Rule of Law vs. "Rule of Lawfulness:" by Dean Gotcher

"Rule of Law" vs. "Rule of Lawfulness:"
The conservatives definition of law and the 'liberal's definition.

by
Dean Gotcher

"Lawfulness without law." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

"Rule of law" (law based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth which require persuasion with facts and truth if any changes are to be made, making laws difficult to 'change' and those under them accountable to obeying them) is grounded upon the father's/Father's authority, with the children obeying the father's/Father's commands and rules, accepting and applying his/His facts and truth as given, by faith. "Rule of lawfulness" (law based upon "feelings," which are easily manipulated, making laws rapidly adaptable to 'change,' making those who break them less likely to be held accountable for their actions if they can 'justify' their actions as being taken for the "good" of "society" as well as for the "good" of their "self") is grounded upon the carnal nature of the child, with the child's "feelings," i.e., his (or her) natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation, i.e., the affective domain) which the world stimulates and his natural dissatisfaction with, resentment, or hatred toward authority which gets in the way, i.e., which prevents, i.e., blocks or inhibits his enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (which he desires in the "here-and-now"). The former, through the use of chastening or threat of chastening for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning engenders a guilty conscience in the child when he has done, is thinking of doing, or is doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. The latter, through the use of "tolerance" and "self" 'justification,' i.e., his carnal thoughts and carnal actions being approved by others (affirmation), engenders a "super-ego" in the child which incorporates the child's "feelings" (desires and dissatisfactions) of the past as well as the child's "feelings" (desires and dissatisfactions) of the present, which 'justify' his or her carnal nature, resulting in the child's own life experience determining what is right and what is wrong in any given situation, i.e., in the 'moment,' i.e., in the "here-and-now" (making laws "subjective," i.e., subject to the child's "feelings" of the 'moment') instead of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (which makes laws "objective," i.e., subject to the father's/Father's authority). In this way of thinking, i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' laws become situational, i.e., adaptable to 'change,' i.e., subject to the "felt needs," i.e., the "feelings" ("sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., "sense experience") of the child in the 'moment' instead of established once and for all times and in all places or situations, thereby 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., from the "past," allowing the child to do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., to praxis "lawfulness" without having a guilty conscience.

The "old" world order of "rule of law" is based upon the father/Father 1) preaching commands and rules to the children, to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to the children, to be accepted as is, by faith, and applied, discussing with his children any question(s) they might have regarding his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth (at his discretion—providing he has time, they are able to understand, and/or are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his/His authority), 2) blessing the children who obey and do things right, in order to encourage them to keep obeying and doing things right, 3) chastening the child who does things wrong or disobeys, in order that he might learn to humble, deny, die to , control, discipline his "self" in order do things right and not wrong, and obey, and 4) casting out any child who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks him/Him and his/His authority to do 1-4.

The "new" world order of "rule of lawfulness" is based upon the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating and his hate of pain—which includes restraint, i.e., missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating. In essence a legislator, i.e., a representative in a republic, limited, constitutional form of government is a "child" sent by his parents, i.e., by his constituents to "re-present" them at the store, buying their goods (what they sent him to the store to buy) with their money. If he spends their money on his own "self interest," i.e., goes into dialogue (and consensus) with others in making law (no longer "re-presenting" them, i.e., there is no "re-presentation" in dialogue) they no longer send him to the store (until he admits he was wrong, repents, and learns to do right and not wrong, i.e., quiets using dialogue in making law). Otherwise, when he gains access to their credit card, he will run them into debt, spending their money and their children's future inheritance on his (and his "friends") "self interests" of the 'moment.' Sounds like our nation today, with children in adult bodies ruling the nest.

"Rule of law" applies to all facets of society (known as traditional) where, in education the student is subject to the teacher's authority above, i.e., restraining his "self interest," i.e., his "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment,' including his desire for affirmation from his classmates, in government, the representative is subject to the law of the land and his constitutions authority above, i.e., restraining his "self interest," i.e., his "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment,' including his desire for affirmation from his fellow representatives, and, in the "church," the minister is subject to the Word of God above, i.e., restraining his "self interest," i.e., his "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment,' including his desire for affirmation from the congregation and fellow ministers. The so called "new" world order of "rule of lawfulness" (known as transformational-ism) is based upon the child's natural 'drive' (carnal desire) to approach pleasure and avoid pain, making the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain the 'purpose' of life, requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law," which, according to those who advocate the "rule of lawfulness" is the source of "repression," "alienation," and "neurosis," i.e., personal-social disharmony, i.e., emotional pain—with the guilty conscience coming between the child's carnal thoughts (desires) and carnal actions, making him "feel bad" for being "normal," i.e., for wanting to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, including being a part of "the group" (doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) as well as the children (preaching their fathers commands, rules, facts, and truth to/against one another) dividing themselves between one another due to their fathers differing beliefs and positions on issues.

An example of the difference between "rule of law" and "rule of lawfulness" is best explained in the conflict between the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth rule regarding proper behavior, i.e., "rule of law" and the child's desire to relate with other children whose behave is antithetical to the father's/Father's standards, engendering tension between the father/Father, i.e., his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth and the child's "feelings," with the father/Father either maintaining control, insisting upon the child humbling, denying, dying to, disciplining, controlling his "self" in order to do his/His will or the father/Father abdicating his/His authority to the child's "feelings," the result of the child questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., putting "rule of lawfulness" into praxis. Education (now subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's affective domain) has brought "rule of lawfulness" into the classroom, resulting in children challenging "rule of law," i.e., the father's/Father's authority when they get home. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) This from the books all teachers are certified and schools are accredited by today, referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomies."

While those holding to "rule of law," i.e., the father's/Father's authority see those holding to "rule of lawfulness" as being lawless (as "children of disobedience"), those holding to "rule of lawfulness" see "rule of "lawfulness" as being "normal"—since it is based upon the child's natural desire to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his natural hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., hate of "rule of law" (which is common to all children)—making "rule of law" lawlessness instead. The idea being: don't attack "rule of law," just regard it as being irrational and therefore treat it as being irrelevant, i.e., as getting in the way of the "lawfulness" of the day. Since it is in dialogue the child—talking to his "self" regarding his desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with authority—comes to know himself as he thinks he really is (which is common to all children), allowing children the freedom ("safe zone/space/place") to dialogue with one another (their desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., "rule of lawfulness," i.e., the law of the flesh) without fear of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., without fear of restraint, i.e., without "rule of law" getting in the way, that which is "Particular," i.e., kept in secret in the child (out of fear of judgment and condemnation) can be (through dialogue) brought out into the open, i.e., be made "Universal," uniting all children upon what 'drives' them, i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions, and in seeking consensus, work together as one, 'discover' their 'purpose' in life as being the removal of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law" from the face of the earth—so that whatever the child imagines (desires) can become 'reality.'

Nationalism aka individual-ism under God is derived from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law," from whom we receive our unalienable (no man can put a lean upon) rights—which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks the child's carnal nature, i.e., "rule of lawfulness" from becoming the law of the land. Globalism/Socialism aka common-ism aka Marxism is based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., "rule of lawfulness" which requires the negation of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law" in order for it ("rule of lawfulness," i.e., "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature) to become the "law" of the land.

Immanuel Kant based law upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., upon "the rule of lawfulness." Immanuel Kant wrote of "lawfulness without law," where "lawfulness," i.e., "law" based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates over and therefore against "rule of law," i.e., law based upon the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth. It is "rule of law," i.e., the father's/Father's law—which inhibits or blocks the child from being (becoming) himself, i.e., which prevents him from becoming at-one-with the world around him, i.e., which prevents him from thinking and acting according to his own carnal nature, having to think and act according to his father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—being negated by "lawfulness," i.e., by the child's carnal nature, i.e., by "human nature" that 'change,' i.e., "lawfulness without law," i.e., "rule of lawfulness" is all about.

Georg Hegel based law upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., upon "the rule of lawfulness." "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's/Father's authority which prevents him from being himself, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., of the world, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Sounding more like Karl Marx that Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born), Hegel—having establishing the child as "the absolute, the relationship of the relationship," thus 'liberating' the child (along with his parents) from the father's/Father's authority—could then write: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common (natural) "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, including (and especially) their desire for approval from one another (affirmation) being the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Hegel, System) In this 'logic' your children, your spouse, you property, your business, etc., and even you yourself are not yours, but belong to society, i.e., to the socialists instead.

Sidebar: Prior to Kant and Hegel, in defiance to the Father's authority, i.e., "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26), with God giving man "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (excluding man in the list) (Genesis 1:26), Jean-Jacques Rousseau declared "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality). In this bold statement he made himself and all who followed him (in his way of thinking) the agents of control over all that is on the earth. God, while driving man out into the world (for not behaving according to his standards "under his roof"), left him with the right to say, as He did in the garden in Eden, "Mine. Not yours," giving him right of private property, i.e., property rights. Rousseau et al on the other hand took it away. It should be noted that the one making the statement, i.e., establishing the policy becomes the arbiter of what is theirs and what is yours, with God leaving you to your own demise while on the earth, i.e., while still breathing, Rousseau et al, on the other hand establishing policy, claiming control over all who live (breath) on it in the "here-and-now," "us all" meaning him and those who think his way. Despite what it might seem "rule of law" protects your right of private property, i.e., freedom of the conscience, i.e., private convictions, "rule of lawfulness" takes it away, with the latter evaluating your "feelings," i.e., your motives, making not only your actions but also your thoughts, which are subject to your "feels" of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the situation, the determinate of innocence or guilty ("thought police" actually meaning "feelings police"). Under "rule of lawfulness" the further your thoughts and actions are from "human nature," i.e., from your own and others "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment,' i.e., the more your carnal desires and actions are "suppressed" by commands, rules, facts, and truth, demanding the same of others, separating your "self" from your self, them, and the rest of the world, demanding "Mine. Not yours." instead of "Ours," i.e., "We working for Us." i.e., "One for all and all for one" the more suspect (guilty) you become—in essence making all guilty ("mentally ill," i.e., "emotionally ill") until proven innocent (adhering to "rule of lawfulness"). Instead of freedom of the conscience, i.e., private convictions, under "rule of lawfulness" all are freed from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity—as long as it done for the "good" of society, i.e., for the "good" of the socialist, i.e., for the "good" of those who think like Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, et al. By replacing "common sense," i.e., right-wrong thinking, i.e., facts and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority with "good sense," i.e., "feelings," i.e., the child's "sense experience" making sure the socialist "feels good," i.e., is "good" in his own eyes—with you affirming his "goodness"—he or she can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be lawless (do evil things to you, your spouse, your children, your property, etc., using you and them as "natural resource" aka "human resource" for his own pleasure and gain—in the name of "the people" of course) without having a guilty conscience (with anyone questioning them and exposing their deeds, i.e., getting in their way, i.e., getting in "the peoples" way as being guilty of causing controversy and division, instigating a "hate" crime—the 'logic' being, since the child, by nature hates "rule of law," i.e., hates the father's/Father's authority, anyone who brings in "rule of law," i.e., the father's/Father's authority, engendering hate in them, is guilty of a hate crime).

Karl Marx based law upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., upon "the rule of lawfulness." Knowing that "lawfulness," which originates from the child's carnal nature, i.e., from his love of pleasure and hate of restraint—which all men, women, and children have in common (making it, i.e., "human nature" the basis of common-ism)—and that "law," which originates from the father's/Father's authority—which gets in the way of the child's carnal nature, preventing him from becoming at-one-with himself, the rest of the children of the world, and the world itself—Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the children submitting to the father's authority, along with the mother/the husbands wife submitting herself to his authority] is discovered to be the secret of the Holy [heavenly] family [with the Son, and those following Him, submitting to His Heavenly Father's authority], the former [the earthly father, i.e., the traditional family with its respecting, honoring, and obeying the father/Father and his/His authority] must be destroyed [Vernunft, annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the child's thoughts and action]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

Sigmund Freud based law upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., upon "the rule of lawfulness." In agreement with Immanuel Kant's, Georg Hegel's, and Karl Marx's analysis of the child's carnal nature, i.e., "lawfulness" and the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "law," Sigmund Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer exercises his authority over the family]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) Sigmund Freud's view of the traditional family, with the father's/Father's authority "repressing" the children, preventing them from being themselves, i.e., become at-one-with themselves, others, and the world (according to their carnal impulses and urges of the 'moment'), "alienating" themselves from one another because of their "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting, thus engendering "neurosis," i.e., a guilty conscience in themselves and others for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for being "normal" is explained in his "history" of what takes place in the family. "... 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, and the establishment of the brother clan." (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., man 'justifying' his "self," i.e., "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature before men, it is "law," i.e., the father's/Father's authority which prevents "lawfulness," i.e., "human nature" from becoming a reality in the child's life, in the life of the home, and in society. Therefore, it is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the traditional family that stands in the way of personal-social 'change.' "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Only by overcoming (negating) "rule of law," i.e., the father's/father's authority and its affect, i.e., the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (which, according to dialectic 'reasoning' "represses" the child), can "rule of lawfulness," i.e., the carnal nature of the child become the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of society. Karl Marx wrote: "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) "It is not individualism [the child under the father's/Father's authority, doing the father's/Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him [keeps him from being himself, i.e., of the world only]. Society [compromising for the sake of relationship] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [freedom to think and act according to the child's carnal nature] are made realities." (Karl Marx) "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Karl Marx wrote: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do their will, thus "empowering" them] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force [engendering a guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for being "human"]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Kurt Lewin explained how the guilty conscience is created and how it can be negated, i.e., replaced with the so called "super-ego." "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "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." (Kurt Lewin; A Dynamic Theory of Personality) According to Kurt Lewin only by 'creating' an environment where children can dialogue their opinions to a consensus (there is no father's/Father's authority in an opinion, dialogue, and consensus, since opinion is "Liberté" from the father's/Father's authority, dialogue requires "Égalité" with one another according to everyone natural desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, and "Fraternité" or brotherhood is consensus or affirmation based upon "human nature," i.e., the carnal nature of the child only) can the father's/Father's authority, what Kurt Lewin called "an induced field of force of a adult," which engenders a guilty conscience, i.e., "the negative valence," which gets in the way of the child relating with something he desire, "which in itself attracts the child," which the father has declared "off limits," i.e., as "a forbidden object." It is only in an environment dedicated to dialogue, which requires suspending the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "rule of law," as on a cross, in order for the children to 'discover' what they have in common (their desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint) that consensus, i.e., "rule of lawfulness" can be initiated and sustained.

Only through the praxis of merging Marx, i.e., "the group," and Freud, i.e., the individual (Kurt Lewin's "group dynamics," where the persons internal force of obeying the father's/Father's commands and rules runs into, i.e., conflicts with the internal force which desires approval from "the group," i.e., affirmation), with "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists "helping" children (through dialogue) 'discover their 'commonality' with one another (engendering common-ism), can "law," i.e., the father's/Father's authority be replaced with "lawfulness," i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature." "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) "Only when the immediate interests [the "felt needs" or "self interests" of the children] are integrated into a total view [brought to a consensus, i.e., being affirmed by "the group"] and related to the final goal of the process ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority] do they become revolutionary." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness; What is Orthodox Marxism?)

"History," according to those of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., socialist-psychologists, i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., transformational Marxists is the life experience or sense experience of the child, not commands, rules, facts, and truth of the "past" being learned and applied by the child in the present, inhibiting or blocking his carnal desires (sense experiences) of the past, present, and future. "Class Consciousness" is the children, 'discovering' through dialogue, their common-ism with one another—regarding their common sense experience of desiring the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates as well as their common dissatisfaction with, resentment, hatred toward the father's/Father's authority which gets in the way, which prevents them from becoming themselves, i.e., of the world only. "Orthodox Marxism" is the children 'discovering' that life is based upon their sense experience alone, i.e., only, 'justifying' the negation of the father's/Father's authority in their thoughts and actions, removing from themselves and the world that which gets in the way of their "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, i.e., "human nature." "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 2:17

"Rule of lawfulness," i.e., "lawfulness without law," i.e., the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his natural dissatisfaction with, resentment, or hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., toward the "rule of law" directly affects you and the land you live in, i.e., the laws you live under. Karl 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." "The state arises out of the exigencies of man's nature." "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change [determined by whom?]." "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') This is the mantra of the 'liberal,' "lusting" after the pleasures of the day, 'justifying' his "self," negating anyone (including the unborn, the elderly, the righteous, and the innocent) who gets in his way.

When "law," i.e., "rule of law," i.e., the father's/Father's authority is replaced with "lawfulness," i.e., "human nature," i.e., the laws ("feelings") of the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (including his desire for affirmation) and his natural dissatisfaction, resentment, or hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., toward the "rule of law" then "law" becomes unpredictable, making everyone subject to those who interpret it according to their "feelings" (opinion) in the 'moment'—according to their and their "friends," i.e., those who affirm "human nature," i.e., "lawfulness," i.e., the child's carnal desires, i.e., the child's "felt needs" of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the laws of restraint, i.e., "rule of law." When the "feelings" of the children, i.e., "lawfulness without law," i.e., "rule of lawfulness" rules, the people are oppressed.

"Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) As always the lessons of the past get lost in the exuberance of the 'moment.' When children, through dialogue, are 'liberated' from the laws of restraint, i.e., from the "rule of law," i.e., from the father's/Father's authority the tyranny of the masses, i.e., the children of disobedience, i.e., "lawfulness without law," i.e., "rule of lawfulness," i.e., the carnal nature of the child has its way, i.e., rules the day. In the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus classroom—when the children "loosely define rules, making rules subject to their "feelings" (desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,' which produces unpredictable laws, making laws readily adaptable to 'change,' and spontaneously change rules to best suit their 'self interests,' 'the group,' and the facilitator of 'change,'"—the children of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., those advocating "rule of law" are being terrorized (emotionally attacked), preparing the next generation (no longer having a sense of guilty, i.e., a guilty conscience as they do wrong, disobey, sin) to accept, support, and work for the government of the future, i.e., "rule of lawfulness"—a government 'purposed' in negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "rule of law" from the face of the earth (by any means) so that all children can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that all children can think and act ("theory and practice") with no "fear of God" before their eyes. Those of "rule of law" mistakenly think those of "rule of lawfulness" will change their minds, i.e., will "come around" if they can only persuade them with some facts and truth, not realizing that those of the "rule of lawfulness," hating facts and truth that get in their way, i.e., in the way of their "feelings" of the 'moment,' consider them, i.e., those of "rule of law," along with their facts and truth as being irrational and therefore irrelevant to the situation, needing to be either converted or silence, or removed (negated) if they persist in their way of thinking and acting, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., preventing "rule of lawfulness," i.e., the child's carnal nature (void of the father's/Father's authority) from becoming the law of the land.

"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