Introduction:
Part 2
When the schools removed the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., "the old paths" in the classroom, replacing it with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., with the children's "feelings" of the 'moment', i.e., with their "affective domain"—their desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., their desire for pleasure, including the pleasure which comes with "group approval" or affirmation and their dissatisfaction with or resentment toward being restrained, associated with pain, including not only the pain of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' but also the pain of being rejected—they not only 'changed' the children, they 'changed' the parents, i.e., the family, the neighborhood, township, village, town, city, county, state, and the nation, including the church, 'liberating' them from parental/Godly restraint, 'creating' a so called "new" world order, i.e., a culture of unrighteousness and abomination, resulting in facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapists ("group psychotherapists"), i.e., Transformational Marxists (who, by merging Marx and Freud, created "group psychotherapy," i.e., the consensus process) controlling the outcome of any meeting, i.e., how policy is made and problems (crisis) are solved, affecting how people feel, think, and act toward traditional authority, i.e., rejecting the father's/Father's authority system, from the home to the highest offices in the land, including the church. Change the classroom curriculum (the students learning environment) from the teacher inculcating facts and truth, i.e., with the teacher preaching commands and rules to be obeyed and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, which engenders individualism and nationalism (sovereignty), i.e., freedom of the conscience, where the duty of life is to do "right and not wrong," under God, to where "facilitators of 'change'" "encourage" students to dialogue their opinions with one another—to openly share with one another what they are thinking at that 'moment' (which is being influenced by their feelings at that 'moment,' which are being influenced by the situation at that 'moment,' which is being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change')—in order to arrive at a consensus, i.e., at a "feeling" of "oneness," which engenders socialism and globalism (equality), i.e., freedom from the conscience, where the 'drive' (and 'purpose') of life is the approaching (and augmenting) of pleasure and the avoiding (and attenuating) of pain ("displacing" the conscience, i.e., the voice of the father in the child, i.e., "doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's will, with the so called "super-ego" which is subject to the child's feelings and the situation of the 'moment'), and you 'change' the world, making it subject to "human nature" only, negating the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobedience in the children, in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with one another and the world. The method guarantees, i.e., initiates and sustains the outcome.
In other words, The answers are in the questions, i.e., in how the questions are framed. If someone asks you how you feel or what you think, your response will be an opinion, i.e., a relativistic or situational, i.e., dialectic answer, not an absolute, unchanging fact or truth, i.e., "right" or "wrong," i.e., didactic answer. But if they ask you what you know, your response will be a position, i.e., an unchanging fact or truth, i.e., "right" or "wrong" ("This is right and that is wrong"), i.e., didactic answer, which is an absolute answer, not an "I feel" or "I think," i.e., relativistic or situational, i.e., dialectic, i.e., opinion answer, where, when things go wrong (or rather, in dialectic Reasoning, gone "badly") the person simply did not having the appropriate information, making it somebody else fault and/or they did not think, i.e., Reason it through properly, i.e., did not use dialectic 'reasoning.' Change the method (of communication) and you change the outcome, whether the parents are in control (under God)—rule of law—preaching commands and rules to be obeyed and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, with the parent's, at their discretion, discussing things with their children in order to make sure that they (their children) understand their commands, rules, facts, or truth, with children having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, or the children are in control (under the influence, i.e., seduction, deception, and manipulation of facilitators of 'change'), thinking and acting according to their carnal nature—rule of man—with the children determining right from wrong, i.e., 'justifying' themselves based upon their feelings (desires, "lusts," or "self interests") of the 'moment,' i.e., their opinion of the 'moment, with the situation of the 'moment,' the information of the 'moment,' and the facilitator of 'change' (who is influencing it) 'creating' a "new" world order out of their own imagination—with no moral absolutes, i.e., having no guilty conscience for doing wrong—just don't get caught and if you are, blame somebody or something else, i.e., the environment or situation, lack of support, funds, education, etc.,).
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2016