates anyone who divides people based upon absolutes, i.e., upon who is doing right and who is doing wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth—a process which is called "the negation of negation." Self interest, i.e., the child's/man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint is antithetical to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., to doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. This is reflected in language. Discussion ("I KNOW" right from wrong because of the established commands, rules, facts, and truth which I have been told aka taught and believe are true) retains the father's/Father's authority system, with the father/Father having the final say. Dialogue ("I feel" and "I think," i.e., opinion) on the other hand negates the father's/Father's authority ("I don't need the father/Father, i.e., God to tell me right from wrong." "I can decide for my self, according to my lusts."), with the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e., lust having the final say (until death—then God has the final say. "Death education" is simply leaving God, i.e., judgement, condemnation, and the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him, i.e., for all who praxis his way of thinking out of the "discussion" so the facilitator of 'change' can lust without fearing judgment, condemnation, being cast out, with "the group" judging, condemning, casting out those who bring God and His judgment up instead, with the facilitator of 'change's' affirmation).

This animosity toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the system itself (which divides people on right and wrong behavior, based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth) which individuals had learn at home, in school, at "church" (preventing them from uniting with others on what they have in common, i.e., their lust for pleasure and their resentment toward restraint) and the use of dialogue (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., the affirmation process used to overcome the effect the father's/Father's authority has on the individual) was studied during the two World Wars by Marxists, i.e., facilitator's of 'change' who wanted to 'liberate' society from the father's/Father's authority system (Nationalism) in order to 'create' "worldly peace and socialist harmony," so they could control the world themselves. Institutions such as Tavistock (out of England) and the National Training Laboratories (out of the U.S. A.) were a result of their endeavors. "Bloom's Taxonomies," created by Benjamin Bloom, et al, in response to Phillip Jacob's Changing Values in College uses the same method developed by Tavistock and the NTL's, 'changing' the way college student's think and behave ('liberating' them from the effect of traditional thinking they learned from their parent's, their traditional minded educators, and the "church" they attended while at home), thus 'changing' the institutions and professions they eventually enter into, thus 'changing' the world, with Marxist's, i.e., facilitator's of 'change' in control. "Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain ['liberating' college students, i.e., their lusts from the father's/Father's authority system] was the publication of Jacob's Changing Values in College (1957)." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book 2 Affective Domain 1964) 'Liberate' the student's affective domain in college and he will attack the father's/Father's authority system in the home, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church," or at least be silent (not defend it) when it is attacked.

Brief overview:

Marxism, socialism, globalism, i.e., the facilitation of 'change' (from now on referred to as "Marxism" or "the facilitation of 'change'") is all about negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., excluding the Word of God, i.e., what the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ say, i.e., that which is "negative" to lust, i.e., that which judges and condemns mans carnal desires in his conversation with his self and with others—which to the Marxist, the socialist, the globalist, i.e., to the facilitator of 'change' (from now on referred to as "the Marxist" or "the facilitator of 'change'") is the same way of thinking and acting (where a person thinks and acts according to what he has been told instead of according to his carnal desires, i.e., his lusts of the 'moment') as found in the traditional home aka the "middle class," where children learn to humble, die to, discipline, control, capitulate their self, i.e., deny their lusts, i.e., their impulses and urges of the 'moment,' i.e., their natural inclination to lust in order to do the father's will (which, to the Marxist engenders individualism, under God, inhibiting or blocking, i.e., preventing 'change'). To the Marxist, i.e., to the facilitator of 'change' obedience to parents, to teachers, to the boss, to the King, i.e., to established laws that judge, condemn, and cast out those who do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., who, lusting do their will instead of the will of those in authority is "the problem," i.e., inhibits or blocks 'change.' To the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' it is the father's/Father's authority (the system itself) that prevents "human nature," i.e., stimulus-response, i.e., 'change' from becoming actualized, i.e., from becoming reality, i.e., from becoming all there is to life—where the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' is in charge, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating "the people" into supporting his habit, i.e., his lusts. To the Marxist, what binds people together is not the father's/Father's authority—that divides people based upon who is doing the father's/Father's will and who is not—but lust, what all people have in common. Stimulus-response, i.e., that which is of the world is based upon sight, with "sensuous needs" ("the lust of the flesh") being the 'drive' and "sense perception" ("the lust of the eyes"), i.e., "sense experience" ("the pride of life") being the medium through which reasoning takes place, with right and wrong behavior being based upon the super-ego, i.e., upon what one likes and dislikes, while the father's/Father's authority, i.e., that which is above is based upon faith, i.e., being told what is right and what is wrong behavior, engendering a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting , i.e., for doing what you want instead of doing what you are told. For the Marxist what a person likes (for example when they like a person), right and wrong, established by the father/Father is not to get in the way (of building relationship with them).

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

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

". . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4

While the father's/Father's authority requires faith on the part of the child/man, i.e., upon the child/man being told, the child's/man's carnal nature is based upon lust and the world that stimulates it, i.e., upon sight, i.e., "sense experience." Spirit is that which is external to human nature, requiring man to turn to God, who is spirit to KNOW the truth. Anything outside of this is based upon "sense experience," i.e., upon that which is of the world. Matthew 4:4 condemns that which is of the world, i.e., Benjamin Bloom's "Taxonomies," Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of 'Felt' Needs," Lawrence Kohlberg's "dilemma questions," philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc.,. i.e., the wisdom of men, i.e., man's opinion. Although these things might "seem" to be true to the carnal mind, they are not truth in and of their self.

"The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

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

In order to make lust and the world that stimulates it, i.e., stimulus-response all there is to life, the Marxist must remove the father's/Father's authority (the system itself) from the environment. By negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., removing the Word of God, i.e., fear of God from "the peoples" thoughts (directly effecting their actions) the Marxist can lust without fearing judgement, condemnation, being cast out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions. By making lust, i.e., self interests (what all men have in common) the thesis, i.e., the issue of "discussion," the father's/Father's authority, i.e., that which is "negative," i.e., that which inhibits or blocks lust, i.e., that prevents self interest from becoming actualized becomes the antithesis, allowing all who participate (in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process) to become one (to synthesize) based upon what they have in common, i.e., their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, i.e., to lust after one another's affirmation of their lusts and to hate the father's/Father's authority for getting in the way (they will, united in lust, i.e., in self interest remove aka negate anyone who gets in their way or they perceive as potentially getting in their way, i.e., in the way of lust, i.e., in the way of their self interest). There is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process, there is only the participants natural inclination to lust after pleasure and resent, despise, hate restraint, i.e., anguish over missing out on pleasure (becoming "desperately wicked" when he feels it happening or fears it is going to happen, i.e., that it is going to be permanent). The Marxist knows (as does the psychiatrist) that without making lust, i.e., self interest (what we dialogue with our self and with others about) the object (the priority) of "discussion" (where lust, i.e., "What I want," i.e., pleasure in this case has the final say instead of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) the father's/Father's authority remains in place, i.e., in the person's thoughts, directly effecting his actions (how he responds to his self, to others, to the world, and to authority, known as a paradigm, i.e., the way a person thinks and acts). Taste, what a person likes or dislikes is based upon dialogue. What the body needs (to stay alive) is based upon discussion. There is a final consequence for not attending to the facts in discussion, i.e., to what the body needs (the same being true for the soul). The father's/Father's authority is based upon discussion (along with preaching commands and rules to be obeyed and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is) where the father/Father has the final say while the child's carnal nature is based upon dialogue, where the child's carnal desires have (lust has) the final say. When the father goes into dialogue ("I feel" and "I think") with the child—over right and wrong behavior—the child's carnal nature and the father's carnal nature become one and the same, i.e., both become equal—according to the flesh and the world that stimulates it ("everyone is entitled to their opinion")—negating the father's authority in the process, i.e., the father no longer can hold the child accountable for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for deciding right and wrong behavior for his self (according to his wants and hates, i.e., likes and dislikes—which is a broad spectrum of 'change,' i.e., where a person is on the pathway of 'change,' i.e., strongly disagree or like, disagree, somewhat disagree, unsure, mostly agree, agree, strongly agree, where opinion rules—over and therefore against belief). While the father, for example knows the cost of making money, ,i.e., "the value of a dollar" the child thinks it "grows on trees," indicative of how the Marxist treats money and those who labor to make it (since they are one and the same in his mind)—using money, i.e., "the people" as "human resource" to satisfy his lusts. This is why for the Marxist, out of fear of someone leaving with "his" money all must participate, i.e., the need for "sight based management" since those with a conscience (think right-wrong instead of likes-dislikes) will either get in the way, i.e., cause disharmony, leave with the money, and/or cast him out, hindering or removing his access to the money (to "the people"). The idea being, for the Marxist entertain them, i.e., feed their lusts, i.e., their self interests and they will come, and keep coming back (he will "own" them, supporting his lusts). Hold them accountable to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, truth, facts, and truth that judge, condemn, and cast them out for their carnal thoughts and actions, i.e., for their lusting after the things of the world and he will chase them away (losing his money source, which supports his habit, i.e., his lusts). Money readily flows through an environment of pleasure, i.e., that 'justifies' lust, i.e., self interest but becomes limited or even non-existent (to the feeding of lust) in an environment of restraint, where the father's/Father's authority rules—the difference between whether the flesh, i.e., the here-and-now, i.e., enjoying the 'moment' or the soul, i.e., the there-and-then, i.e., where a person is going to spend eternity or whether he is going to receive an inheritance or not (the consequence of one's thoughts and actions) is the issue of concern. There is no consequence, i.e., accountability, i.e., guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is under the father's/Father's authority, i.e., in discussion.

The Marxist, perceiving his self as being the personification of "the people," who like him lust, sees it as his duty to liberate "the people," i.e., his self from the father's/Father's authority (the system itself) so he can lust, removing anyone who gets in his way (including the unborn, elderly, innocent, righteous), doing so without having a guilty conscience—since he has no fear of God's judgment, i.e., the father's/Father's judgment upon him for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions—with "the people's" affirmation (approval, support, protection, and praise). When the Marxist's actions are questioned he will respond with "It is not just about you," really meaning "It is all about me, so I can lust without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, i.e., my lusts or get in my way 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since having 'justifying' their lusts I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for my 'good.'" (The true meaning of "sight based management.")

As will be explained in greater detail below, the Marxist knows that by using dialogue, i.e., "I feel" and "I think" when defining and establishing right and wrong behavior instead of discussion, i.e., "I KNOW" because my father, my teacher, my boss, my leaders, my minister, God told me so (who has the final say) he is able to negate the father's/Father's authority in all who participate. By 'justifying' their carnal thoughts and carnal actions he is able to gain their trust, resulting in their support, protection, defense, praise, and worship of him. Psychologists use the same system of thought (as will be explained later—with their own words).

". . . God is not in all his thoughts." Excerpt from Psalms 10:4

". . . there is no fear of God before his eyes." Excerpt from Psalms 36:1

The Marxist, rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., making his flesh, i.e., his lust for pleasure his foundation of reasoning turns good, i.e., the Father's authority into evil, and evil, i.e., his carnal nature into good.

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

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:" Excerpt from Romans 7:14-25

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, . . ." Excerpt from James 1:17

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

It is not how far down the path you have gone, i.e., "I'm not as bad as he is." It is the path you are on. One step on it, i.e., on the pathway of self 'justification' (with the affirmation of others), i.e., worshiping self at the altar of lust (or worshiping lust at the altar of self) and you are on the Marxist pathway, i.e., on the pathway to hell (no matter how "good," i.e., like god you are—only God is good). You can take God's place in this life. You can act like you are God, making lust, i.e., pleasure, i.e., "enjoying the present," i.e., the "'eternal' present" good, i.e., right and denying your self (thus missing out on the carnal pleasures, i.e., the lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating), enduring the suffering, i.e., the rejection of others (for judging, condemning, and rejecting their lusts), and following after the Lord Jesus Christ (doing the Father's will) bad, i.e., wrong, i.e., evil. You can call that which is good evil and that which is evil good. You can remove from the environment, i.e., negate in your thoughts and therefore in your actions (called "theory and practice") that which is "bad," i.e., the father/Father and his/His authority and augment, i.e., 'justify' (in your mind) that which is "good," i.e., your natural inclination, i.e., your propensity to lust, 'justifying' (in your mind) your hatred toward restraint, i.e., hatred toward having to miss out on "pleasure" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will.

You can establish "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" over and therefore against the Word of God, i.e., over and therefore against the Father's authority, i.e., over and therefore against doing the Father's will. But on the day of judgment God will, for your taking His place, i.e., for your being a fraud (for thinking and acting like you are God when you are not, i.e., for having men trust in and praise you instead of the Lord), i.e., for your reasoning from your flesh instead of from His Word (He is the One who has given you the ability to reason, in order for you to reason from His Word, i.e., from what He has told you) have you cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him—unless you repent, turn from your wicked ways, i.e., stop thinking and acting like Karl Marx, i.e., rejecting (denying) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., removing from the environment the Father and His son Jesus Christ who get in your way, i.e., stop lusting after the carnal pleasures of this life and follow the Lord, Jesus Christ instead, doing the Father's will. (Revelation 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15) When you think you are god, you can do anything that comes to your mind, i.e., in your mind nothing is impossible (what you imagine). When you realize you are not God you realize you can not do whatever you want, that there are limits and measures to life, i.e., to what you can and can not do, what you can and can not say.

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

By making behavior subject to science, i.e., to that which is only of the world, behavior become subject to man's carnal nature, negating the authority of God in his thoughts, directly effecting his actions. As God has established limits and measures in nature He has established limits and measures to man, judging his thoughts and his actions, i.e., his behavior according to His Word, i.e., holding him accountable for his unrighteous thoughts and his wicked actions (unless he repents and turns to the Father and His Son Jesus Christ for direction).

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

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

For the Marxist, while a person might be tempted to lust, and think about lusting, not until he puts lust into praxis (into personal-social action, thus removing, i.e., negating the father/Father and his/His authority in his thoughts) can he be his self, i.e., become self actualized, i.e., become a Marxist. Marxism is simply leaving the Father, and His obedient son Jesus Christ (the father's/Father's authority) out of your conversation with your self and with others (especially when it comes to right and wrong behavior, i.e., when it gets in the way of building and sustaining relationship with others—which is based upon "What can I get out of this situation and/or people or person for my self?" which leads to "What will happen to me if they reject me and turn on me?" i.e., fear of man instead of the father/Father in control of your thoughts, directly effecting your actions) so the Marxist can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can lust after the carnal pleasures of this life (which includes the praises, i.e., the approval, i.e., the affirmation, i.e., the 'justification' of men) without having a guilty conscience. Praxis is the spirit of anti-Christ, i.e., the denying of (which includes the leaving out) the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (God's judgment upon sin and salvation through Christ Jesus) in your conversation with your self and with others (in order to feel good about your self and be less offensive to others).

The pattern is universal, i.e., of the world only, with the person, thinking about what he wants, i.e., what he is lusting after being offered an opportunity to attain it, without the father's/Father's authority, i.e., without judgment, condemnation, being cast out, i.e., without local control ("in loco parentis") getting in the way. You can not get any more local than the father's/Father's authority. Thereby, "transcending" local control, i.e., the father's/Father's authority the universal, i.e., what all men have in common, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life" (1 John 2:16), i.e., that which he has in common with the Marxist is now in control of his thoughts, directly effecting his actions, resulting in the Marxist, now in control of the environment (removing the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "negativity," judgementalism, prejudice from the environment) taking control, i.e., "ownership" of him. "What will happen to me if they reject me and then turn on me, i.e., if I do not go along?" i.e., "group think" is now in control of this thoughts (the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of God having been "washed" from his brain). With feelings, i.e., his lust for pleasure and his hatred toward restraint (stimulus-response) now in control his thoughts he no longer accepts established commands, rules, facts, and truth as is, i.e., by faith, i.e., he no longer accepts the father's/Father's authority, i.e., he no longer does what he is told. As a man I knew would say, "Your local school board member, who you could reason with in the past, goes off to a school board convention (where he participates in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, regarding right and wrong behavior) and comes back with a lobotomy. You can no longer talk to (reason with) him. Looking down on you (you can feel it) he no longer will listen to you. What 'the group thinks' is now in control of his mind." Having eyes he can not see, having ears he can not hear. His lust for pleasure and his fear of rejection by the "the group," i.e. by "the people" (who, now "owned" by the Marxist, i.e., by the facilitator of 'change' for 'justifying' their lusts will, doing whatever it costs defend him from the father's/Father's authority) blinds him from seeing the truth, i.e., prevents him from hearing what you are saying, who, if he perceives you are getting in his, "the group's," and the facilitator of 'change's way (all three now having become one in thought, i.e., in reasoning, i.e., in paradigm) will turn on you, i.e., turn you in.

The praxis of Karl Marx, i.e., of Marxism, i.e., of leaving God (what the Father and His son Jesus Christ say regarding right and wrong behavior) out of your conversation with your self and with others (especially when it judges and condemns your and their thoughts and actions) is more a part of you than you might know or are willing to admit. "Building relationship with others based upon your and their common self interests," i.e., upon what you and they have in common, i.e., upon what you and they are lusting after, which includes one another's affirmation is the praxis of Marxism, leaving out the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., what the father/Father says, i.e., that which is "negative" that gets in the way of relationship, i.e., in the way of lust, i.e., in the way of what you and the other person have in common. Without the Father, and His son Jesus Christ directing your thoughts and thus (when you obey them) your actions all you have is your self and the world around you, i.e., all you have is your natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint (to hate the restrainer, i.e., to hate the father/Father and his/His authority), i.e., all you have is the Karl Marx in you and all who, affirming the Karl Marx in you (and the Karl Marx in themselves) think and act like Karl Marx (lusting after pleasure, i.e., living for "the 'moment,'" i.e., 'justifying' their self and hating restraint—who, having removed the restrainer, i.e., God and His Word from their thoughts, want you to join with them, i.e., to build relationship with them, i.e., to become at-one-with them, 'justifying' their lusts). It is what stimulus-response, evolution, climate 'change,' etc., is all about, i.e., the negation of the Word of God, i.e., judgment for sin in "the peoples" thoughts, directly effecting their actions—so the Marxist can sin in a world of sinners affirming, i.e., following after, supporting, protecting, defending, praising, and worshiping him, propagating his praxis. In true science (for example) life begins at conception and xy chromosomes are a boy/man and xx chromosomes are a girl/women. Any other outcome is an opinion, i.e., is so called science or science falsely so called, promoted by those who, lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating reject established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Apart from the Word of God YOU CAN NOT KNOW who you are, where you came from, nor where you are going. Without the Word of God, right and wrong behavior, i.e., what is good and what is evil, i.e., your reasoning is based upon how you feel, i.e., your flesh, i.e., your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, i.e., your opinion and not upon what you are told, i.e., upon the Word of God, i.e., upon what the Father, and His son Jesus Christ say.

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

". . . casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5

The gospel message is all about doing the Father's will. "The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" is you (as a child without restraint, i.e., as a child of disobedience, i.e., as Karl Marx) doing your will instead. The "lust of the flesh" is stimulus-response, where your carnal nature, i.e., your natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasure(s) of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating, i.e., that the world is stimulating controls your thoughts, directly effecting your actions if you let it, i.e., engenders your natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain—which includes the pain of missing out on pleasure. The "lust of the eyes" is when you recognize and/or locate what it is (the object) that is stimulating pleasure, i.e., dopamine emancipation in you and dwell upon it, i.e., think upon it, making reasoning subject to dopamine emancipation, i.e., to the carnal pleasure, i.e., your self interest of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating, i.e., that the world is stimulating (whether it is real or is imagined). The "pride of life" is your ability to control the environment, i.e., to control the current situation and/or people or person present that stimulates dopamine emancipation in order to engender pleasure (which includes the praises of men) not only in the present but also in the future, removing all who get in the way. On the other hand the father's/Father's authority is where the father/Father authors commands, rules, facts, and truth which are to be accepted as is and obeyed and enforces them, insisting that you humble, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your self, i.e., deny your lust for dopamine emancipation and do right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth that he/He has established (that he/He has authored) i.e., in order to do his/His will.;

" . . . prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future)

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

When it comes to right and wrong behavior, if you do not fill "the empty space," i.e., your thoughts of the 'moment' with the Word of God, i.e., with what the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ say (who KNOW) all you have to fill it with is your lusts of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" which are passing away, resulting in your life, no matter how much you possess (including the praises of men) being hollow—with you continually chasing after your lusts of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating, trying to fill "the empty space."

"Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20

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

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world [which is temporary], and lose his own soul [which is eternal]? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26

The flesh is of the earth, passing away. The soul is of God, eternal. You have nothing of value to bring to God to save your soul from His judgment on you for your carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for your lusting after dopamine emancipation—but what His Son, Jesus Christ has done. All you have (that is of the world) is of no value, i.e., is of no worth to God, i.e., is passing away.

Your soul and your flesh are different. The soul KNOWS by being told (by the preaching and teaching of the Word of God, engendering discussion—if there is any question, with the father/Father having the final say—making commands, rules, facts, and truth objective, i.e., a position, i.e., absolute, i.e., "Because God said so, i.e., It is written" no matter the situation and/or people or person present). The flesh knows by "sense experience" (by stimulus-response, engendering dialogue, i.e., "I feel" and "I think"—making commands, rules, facts, and truth subjective, i.e., an opinion, i.e., subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the impulses or urges of the 'moment,' i.e., the lusts or hate engendered in response to the current situation and/or people or person who is present).

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

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

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16, 17

You can dialogue, i.e., go "I feel" and "I think," or "I like" and "I do not like" and act on it (like God) all you want in regard to the first command (regarding the fruit of the trees you are commanded you can freely eat). You can only discuss with God, i.e., the Father the second command (regarding what you can not do), with God, i.e., the Father having the final say (reflected in the traditional home, i.e., "Because I said so"). To dialogue, i.e., to go "I feel" and "I think" or "I like" and "I do not like" and then to act on them (your feelings and thoughts), regarding the second command (making your self god) is to reason from your flesh, i.e., from your lust, i.e., from your self interest, i.e., is to sin, i.e., is to establish your carnal nature over and therefore against doing God the Father's will, i.e., is to usurp the Father's authority, i.e., is to disobey God. God hates no one. He hates sin, judging us according to our thoughts and actions, whether we are setting our affections upon Him or upon the things of the world that stimulate lust.

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Genesis 2:18

No animal can be that "help meet." Only the woman ". . . because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:23, 24

In our need for conversation with one another we either fellowship, based upon the first and the second command, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the Father's will, which entails discussion, where what the father/Father says, commands, i.e., has told us has the final say, or we, lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating reject the second command, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and build relationship with one another based upon our common self interest, which entails dialogue. Dialogue goes with the first command (all the trees we were commanded we could eat the fruit of, i.e., "I like," and "I don't like"). Discussion the second (the tree we were commanded not to eat the fruit of, i.e., "I KNOW because I have been told"). The first command deals with your flesh. The second command deals with your soul. Man does not live by the first command alone, but by the second command as well. Bringing dialogue, i.e., "I feel" (like touching the tree) and "I think" (there is nothing wrong with it since it is just like all the other trees) into the second command negates the second command, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth making man and women the decider of right and wrong behavior—according to their carnal nature, i.e., their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and resent restraint, i.e., to hate missing out on pleasure, making whatever and whoever stimulates pleasure good and whatever and whoever engenders pain, with includes the missing out on pleasure bad (evil). (But I get ahead of my self. More on this below.)

If you reason from what you have been told, right and wrong (especially when it comes to behavior) are objective, i.e., you are subject to the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., you are held accountable to what you have been told. If you reason from your self, i.e., from your self interest, i.e., from your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, right and wrong are subjective, i.e., you are subject to your carnal nature, i.e., dopamine emancipation and the world that stimulates it, making you subject to whoever is 'justifying' (and offering to help you achieve) your self interests, i.e., your lusts of the 'moment,' i.e., dopamine emancipation that the world is stimulating. Your ability to reason comes from God, choosing to either use it to do His will, i.e., to do what He commands (to do what you are told) or do your will, i.e., 'justify' your self, i.e., your lusts instead, something no animal does (it can not be evolved). You have to, rejecting (denying) the father's/Father's authority system lower yourself to the behavior of an animal, i.e., to one of Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats, or Pavlov's dog, i.e., to stimulus-response in order to participate (to sell your soul to the facilitator of 'change,' who buys you with your lust of the 'moment,' i.e., dopamine emancipation that the world stimulates, offering to "help" you satisfy it). Romans 1:18-32

No animal, which are all subject only to stimulus-response (approach pleasure - avoid pain) and impulses and urges (instincts) can read or write a book, i.e., can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior, i.e., what they can and can not do. By making you subject to stimulus-response (to only that which is of the world, i.e., to "behavior science," i.e., to the "cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor domains," i.e., to your "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life," i.e., to "only" that which "is of the world"—what the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' does) you are (deceptively) equated to an animal (approach pleasure and avoid pain) denying the fact that you do what animals can not do, i.e., reason from being told, which requires faith in the one giving you commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is and obeyed. For the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' if you are to "'think' for your self," i.e., if you are to 'discover' for your self what is right and what is wrong behavior you must, like them "Reason" from your perception of what is and what is not in the world before you (according to your carnal nature, i.e., your senses, i.e., your lust for pleasure and your dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred of being restrained)—of course with their "help," using the same ("scientific") method or formula the master facilitator of 'change' used on the woman in the garden in Eden.

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? [this is a neurolinguistc construct (an imbedded statement in a question, sensitizing a person to their lusts, when it comes to right and wrong behavior, beginning the process of liberating a person's lust out from under their fear of judgment, i.e., out from under the father's/Father's authority)—which is one of the most powerful forms of hypnosis] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [she revealed her lust], lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die [removing the "negative," i.e., fear of judgment (which was not a lie regarding the here-and now, i.e., the tree itself did not kill her—or Adam—but a lie regarding the there-and then, with God removing her—and Adam—from having access to the "tree of life" for their disobedience, then, after death both coming to judgment, i.e., inheriting eternal life or eternal death)]: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise [evaluating (aufheben) from her senses, i.e., from her understanding she made her self god, i.e., the establisher of right and wrong behavior], she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:1-6 (emphasis added)

"Change in organization [from 'loyalty' to the father/Father, who condemns your lusts, i.e., your disobedience (your 'compromise') to 'loyalty' to "the group" and the facilitator of 'change,' who 'justify' your lusts, i.e., your disobedience (your 'compromise')] can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior [between dialogue and discussion, which when used together (in establishing right and wrong behavior) engenders confusion i.e., cognitive dissonance—"The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief" (with the pressure of "the group," i.e., your desire for approval and fear of rejection, i.e., with dialogue, i.e., your self interest, i.e., your lust for pleasure, i.e., dopamine emancipation controlling the outcome.) Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology]." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development)

By simply bringing dialogue into an environment establishing right and wrong behavior the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth is negated making the participants, i.e., their lust for pleasure and dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred of restraint right (good) and the father's/Father's authority wrong (evil).

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, . . ." "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, . . ." Excerpts from Romans 1:21-24

The 'moment' the master facilitator of 'change' seduced, deceived, and manipulated the woman into dialogue, i.e., into "leaning to her own understanding" regarding right and wrong behavior he "owned" her. By "helping" her to openly share her carnal desire, i.e., her lust of the 'moment' (to "touch" the "Thou shalt not" tree), in a non-judgmental, i.e., "Ye shall not surely die" ("positive") environment she was able to overcome the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., negate her fear of judgment for doing her own thing—in disobedience to God and His authority (she was now equal with Him)—and open her mind up to the "possibilities," i.e., to her "full potential," i.e., to all the world had to offer her. In this way, the woman, dissatisfied with not having or being able to do what she wanted, taking counsel from the master facilitator of 'change' became the first "scientist" ("behavioral scientist"), evaluating the situation via her "senses" (aufheben)—establishing "human nature," i.e., what she understood from her senses, i.e., from her lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint as her foundation from which to 'reason,' establishing stimulus-response over and therefore against the "Father's," i.e., God's authority, i.e., over and therefore against being told. Then, putting it into praxis, i.e., acting on it (the devil did not "make her do it," i.e., we all choose) she "resolved" the 'crisis,' i.e., "the problem"—without God and His Word, i.e., God's Word getting in the way. According to those "of and for the world," i.e., the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' the Word of God being preached, taught, and discussed, with the Father and His son, Jesus Christ having the final say (holding people accountable to it), especially in the public arena, i.e., in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, even in the "church," i.e., in the environment establishing right and wrong behavior is "the problem." Adam, lusting (following) after the woman instead of obeying the "Father," i.e., instead of doing the "Father's" will likewise established his carnal nature, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life" i.e., that which the world stimulates, i.e., stimulus-response as his basis for determining right and wrong behavior. 'Liberated' (in their mind) from the "Father's" authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system they became their self without restraint (without the "Father's" authority, i.e., without established commands, rules, facts, and truth getting in their way), i.e., they become self actualized—where only that which stimulates lust, i.e., dopamine emancipation, i.e., only that which is "of the world" is real, i.e., is actual.

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" "So he drove out the man; . . ." Genesis 3:22, 24

Good and evil, in God's eyes are based upon His Word. Good and evil, in the eyes of man are based upon his carnal nature, i.e., his flesh, i.e., his lust for pleasure, i.e., dopamine emancipation and the world that stimulates it. Inheritance is based upon the father's/Father's authority, who in his/His will rewards and blesses those who obey him, leaving those out who disobey him/Him, i.e., who disrespect his/His authority. The only way the child of disobedience, i.e., the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' can gain access to the inheritance (other than to repent and turn from his wicked ways) is to get rid of (negate) the father's/Father's authority, which he can only do in this life, with judgment (God's wrath), after his death awaiting him. All government programs, grants, subsidies, taxis, contractors, etc., are going after the children's inheritance, even taking the widow's and widower's money, with the Marxist's, i.e., the facilitator's of 'change,' and those following after them living off of it themselves. (This is the reason President Ronald Reagan stated: "The eight most dangerous words you will ever here are 'We're from the government. We're here to help.'")

God judges us according to what we have been told, i.e., what He has told us, the same being true for the earthly father, right being doing what we are told, wrong being our disobedience while "those of the world" judge us according to "sense experience," right being what brings them pleasure, i.e., what makes them "feel good," wrong being what brings them pain, which includes anyone inhibiting or blocking, i.e., preventing them from having pleasure, having to do right and not wrong according to what they have been told , i.e., according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth instead. For example, in traditional education the teacher reflects the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., 1) preaches established commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaches established facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discusses with the students any question(s) they might have regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth being taught, at the teacher's discretion, i.e., providing he or she deems it necessary, has time, the students are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority, 2) rewards the students who do right and obey, 3) corrects and/or chastens the student who does wrong and/or disobeys, that he might learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to the established commands, rules, facts, and truth he has been taught (told), i.e., in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, and 4) casts out (expels/grounds) any student who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks the father's/Father's authority system, which retains the father's/Father's authority system in the students thoughts and actions. While in traditional education the student KNOWS right from wrong behavior from being told, in transformational, i.e., Marxist, i.e., facilitated education (in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., the affirmation process) he "knows" right from wrong behavior from his own "sense experience," with pleasure, i.e., lust (that which the world stimulates) being right and any established command, rule, fact, and truth that get in the way, i.e., being told, that stimulates hate being wrong. This is the difference between the guilty conscience, which is engendered from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from being told and the super-ego, which is engendered from the student's "sense experiences," i.e., his lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint—the same feelings he had in the past (toward authority, i.e., toward being told) being felt in the present.

Who told you?

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

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

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

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

To understand the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' you must KNOW what the Word of God says about him, i.e., why he wants you to turn to him for direction instead of to God and His Word. For those "of and for the world," i.e., for the facilitator of 'change' instead of reasoning from what you KNOW, i.e., from what you have been told you are to "Reason" from your "senses" that the world stimulates, i.e., from how you "feel" and what you "think" in the 'moment' (according to the flesh, which the situation, i.e., the crisis of the 'moment' and/or people are [or tree is] stimulating) making you a god amongst gods (which makes right and wrong behavior subject to your flesh, i.e., to your lusts). A traditional educator focuses upon the child learning, i.e., accepting and obeying/applying established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., upon the child doing the father's/Father's will, resulting in the child KNOWING right from wrong from being told. Although the earthly father and traditional educator can be wrong regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth being taught it is the authority system itself that is of issue here—with the Heavenly Father, having the same authority system (He originated it, establishing His authority over all), never being wrong. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48 A Marxist, i.e., a facilitator of 'change,' on the other hand focuses upon your carnal nature, i.e., upon that which is only "of the world," making your behavior, i.e., knowing right from wrong subject to "science," i.e., subject to "the world," i.e., subject to your "sense experiences," i.e., to your "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life," negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in your thoughts thus negating your having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, directly effecting your actions—refusing to be told what is right and what is wrong behavior.

The Marxist, making lust for pleasure his standard for "good" will, in desperation do whatever it takes to remove from the environment the father's/Father's authority, i.e., remove anyone holding him accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in his way. By making your self interest his focus of attention, i.e., by offering to help you attain your heart's desire he "owns" you, from then on being able to use you as "human resource" to support his self interests, i.e., his lusts, removing you if you (or he senses/fears you might) get in his way, doing to you what you did to the father/Father for his/His getting in your way, doing so without having a guilty conscience. Since, for the Marxist pleasure, i.e., lust and the world that stimulates is all there is to life, hatred and violence toward (which includes indifference toward) anyone getting in his way is 'justified' (in his mind). As you will see "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., Marxist curriculum by which all educators are certified and schools certified today ("Christian" included), create Marxist students who, questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parent's authority are violent toward their parents, doing what they are lusting after, i.e., their hearts desire instead of doing what they are told.

"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: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Matthew 7:21-23

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3 (Read James chapters 4 and 5 for the total picture.)

Even George Washington knew (understood) the human heart, i.e., that "despotism . . . predominates in the human heart." (George Washington, Farewell Address) The American revolution was based upon the father's/Father's authority, i.e., accountability to "rule of law," where law was not based upon the King's authority but upon the individual, under God, where private convictions (freedom of religion and speech), private property and business (local control, Constitutional rule, and the Bill of Rights) limited the power of those in government (with the father in the home being King—with the American dream, why people want to come here being your not infringing upon your neighbor's rights as he does not infringe upon yours, the same being true between the citizens and the government) while the French revolution, with its soviet style directorate (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., the affirmation process—which negates the father's/Father's authority in any policy, rule, and/or law being made) was based upon negating the father's/Father's authority not only over the nation but in the home, making lust the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose,' preventing the father's/Father's authority from having any input regarding "human behavior."

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" Genesis 6:5; 8:21

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

"All cooperative schemes which provide equal remuneration to the skilled and industrious and the ignorant and idle must work their own downfall. For by this unjust plan they must of necessity eliminate the valuable members and retain only the improvident, unskilled, and vicious." (Observation made by Robert Dale Owen, regarding his father's attempt to promote socialism in America, which failed. Socialist have since learned you must not allow anyone, especially the skilled and industrious to leave, i.e., that socialism can not be "successful" until no one can escape, i.e., all must participate.)

Self, i.e., lust, i.e., "human nature," i.e., the un-regenerated heart, when 'justified' by others 'justifies' hatred toward restraint, i.e., hatred toward anyone who stands in the way of what (or who) it lusts after, turning all who participate against the father's/Father's (the parent's/God's) authority. This is the pathway of the Marxist, socialist, globalist who establishes self, i.e., lust, i.e., self interest , i.e., "sense experience," i.e., that which is only "of the world" over and therefore against the Word of God, i.e., over and therefore against doing the father's/Father's will. Replacing the one above, who tells you what is right and what is wrong behavior, holding you accountable to his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth with "the group" below, which is made up of what all men have in common, i.e., their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, 'changes' the way a person thinks, directly effecting his actions. What he has in common with "the group" below ('justifying' his carnal nature) negates what he is told is right and wrong behavior from the one above (who restrains and condemns his carnal nature), thereby 'justifying' his questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority, i.e., his hatred toward the one above (and those who believe in and follow after him/Him—insisting everyone do right and not wrong according to what they are told instead of thinking and acting according to their feelings, i.e., their lust of the 'moment,' that the world is stimulating). With the one above there is no compromise (of his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth) while with the many below compromise (of established commands, rules, facts, and truth) is essential (for the sake of feelings, i.e., relationship). We relate with those who make us feel good and distance our self from those who make us feel bad, while we fellowship with those who hold to the same established commands, rules, facts, and truth we hold to, distancing our self from those who disagree, i.e., who insist upon being wrong, accusing us of being wrong instead (which includes treating wrong as an opinion, negating any accountability for their being or doing wrong). As will be explained in greater detail below we dialogue our feelings, which directly correlate with relationship while we discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth which we have been told, i.e., which we have accepted as is, trying to persuade others to accept them as well, which correlates with fellowship (when they agree)—being right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth is what binds us together. There is a difference between the two which directly effects our thinking, i.e., the way we reason. Reasoning from feelings, which are ever 'changing' (according to the world around us, i.e., which is below) is not the same as reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth (which are not subject to our feelings, i.e., which come from above). "Reasoning" for the Marxist is subject to their feelings, i.e., to "sense experiences," which are ever 'changing' according the the world around him, rejecting the reasoning which comes from above, i.e., which makes him subject to the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth which do not 'change.'

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17

The Marxist (Transformational Marxist) Jürgen Habermas wrote: "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself [ones lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint] in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence [that of being only "of and for the world," i.e., only "of and for self"]." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

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

Without chastisement for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting (instead of doing the father's/Father's will) the child/man will not see his deceitful and wicked heart as being the problem, controlling his thoughts and his actions, i.e., ruling the day, i.e., tearing down and destroying all that gets in his way. Until he comes to know he has no control over his life aka "grievousness" he will continue to do as he wills, i.e., continue to think and act as though he is god, making the world and all that is in it subject to his carnal nature, removing (negating) all who get in his way. This is the true meaning of 'change' (as used today). Instead of right, i.e., righteousness being doing the Father's will and wrong, i.e., unrighteousness being disobeying, i.e., doing his will instead (an issue of the soul, where he will spend eternal), man's right, i.e., righteousness is getting what he wants, i.e., what he is lusting after and wrong, i.e., unrighteousness is anyone getting in his way, i.e., preventing him from having what wants and/or controlling who he is lusting after (an issue of the flesh, that is passing away).

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11

The role of the father, besides loving his wife, i.e., the children's mother, providing food, clothing, safety, and a roof over his family's head is to train up his children in the admonition of the Lord—doing the Father's will—and teach them how to "pull weeds," i.e., to work (get off their duff, expecting someone to wait on them). A father, in the true sense of the word, i.e., a benevolent father loves his children while hating their doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, holding them accountable for their actions—chastening them when they do wrong, disobey, sin that they might learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their "self" and do right, obey, not sin, grounding them when they reject his authority, having mercy on them when they repent and do what is right, but not hating them, wanting to kill them as the carnally minded, i.e., lust seeking child does when the father gets in his way, i.e., in the way of his "lusts." God loves everyone but judges us according to our thoughts and actions, with us either accepting His authority, humbling our self, repenting of our lusts, doing His will or rejecting Him and His authority, esteeming, i.e., 'justifying' our lusts doing our will instead, dying in our sin, facing his judgment, i.e., damnation (the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change and all who follow him). Without the father's/Father's chastening we are like a train with no brakes, i.e., children of disobedience.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return." Genesis 3:16-19

In the problems of your life, i.e., having to "pull weeds," "sweat," and face death you can either turn to God, who focuses upon your soul, i.e., where you will spend eternity (giving you peace, not as the world gives) or turn to man, who focuses upon his carnal desires of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, dying in your sins. Without chastisement children, i.e., Marxists, i.e., facilitators of 'change' rule the world without restraint, oppressing "the people."

"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." Isaiah 3:4-5

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

"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 LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalms 14:2, 3

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatian 5:19-21

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:14-25

The law can save no one. It simply tells us what is right and what is wrong behavior, holding us accountable when we do wrong, disobey, sin (needing a savior). Those "of and for the world," i.e., Marxists, wanting to live according to their carnal nature, i.e., according to the law of the flesh, i.e., lusting hate any law that restraints, i.e., hate the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., hate the father's/Father's authority system. They therefore do all they can to remove the father/Father and his/His authority from their (and everyone else's) thoughts and actions so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without having any sense of accountability for their carnal thoughts and actions, with everyone approval aka affirmation, 'justifying' in their mind their removal (negation) of anyone who gets in their way,, i.e., in the way of their lusts of the 'moment,' including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, and the righteous.

Marxism is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., of self 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, in the process negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting. It is the secularizing of Satanism, the intellectualizing of witch craft, i.e., the 'liberation' of man from Godly restraint, i.e., from God's authority, with man, lusting, dying in his sins, spending eternity in the lake of fire, prepared for the Master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him.

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15

The following pages cover Karl Marx's et al response to the Word of God and God's Word evaluating (condemning) him (and anyone else thinking and acting like him). They are foundational to the issue of "change," i.e., to what "change" is really all about. 'Change,' i.e., the "new" world order is all about you leaving (removing, i.e., negating) God's Word, i.e., what God says, i.e., what you are told, i.e., "It is written" out of your conversation with your self and with others—when it comes to right and wrong behavior, i.e., when it comes to what you (and they) are to do today—resulting in you, instead of doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., doing what you are told doing your will, i.e., lusting without having a guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders), with their affirmation, i.e., their consent (doing the same). Marxism is in you, in your spouse, in your children, in your leaders, etc., waiting to be 'liberated' by the facilitator of 'change.'

Karl Marx wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

In other words, according to Karl Marx and all who think and act like him, i.e., the Marxist (Transformational Marxist), the socialist, the globalist, the facilitator of 'change,' the psychologist, the behavioral "scientist," the "group psychotherapist" (all being the same in method of thinking, i.e., "reasoning"—reasoning from "feelings," i.e., sensuousness instead of from established commands, rules, facts, and truth), if you can get rid of the father/Father, who establishes laws which are established once and for all, who makes laws that are "negative" to your carnal thoughts of the 'moment, i.e., laws that judge and condemn your carnal actions, i.e., laws that are unchangeable, i.e., absolute and universal, where you must participate ("or else"), where you must do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth—being corrected, reproved, chastened, rejected, cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—you can make laws that are "positive," i.e., that are in harmony with your carnal nature, i.e., laws that 'justify' your natural inclination (your tendency) to lust, 'justifying' your "What can I get out of this situation and/or person or people for my self?" thus getting rid of, i.e., negating your having a guilty conscience for sinning (and thus your need of a savior, i.e., for the Son of God, Jesus Christ to 'redeem' you from the Father's judgment upon you for their sins, i.e., to 'redeem' you from the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the Master Facilitator Of 'Change' and all who followed after him), you can feel at home in a sinful world. I say the father's/Father's authority as it is the "top-down" authority system (where those under authority must humble, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self, i.e., deny their lusts in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth) they are out to negate—an authority system which both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father have in common, despite the fact that the Heavenly Father is Holy (in and of Himself) and the earthly father is not.

As Georg Hegel explained it: "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 Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel) By replacing wrong, the opposite of right with "badly," absolute law, i.e., the father's/Father's authority is replaced with opinion, i.e., the child's/man's carnal nature, 'liberating' him from the father's/Father's authority system so he can sin without having a guilty conscience (without fearing judgment, condemnation, being cast out), i.e., he can have peace, with other men's approval (who think and act like him) aka affirmation. When it comes to defining right and wrong behavior it is in dialogue, i.e., in "I feel" and "I think" where lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, i.e., hatred toward the father's/Father's authority system reside (what Karl Marx called "Critical Criticism"—where "Critical Theory," "Critical Race Theory," etc., have their origin). By replacing wrong with "better" (making everything subjective) the world is 'changed.' The marriage vow "till death do us part" is replaced with "till someone better comes along," 'justifying' divorce. It is not that we do not want a better life for ourselves and for our children. It that we must do right and not wrong in order to achieve it.

". . . seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

Karl Marx, speaking for his self (he claimed he was speaking for "the people") wrote "I am nothing and I should be everything," (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words: "I am called a sinner, condemned, and cast out when I should be recognized as being in 'ownership' of all things, and worshiped." Using dialogue, i.e., the language of self 'justification,' i.e., of "I feel" and "I think" in order (as in "new" world order) to establish law, i.e., to define and establish right and wrong behavior 'liberates' the Marxist (in his mind) from established law, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority (the system itself), i.e., from "Because I said so"/"It is written")—resulting in law becoming subject to his lusts, i.e., his carnal desires, i.e., his self interests of the 'moment,' making law (including the Word of God, when he shares his opinion of it) subject to his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e., evaluating it in the "light" of his feelings, responding to the current situation, making law subjective, i.e., readily adaptable to 'change.'

Marxism follows after the structure of Gnostic thinking or reasoning, which refuses to recognize the depravity, i.e., the deceitfulness and wickedness of the human heart, making lust for pleasure (Eros), i.e., "human nature" the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose.' "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." (The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, translated by Dennis W. Hauck.) "The Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." (Tobias Churton The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucian's, and the First Freemasons.)

In this way, using dialogue, i.e., "I feel" and "I think" in making and carrying out law (as liberal lawyers and the liberal courts do) the victim (the traditional parent, private business owner, conservative citizen, the believer, holding to established law) becomes the criminal—with his laws of restraint (against human nature, i.e., against humanity, i.e., against lust) oppressing the criminal, i.e., "the people," i.e., the Marxist. The victim, turning to the court for justice finds the court turning against him instead, 'justifying' the criminals thoughts and actions. The language of the court, i.e., where the judge reasons either from established law, i.e., authority above him which all, including he must obey or his feelings of the 'moment' (which includes his lust for "the people's" approval, i.e., what he can "get" out of the situation for his self and for those who think and act like him) engenders the outcome. Mercy before guilt negates guilt, i.e., 'justifies' the crime, i.e., 'justifies' the criminals (and the courts) actions. "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state [i.e., the Marxist]." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) This applies to all facets of society, i.e., education, the workplace, government, etc.,.

According to Karl Marx it is in dialogue, where you talk to your self about what you want, along with your resentment (your hatred) toward anyone preventing you from having it you "set up a sinful world in [your] own home"—a world "intolerant of any influence from without," i.e., intolerant of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., intolerant of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth/the Word of God (having to accept it as is), i.e., intolerant of being told, turning you against those who preach, teach, and attempt to discuss it (where "I KNOW"/KNOWING, i.e., "Because I said so"/"It is written" resides). "Tolerance of ambiguity" is intolerance toward having to humble, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your self, i.e., having to deny your lusts in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., is intolerance toward doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., is intolerance toward the father's/Father's authority.

In defiance to God's law, which tells you what you can and can not do, which judges and condemns the flesh, i.e., your lusting Karl Marx wrote: "Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block lust]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs [the lusts] and capacities [interests/attractions of lust] of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Any time law (including policy and rule) is established, i.e., right and wrong behavior is defined via dialogue, i.e., by feelings, i.e., by self interest instead of discussion, i.e., by established commands, rules, facts, and truth (for example weighing/evaluating the Word of God from/with your opinion, i.e., from/with your feelings and your thoughts, i.e., from/with your self interests of the 'moment' instead of weighing it from/with itself) law is going to be void of the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., it is going to reject restraint from above—right and wrong, i.e., "You are wrong" (according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, inhibiting or blocking, i.e., preventing 'change') is replaced with opinion, i.e., with "that is your opinion," i.e., with "That is how you 'feel' and what you 'think,'" making everything relative, i.e., subject to 'change.' "I thing you are wrong," which is an opinion (relative or situational, i.e., i.e., non judgmental, i.e., non condemning) is not the same as "You are wrong," which is a position (an absolute, i.e., judgmental, i.e., condemning).

Karl Marx's ideology as explained by Friedrich Engels was: "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy [when you use dialogue, i.e., your feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating in order to determine right and wrong behavior], nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." If, according to Karl Marx "nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred" then the father's/Father's authority system must be removed from the environment in order for the individual to do what comes natural to him in the current situation (making reasoning subject to stimulus-response instead of doing right and not wrong according to what you have been told).

This is reflected (put into practice, i.e., praxis) in contemporary education with its use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., Marxist curriculum by which all teachers are certified and schools accredited today, with Bloom stating that his "Weltanschauung" (world view) was that of two Marxists (Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm). (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Bloom, reflecting Marxist ideology, stating in Book 1: Cognitive Domain: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Erick Fromm (who's ideology Benjamin Bloom built your child's classroom experience off of) stated: "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society ["the group"] and of his own become identical." "... to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being ... who can feel at home in it [the world] if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) Theodor Adorno (again who's ideology Benjamin Bloom built your child's classroom experience off of) stated: "Authoritarian submission [humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating one's "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) The error in Adorno's "logic" is that Fascism, instead of supporting the father's/Father's authority in the home and in the individual's thoughts and actions (holding himself and others accountable to God and His Word), negated it. Once you go to "the group," i.e., to "the people" as your focus of attention ("What about your children's social life?" and/or "What about your social life?") instead of doing right and not wrong according to what you have been told, i.e., according to what you have been taught by the father/Father (or by those who re-present him, i.e., who do not usurp the father's/Father's authority in the home/over the individual) the traditional family, i.e., local control must be (and will be) negated, with only a semblance of it remaining if any at all. "Our problem," according to Adorno, i.e., the Marxist is the father's/the Father's authority, i.e., parental authority/God's authority in the children's/"the people's" thoughts, i.e., in the environment directly effecting their actions (thus—by generalizing—equating the father's/Father's authority in the home/over the individual to Fascism).

Unless, for the Marxist you can 'create' an environment (a "positive" environment) where children are free to lust (or free to talk about what they are lusting after) without fearing being judged, condemned, and cast out you can not 'liberate' their minds from the father's/Father's authority system. It is only in such an environment they can become united as one, according to, i.e., in harmony with their carnal nature, united in removing the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the Word of God from their world, i.e., from their communicating with their self and with others, i.e., from the environment (from the classroom, from the workplace, from government, from the home, and even from the "Church" all you have to add is, through dialogue your opinion, i.e., "I feel" and "I think," making your carnal nature the foundation from which to establish right and wrong behavior and the father's/Father's authority is negated—so they can lust after the things of the world without having a guilty conscience, with each others affirmation. In the Marxist's mind, the glue that holds the world together is lust, requiring the negation of laws that restrain, i.e., the father's/Father's authority that judges and condemns "human nature," i.e., that prevents "worldly peace and socialist harmony" from becoming a reality.

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

This is in line with Immanuel Kant's dialectic world, a world of "lawfulness without law," where the law of the flesh, i.e., man's carnal nature, i.e., lust rules without rule of law, i.e., the father's/Father's authority getting in the way. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) It is Jean-Jacques Rousseau world where, in defiance to "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof," i.e., rejecting the Father's authority, "The fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody [except to the one making this statement who, in his thoughts and actions "owns" whatever he sees, i.e., as Karl Marx declared "The proletariat (Karl Marx and all who think like him) thus has the same right as has the German king (the father/Father) when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse."]." (1 Corinthians 10:26; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality; Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') It is Georg Hegel's world where the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's impulses and urges of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, i.e., lust rules over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. Georg 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 [once he is 'liberated' from the father'/Father's authority to become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), "of and for self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) It is Georg Hegel's world where "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person [no "top-down" order] 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," your spouse, your children, your property, your business, and even your soul is not yours but are all subject to George Hegel's, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's, Immanuel Kant's, Karl Marx's, et al, i.e., the Marxist's, i.e., the facilitator of 'change's' lusts of the 'moment,' making all that "is" objects to fulfill (satisfy) his carnal desires of the 'moment,' 'justifying' his removal of all who get in his way. (ibid.) This is being put into praxis in the classroom today.

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

"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." John 3:16-19 God hates no one. He hates sin, judging everyone ("whosoever") from His Word, i.e., holding everyone accountable for his thoughts and behavior, thus engendering individualism, under God, i.e., personal accountability before God.

It was the system of the father's/Father's authority itself, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your self in order to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., individualism, under authority (God) Karl Marx, et al sought to negate, i.e., remove from society, i.e., remove from "the peoples," i.e., their minds. This required 'changing' the family, i.e., negating the "middle-class," i.e., the traditional home. "The family [with the father's/Father's authority] is one of these social forms which . . . cannot be changed without change in the total social framework." (Max Horkheimer, Kritische Theori) In other words the language of the home has to be 'changed,' along with the language of society if 'change' is to be initiated and sustained (the father must answer the child's "Why?" voiced in response/defiance to commands and rules that get in the child's way, i.e., go into dialogue, i.e., respond with "I feel" and "I think," negating his authority to correct, chasten, or cast the child out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for his hatred toward and rebellion against authority—there is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., "You are wrong" in dialogue, where everything is an opinion, i.e., subject to 'change' according to the situation aka "situation ethics" or the people or person present, regarding whether they stimulate pleasure or hate). When it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior when the father goes into dialogue with those under his authority he negates his office of authority which, according to Marx, the child created when he obeyed the father, i.e., what Karl Marx called "an alien and hostile force" against the child's carnal nature, .

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

According to Karl Marx, it is the family structure, where children have to (are forced to) humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's will that has to be negated if children are to become their self, i.e., if children are to think and act according to their carnal nature only. The traditional family, i.e., the father's/Father's authority is local, inhibiting or blocking 'change' while the child's carnal nature is universal, initiating and (with the 'help' of the Marxist, etc., i.e., the facilitator of 'change') sustaining 'change.' You can not get any more local than the traditional family with the father demanding his children humble, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self, .i.e., deny their lusts in order to do his will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according to his established commands, rules, facts, and truth and enforcing them, the same being true for the individual, doing the Father's will (with the Father over the father, as well as over all people there is no compromise while with two fathers or two or more people there is compromise). Local control is compromised when children/men turn to themselves, others, and the world for direction, i.e., in establishing right and wrong behavior. It is local control, i.e., the traditional family/faith in God (that engenders a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which inhibits or blocks, i.e., that prevents 'change,' i.e., stimulus-response) that Karl Marx was, i.e., that the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' is out to negate, i.e., is out to remove from the environment (so he can lust without being judged, condemned, and cast out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions). "Will there be faith?" with the implied answer there will not be in the last days is due to the negation of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment, condemnation, being cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him in "the people's" thoughts, directly effecting their behavior.

For the Marxist to gain control of the father's/Father's money, which is used to sustain principal, i.e., local control, i.e., traditions and customs, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with the children of obedience (who obey the father/Father, i.e., who do the father's/Father's will) receiving the inheritance, those making law, sent to "re-present" the father/Father (local customs and principles) must, through dialogue (when it comes to right and wrong behavior) be drawn (seduced) into making laws which transcend (negate) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's principles, making laws that support their own self interests instead. Through dialogue, when it comes to right and wrong behavior 'liberating' themselves and the father's/Father's children from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from having to do the father's/Father's will they are able to do their own will instead—lusting without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without fearing judgment, condemnation, being cast out for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for their rebellion against the father's/Father's authority—they are able to use the father's/Father's obedient children's money, i.e., the children's inheritance to support their self interests, i.e., their lusts with "the people's" approval. Money, to Marxist, i.e., to the facilitator of 'change' is stored up dopamine emancipation, i.e., pleasure. It is therefore to be used on self interests instead of in supporting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., having to sustain principle. This is why all Marxist nations go bankrupt, having to continually seek ways to gain access to and take control of someone else's money, i.e., life. Money to the Marxist is not to be external to "the people's," i.e., to the Marxist's lusts, with those having it judging, condemning, and casting those out who praxis lust, i.e., disobedience, but must be subject to "the people's," i.e., the Marxist's lusts, i.e., "human nature" instead. To the Marxist, anyone separating lust from money (and money from lust) must be removed from the environment so all who lust, i.e., so the Marxist can have access to it without restraint.

Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, i.e., negated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) It was 'change,' i.e., the 'liberation' of self, i.e., of lust, i.e., of human nature from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., from having to do what the parent, the boss, the minister, the King, God says (all of which cause division between people, i.e., engenders 'prejudice') that Karl Marx was interested in—lust, i.e., self interest being the glue that draws and binds all people together, i.e., what all people have in common, requiring the negation of the father's/Father's (parental) authority in the individuals thoughts and in his social actions (praxis), i.e., in his relationship with others.

"The only practically possible emancipation [from the father's/Father's authority] is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man [that the child is the supreme being for the child]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/1/1)

"One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." "Strengthening the family to draw the adolescent back into it faces serious problems, as well as some questions about its desirability." "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The 'natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) James Coleman earned his Phd. under Paul Lazarsfeld—who was a member of the "Frankfurt School," i.e., "Transformational" Marxists who, fleeing Fascist Germany came to America (entering our Universities) in the early 30's. Coleman's writings greatly influenced Supreme Court decisions on education and other social issues.

"Can the student accept the fact that the traditional family might be changed and might possibly disappear?" (Paul Dressell et al. General Education: Explorations in Evaluation, American Council on Education) Benjamin Bloom used Paul Dressell's ideology, along with others who "reasoned" like him, i.e., like Karl Marx as the foundation for his "taxonomies."

Karl Marx, rejecting the father's/Father's authority system built his ideology off of Heraclitus who wrote: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." (who's ideology influenced the Stoics). ROE v. WADE was based upon stoicism, i.e., "there has always been strong support for the view [opinion] that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." rejecting and therefore in defiance to the Christian faith, "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian [men's opinions or rule of law]. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic friction's and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973; Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, 1941) In ROE V. WADE our highest court embraced Marxism, establishing it over and therefore against the Word of God, i.e., Godly restraint, i.e., individualism, under God, i.e., rule of law. Marx wrote: "The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Since the father/Father would not abdicate his office of authority freely, Karl Marx saw no other way than to violently remove him/Him and his/His authority from society, this requires "the people" to unite upon what they have in common, i.e., their lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, which 'justifies' their effort to remove the father/Father and his/His authority from society. Marx, making lust the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose' wrote:

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

"Self-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)

In other words, according to Karl Marx, et al it is lust, i.e., self interest, i.e., what the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating that is real (actual), i.e., that is of value, not the father's/Father's authority that inhibits or blocks it. When you set aside the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of being judged, condemned, cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (enjoying the present) instead of doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., instead of humbling, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating your self, i.e., denying (casting down or fleeing from) your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth you are traveling down the Marxist pathway. Setting people of opposing positions (political views, etc.,) together, "encouraging" them to put aside their "differences" (to compromise their position—to be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is to consent to unrighteousness, making unrighteousness the "norm"—in order to praxis bipartisanship) in order to 'discover' through dialogue what they have in common with one another (their common self interests, i.e., lusts) is the praxis of Marxism, establishing lust for pleasure ("enjoying the present," what everyone has in common) and hatred toward restraint (hatred toward anyone who divides them from one another, thereby dividing them from what they are lusting after, i.e., "enjoying") as the standard (as the 'drive' of and the 'purpose') for life instead of doing the father's/Father's will—that divides people from one another based upon who is doing the father's/Father's will and who is not (with local control, i.e., what the father/Father says, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting, i.e., holding to one's position [no matter what happens or may come] maintaining control over the universal, i.e., over the child's carnal nature thereby limiting the power of government, i.e., the control of those in government over "the people," who use the power of government, i.e., use "the people" to satisfy, i.e., actualize their own self interests, i.e., lusts.

"They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak." Psalms 12:2 Saying they are here to help when in fact it is themselves they are here to help—taking control over your thoughts and actions and therefore taking control over all you have.

As the Marxist Mao Zedong, in defense of his lusts stated: "Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people," i.e., lust, i.e., common self interest unites while the father's/Father's authority system divides (between those doing the father's/Father's will and those who are not, dividing man, not only from his self but also from others around him, according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of his and their common lusts, i.e., human nature). (Mao Zedong)

'Change' is synonyms with lust, responding to the world that stimulates it, i.e., the current situation and/or people or person who is stimulating it, requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., that which is "negative," i.e., that which divides a person, not only from his or her self, i.e., from his or her lusts but also from those who are affirming them (lust is plural in that it is not only lust for pleasure but also lust for affirmation—both stimulating dopamine emancipation—engendering the Marxist's "desperately wicked" side of lust, doing whatever it takes to initiate and sustain, i.e., control the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people or person that stimulates it, removing anyone who gets in lusts way, i.e., in the way of the Marxist's self interest).

Karl Marx summed up his ideology with "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Inscribed on Karl Marx's tomb (so it must be important).

For the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' it is the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., being told what is right and what is wrong behavior and being held accountable accordingly that has to be removed from society, i.e., the environment and thus removed from the individuals thoughts in order for "the people" to become their self, i.e., free to lust instead of having to do the father's/Father's will. How 'change,' i.e., 'liberation' of self, i.e., lust from the father's/Father's authority system is done, without the use of physical violence (according to Kurt Lewin) is: any time you use dialogue (how you feel and what you think) instead of discussion (what the father/Father says) in defining and establishing right and wrong behavior the father's/Father's authority system is negated, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after the things of the world in the process (called "the negation of negation"):

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult [the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your self in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, being held accountable (fearing judgment, condemnation, being cast out) when you do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., when you lust, i.e., when you do your will instead of the father's/Father's, i.e., when you do what you feel like doing instead of doing what the father/Father says, i.e., doing what you are told]." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears [there is no father's/Father's authority (established right and wrong behavior) in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process, i.e., in the "Lets be 'positive' and not 'negative'" environment (classroom, meeting, etc.), there is only the persons/"the groups" natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint (approach pleasure - avoid pain), i.e., the persons/"the groups" carnal desires, i.e., lusts, i.e., self interest of the 'moment' and resentment toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority system being expressed and 'justified.' When you are asked (told) to be "positive" and not "negative" in a meeting and you consent (abdicate the father's/Father's authority system), the deed (the praxis) is done]." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality)

Karl Marx understood the gospel message only from his carnal mind, i.e., from "sensuality," with man having to do what he is told, having to have faith in, love, serve, and obey God, with God telling him what he is to do and not do, i.e., what is right and wrong behavior. He did not understand or accept the depravity of man, i.e., the deceitfulness and wickedness of his own heart, needing a savior to 'redeem' him from God's judgment upon him for his disobedience. His agenda was to 'redeem' man from the father's/Father's authority system, 'reconciling' him to the world and all that is in it. He 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. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx The Holy Family) His agenda was to move conversation, i.e., reasoning from faith to "Reasoning" from "sensuality," i.e., from loving God, what he called "true love," from doing the Father's will, "in Christ," seeing life only from and for the sake of the "here-and-now," i.e., in order to "Increase and multiply" to "recognizing sensuality," i.e., stimulus-response, i.e., lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint as all there is to life. By 'changing' communication from established commands, rules, facts, and truth to opinions, i.e., from "I Know because dad, my teacher, my boss, God said so" to "I feel" and "I think," when it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior the language of "science," i.e., theory negates the father's/Father's authority in any outcome.

Basing behavior only on "human nature" and the world that stimulates it, Karl Marx turned to the scientific method (stimulus-response) in establishing right and wrong behavior, making pleasure, i.e., lust the measure for good and restraint (which engenders hate) the measure for what is bad (to be removed). Marx wrote: "Sense experience must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience ["the pride of life"], in the two forms of sense perception ["the lust of the eyes"] and sensuous need ["the lust of the flesh"], that is, only when it proceeds from Nature ["is of the world"]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) This is the same pathway of thinking found in psychology. Carl Rogers wrote: "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Rogers) While Carl Rogers included Karl Marx in this list (which I left out) he did so because, to the "transformational" Marxist the agenda was not to just teach, i.e., inculcate Marxism, as "traditional," hard line, National, i.e., "traditional" Communist do (thus retaining the "top-down" father's/Father's authority system) but for the students to "experience" being Marx themselves (to "sense experience" lusting after the things of the world without being judged, condemned, cast out). Carl Rogers' contemporary. Abraham Maslow excluded the father's/Father's authority system from his "Hierarchy of Felt Needs" taxonomy (as did Benjamin Bloom in his cognitive and affective taxonomies), as all Marxists, i.e., facilitators of 'change' must do. Maslow wrote (in defiance to the father's/Father's authority): "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those who adhere to the father's/Father's authority] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

People think Communism was defeated when the Berlin wall came down when in truth it came down because Communism (in its dialoguing of opinions to a consensus form) had succeeded (in overcoming National Communism aka traditional Marxism, i.e., Fascism, i.e., being told—which is the same as Nationalism in the eyes of "transformational" Marxists). The language of "behavior science," i.e., of "How did or do you 'feel?'" and "What did or do you think?'" negates the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., KNOWING from being told. According to Karl Marx and those who think like him you have to know what it is you want to 'change,' i.e., destroy, i.e., negate if you are to 'change,' i.e., destroy, i.e., negate it "scientifically," i.e., according to your carnal nature, making reasoning subject to your lusts of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation, people or person is stimulating—instead of from the Word of God, doing the Father's will, i.e., doing what you are told. (Sight is stronger than being told. The eyes are stronger than the ears. Ask anyone in the commercial creating business. They will tell you that is true.)

The language of Karl Marx, i.e., of "science falsely so called," i.e., of opinion, i.e., of "I feel" and "I think" (treating feelings as a fact, i.e., as a defining agent when it comes to determining right and wrong behavior) has now replaced, i.e., negated the language of KNOWING, i.e., because you were told, i.e., "It is written" ("Because my parents, my teacher, my boss, . . . God said so"). "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior ['liberating' the child/man from who "IS"]." (Rogers) "Bloom's Taxonomies," which will be covered in greater detail below, are not a true science. They are only the Marxist's, i.e., the facilitator of 'change's' effort to liberate his self and those who listen to him out from under the father's/Father's' authority system, i.e., out from under being told in order for him to seduce, deceive, and manipulate all who listen to him into following, affirming, and supporting him, 'justifying' his and their natural inclination to sin, i.e., to lust. Bloom wrote: "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences. It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals ... observe(able) and discrib(able) therefore classifi(able)." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain) "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy [true science] is still far from clear." (Book 2: Affective Domain) True science is observable and repeatable. Bloom's "describ(able)" makes science (and man) subject to an opinion, i.e., subject to a person's perception of what "seems to" be (a theory not yet proven), making it subject to 'change,' i.e., not absolute, i.e., not repeatable, yet force is used to negate those who do not accept his opinion, i.e., his theory. He dedicated his first taxonomy to Ralph Tyler whose student, Thomas Kuhn (quoting Max Planck) wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution) Kuhn continued: "If a paradigm [a 'change' in culture, from Patriarch to Heresiarch] is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied" which eventuates "an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances" whereupon "the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." "Thomas S Kuhn spent the year 1958-1959 at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavior Sciences, directed by Ralph Tyler, where he finalized his 'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods.'" "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology [which found its way into the classroom via "Bloom's Taxonomies"]." (Kuhn) "Hardheaded arguments" make it difficult if not impossible to respond to this process, especially when those advocating it are in a position of authority—any response with facts and truth will only be perceived as being "argumentative." Ralph Tyler, who was adviser to six U.S. Presidents wrote: "Should the school develop young people to fit into the present society as it is or does the school have a revolutionary mission to develop young people who will seek to improve the society?" Perhaps a modern school would include in its statement [that] it believes that the high ideals of a good society are not adequately realized in our present society and that through the education of young people it hopes to improve society." "The school can also continue its long-accepted role of providing within its environment a democratic society closer to the ideal than the adult community has yet been able to achieve. It can provide a setting in which young people can experience concretely the meaning of our democratic ideals. It is crucially important for children to see firsthand a society that encourages and supports democratic values [negating parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system]." (Ralph W. Tyler, "Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction," Trends in Student Personnel Work) Benjamin Bloom summed it up with: "Obedience and compliance are hardly ideal goals." (Book 1: Cognitive Domain) This ideology was rejected by P.O.W. Major David F. MacGhee who wrote the following on his cell wall, responding to the Communist North Korean's attempt to use the above method to get him to replace a didactic "right-wrong," truth based paradigm with a dialectical "opinion," i.e., "feelings" based paradigm, making truth ever subject to 'change,' i.e., to whatever "the group" would affirm in order to make everyone in "the group" "feel" accepted—only if they participated in compromising established commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to build relationships. (January 19th, 1953) Major MacGhee wrote: "Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose."

The praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., of using the "so called scientific" language of "I feel" and "I think" (as in the garden in Eden where "I feel like touching the tree." "I don't see anything wrong with the tree, it is just like all the other trees." "By eating from it I can now, like God decide right from wrong behavior for my self, according to my carnal nature, fulfilling my lusts, i.e., actualizing my self" replaced God's Word, i.e., being told with my own understanding) when it comes to KNOWING right and wrong behavior from being told negates Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., your having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., being held accountable for your carnal thoughts and carnal actions, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., your having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting instead of doing the father's/Father's will, negating your need of a savior in the process.

"Building relations on self interest" or "Relationships built on self interest," i.e., on lust, i.e., on what you covet is the hallmark of Marxism, turning you into "human resource" to be used by the Marxist for his own pleasure, casting you aside when you no longer serve his 'purpose,' i.e., satisfy his lusts or get in his way—doing to you what you did to the father/Father for getting in your way. God, i.e., God's Word warns you of what will happen when you turn from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., when you turn to your lusts, i.e., self interests of the 'moment' making your lusts, i.e., your self interests the center of your life.

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

Through dialogue, gaining access to what you are lusting after, i.e., your self interest, gaining your trust in their offering to "help" you attain it, they take ownership of you, i.e., they are able to buy and sell your soul, using you, as "human resource" to support their lifestyle, i.e., their self interest, i.e., their lusts. For example, as a farmer during the bad years learns to "tighten his belt," i.e., live within his means, by taxing him on an average of good and bad years and offering to subsidize him he is easily tempted to live above his means, purchasing machinery he would not have prior, machinery those tempting him profit from, living off of his children's inheritance in their fancy houses, cars, boats, etc.,.

All the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the psychologists, i.e., the behavioral "scientists," i.e., the "group psychotherapists" has to do (through dialogue) is 'discover' your lust, i.e., your self interest of the 'moment,' as the Master Facilitator of 'Change' did with the woman in the garden in Eden and he "owns" you. Carl Rogers explained it this way:

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

To 'change' the world you must 'change' how children are educated. Karl Marx wrote:

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

The use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., Marxist curriculum in the classroom 'changes' how the students think, directly effecting their actions, i.e., turning them against the father's/Father's authority system. The Marxist Kenneth Benne wrote:

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

Kurt Lewin in Benne's book wrote:

"It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group."

The Marxist Norman O. Brown wrote:

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

Karl Marx wrote:

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

John Dewey wrote:

"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)

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

Kurt Lewin wrote:

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

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

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

Irvin Yalom wrote:

"One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." "There is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members." "In the group not only must the individual strive for autonomy but the leader must be willing to allow him to do so. … an individual's behavior cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of his environmental press. …one member's behavior is not understandable out of context of the entire group. …there is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members. … few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance. Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority. One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views in the service of denial. The ‘third force' in psychology … which emphasized a holistic, humanistic concept of the person, provided impetus and form to the encounter group … The therapist assists the patient to clarify the nature of the imagined danger and then … to detoxify, to disconfirm the reality of this danger. By shifting the group's attention from ‘then-and-there' [parental authority] to ‘here-and-now' [their feelings of the 'moment'] material, he performs a service to the group … focusing the group upon itself. Members must develop a feeling of mutual trust and respect and must come to value the group as an important means of meeting their personal needs. Once a member realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself. Patients should be encouraged to take risks in the group; such behavior change results in positive feedback and reinforcement and encourages further risk-taking. Members learn about the impact of their behavior on the feelings of other members. …a patient might, with further change, outgrow … his spouse … unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse." (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)

The father's/Father's authority system is negated when right and wrong behavior is established by "the group," which demands compromise. The Marxist educator, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the group psychotherapist, using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum does not have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority when they get home from school, if they were not doing that already (telling them would be "old school," maintaining the "old" world order of being told even if it was done for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e., for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order), all they have to do is use a curriculum in the classroom that "encourages," i.e., pressures the students to participate in dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, 'justifying' their carnal nature, i.e., "lust" over and therefore against their parent's authority. Being told to be "positive" (supportive of the other students carnal nature) and not "negative" (judging them by their parent's standards) pressures students to 'justify' their and the other student's love of pleasure and hate of restrain, doing so in order to be approved, i.e., affirmed by "the group," resulting in "the group" labeling those students who, refuse to participate in the process of 'change' or who fight against it as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, maladjusted, unadaptable to 'change,' resisters of 'change,' not "team players," lower order thinkers, in denial, phobic, prejudiced, judgmental, racist, fascist, dictators, anti-social, etc., i.e., "hurting" people's "feelings" resulting in "the group" rejecting them—the student's natural desire for approval and fear of rejection forces him to participate. The same outcome applies to all adults, in any profession who participate in the process as well. Once you are 'labeled,' you are 'labeled' for life. In the soviet union, once you were 'labeled' "psychological," no matter how important you were in the past, your life was over, your career was done. The same is true in America today. Freedom from your intoxication with, addiction to, and possession by lust, which those "of and for the world" control you with (buy and sell your soul), can only begin with you turning to the Word of God, i.e., turning to the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ for direction. "Relationships built on self interest," when it comes to business, finance, public services, etc., all under government (general) control, where money flows out of the hands of the private (local control where those under authority have to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) into public control (where money, in the eyes of those who hate authority, i.e., who hate local control—because it will not let them have access to it because of their behavior [the same being true of the father/Father who will not include them in his/His will] represents stored up pleasure, i.e., dopamine emancipation, which if they can gain access to it and take control over it [all of it] can use it to satisfy their lusts without restraint, without local control, i.e., without the father/Father telling them what they can and can not do with it, removing their access to it if they do wrong, disobey, sin) is the hallmark of communism.

The tree of life, i.e., eternal life which was lost due to wrong behavior, can only be gained access to through the son's obedience to the Father, i.e., repentance for sin, faith in the Father and in His the son, Jesus Christ, and obedience to them, walking in the spirit (who helps you think and act in accordance to the Word of God), inheriting eternal life instead of eternal death. If you do not start with the Word of God all you have is the wisdom of man, i.e., the Karl Marx in you and the Marxists around you to depend upon, dying in your sins (then facing judgment where your opinion, i.e., your "I feel" and "I think" will not count, i.e., is worthless).

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

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

When it comes to right and wrong behavior, if you do not start with the Word of God (making God and His Word, i.e., the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ your foundation of communication, with your self and with others, i.e., making God's Word your thesis) you can not understand nor can you (as the Lord leads) properly respond to the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., you can not understand nor can you properly respond to your self. In fact to leave the Word of God out of your conversation with your self and with others when it comes to behavior is to praxis Marxism, i.e., is to manifest the Karl Marx, i.e., your lust for pleasure (which includes the approval, i.e., the praises of men) and your resentment toward restraint (toward missing out on pleasure, which includes the approval, i.e., the praises of men) in you, 'justifying' Marxism in the eyes of the Marxist.

"The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) Where all thought and action is void of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., excludes judgment, condemnation, damnation, being cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., why history, to the Marxist must be re-written, removing any exaltation of (instead denigrating) the father's/Father's authority system, leaving it out altogether.

The name for the national test for teachers is Praxis. (The reason Marxism is so easily taking over the world, i.e., the youth of the world is Karl Marx, i.e., lust for pleasure, which includes lust for approval, i.e., the praises of men and resentment toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority lies in the human heart waiting to be 'justified' and therefore 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberated' from and therefore void of any fear of judgment for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting.) Your understanding (aufheben; the same understanding as the Marxist), i.e., your opinion, i.e., "Reasoning" from and responding to how you "feel" and what you "think" in the 'moment' (commonly referred to as "theory and practice") is ignorant of (does not come with) God's Word, i.e., God's judgment upon you for your carnal thoughts and carnal actions (known as "the depravity of man"). When you make your opinion , i.e., how you "feel" and what you "think" equal with God, evaluating your self, the world around you, and God's Word from your carnal nature (which God will not accept) you establish your lusts, i.e., dopamine emancipation, that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating in you, i.e., that the world stimulates over and therefore against God and His Word (the Father's authority—the Father being the author and enforcer of His established commands, rules, facts, and truth), doing what the Marxist wants you to do, that is "be positive," i.e., leave God's Word, i.e., God's judgment upon him for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting after dopamine emancipation out of your conversation with him (at least make it subject to your opinion, i.e., just another point of view amongst many points of view—to be set aside, i.e., suspended, as upon a cross when it gets in the way of, i.e., is "prejudiced" against initiating and sustaining relationship with him or anyone else) so he can do wrong, disobey, sin without having any sense of guilt, i.e., in order (as in "new" world order) for him to lust without having a guilty conscience (which the Father's authority, i.e., the Word of God engenders), with your affirmation, i.e., with your consent (at least in his mind). To be silent is to consent. All he wants from you is your willingness to work with him on 'creating' "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., to set aside, i.e., suspend, as upon a cross God's Word (every time you say "I think" and "I feel" in defining/interpreting God's Word you make it your word, no longer His) so he can (in defiance to God and His Word) do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., lust without fearing judgment, condemnation, and damnation, i.e., being cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him.

". . . every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12

". . . whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

". . . and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1

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

The Father sent the Son to 'redeem' us from His wrath upon us for our disobedience toward Him, i.e., for our lusting instead of doing His will, raising Him from the grave that we might be 'reconciled' to Him, inheriting eternal life. Deny the Father, i.e., God's judgment upon you for your sins, i.e., for your disobedience toward Him and you deny the Son, who paid the price for your sins—you have nothing you can bring to the table to pay for your sins, i.e., to save you from God's judgment upon you, i.e., from eternal death, i.e., from the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after Him but "the blood of the Lamb," i.e., what He has done for you. This the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' denies.

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15

The flesh, which is structured after stimulus-response is taken captive to what seduces it. By looking upon that which the flesh as drawn too the person's mind is taken captive by his desire, i.e., his lust to have it or become at-one-with it, i.e., to experience it, the sensation of dopamine emancipation now occupying his mind. In the end the soul, which is not of the world, which is eternal is betrayed by the flesh, i.e., by that which is of the world, i.e., by that which is passing away (is not eternal or has no life in and of itself), i.e., by that which is of no worth to God (is a stench in his nostrils).

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

Regarding Colossians 2:8 Martin Luther wrote: "it is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard. Who does not see how the universities read the Bible? . . . it has been so bothersome to read and respond to this filth." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.259)

The Protestant Reformation was based upon the authority of God and His Word, establishing God and His Word over the opinions of men, thus engendering individualism, under God (which is antithetical to Marxism). It, recognizing that only God is good, i.e., that righteousness can only be imputed to man thought his faith in Christ (through the work of Christ alone), rejected the ideology that by creating a "healthy," i.e., a "good" environment man can become good (that goodness resides in man waiting to be actualized—given the right conditions—which is Aristotelian/philosophical logic, which does not recognize, i.e., can not comprehend the total depravity of man, i.e., the wickedness of the human heart, i.e., of human nature itself, i.e., of "the law of the flesh;" Romans 7:14-25). Martin Luther wrote (which protestant ministers should read and apply, but are not):

"Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations [opinions] of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds ... let us reject the word of man." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.217) "In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about without regard for limit and measure." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12) "My advice has been that a young man avoid scholastic philosophy and theology like the very death of his soul." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.258) "The sophists have imposed tyranny and bondage upon our freedom to such a point that we must not resist that twice accursed Aristotle [by 'creating' a 'healthy' ('good') environment, removing that which is not 'healthy,' you can create a 'healthy' person], but are compelled to submit. Shall we therefore be perpetually enslaved and never breathe in Christian liberty, nor sigh from out of this Babylon for our scriptures and our home?" (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.217) "The sophists, nevertheless, rise proudly up, hold their ears, close their eyes, and turn away their heart just so that they may fill all ears with their human words, and alone may occupy the stage so that no one will bark against their assertion[s] ... The word of man is sacred and to be venerated, but God's word is handed over to whores ... the meaning of sin ... is dependent on the arbitrary choice of the sophists." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.216) "I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt." (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207) "We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12)

Anyone who 'discovers' (through dialogue, i.e., through you sharing your opinion, even regarding the Word of God, making it subject to your opinion, to) what you covet, i.e., what you are lusting after in the 'moment,' i.e., your self interest and offers to help you, i.e., desires to work with you to attain, i.e., to actualize it, thus gaining your trust, "owns" you. This (taking "ownership" of you, i.e., the buying and selling of your soul, i.e., turning you into "human resource" via your lusts) has more to do with Marxism than you might realize or care to know.

"And through covetousness [your lusts] shall they with feigned words [offering to help you actualize your lusts when they are actually using you to actualize theirs] make merchandise of you [turn you into 'human' resource to be used for their pleasure, casting you aside when you no longer serve their lusts or get in their way, i.e., get in the way of their lusting after dopamine emancipation]." 2 Peter 2:3

Choosing relationship with the Marxist (the facilitator of 'change'), i.e., approval from man, i.e., "What can I get out of this situation and/or people or person for my self" establishes your carnal nature over (and therefore against) fellowshipping with God, i.e., God's Word, i.e., approval from God. Choosing relationship with the Marxist (the facilitator of 'change'), i.e., approval from man replaces fear of God, i.e., "What if God rejects me?" "What will He do to me?" "What will happen to me?" with fear of man, i.e., "What if he rejects me?" "What will he do to me?" "What will happen to me?" One deals with the flesh, i.e., with the "here-and-now," i.e., "What can I get out of this situation and/or people or person for my self?" The other with the soul, i.e., with the "there-and-then," i.e., "Who am I that God, by His mercy, i.e., by His willing death on the cross, covering my sins with His shed blood, would not only 'redeem' me from hell, i.e., from the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him but also, in His resurrection 'reconcile' me to Himself—to spend eternity with Him (which I do not deserve)?" The Marxist, rejecting "the depravity of man," i.e., the need of a savior for his sins, i.e., for his lusting (in defiance to God's Word making his sinful/carnal nature, i.e., his opinion, i.e., how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in response to the world around him the "norm") can only think of the "here-and-now," i.e., the "eternal present," i.e., "What can I get out of this situation and/or people or person for my self?" "How can I deceive them into thinking that I am doing it (whatever it is) for them, when in truth it is all about me seducing them (with their lusts) into building relationship with me in order to manipulate them into satisfying my lusts?"

"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

It is not that God is against dopamine emancipation. He created it in order for you to enjoy His creation, thanking and praising Him. It is when you establish dopamine emancipation aka the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' that the world stimulates over and therefore against Him, i.e., over and therefore against His commands (His Word) you fall into (and 'justify') sin aka disobedience to Him, making yourself God by establishing right and wrong behavior upon your carnal nature, i.e., upon your lust for dopamine emancipation instead of upon His Word—making right that which stimulates and/or 'justifies' dopamine emancipation and wrong that which gets in its way instead of right doing the Father's will and wrong disobeying, i.e., doing your will instead of His. To leave God's Word, i.e., the Father's authority (accountability before God for your thoughts and actions) out of your communication (conversation) with the Marxist is to affirm his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., "theory and practice" (in his mind). In doing so you 'create' an environment for him in which he can lust after the things of the world without having any fear (sense) of being judged, condemned, and cast out, with your affirmation. In your communication with your self, when you leave God's Word out you do the same (this is the difference between discussion which is commands, rules, facts, and truth based and dialogue which is feelings based, with discussion making right and wrong behavior subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth which you have accepted as is, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' at least making it difficult, having to be persuaded, dialogue making right and wrong behavior subject to your "feelings" and your "thoughts" of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating, making commands, rules, facts, and truth easily adaptable to 'change,' explained in greater detail later on), doing what you have in common with the Marxist and he has in common with you—which is the basis of common-ism (which is antithetical to God and His Word, since your opinion, i.e., your perception of your self and the world is not the same as God's Word, one being "from above" the other "from below"—John 8:1-59).

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

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

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

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

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

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

"By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:6

The facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the Marxist establishes his and your nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., opinion, i.e., how he and you "feel" and what he and you "think," i.e., "sense experience," i.e., only that which is "of the world," over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., over and therefore against doing the Father's will in order to do his will instead, i.e., in order for him to lust without having a guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders), with "the people" or "the person's," i.e., your affirmation, i.e., approval, i.e., consent.

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [the Greek word for deeds is praxis];" Colossians 3:9

"Ye do the deeds of your father." "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." "... there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:41, 44

The "lie" (the praxis) is leaving out of your communication with your self and with others God's judgment upon you for your carnal thoughts and carnal actions and his mercy and grace towards you if you repent and turn from your wicked ways (the same being true for all others). Men 'justify' their self, i.e., their heart, i.e., their lusts, i.e., their self interest before one another in order to have peace, i.e., in order to have no sense of guilt (a guilty conscience) for doing wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, or truth, i.e., for their lusting, with each other's approval, i.e., affirmation. If the environment, i.e., something or someone in the environment stimulates dopamine emancipation (the sensation of pleasure, i.e., "the lust of the flesh") and it is in man's nature to locate it ("the lust of the eyes") in order to control it ("the pride of life") in order for it to stimulate more dopamine emancipation in him, then it is in man's nature to remove anything or anyone in the environment that inhibits or blocks dopamine emancipation, i.e., that prevents dopamine emancipation—the very praxis of lusting after dopamine emancipation 'justifying' the violence. The 'drive' of Marxism is the Marxist's lust for dopamine emancipation that the world stimulates, making the 'purpose' of life its augmentation. This makes 'changing' the environment, i.e., removing anyone from the environment who stands in the way of dopamine emancipation necessary. It is the Marxist's lust for dopamine emancipation that blinds him to his wicked deed, i.e., to his praxis. Stimulus-response (an environment void of the the father's/Father's authority, i.e., void of judgment for man's carnal thoughts and carnal actions) is all he sees, i.e., is all he wants to know, i.e., is all he wants to "experience," requiring everyone, i.e., your spouse, your children, your friends, your neighbors, your teachers, your workers (or fellow workers), your boss, your doctor, your legislators, your leaders, your minister, etc., including you to either participate (at least to consent) or else be silenced, censored, and/or removed.

"Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung; English. Reasoning and Self Preservation)The whole of the "Protestant Reformation," i.e., Protestantism, i.e., the priesthood of all believers, doing your best as unto the Lord, putting no man between you and the Lord, refusing to consent, i.e., to be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is based upon "the depravity of man's heart" and God's mercy and grace toward him if he repents and turns from his wicked ways and follows Him, putting no man between himself and the Lord, engendering individualism, under God. Even the Marxist Max Horkheimer recognized that it is the father's/Father's authority system that engenders individualism, under God, i.e., your worth as an individual before God.

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas wrote: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)

Marxists know of God's judgment upon them for their sins but seeks to remove His Word from the environment so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., lust without having any sense of guilt.

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32 (See Romans 1:21-31)

The moment you, in order to receive the approval of men set aside (suspend, as upon a cross) the Word of God, i.e., God's judgment upon them for their sins, you affirm their carnal nature, establishing it over and therefore against the Word of God, i.e., over and therefore against doing the Father's will, doing their will instead.

"Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making [negating the father's/Father's authority while establishing policy and/or making law, i.e., while initiating and sustaining relationships] our objective center's upon transformation public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests [lusts] 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)

Once you recognize what you have in common with others and they with you and make that, i.e., your lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint the foundation from which to "Reason" from you have established your self, i.e., your lusts (plural: your lust for pleasure and your lust for approval aka affirmation from others, 'justifying' your lusts) as being equal with and therefore above, and therefore against God, i.e., against the father/Father and his/His authority (since he will not agree), making your self and the Marxist God, i.e., the establishers of right and wrong behavior instead, making your self at-one-with Marxist ideology, you make your self at-one-with the Marxist. When you ask others or are asked by them "What about your children's [and/or your] social life?" you have manifest your and/or they have manifested their 'loyalty' to Marxist ideology. The sum total of Marxism is 'compromise,' i.e., setting aside (suspending, as upon a cross) established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "prejudices" that get in the way of relationships—which is antithetical to God and His Word, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, where his/His Word establishes right and wrong behavior not your feelings, i.e., lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating.

According to Karl Marx, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the Marxist it is lust, i.e., what all men have in common that 'reconciles' men to the world, i.e., that engenders unity, requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority (the system itself), i.e., the negation of established commands, rules, facts, and truth (prejudices) that judge, condemn, and/or cast men out for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions ("theory and practice"), i.e., that divides men according to their obeying or disobeying established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "prejudices." You are "prejudiced" if you insist two plus two is always four, i.e., can not be any other number, breaking off relationship with or not hiring others who disagree. 'Justifying' lust, i.e., self interests, i.e., what everyone has in common 'justifies' the removal (negation) of any and all conditions or individuals or groups that judge, condemn, cast out men for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for their not doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., for their doing wrong and not right according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth.

It is the father's/Father's authority system itself, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your self in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will that the Marxist is out to negate, removing it from the environment so he can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., so he lust after the things "of the world" without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without having any fear of being held accountable (judged, condemned, cast out) for his carnal/wicked thoughts and carnal/wicked actions, with your affirmation. When it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior, i.e., what you can and can not do the father's/Father's authority is negated (destroyed) in dialogue. The child's "Why?" in response to the father's/Father's command or rule (that get in the way of the child's lusts of the 'moment') is the child's effort to draw the father/Father into dialogue, (which makes the father's/Father's commands and rules just an opinion), engendering the father's/Father's "Because I said so"/"It is written" in response when the child refuses to go into discussion, which retains the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father/Father has the final say. In dialogue, "hell, fire, and damnation," i.e., God's judgment upon the sinner, i.e., upon "the children of disobedience," i.e., upon the Marxist is replaced with "I am OK." "You are OK." 'justifying' your and his lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, i.e., "human nature" so he can sin with your approval aka affirmation (hating and removing anyone getting in his way). This is antithetical to the Word of God, i.e., to the gospel message, i.e., to the will of God, who bases right upon denying your lusts, the lust of others, following His son, doing the Father's will and wrong upon disobedience, i.e., doing your will instead, according to your carnal nature.

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:30; 12:47-50

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

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

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

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Mathew 5:48

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

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

If you do not start with the Word of God all you have is your senses and the world that stimulates them, i.e., your opinion, i.e., the opinion of men. There is no father's/Father's authority in an opinion, or in dialogue, or in the consensus process. There is only your feelings and thoughts, your carnal desires of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. In dialogue you 'justify' your carnal desires, i.e., your feelings, i.e., your lusts. In discussion you hold to your position, changing it only when persuaded with facts or truth.

Sigmund Freud, 'justifying' his lusting after the things of the world, like Karl Marx hated the father's/Father's authority.

"'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the husband/father no longer exercises his authority in the family, over his wife/children]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)

"The hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father." (Sigmund Freud in Marcuse)

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

"According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." "Freud saw that in the id there is no negation [no parental authority, i.e. no Godly restraint, i.e. no "Thou shalt not"], only affirmation and eternity [only the child's/student's natural inclination to lust after dopamine emancipation, the "eternal present"]." "Children have not acquired that sense of shame which, according to the Biblical story, expelled mankind from Paradise, and which, presumably, would be discarded if Paradise were regained [if pleasure (lust) became the agenda, i.e., the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life]." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination [on doing the father's/Father's will]." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious [in his urges and impulses of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world] unconvinced, and therefore neurotic [caught between his desire for parental approval and his lust for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, having a guilty conscience for thinking about or doing the latter]." "The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered ['liberated' from the guilty conscience, requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority]." (Brown)

"As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950) Erich Fromm and T. W. Adorno (Benjamin Bloom's "Weltanschauung," i.e., world view) were two Marxists (Transformational Marxist's—Marxist's who merge socialism and psychology, i.e., Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, society and the individual) who were members of the "Frankfurt School" who came to the states, fleeing Fascist Germany in the early 30's—who entered our universities and "assisted" our government in making policy—moving education out from under parental (the father's/Father's) authority, i.e., local control ("in loco parentis") to government control, i.e., to their control. Kurt Lewin, who was not a member edited their newspaper

"Marxian theory [society] needs Freudian-type instinct theory [man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure, including his lust for approval from others, affirming his lusts and his natural inclination to hate restraint, i.e., to hate the father's/Father's authority for getting in the way] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions ['liberation' of "self," i.e., lust from the father's/Father's authority] are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions [submission of "self" to the father's/Father's authority] stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

Marxism and psychology have this in common, 'justification' of the child's carnal nature, 'justifying' the negation of the father's/Father's authority that gets in the way (called "the negation of negation"). According to Karl Marx, laws must be subject to the child's/man's, i.e., Marx's carnal nature which is ever subject to 'change,' not to the father's/Father's, i.e., God's authority which is not subject to 'change.'

For those "of and for the world," i.e., for the Marxist instead of reasoning from what you KNOW, i.e., from what you have been told you are to "Reason" from your "senses" that the world stimulates, i.e., from how you "feel" and what you "think" in the 'moment' (according to the flesh, which the situation and/or people or person [or tree, as in the garden in Eden] is stimulating) making you a god amongst gods (which makes right and wrong behavior subject to your lusts). Language reflects this behavior. All Karl Marx did was replace "lust of the flesh" with "sensuous need," "lust of the eyes" with "sense perception," and "pride of life" with "sense experience" so he could sin without having any sense of guilt, i.e., without having a guilty conscience. The soul, in the eyes of psychology (study of the soul), i.e., "behavior science" is made only up of the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains (all else labeled as "phenomena"), making the soul temporal, excluding the "breath of God," making it eternal. In other words, for the Marxist the agenda is to prevent the father/Father and his established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., God's judgment upon your (and his) sins from entering the environment, therefore entering your (his) thoughts, directly effecting your (his) actions. Language, i.e., how we communicate with one another effects our thoughts and actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the Marxist, instead of focusing upon you humbling, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating your self, i.e., denying your lusts in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth focuses upon your "feelings," making commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to "sense experiences" (of the past and the present), i.e., to your "sensuous needs" ("lust of the flesh") and your "sense perception" ("lust of the eyes") i.e., to your natural inclination to lust. If you have any questions regarding right and wrong behavior the facilitator of change, i.e., the Marxist goes to dialogue, i.e., to your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' that the current situation and or people or person is stimulating in order to 'liberate' you (and himself) from the father's/Father's authority system. In discussion you tend to hold to your parents, ... God's position, causing division between those who agree with and obey your parent's, ... God's established commands, rules, facts, and truth and those who do not. In dialogue you build relationship with others based upon what you and they have in common, i.e., your and their natural inclination to lust as well as your and their natural inclination to hate restraint.

This is why facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Marxists, socialists, globalists move communication, regarding right and wrong behavior away from discussion, i.e., away from what they and others are told, to dialogue, i.e., to how they and others feel so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., lust without having a guilty conscience. The guilty conscience is engendered from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., from having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth.

"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:'" (Brown) A definition of the guilty conscience from a Marxist's perspective.

"The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated." "The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)

By simply moving communication away from discussion (away from that which is "negative"—to the flesh) to dialogue (to that which is "positive"—to the flesh), when it comes to right and wrong behavior, the father's/Father's authority is negated in the participants thoughts, directly effecting their actions, turning them against anyone who insists upon discussion, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth in solving social-personal issues.

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

All educators are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies." i.e., Marxist curriculum in the classroom.

"Bloom's Taxonomies" are ". . . a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values . . . which are not shaped by the parents." "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs. . .." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.'" (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Pandora's Box" is a container full of evils, which once opened can not be closed. Once the "lid," i.e., parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again. All who participate in the praxis of "Bloom's Taxonomies," making right and wrong subject to their carnal nature, i.e., their lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint are damaged goods.

As Warren Bennis wrote in his book, The Temporary Society ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. . . . once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching." ". . . Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." "The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore." "For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian submission."

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

In the facilitated, i.e., Marxist classroom the deviant is given voice, making all subject to having to 'justify' (tolerate) his behavior, thus negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for lusting, i.e., making all things adaptable to 'change.' 'Change,' i.e., liberation from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth is what Marxism is all about, so the Marxist can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can lust without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without being held accountable.

According to Karl Marx, i.e., the Marxist it is children holding to their parent's standards (which differ between families) that causes division between children (the same applies to cultures and nations) whereas it is 'change,' i.e., lust for pleasure that the current situation, people or person is stimulating, i.e., responding in favor to what all children have in common that is the "objective" of life, requiring the negation of that which causes division amongst children (nations), i.e., the negation of parental authority, i.e., the negation of the father's/Father's authority system in the children's thoughts, directly effecting their actions—establishing the child's carnal nature over and therefore against their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., establishing their self, i.e., their self interests over and therefore against having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self, i.e., having to set aside (deny) their lusts, i.e., their self interests in order to do their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's will—making them (man), i.e., lust the center of the world instead of their parents, i.e., the father/Father (God) and their/his/His authority (doing their will instead of having to do the father's/Father's will, which makes them subject to 'continual change' as the current situation and/or people or person before them, i.e., the world 'changes').

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

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

According to Karl Marx "It is not individualism [the person humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society [the person's desire for approval from others, requiring him to compromise in order to "get along," i.e., in order to "build relationship"] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality ["freedom" from the father's/Father's authority system and "freedom" to "lust" after pleasure without having a guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders)] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) This is antithetical to doing the Father's will, where a person is free from the lusts of the 'moment,' which engenders individualism, under God. John 8:1-59

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

*See the issues on Kurt Lewin, Unfreezing, Moving or Changing, Refreezing People, Force Field Analysis, and Group Dynamics; "Unfreezing. This term, also adopted from Lewinian change theory, refers to the process of disconfirming an individual's former belief system." (Yalom) "A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing group life on the new level." (Kurt Lewin) "In brief, unfreezing is the breaking down of the mores, customs and traditions of an individual – the old ways of doing things – so that he is ready to accept new alternatives." (Edger Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach) "Unfreezing" engenders cognitive dissonance. It is the desire for group approval (affirmation) that belief is sacrificed at the altar of self, i.e., lust preservation.

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

"The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of 'unfreezing,' in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of 'readiness' to be influence; and (2) a process of 'change,' in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of 'the people's standpoint' and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure."
"Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to 'help' their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance. Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image."
". . . Once this process of self of self re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others." (Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, ed. Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele)

If I can, through dialogue discover what you are lusting after and offer to help you realize it, I "own" you. It is what happened to the woman in the garden in Eden. Once the master facilitator of 'change' seduced the woman into sharing her lust, then 'creating' a "positive," "safe" environment where she could actualized it (setting aside the Fathers authority, i.e., ". . . thou shalt surely die." with his "Ye shall not surely die."), he "owned" her. The same is true for your spouse (if you are married), your children, your boss, your legislators, . . . your minister, etc., in a dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, facilitated, Marxist meeting.

If you leave the Word of God, i.e., the Father's authority out of your communication with your self and with others, when it comes to right and wrong behavior, all you have is your and their carnal nature in which to find common ground in, resulting in you 'justifying' your self, i.e., your lusts with their affirmation, with them doing the same, so you and they can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can lust without having a guilty conscience, i.e., without any sense of guilt (which is engendered by the Word of God, i.e., the Father's authority).

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

If you do not start with the Word of God all you have is your carnal nature, i.e., how you feel and what you think, i.e., your opinion, i.e., that which is "of the world" as your basis of communication, seeking the approval of men instead of God. If you make your feelings the thesis, instead of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, the father/Father's authority becomes the antithesis, making what you have in common with all mankind, i.e., your and their natural inclination to lust the 'drive' and the augmentation of lust the 'purpose' of life, engendering synthesis as the outcome. The roots of Marxism are found in the phase "What about your (and/or your children's) social life," where relationship with men negates fellowshiping with the Lord (and those who worship, fellowship with, and follow Him, doing the Father's will). By the "church" asking you to share how you "feel" and what you "think," i.e., for your opinion in the study of God's Word it has made relationship, i.e., your understanding the bases of knowing right from wrong instead of faith, accepting the Word of God as it is, i.e., on its own.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

If you leave the apostate "church" with its dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, i.e., its "tolerance of ambiguity" and its members respond with the scriptures "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is" (Hebrews 10:25) remind them of the rest of that verse: "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26, 27)

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

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

"Relationships built on self interest," i.e., built on lust, i.e., Marxism is antithetical to KNOWING God, i.e., doing the Father's will. (1 John 3:1)

To be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is to consent.

"Qui tacet consentire videtur," "ubi loqui debuit ac potuit" are Latin phrases used in law, meaning "to be silent is to consent" or your "silence gives consent," "when you should have spoken and were able."

When you are silent, i.e., when you do not speak the Word of God (as the Lord leads) in the midst of unrighteousness (because you fear the rejection of men, i.e., that they might not listen to you and turn and "rend" you instead), i.e., not correcting, reproving, or rebuking the unrighteous for their praxis, unrighteousness becomes the "norm," i.e., the law of the land, fulfilling Karl Marx's, i.e., the Marxist's, socialist's, globalist's, i.e., the facilitator of 'change's' agenda. The same is true for the child in the home.

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 23:14

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

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

"Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding." "He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding." Proverbs 4:1; 15:32

"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you." 1 Peter 5:5-7

"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4 Nurture entails chastisement aka correction. Admonition entails focusing upon the Lord, making the child's thought and actions subject to Him, i.e., desires to do His will.

"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 Parent setting aside God's Word in their lives set the Word of God aside in their children's lives, making the child's and their carnal nature their foundation for knowing, i.e., from which to reason.

Sigmund Freud, as Karl Marx, rejecting the father's/Father's authority system built his ideology on the child's, i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., lust, thus, through therapy replacing children obeying their parents with children, subject to the women (their feelings) ruling over the people, with children (without restraint) oppressing them instead.

"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

"... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12

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

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

"Only when the immediate interests [lusts, i.e., self interests of the children] are integrated into a total view and related to the final goal of the process do they become revolutionary [overthrowing the father's/Father's authority in the children's thoughts]." "The whole system of Marxism stands and falls with the principle that revolution [negation of the father's/Father's authority in setting policy] is the product of a point of view in which the category of totality ["group think," what all children have in common, i.e., lust for pleasure and fear of losing it] is dominant." (Lukács)

"Group think" begins with "What can I get out of this group for my self?" (lust for pleasure, which includes lust for the approval of man) which then leads to "What will happen to me if the group rejects me?" (fear of man).

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

Children 'liberated' from fear of judgment by the father/Father for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions are 'justified' in their mind to remove aka kill those in the environment who get in the way of their lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, including the unborn, elderly, innocent, righteous. Doing so without having a guilty conscience.

If you want to restore sovereignty to a nation, restore the father's/Father's authority in the home. By establishing the child's natural inclination to lust as the basis for determining right and wrong behavior, the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., being held accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth is negated in the child's thoughts, directly effecting his actions. This is the basis of Marxism, making the child's (the Marxist's) carnal nature the basis from which to determine right and wrong behavior, i.e., in determining the laws of the land.

"In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." "Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship." (Bennis)

What happened in a garden in Eden continues today with facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Marxists, socialists, globalists coming between the children and their parents, 'liberating' them from their parent's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority system so they can lust after the things of the world without having a guilty conscience.

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

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

The only role the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' has is to seduce you (with your own lusts) into putting into praxis Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., self 'justification, i.e., your 'justifying' of your lusts of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating, negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., your having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your self in order to do the father's/Father's will, thereby in the process negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., your having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for not doing the father's/Father's will but your will instead, negating your need to repent, turn from your wicked ways, turn to the Lord and follow Him doing the Father's will, resulting in you dying in your sin, spending eternity along with the Marxist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' in the lake of fire that is prepared for the Master Facilitator of Change and all who follow after him. If you do not start with the Word of God, denying your lusts, suffering the rejection of men for reproving their lusts, and follow the Lord, doing the Father's will all you have is an "empty space" that is never satisfied.

Facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychologists, i.e., behavioral "scientists," i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Marxists (Transformational Marxists)—all being the same in method or formula—are using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from/through their "lust" for pleasure and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval, i.e., affirmation and fear of group rejection) in the "group grade," "safe zone/space/place," "Don't be negative, be positive," "open ended, non-directed," soviet style, brainwashing (washing the father's/Father's authority from the children's thoughts and actions, i.e., "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience, which the father's/father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation" since the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience, being negative to the child's carnal nature, is negated in dialogue—in dialogue, opinion, and the consensus process there is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., no established aka absolute command, rule, facts, or truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed; there is only the person's carnal desires, i.e., lusts of the past and the present being verbally expressed and 'justified'), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings," i.e., their natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—dopamine emancipation—which the world stimulates, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their "sense experience," selecting "appropriate information"—excluding, ignoring, or resisting, i.e., rejecting any "inappropriate" information, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome, i.e., pleasure—in determining right from wrong behavior), "Bloom's Taxonomy," "affective domain," French Revolution (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) classroom "environment" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' children from parental authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm)—as predators, charlatans, pimps, pedophiles, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them as chickens, rats, and dogs, i.e., treating them as natural resource ("human resource") in order to convert them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can "lust," without having a guilty conscience, i.e., with impunity.

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

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

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