Obama is unstoppable as Hitler was unstoppable
I began speaking on the dialectic process over eighteen years ago. Many people were interested. Then I spoke on the language of the process. Less people were interested (it got too personal). Now I speak on righteousness (which the dialectic process negates) and now not even the churches will let me in to speak.
To question the "democratic procedure," i.e. the consensus process, i.e. the dialectic process is to put your reputation and your future "at risk" (labeling you as being "Not a team player," i.e. as being "Psychological").
Obama (dedicated to the dialectic process, i.e. the consensus process, i.e. the "democratic procedure") is unstoppable because as the churches goes (now dedicated to the dialectic process, i.e. the consensus process, i.e. the "democratic procedure," i.e. "human relationship building") the nation goes as well. The leadership of the nation simply reflects the heart of "the people," with God simply giving "the people" the leadership of their heart's desire ("If you want a dictator instead of Me I will let you have your dictator"). As in the days of Hitler, before reality set in, so today "the people" worship the man who speaks of "community" (common-unity where 'compromise' must become the way of life), i.e. who speaks of making the world a "better" place to live in, i.e. who offers to give "the people" their heart's desire (fulfil their dreams and imaginations). Whether national or global in application, socialism must negate parental authority, i.e. the Father's authority, i.e. Godly restraint if it is to have its way, i.e. if it is to create a world where man is 'righteous' in his own eyes, i.e. if it is to create a world made in man's image, resulting in a world of lies and destruction along the way and death in the end. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5
Obama's methodology is built off of Kurt Lewin's. Kurt Lewin wrote: A "hierarchy of leaders has to be trained which reach out into all essential sub-parts of the group." "Hitler himself has obviously followed very carefully such a procedure." "The democratic procedure will have to be as thorough and as solidly based on group organization." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Business, government, media, and education must all be united if the "democratic procedure," i.e. the consensus process, i.e. the dialectic process of 'change' is to be initiated and sustained. Education or rather "re-education" is first and foremost on the list. "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 [what Obama's Common Core is all about]— One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." "The consequences of family democratization [where the child's focus is no longer upon the Father's authority (upon obeying the parents, i.e. considering the consequence for his feelings, thoughts, and actions) but upon environmental, socialist ("community"), and global issues (Economics, Ethnicity, and Environmentalism), where the child's focus is upon his "feelings" and "thoughts," and other's, i.e. "the group's," i.e. the "communities," "feelings" and 'thoughts" (their approval of him) of the 'moment'] take a long time to make themselves felt–but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) Once the Father's authority, the threat of punishment for doing wrong (engendering the "guilty conscience," i.e. the lid to "Pandora's Box") is negated (the "box," i.e. the affective domain is opened, i.e. the child's "feelings," i.e. his hearts desires are given precedence over and therefore against the Father's authority) the Father's authority (the "guilty conscience") can not be restored (the lid can not be put back on the box, i.e. the "box" can not be closed—"And all the King's horses and all the King's men could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again"). What comes out of "the box?" Evil! Abomination! "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark 7:21-23)
Obama follows in the same steps as the man most noted for the environmental-global issues we hear about every day, Ervine Laszlo. Laszlo who wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [bypassing what our constitution guaranteed, i.e. limited, representative government (majority vote of the citizens) which guaranteed to the citizens the right of local control—with an honest chairman using Robert's Rules of Order (the right of the citizen to present his position and belief in public, on what is the right way to accomplish the project or solve the crisis at hand, and why he believes so, as well as what is the wrong way, i.e. why and/or how the other citizens want to accomplish the project or solve the crisis at hand is the wrong way, i.e. is wrong) which are now infiltrated (contaminated) or replaced (negated) with the consensus process (with everyone dialoguing their opinion, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' to where all can come to an agreement, i.e. arrive at a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. set aside position and belief in an effort to develop "comradeship," i.e. to initiate and sustain "community," where a persons thoughts and actions are no longer influence by what is right and what is wrong behavior, established by their parents, the teacher, the Father, i.e. God, but by how "the group," i.e. the "community" "feels" about them and what "the group," i.e. the "community" "thinks" about them in the 'moment' instead)] , our objective centers upon .... transforming public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order.)
There is no Father's authority, i.e. no sovereignty, i.e. no inalienable rights in the dialectic process, i.e. in the consensus process, i.e. in the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. in the "democratic procedure." No "public servant," who 'reasons' dialectically, i.e. who puts the consensus process into praxis, i.e. who puts 'change' into social action, who promotes the "democratic procedure" around the world can defend any constitution (or represent his constituents, i.e. unless they are dialectic in 'reasoning') which he swears to "serve and protect," he can only question and challenge it (and them), negating it (and them) for the common "good," i.e. for "common-ism" in the end.
"It is proposed that no facts or opinion be considered by the Congress [the UN] unless the facts and opinions be the established consensus of a group of collaborators." "The old fixed values of right and wrong must give way to a new maturity that implied qualities of adaptability and compromise." (Harry S. Sullivan, The Fusion of Psychology and Social Science) "Thus the human rights that we proclaim ... can be brought about only if we transcend ourselves ... to find our common essence beyond our apparent divisions, our temporary differences, our ideological and cultural barriers." (Boutros Boutros-Ghali former Secretary General of the UN speaking at the UN conference on human rights in 1993 in Vienna)
Obama stated: "Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt there will be differences in the future, but the burdens of global citizenship [via the consensus process] continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more [for globalism] not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations [Common-ism] is not a choice. It is the only way, the one way to protect our common security and advance our common humanity ["humanism"]. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another [this is the banner cry of totalitarianism, i.e. globalism]. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic [the sovereignty of nations] cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least [the sovereignty of nations] cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslins and Jews [cultural identity, property rights, and religious beliefs] cannot stand. These now are the [hallowed?] walls we must tear down." (Obama speaking in Berlin in the summer of 2008)
This 'logic' (dialectic 'reasoning') always results in creating a government of terror in the end, while it always gives the citizens the perception of being "good" (giving them what they want) in the beginning. "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules [mission statements developed through the consensus process, where all the citizens have (or are promised) "input"] which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules [the consensus process initiating ('justifying') executive orders (given for the "good" of "the people") and executive orders (given for the "good" of "the people") sustaining ('justifying') the consensus process] to best suit the state [i.e. to serve and protect those in power, to satisfy their carnal desires and the carnal desires of their associates, i.e. serving and protecting the "brotherhood," i.e. the fraternity ("human rights," i.e. "humanist rights," i.e. socialists) instead of serving and protecting the individual citizen's rights, under God, i.e. inalienable rights, as our framing father's intended]." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) "The workers' council [the consensus meeting, i.e. the soviet meeting: a diverse group of people (some more advanced in the process of 'change' than others, assisting the facilitator of 'change' in moving all participants into "the group process"), dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (there is no Father's "top-down" authority in the dialoguing of opinions, consensus making sure no Father's authority has input, influence, or control over the meeting and its outcome), over social issues (concerning the "felt" needs of man, i.e. 'justifying' the wickedness of the heart of man, i.e. "human nature"), in a facilitated meeting (since the process does not come naturally, as some training manuals are willing to admit, the people have to be facilitated, i.e. seduced, deceived, and manipulated into participating in the process of 'change'), to a pre-determined outcome (that no decision is to be made without the use of the soviet system, i.e. the consensus process, i.e. the "democratic procedure" without first finding out how people "feel" and what they "think"—through the use of polls, surveys, and feasibility studies—where right and wrong is thereafter determined in the 'light' of community, i.e. societal, i.e. socialist needs)] spells the political and economic defeat of reification [limited government controled by the traditional standards of the home, i.e. initiating and sustaining "private" as in "My children. My Land. My businesses. Not yours"]. In the period following the dictatorship [the use of executive orders to initiate and sustain the consensus process] it [the consensus process, the "democratic procedure," the soviet meeting] will eliminate the bourgeois [the citizens honoring of the Father's "top-down" authority, i.e. the traditional way of thinking and acting, of doing business with the] separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary [eliminate a constitutional republic and its limited government—greatest power to the family being replaced with "greatest power to 'the people,'" with socialist, i.e. Transformational Marxists in control]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?—the foundation for Obama's 'reasoning' and actions, i.e. "theory and practice")
Carl Rogers wrote: "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 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." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions [to influence or control the behavior of groups], the predicted behaviors will follow." "Dr. Skinner says: 'We must accept the fact that some kind of control of human affairs is inevitable. We cannot use good sense in human affairs unless someone engages in the design and construction of environmental conditions which affect the behavior of men." "Environmental changes have always been the condition for the improvement of cultural patterns, and we can hardly use the more effective methods of science without making changes on a grander scale . . ." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
Abraham Maslow wrote: "In our democratic society, any enterprise―any individual―has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society [or fines will be imposed upon them, i.e. they will be taxed], and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) The power to tax is the power to destroy. Tax the people to where only those who support the socialist cause (who get a tax break) can get ahead.
The Soviet Constitution read: "Socially useful work and its results determine a persons status [respect and privileges] in society." (Article 14, "Former" USSR Constitution, and the future Constitution of the World, with America included) Karl Marx wrote: "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
Therefore the following statement by Carl Rogers should be of concern (at least by those who believe in freedom, i.e. in liberty from tyranny). "'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [the consensus process, i.e. the augmentation of pleasure and attenuation of pain ('liberating' the children from the pain of the Father's authority—which restrains the child's "lusting" after carnal pleasures, as God's authority restrains man's "lusting" after carnal pleasures)], and why negative doesn't' [where the Father's authority, i.e. doing right and not wrong, restrains the child's carnal pleasure as God restrains man's]… 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design.'" "We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled [the seduced, deceived, and manipulated], though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement—there's no restraint and no revolt. 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. . . .we will inevitably find ourselves moving toward the chosen goal, and probably thinking that we ourselves desired it. …it appears that some form of completely controlled society … is coming." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) (Underlined in italics in the original) "Freedom becomes anchored in the subject [is based upon the "feelings" of the 'moment']. Nevertheless, what this means remains open to question. Freedom is now content to contest power and thus forgets that power is necessary to constrain its arbitrary exercise. The ethical and practical function of freedom is lost. Indeed, since subjective freedom is a social phenomenon [everybody is a sinner], maintaining sanity depends upon the ability of the individual to fill a social role and affirm his or her fullest potential [therefore if a person is not a socialist he can not be identified as being "healthy," read "Health Care Package," i.e. "Obamacare"]." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) "To apply the principle of 'individualistic freedom' merely leads to chaos. Sometimes people must rather forcefully be made to see what democratic responsibility toward the group as a whole means." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
Patrick Henry warned us of "We, the people," and a "more perfect union" and the cost to liberty they would produce (in a time when 'liberty' was understood to mean 'liberty' from the tyranny of the flesh, now meaning 'liberty' from Godly restraint, thus making the use of force by the citizens today, to restore 'liberty,' "madness," as Patrick Henry observed). Without his efforts to overturn the Constitution (prior to the introduction of the Bill of Rights—which liberal's have hated from the beginning, i.e. with the liberal courts redefining them, with liberal law's being made to 'limit' them, with liberals adding "new" rights to them to negate them, and with liberals overlooking them in defense of socialist causes) the Bill of Rights would not have been added to the Constitution.
Patrick Henry stated: "The expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America." ". . . extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous." "Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain." "... our rights and privileges are endangered." "You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberty can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government." "Suspect every one who approaches that jewel [liberty]." "Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it [liberty], but downright force." "Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." ". . . When this constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, a fatal ambiguity." "I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers." ". . . You will find the balance on the side of tyranny:" "[N]ations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism." "We should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people." "Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?" "Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone." "You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America." "What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness." "You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies:" "Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the State;" "The States can do nothing, this power being exclusively given to ‘Congress':" "Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?" "A willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be capable of:" "This Constitution . . . gives an unlimited and unbounded power of taxation." "The whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure." "Americans, they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity, the transactions of the present times; they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty. For I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a scourge:" "Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rules being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?" "This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility – and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves." "The Senate can, with the President, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land: They may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them." (Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the Virginia Convention of 1788)
George Washington himself warned of the heart of man when place in a position of power. "It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." (George Washington Farewell Speech)
John Quincy Adams wrote: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one dissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity .... from the day of the Declaration .... they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and the laws of the gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct." George Washington, first President of the United States, said "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports ... and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... We ought to be persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained." Patrick Henry, putting it more accurately than Washington, wrote: "It cannot be emphasized to strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" (source: Dick York, "The Reprieve Seems to Have expired: Now What?" Shield of Faith Mission International, Nov-Dec, 2009) John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." In a letter to his wife he wrote: "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." Even the Transformational Marxist, Max Horkheimer (who Obama's ideology is built off of) acknowledged (with the intent of undoing): "For the men who made the Constitution there was no principle that did not derive its authority from a religious source." "Government and its trust is 'found on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker and . . . [is] therefore sacred. It is an offence against Heaven to violate that trust.'" (Max Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason)
While the Lord has chosen for us 'liberty' (righteousness) in Him, i.e. 'liberty' from the seductiveness, deceitfulness, and manipulating ability of facilitators of 'change,' Carl Rogers, Obama, et al. have chosen "We, the people," and "more perfect union," i.e. liberty from righteousness, for us instead, i.e. "Making the world safe for Democracy." The "new" American Revolution (against righteousness, sovereignty, limited government, and inalienable rights, under God) is built upon the consensus process: "Only when the immediate interests are integrated into a total view and related to the final goal of the process [only when the consensus process) is put into praxis, i.e. into social action] do they become revolutionary." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) All policy, under Obama and his administration, from the local to the national level, is being established upon the consensus process, producing a globalist society based upon man's carnal "human nature," uninhibited by God restraint, i.e. engendering a nation and a world of abomination.
Maslow explained it this way in his journal: "I've decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN, & the like." "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.)" "Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers. If only for such a reason a world government is necessary. It too would have to evolve. I suppose it would be weak or lousy or even corrupt at first--it certainly doesn't amount to much now & won't until sovereignty is given up little by little by 'nations.'"
According to Maslow: Marx, Freud, and abomination go hand in hand: "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness. It's the easiest to take. Must encourage it." "Nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness. I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa."
Normal O. Brown, explaining the concord between Marx and Freud (Obama's ideology), wrote: "Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure. Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality." "Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature; [Psychology is based upon Freud's opinion that all children are sexually (bisexually) active.]" "Freud speaks of religion [loving the Father (nationalism) over and against the world (globalism)] as a 'substitute-gratification'– the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people [the people honoring and obeying the King, i.e. loving the Father over and against their own natural desires of the 'moment,' including their very own lives]." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt [the Father's authority engendering a "guilty conscience" in the child while he is doing (or thinking about doing) that which comes naturally, i.e. becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, i.e. following after his carnal nature, i.e. satisfying his urges and impulses of the 'moment] created the familial ["top-down"] organization [with the Father establishing the standard for social relationship, not "human nature"]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
Herbart Marcuse wrote: "Pregenital morality ["human nature] is an identification with the mother [with "feelings," i.e. with incest (abomination), i.e. resulting from the mother's and the child's desire for peace and harmony, i.e. "equality"]." According to Freud, the repression of "feelings," i.e. of "human nature," i.e. of incest, i.e. of abomination, i.e. of "equality," i.e. of "worldly peace and socialist harmony" "is bound up with the Father [with the Father's authority, i.e. with His "top-down," "right-wrong" (nationalistic) way of thinking and acting]." "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a ‘barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother [to be at-one-with nature (with the environment in pleasure), i.e. following after their natural urges and impulses of the 'moment']—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan," (Freud's historiography as explained by Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) Even George Hegel saw the child's incestuous nature, not parental authority, as being the foundation for 'reality.'
George Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once 'liberated' from the Father's authority]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) That being the case, "equality" (world unity) can only be attained by equalizing parent's and children, based 'reality' upon the child's incestuous nature: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [all subject to "human nature"], where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object [no "top-down" authority, i.e. no sovereignty, i.e. no "Mine. Not yours," as in "My children. Not yours," "My property, Not yours," "My business, Not yours," etc.], the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one. So too all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality. Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." ibid. Sounds like Karl Marx does not it. As Brown stated it: "Freud [and] Hegel, are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force [the Father's authority to give commands to his children and chasten them when they disobey Him] in order to explain repression ["Prejudice" and "Nationalism," i.e. "Mine. Not yours." inhibiting the child's (man's) natural inclination to praxis incest, i.e. abomination, i.e. to become at-one-with himself and the world in pleasure in the 'moment']."
It is why our current administration (and citizenry) is thinking and acting the way it is. Blinded by the pleasures of this life, they no longer see the judgment (eternal death) which is coming their way because of their carnal thoughts and carnal actions. It is not how far down the road you have gone (you may have only taken one step onto the dialectic road of consensus, i.e. the "broad pathway" of 'compromise' for the sake of "community"). It is the road you are on. One step on it, you stepped in it (you stink), giving it authority not only over your life (and death) but also over the life (and death) of others you have authority over or influence. "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 Blinded by the man who promises them "worldly peace" and "socialist harmony," i.e. "Making the world safe for Democracy" (blinded by the citizens "lusting" after the desires of their heart, i.e. covetousness and the pride of life), God has turned this nation over to its own demise. "And through covetousness [through your lusts] shall they [facilitators of 'change'] with feigned words [with deceitful words] make merchandise of you [using you and all that God has given you and your posterity for their gain, with no hope of you getting it back unless you become like them, i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others for your and their carnal gain];" 2 Peter 2:3 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." John 12:40
For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.
Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens and their tongue walketh through the earth. Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them. And they say, How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the most High? Behold, there are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.
Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning. If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children. When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.
Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! They are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image. Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins. So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee.
Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou has destroyed all them that go a whoring from thee. But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all thy works.
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2014-2015