The Dialectic Process.
by
Dean Gotcher
"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." " 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 3:4-5, 12
Jumping in with both feet first. Diaprax is the praxis (socialist 'justification' and practice of the dialectic process) of the "children of disobedience" (social-ists, i.e. common-ists, i.e. facilitator's of 'change') seeking to 'change' the world (and the "church") so they can 'control' the world with no Father's authority, with no Godly restraint, with no "guilty conscience," inhibiting or blocking the child's or man's "human nature," i.e. the child's or man's natural inclination to be at-one-with nature, in pleasure, in the 'moment,' "lusting" after the gratifying things of the world, with no accountability for his thoughts and actions other than the social-ist, common-ist cause of negating the Father's authority ('liberating' the children of the world from their Father's authority, i.e. 'liberating' the fleshy/carnal mind of man from a "guilty conscience," the idea being: if there is nothing wrong in being carnal, i.e. in being "normal," then there is no reason for a person to feel guilty for being carnal, i.e. for being "normal." George Hegel defined it this way: "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 [there is no judgment or condemnation upon others (for doing wrong) coming from him] and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him ["affirmative action" is responding to the Father's authority as being not only irrational in a world of 'change' but also as being irrelevant when it comes to matters of life, i.e. 'liberating' man from restraints on his carnal urges and impulses by any authority other than "human nature" itself, i.e. affirming human nature over and against the Father's authority, sensuousness ("sense experience") over and against righteousness (revealed truth).]." (G. F. W. Hegel quoted in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel) In other words individual man is not to be "negative," i.e. fighting against God, declaring belief in God as being wrong, or, trying to be like God, judging people for what they have done wrong, keeping God's way of thinking and acting in the mind of man, but instead individual man is to be "positive," i.e. treating man's carnal nature ("the imagination of his heart," i.e. thinking about how the world "ought" to be, that is, according to his flesh) as being "normal" (as being "good," as being "right" in and of itself). In this way (in the dialectic way of thinking and acting) God (and the Father) along with His commands will be perceived by man (and the child) as being "irrational" and therefore His threat of judgment will be responded to as being "irrelevant" in his thoughts and actions, i.e. with man (and child) finding "peace and affirmation" within himself, thinking and acting according to his own carnal nature only, like Sodomites, united with others of like thought and action, negating anyone who gets in his way of "guiltless" pleasures (Genesis 19:9), i.e. where we increasingly find ourselves these days—that is until the Lord returns to judge man for his wicked (dialectic, self justifying, carnal) ways.
"Human nature" as it was before the flood: "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." Genesis 6:5 "Human Nature" as it was after the flood, i.e. as it is today: "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" Genesis 8:21 "Human nature" as it will be in the last days: "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:26-30
As you will see, using statements by Hegel, Marx, and Freud to back it up (sees pg. 24), those who 'reason' dialectically (where two or more people dialogue their opinions, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think," to a "feeling" or "quality" of "oneness," called consensus, to overcome alienation, repression, and neurosis) it is not a matter whether the Father loves, feeds, clothes, and protects His children. To those of dialectic 'reasoning,' what matters the most (what is of concern and must be negated) is that the Father 1) gives commands to His children to be obeyed without questioning them or His authority (requiring faith in Him), 2) chastens those who disobey his commands, to restore them to His authority, and 3) casts out those who disrespect His authority, thereby initiating and sustaining an "old" "top-down" world order—a patriarchal paradigm of "fixity" (see pg. 19) where the One in authority preaches and teaches to those under His authority, truth to be accepted as "is," i.e. "as given," to be accepted by faith "or else," i.e. not allowing the child to be himself, i.e. to think and act according to that which he has in common with all the children of the world, i.e. according to his carnal "human nature," i.e. according to his "natural inclination" of seeking after (lusting after, becoming at-one-with) the gratifying things (the pleasures) of this world, in the 'moment' (uniting with others of like mind and action in the "common cause").
"We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations [who have a "guilty conscience" when tempted to 'change,' i.e. compromise their Father's or God's commands for the sake of "the group"] as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
It is when the institution (two or more) becomes the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life that the individual and his right of life before God alone, i.e. the child alone before his Father, is sacrificed for the sake of "the community." As written in the fifteenth century by Dietrich von Nieheim: "When the existence of the Church [or any institution] is threatened, she [it] is released from the commandments of morality. With unity as the end, the use of every means is sanctified, even cunning, treachery, violence, simony, prison, death. For all order is for the sake of the community, and the individual must be sacrificed to the common ["community"] good." (Dietrich von Nieheim, De schismate libri III ) I only use the quotation (a misquote) since it, counter to what it may appear (Nieheim was 'justifying' "cunning, treachery, violence," etc. by the "church" to maintain unity) because it makes the 'drive' and 'purpose' of unity at all cost so clear. The message by Christ to his disciples (Peter) and the world, at his arrest by the high priest of Israel, was, the "institution" of the "church" does not depend upon the sword of man, i.e. upon the arm of the flesh (the two or more), but instead upon the Word of God alone, i.e. upon Him alone. It is before the Father that the child becomes an individual, one who stands accountable for his thoughts and actions alone. Any sense of unity is that all children will someday stand before the Father alone (all individuals will standing before God alone) likewise accountable for their thoughts and actions to Him alone, thus making unity (love for one another) a byproduct (of His authority over and love for each individual) rather than unity (love for the authority of the group, the institution, the "common good") the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life itself. It is the Father's authority which tempers unity with morality, i.e. His Word restraining, blocking, and judging the child (each man) for his carnal thoughts and actions alone. Therefore no child or man is 'justified' according to how many join him in his praxis, or how many his praxis 'justifies.' Justification is not found in any man or institution but in the Father and His authority alone. The only duty of institution is to serve and protect the individual child's right (man's inalienable right) to think and act according to the Father's will, a right given to every child (and man) with no man or collection of men (institution) standing between (infringing upon). Man's "pride in institution" (collectivism) stands over and against the "fear of the Lord" (the individual before the Lord).
"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5-6
It is why, according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the Father's authority has to be negated in the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of His children if they are to become themselves again, i.e. if they, in their thoughts and actions, are to be able to initiate and sustain a "new" world order of "equality," where man's carnal nature, 'liberated' from Godly restraint, can become the "new" foundation for "morality," if they, from within themselves (united as "one"), are to engender a heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness' (adaptability to the world through the praxis of compromise) through the dialoguing of everyone's opinions, i.e. how everyone "feels" and what everyone "thinks," regarding the given situation in the given 'moment,' without fear of being judged, chastened, or cast out—unless, that is, they refuse to "willingly" participate in the 'change' process itself or they resist or fight against it, i.e. holding on to or propagating their "old" "top-down," "right-wrong," unchanging (uncompromising, non-influenceable) way of doing things, whereupon they will be chastened by the group ("focused" upon and labeled, i.e. "encouraged," i.e. pressured to "willingly" participate in the 'change' process) or, if they don't "willingly" 'change,' be cast out ("extruded") by the "group," i.e. from then on being identified by the group as being "irrational," responded to as being divisive to "community" unity, i.e. as a trouble maker, needing to be watched and reported to the authorities, i.e. neutralized, marginalized (his position on things becoming "irrelevant" in the eyes of the "community," who are now looking at life though "neo-Marxist lens"), and, if necessary, removed or negated for the "good" of the group, i.e. for the sake of the "institution" (the community), i.e. for the "good" of society.
"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." 1 Peter 4:1-5
While the Father chastens His child, because of the child's disobedience to His commands (which is "grievous for a season")—what appears, to the child, to be the removal of the Father's love from him, but is, in reality, the Father showing His love for the child ("God chastens those He love") by disapproving of the child's behavior which can harm or destroy the child not only in the present but also in the future—to block the child's deviant nature (producing clarity and certainty in the child regarding the Father's authority, as well as how the child is to think and act, i.e. according to his Father's will, i.e. the earthly father chastening us "for his own pleasure," the Heavenly Father chastening us that we might take part "in His Holiness"), the group "chastens" the child because of the child's resistance to the 'change' process—removing it's "love" from the child (removing its approval of the child's behavior, perceiving the child as a threat to its desires, to its compromise, to its "authority")—to augment deviancy, i.e. to engender "tolerance of ambiguity" (producing clarity and certainty in the child regarding the groups, i.e. "the peoples" authority, "encouraging" the child to think and act according to the will of those facilitating 'change' in society), where loyalty is no longer to the One above, i.e. to the Father, to the person above, engendering a "guilty conscience," which restrains the child's carnal nature (separating the child's Ego from his Id, making the child's will subject to his Father's will instead), but to the Many below (to the institution, to the community, to society) now perceived as being the "One," i.e. engendering the "super-ego," i.e. the voice of "the village" in the child, 'justifying,' 'liberating,' and augmenting the child's deviant nature (uniting the child's Id with his Ego—there is no Father's authority or Godly restraint in the Id, only the child's carnal "feelings" subject to, i.e. "lusting" after the gratifying objects of the 'moment'). The level of deviancy, accepted by the group, i.e. with all children accepting the persons behavior without judging or condemning it, becomes the group's societal "norm." Though all children might not participate in the most deviant person's behavior at the time, they will support him (his deviancy) to support their own act of compromise in the group experience, i.e. to sustain the groups approval and support of their own carnal desires, which are now 'justified' and therefore 'liberated' from their Father's restraint, i.e. from His authority.
It is through the use of the consensus process (the desire for the "group's approval" of one's own carnal desires, i.e. for one's own deviant behavior, now perceived as being the "norm," i.e. with "human nature" being 'justified' over and against the Father's authority through the use of the dialectic process) in the classroom or "youth group" that the children of the world can become "one," i.e. "willingly" dialoguing their opinions to a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. creating a "feeling" of "community," i.e. a "feeling" of commonality AKA collectivism AKA common-ism, AKA communism, based upon compromising ('willingly' setting aside) any condition or standard which inhibits or blocks their carnal nature and the carnal nature of others—if you don't judge the other person, i.e. if you support (tolerate) the most deviant person's behavior, i.e. which is the "new" group "norm," the group will support (associate with) you, i.e. 'justifying' to yourself, and to them, your loyalty (only this time on a global not a national scale—Global Socialists or Transformational Marxists, i.e. social-psychologist's correlate National Communists or Traditional Marxists with National Socialism or Fascism, with a one man figurehead in authority "dictating" his terms, i.e. Stalin, Castro, etc. equaled Hitler in style of leadership—note: history has shown that after the Directorate, i.e. after "Making the world safe for Democracy," there always follows a Napoleon, i.e. a dictator, i.e. a despot, i.e. an Antichrist). In the consensus process (in the Common Core, neo-Marxist classroom) all the children around the world can experience for themselves worldly peace and socialist harmony (with no nationalistic, i.e. ethnic borders dividing them, i.e. no parental authority restraining them, i.e. no right-wrong way of thinking and acting judging and condemning them for their deviant behavior), whereupon all the children of the world can "willingly" be uniting as "One," thinking and acting according to their carnal "human nature," as they were before their Father's first command and threat of chastening—there is no "top-down" Father's authority in the dialoguing of opinions, only "equality" or the potential of "equality" (consensus) with the world ("or else").
"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." Jeremiah 6:16
The dialectic process (of Hegel, Marx, and Freud fame) is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 ("self" 'justification'), negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the Father's authority), negating Romans 7:14-25 (negating the "guilty conscience" by categorizing the law of the flesh, i.e. man's carnal, sinful "human nature" as being "normal," making the law of God "irrational," and therefore man's public preaching and teaching of man's need for a savior, i.e. 'redeeming' man from God's wrath upon him for his sins, 'reconciling' him to God, i.e. producing a "guilty conscience" for acting "normal," "sin" instead). Negate the "guilty conscience" (the voice of the Father in the child for doing wrong) in the classroom and you negate the Father's authority over the child in the home. This is what your child must learn in the classroom (youth group) experience if he is to get "good" grades, a "good" job, and be approved of others (remaining as a child in an adult body being approved by and approving of other children in adult bodies) in the "new" world order, where the children control (the collective, i.e. the "masses" are controlled by their carnal lusts and pride, i.e. esteeming themselves—self-esteem is engendered through group esteem—with everyone fearing reprisal from the group, from the fraternity, i.e. from the fraternité, i.e. from the brotherhood, i.e. from the "team" or the "group," that is, if they interfere with the "teams" newly 'discovered' liberty, i.e. liberté of the flesh, i.e. liberté from the Father's authority, i.e. liberté from the "guilty conscience" which restrains the flesh, with equality, i.e. égalité from then on being established in what all have in common, i.e. their flesh, i.e. their "lusting" after the pleasures of this world, with "equality of opportunity," i.e. freedom to pursue their carnal nature, i.e. freedom from their Father's authority ruling over their thoughts and actions) instead of letting the Father rule in their lives (where the one, i.e. the Father restrains the child's lusts and pride, i.e. with the child learning self-control, self-discipline, humbling himself, denying himself, according to his Father's will, being restrained by a "guilty conscience" when he is away from his Father, when he is tempted to do wrong, whether he is alone or with the society of children—where, while he is, as an individual, in the society of children, he is not of, i.e. not at-one-with the children of society, i.e. not a socialists, i.e. not of "group think," instead remaining obedient to his Father's will, as an individual, "set apart" from the society of children, i.e. not under the control of the children of society, i.e. not under the control of those who have no "guilty conscience" in negating him, i.e. not controlled by the fear of man, fearing the Lord God, i.e. the Father instead). If 'change' is not made, not only will the child restrain his own carnal urges but the carnal urges of others around him as well, i.e. as he warns them of the consequences of their bad behavior (receiving approval or disapproval from others in doing so, causing division, alienation, and contention).
Likewise the child well carry the same system of authority he is raised up under, i.e. His Father's authority, into his own life as a parent, expecting his children to honour his authority as well. According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' without 'delivering' the children from their Father's authority, the Father's authority will continue to permeate culture, keeping things as they are, inhibiting 'change.' Since, according to Freud, all men have the desire to follow an authority figure (see pg. 16), the only authority figure that mankind will be allowed to follow will be the "One" who only allows 'change' back to "human nature," i.e. 'change' from (over and against) the Father's authority, the Antichrist, 'liberating' man from the fear of God (from the only begotten son of God, who obeyed His Heavenly Father in all things—who calls us to do the same—who Himself, through the pain of death upon the cross, shed His blood to cover our sins, taking our sins upon Himself, saving us from eternal death, that we might have eternal life with Him and His Heavenly Father forever, see pg. 25), taking the Lord's place of authority instead (the Anti-Christ, i.e. the "other" Christ that is), only in an earthly temple, made with human hands (that all men, thinking and acting according to that which they have in common, i.e. their "human nature," might fear him only, i.e. fear being left out of the pleasures of this life only, not being able to buy and sell without his authority, with all people therefore dying in their sins).
"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." Luke 12:4, 5
As you will see, our framing father's, unlike the French (Russian, Chinese, etc.) revolution, kept the Father's authority in place, limiting National, State, County, local governments so that the Father could instill, through His authority over His children, the "guilty conscience," i.e. instilling in the next generation (the future citizenry) an understanding of doing right and not wrong, under God, engendering a "civil society" (which for some reason those of dialectic 'reasoning' detest). While life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was established upon the Father's authority over His children, property, and business, the "right" of the wife over her body (to kill the unborn, to negate the next generation along with the family for her own pleasures) and the "right" of the children to question and challenge their Father's authority, negated inalienable rights (under God), turning them into "human rights" (with man starting with his carnal nature and the pursuit of "pleasure" first, rather than life, making liberty and life subject to his, i.e. the child's carnal pleasures, with all mankind thereafter becoming subject to abomination), negating the Father's authority, i.e. negating the right of sovereignty, under God, is established upon dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' and exoneration ('liberation') of the child's carnal nature. Diaprax is the method of the so called "new" world order where the will of man's wicked and deceitful heart (what all men have in common) controls his thoughts and actions instead of the will of the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (our Heavenly Father and His only begotten son, Jesus Christ, who separate the saved from the lost, the redeemed from the unrepentant, with the "fear of God," i.e. fear of His judgment upon us for doing wrong, as well as His love, i.e. recognizing His mercy and grace, engendering conviction, contrition, repentance, and salvation, letting Him direct our thoughts and actions) Diaprax, the so called "new" world order, is where "human nature," i.e. sensuousness, i.e. abomination (what children have in common with all the children on the earth, from which to build égalité, liberté, and fraternité from—why the sooner the process can come between the Father and His children the easier and quicker 'change' can become 'actualized' in them and in the world) controls not only man's thoughts but also his actions, negating righteousness (doing right and not wrong according to His Father's will). It is why we have little if any respect for authority these days, the agenda being, don't get caught and if you do get caught, lie, i.e. "It's no my fault, i.e. it's my parent's fault," "It's my upbringing's fault" ("I am not accountable for my thoughts and actions which come naturally to me so why are you bothering me?"), as Adam said "It is the woman's fault, who you gave me, therefore it is your fault," with the woman saying "It's not my fault it's that smiling lizard's fault," etc.), having a police state instead.
Even by regionalizing (as in generalizing), having the local policeman (whose conscience is tied to his local upbringing, i.e. knowing right from wrong according to his home upbringing, accepted by the county) partnership (dialogue opinions to a consensus) with the police on a grander scale, i.e. on a regional, state, national, and international platform, the policeman can be 'changed,' his loyalty to the county 'changed' to loyalty to the regional, state, national, and international fraternité, transcending county lines, from then on no longer serving and protecting the local citizen but rather serving and protecting the process of 'change,' i.e. serving and protecting the 'common-unity' (the socialist agenda) from the local citizen. The local citizen (the individual) must now become suspect of inhibiting or blocking the 'change' process (risking the policeman his job if he does not consider him a potential risk, i.e. thereby forcing him to gather all the data he can on him for future reference, just in case) until proven innocent. This applies to all branches of government as well as business, the workplace, education, and even the "church," defending abomination from the citizens instead of the citizens from it. As Abraham Maslow stated it: "Self-actualizing people [people 'liberated' from their Father's authority] have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens [globalists], members of the human species [abominationists] first and foremost." (Abraham H. Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature)
"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
Disrespect for authority and a police state (self 'justification' and totalitarianism) go hand in hand. The famous tennis court oath (consensus) by the French directorate, made up of Rousseauian lawyers ('justifying' themselves above the law, with "human nature" becoming the law), that anyone betraying the brotherhood (recognizing the Father's authority) would face the guillotine (which came later, most victims innocent of their "crimes against 'the state'"), is being played out today with any whistleblower exposing our governments overreach of power, with it surveillance of its citizens, facing the wrath of those in power. The message is clear, anyone having a "guilty conscience," exposing the agenda of 'change,' i.e. betraying a total commitment (consensus) to the cause of totalitarianism will encounter a total commitment of revenge. As the Pharaoh killed babies and Herod two year olds (taking the lives of the innocent to protect their position of power), so leaders have done down through the ages, continuing to do so today, used all at their disposal, i.e. "whatever it takes," to retain their position of power, using the office of authority (given by God), but as a tyrant (negating Godly restraint) for their own personal gain. The problem is not with the office of authority, as those of dialectic 'reasoning' believe. It is with the heart of man. Man's heart is wicked and deceitful, wanting to control the world without Godly restraint, not only deceiving himself, i.e. perceiving his hearts carnal desires as being "good," but also those who trust in him, thinking he has their best interest in mind, i.e. serving and protecting their hearts desires from the Father's authority as well.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:9, 5
If you don't understand this distinction, the conflict or tension, i.e. the antithesis between the Father's authority over his children and the child's natural inclination to be at-one-with nature ('driven' by and 'purposed' in becoming at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment,' i.e. 'changing' the environment, removing any restraint, so that he can initiate and sustain his carnal desires, controlling the environment for his own carnal gain), you can not understand what the so called "new" world order is all about, i.e. negating the "old" world order, i.e. negating the Father's authority over His children in the thought and actions of all the children around the world, with "the children of disobedience" (the facilitators of 'change') initiating and sustaining a so called "new" world of children (including those in adult bodies) with no "guilty conscience" (with no sense of accountability) for their carnal desires, i.e. for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions except to propagate the same in all the children of the world. Synthesis (consensus of man with his nature, which is common to all men around the world, i.e. the desire to "belong," i.e. "longing to be," i.e. seeking identity, not in the Father, who restrains his carnal nature but with the world which exonerates it), the goal of dialectic ''reasoning,' is man and nature (sensuousness and 'reasoning') becoming as one, negating the Father's authority (thesis) in the process by making the child's nature the thesis instead, i.e. thereby making the Father's authority the antithesis (the source of tension and division), with synthesis being the child, united with all the children of the world, being restored to their own carnal nature, i.e. the children of the world becoming at-one-with that which the Father's inhibited or blocked, all that is of the world only, i.e. what George Hegel called "lawfulness without law," i.e. the law of the flesh becoming, through dialectic 'reasoning,' 'liberated' from, i.e. no longer restrained by the laws of the Father, i.e. the "negation of negation," where the Father's "negativity" against the flesh of the child, his "Can not," "Thou shalt not," "It is written ..." being negated by making the child's 'reasoning' (self-'justification') and his flesh one and the same in thought and action, with "theory and practice" becoming united as one (with opinion, his "feelings" and "thoughts" through consensus, becoming one in socialist action—in praxis—negating the Father's authority, not only in the individual but in society, i.e. in the "community" as well). Communitization, democratization, conscietization negates the sovereignty of the individual citizen, under God, i.e. negates the righteousness of the individual child, under the Father's authority, making the citizen and the child subject to a society of children (in adult bodies), in consensus (in synthesis), with no "guilty conscience" for their deceitful and wicked deeds (praxis).
As Karl Marx wrote: "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it [become more in line with the child's carnal nature as he progressively liberates himself, through dialectic 'reasoning,', through self-social 'justification,' i.e. identifying himself in others and others in him, all seeking 'liberty' from their Father's authority]; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) This is why "liberals," i.e. those of the Democratic party (and many if not most in the Republican party) perceive themselves as being above the established laws (not accountable to the laws which hold man or child accountable to anyone or anything who/which inhibits or blocks their carnality desires, i.e. restraining "human nature"), i.e. holding them accountable to the standards (morals, i.e. laws of right and wrong) of the "past." Kurt Lewin, who will be covered later, knew that (through the dialoguing of a persons opinion, i.e. how a person "feels" or what he "thinks" regarding a particular situation of restraint, i.e. of a crisis or barrier), by finding where a man or child deceives himself, i.e. is deceivable, i.e. where he gives an appearance that he is in compliance with his Father's authority while he is thinking in the realm of 'change' (innovation, rebellion, revolution, "development," etc.), i.e. his imagination (the imagination of his heart; Genesis 6:5, 8:22, Jeremiah 13:10, Luke 17:26-30) taking him where he is desiring but not supposed to be (the person, i.e. the P with a circle around it in the chart, thinking of the desired pleasure, i.e. the G, for goal, in the chart, but not able to overcome the fears or "dangers," i.e. barriers to getting there, i.e. fear of failure, the Father's authority to chasten the child, judgment by God, i.e. fear of 'change,' etc.), yet (while still in the state of reflection in the mind, dialoguing with self, where no one else can see, i.e. evaluating, in rebellion against the Father's will, i.e. evaluating from the flesh rather than from the Father's commands regarding what is right) with no sense of guilt, i.e. finding relationship with pleasure outside of, i.e. transcending the restraining laws of his Father's authority, with little or no sense of wrong to the person (as Lewin's chart showed), the man or child can be seduced, deceived, and manipulated ("un-frozen," "moved," and "re-frozen") into 'change' (the facilitator of 'change,' through the use of force field analysis, i.e. positive forces being those for 'change,' i.e. 'liberating/for the flesh, negative forces being those 'resisting' or inhibiting 'change,' i.e. restraining/against the flesh, can help guide, couch, etc.) the person by allowing him to reveal his fears in a "safe" (non-hostile, non-parental, non-judgmental, role-playing) environment, and convincing him that his fears (the negative forces) are not real or that they are irrational and can be overcome (with the aid of the "group," i.e. the fraternité), allowing him to attain his desires, i.e. his "ought's" of life (along with others in the group, some further along in the process of 'change,' i.e. who themselves have been seduced, deceived, and manipulated, gaining pleasure in "helping" him along, i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating him)—as the woman in the garden in Eden was seduced with her natural desire to "touch" the "fruit" of the tree, deceived into believing that she would not be held accountable for doing so, and manipulated, i.e. materialized, 'justifying' to herself that her carnal nature, i.e. how she felt and what she thought in the 'moment,' was the "ground of being" from which to determine right from wrong, rejecting God's authority (negating the Father's authority) in her thoughts and actions, becoming as God herself, evaluating what is right from her flesh instead of from God's Word, i.e. from His commands, from then on becoming righteous in and of herself, choosing the tree over and against the garden, the temporal world over and against paradise, love of carnal pleasures over and against the Father's love, death over and against eternal life.
Kurt Lewin knew that by going beyond this area of internal compromise (of self-reflection, i.e. self-deception or the person's internal reflection-evaluation of the world according to his carnal desires), i.e. going to fast, the person would feel forced to do that which they did not want to do or did not think was right at that time (with the facilitator of 'change,' instead of overcoming the Father's authority in the person, retaining or restoring it in them instead, with himself becoming the Father figure, i.e. to be obeyed without questioning His authority when it goes against or restrains the persons carnal nature, i.e. becomes a barrier to his worldly desires) or the "guilty conscience" (fear of God) would kick in (with the person then refusing to participate) resulting in the opportunity for 'change' being lost. A person's "prejudice," i.e. his resistance to 'change' (his Father's position of right and wrong within himself) could not be properly understood and negated ('changed') without first gaining access to his internal desires for 'change,' i.e. his desire to relate with the gratifying things of the world, i.e. his "here-and-now" carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. identifying his internal desires which conflict with his external behavior (his Father's authority, his "guilty conscience" which resists 'change' affecting his thoughts and actions, gratification being in his Father's approval rather than in the approval of men, i.e. in the one instead of in the many, i.e. in society, i.e. in that which he has in common with all men). This zone of compromise within all of us (man's "belief-action dichotomy," saying "we believe" while we do not naturally act accordingly; Romans 7:14-25), what Lewin sought to "unfreeze," is the "self" part of us, where I talk to my "self" and you talk to your "self," with "self" always in agreement with the flesh, i.e. in harmony with our "human nature," "lusting" after the gratifying things in the environment around us, seeking to unite us with the world in pleasure in the 'moment.' Then, by the facilitator of 'change' "helping" the child 'discover' the source of the barriers to his internal desires, the barriers to 'change,' i.e. his Father's authority which forces him to restrain his "self" (Hebrews 12:5-11), i.e. the fear of judgment for this thoughts and actions, i.e. the source of "prejudice"—where right and wrong is established outside of his participation in the decision making process, i.e. where the outcome is not subject to his "self," i.e. not in consensus with his will), he could be assisted in overcoming (negating) the barriers to his carnal desires, i.e. overcoming his resistance to 'change,' i.e. overcoming his "prejudice," i.e. overcoming his fears, i.e. overcoming (negating) his Father's authority in his thoughts and actions, becoming him-"self" again, without a "guilty conscience." Being no longer subject to his Father's authority he is now subject only to the process of 'change,' i.e. subject only to his carnal nature and the carnal world around him, with facts (his cognitive domain) and his feelings (his affective domain), through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6), re-united as one in socialist action (praxis, i.e. his psycho-motor domain, i.e. his carnal thoughts and carnal actions in harmony, i.e. united as one—becoming as God, righteous in and of his-"self"). Believers are not "self"-righteous, though accused of being so when they preach and teach the Word of God in the world—knowing that only God is righteous in and of Himself, i.e. righteousness can only be imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him and His Heavenly Father, therefore man having to humbly himself and deny himself, dying to himself daily. It is those who are "proud in heart," i.e. 'righteous' in and of them-"selves," i.e. "humanists," .e. evaluating (reflecting) upon life from their carnal nature, i.e. those revolting against the Father's authority, placing them "selves" over and against His will, as "children of disobedience," who are "self"-righteous.
While under the Father's authority, the child's affective domain (his self life, i.e. his desire to follow after his urges and impulses) is kept subject to the cognitive domain (his Father's authority, His rules and commands which restrain the child's carnal, "self" desires), even during the child's development to adulthood. With the development of the "adolescent society," where children were separated from their Father's authority during the time of puberty on (in the classroom, in the "youth group"), the Father's authority, i.e. his morals and values were replaced with the child's urges and impulse, along with those of like interests and age (dialoguing their opinions of what is right and what is wrong, amongst them-"selves," to a consensus, 'liberating' them-"selves," their carnal urges and impulses from their Father's authority), making it increasingly difficult for the Father to retain His authority in the home. Works like "Fathers and Children" by Ivan Turgenev and "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoevsky, favorite readings for Marxists, portray this dialectic battle between the Father's authority and His children's urges and impulse in novel form. According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' history is man, progressively 'changing' within his realm of acceptability, of self-'justification,' i.e. within his zone of compromise, 'liberating' himself (along with that which is of the world) from the Fathers' authority ('liberating' the world from God's authority, i.e. from Godly restraint by rewriting history, removing the remnants of the "past" which might restore the Father's dominance, i.e. the Father's authority over the present and the future, by history being man making himself in his own carnal image or rather the children making themselves in their own carnal image only). By taking "ownership" of that which is not his to take, his Father's authority, he loses ownership of that which is his (his "guilty conscience," his most sacred property which makes him an individual, under God), with the facilitator of 'change' taking ownership of it and him (along with his inheritance) instead.
A darkness has come over America as never before because the affective domain, the imagination of the child's heart ("Pandora's Box," pg. 91 Bloom's Affective Domain book, in Freud's terminology, the child's "Id"), everyone "thinking through their feelings," has taken over the land, with the blind following the blind, i.e. the facilitators of 'change' 'liberating' the nation of any truth that proceeds from the Father, 'liberating' the carnal thoughts and actions of the children from Godly restraint. "Freud saw that in the id there is no negation [no Father's authority], only affirmation and eternity [the child's carnal urges and impulses]. The instinctual reality is Dionysian drunkenness 'We can come nearer to the id with images, and call it a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement.'" "In the id there is nothing corresponding to the idea of time. A healthy human being, in whom ego and id were unified, would not live in time [would have no perception of accountability for their thoughts and actions "down the road"]." "Only the abolition of guilt [abolition of the Father's authority] can abolish time [with man from then on living "in the moment," subject only to the whims of time, i.e. seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable, i.e. subject only to facilitators of 'change']." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [i.e. the child's carnal nature (his Id) subject to (restrained by) the Father's authority]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) By 'liberating' the "child within," the child's Id (his carnal urge-impulse of "lust" for the things of the world and hate towards anyone who or anything which restraints it—his love of pleasure, i.e. incest and hate of restraint, i.e. patricide) is 'liberated' from the Father's voice of restraint, i.e. the "guilty conscience" is negated in dialogue, with the citizens from then on needing a police state, government control over its citizens (cameras everywhere, i.e. government surveillance) to maintain a semblance of order. What we have in America today are father's who are children "lusting" after pleasure (children in adult bodies who don't know how to be and/or don't want to be fathers, i.e. 40 year olds who are still playing with toys, i.e. chasing after gratifying things of the world which stimulate dopamine emancipation, lying to themselves and others to support their carnal pleasures) and children who have no fathers. "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [the Greek word for "deeds" is praxis, i.e. the child's natural or carnal thoughts and actions united as one]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him [through Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, obedient to His Heavenly Father's will, denying the will of the flesh]." Colossians 3:9, 10 Diaprax (the so called "new" world order) is the dialectic project which was begun in the garden in Eden, i.e. what I call Satan's Genesis project, 'liberating' man from God, i.e. the children from their Father's authority (starting with "touch," leading to "eating"), ending with the Antichrist, a Fatherless Christ, propagating man's carnal nature only, i.e. initiating and sustaining abomination ("tolerance of ambiguity") around the world as the only way of "life," engendering God's wrath upon the nations and "the children of disobedience," i.e. Armageddon and judgment by fire.
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' know that by destroying the authority of the Father in the thoughts and actions of His children, i.e. that by 'liberating' the child's (and adults) "child within," in a "safe" environment, they can destroy the "guilty conscience," the fear of judgment for doing wrong, i.e. for disobeying the Father's will, in the thoughts and actions of the children, thereby turning the children against their Father (and, in the same way, turning the wife against her husband, the workers against their boss, the citizens against limited-representative government, i.e. under God), negating that which initiates and sustains the Father's authority in society, i.e. negating the "guilty conscience," i.e. the voice of the Father, which prevents 'change,' replacing it (searing it) with the super-ego, i.e. "the voice of the village," turning the children's thoughts and actions to that which all the children in the village have in common, i.e. their carnal "human nature," making it the standard from which to determine right from wrong (according to the given situation—Common Core is making this praxis universal, i.e. not only in this nation—50 million children goose-stepping the dialectic process—but around the world, in the thoughts and actions of the next generation of citizens, in the training ground of the classroom). By exonerating immorality, unrighteousness, and abomination ("human nature" only) you destroy the sovereignty of the nation(s), you destroy western civilization (which is built upon the honoring of a husbands authority over his wife and the father's authority over his children, under God).
"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." Proverbs 14:34 If we look at this verse as a way of thinking and acting, as a paradigm, with righteousness being respect for authority (all authority is of God, Romans 13-) and sin being disrespect for authority, then respect for and obedience toward authority, under God, "exalteth a nation" but disrespect for and disobedience against authority "is a reproach to any" culture or civilization, with God turning those who disrespect authority (under Him) over to their own demise, i.e. bringing His judgment and wrath upon them. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness [who interpret His Word, which is truth, through, i.e. according to their carnal minds, i.e. according to the opinions of men];" Romans 1:17, 18 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that man is 'justified' in his carnal nature, that he will not be held accountable for this carnal thoughts and carnal actions]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness ['justifying' and having pleasure in "human nature" only]." 2 Thessalonians 3:3-12 "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof [making others subject to the authority of their carnal desires, refusing to be subject to any authority other than their carnal nature, i.e. their carnal thoughts and carnal actions, 'justifying themselves, i.e. making "human nature" the authority over man ("first cause") over and against the authority of God]: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:1-4
"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them." Colossians 3:5-7
"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:" Ephesians 2:2
"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
"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 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven," Matthew 23:9 More scriptures (pgs. 25-).
What 'change' is all about: The dialectic process, the consensus process, is the anti-gospel message (anti-Son obedient to His Father in all things) and anti-gospel method (anti-preaching and teaching of truth to be accepted "as given," by faith) of the spirit of Antichrist, a user-friendly, non-offensive "Christ" of sight, of environmentalism, instead of obeying the Lord God, 'redeeming' man from God's wrath upon him for his sins, he instead 'redeems' man from the Lord God, i.e. 'redeems' man from the Father's authority, saving "human nature," i.e. the flesh and the world from the Father and His authority (in this life), with "sense experience," i.e. human nature and human reasoning united as one, i.e. with gnosis (cosmic based awareness, i.e. consensus) becoming the only way of "knowing" the "truth," 'reconciling' man to the world only (the Father being the Lord God, with the earthly father reflecting His same system of authority, 1) giving commands to his children to be obeyed without question, 2) chastening those who disobey, to restore them to Him, 3) casting out those who disrespect his authority). As George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud, united as "one" in dialectic 'reason,' i.e. in consensus, in negating the Father's authority, so we have become today, not only in thought but also in practice. (see pg. 24)
As in any scientific project, for there to be 'change,' you have to "observe and define" what it is that you want to 'change' from as well want to 'change' to. So to, in socialist engineering, you must do the same. The common agreed upon conclusion, for global socialism to become a reality, is: since the Father's commands and threat of chastening for disobedience, and His casting out of those who disrespect his authority, which engenders the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, does not come naturally from the child's nature, i.e. is not natural, the Father's authority (and therefore God), in the thoughts and actions of the individual, must be identified and negated. The dialectic idea being, instead of God creating the Father's authority, the Father ruling over the child's thoughts and actions, the Father's authority created God in the thoughts and actions of the child. Only by getting rid of the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children (where the Father initiates and sustains his "top-down," "old" world order in his children, creating them in his image), only by taking the child as he is and creating a "new" world order in his image, according to his carnal nature, can you get rid of the fear of God (religion) in the future society, can you create a "new" world order of "equality," where the children rule collectively as "one," without the fear of God, i.e. without a "guilty conscience" for their carnal thoughts and actions. Only by beginning with the child's opinions, i.e. his "feelings" and his "thoughts," justifying his carnal (natural) actions, i.e. 'liberating' his urges and impulses from the fear he has of his Father's restraints, can the child 'discover' his true nature, can he, with the aid of the facilitator of 'change,' become himself again, as he was before his Father's first command and threat of chastening.
The Transformational Marxist, Theodor Adorno, defined the traditional family condition this way: "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Authoritarian submission [the child submitting his will to his father's will, man submitting his will to God'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." "Superstition [belief in God] indicates a tendency to shift responsibility from within the individual onto outside forces beyond one's control . . . the ego has 'given up,' renounced the idea that it might determine the individual's fate by overcoming external forces [by destroying the Father's authority the child (society) is thus 'liberated' from "prejudice"]." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed [National Socialism] that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "It is a well-known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle-class phenomenon [doing your best as unto the Lord], that it is ‘in the culture' and, hence, that those who conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced." "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 ["The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: (1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, (2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, (3) inhibition of spontaneity, and (4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values."] also seemed of importance for our problem [the negation of fascism, i.e. the negation of nationalism, i.e. the negation of the Father's authority, the source of nationalism, i.e. "potential fascism," "prejudice"]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) All certified teachers are trained in using Adorno's ideology in the classroom, most without knowing it. ("Bloom's Taxonomies" are established upon Adorno's Weltanschauung, i.e. his world view or paradigm—sited on pg.166 of the second Taxonomy, i.e. the Affective Domain)
"This voice which really isn't you but tells you the way the world works is a direct attack on creativity. We have to work to remove it." (Michael Ray in Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to [to let the Father or the Lord God] destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will [the child submitting his will to the will of the Father, i.e. man submitting his will to the will of the Lord God]." "One reason Tillich is unwilling to openly disavow religion is that he must be accepted as a theologian in order to formulate and gain acceptance of an imaginative Grand Synthesis of theology and philosophy." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)
Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' not believing in God (yet saying they do to deceive the innocent or naive, to stay in a position of influence over them)—other than mankind is God, with "human nature," i.e. the approaching and augmentation of pleasure and the avoiding and attenuation of pain, being the foundation upon which to determine right from wrong, i.e. with mankind progressing from tradition, i.e. God is God, the children honoring the Father's authority, doing right and not wrong, as determined by the Father, engendering the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, through transition, i.e. individual man is as God, disobeying the Father, yet doing so with a "guilty conscience," to transformation, i.e. mankind in consensus is God, i.e. righteous in and of himself, i.e. with not "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, since the Father's authority is negated, of no worth or value in his thoughts and actions, 'irrational' therefore 'irrelevant' in the thoughts and actions of the children, i.e. that nationalism is 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant' in the thoughts and actions of "the people"—set out to 'change' the structure of the family (to 'change' the world), purging it of it's "top-down" Father's authority (negate the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. provoking patricide to 'liberate' incest, i.e. sensuous "oneness," consensus; "Freud noted that … patricide [the child striking out at or kicking at the parent for taking away what he wants, i.e. what is "his"] and incest [the urge or impulse of wanting union, i.e. "oneness" with a gratifying object of pleasure in the environment, i.e. in the world, in the 'moment,' i.e. in the "here-and-now"]… are part of man's deepest nature." Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)—defining the Father's authority as the engenderer of "prejudice" (as Hegel noted, the engenderer of gender, i.e. "top-down" authority of the husband/father, pg. 24). The dialectic ideology is: negate the Father's authority (by making the child's "sense experience," his own life experience, i.e. sensation, i.e. his own opinion, i.e. his "feels" and his "thoughts" the bases for knowing "truth"—focusing only upon what every child has in common, i.e. "human nature," seeking pleasure, being "positive"), and "prejudice" ("negativity," the Father's commands, doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will, which divides the children of the world along religious, ethnic, economic, etc. differences—preventing them from becoming as "one") is negated. Opinion, how we feel and what we think at the given 'moment' is subject to 'change,' subject to the given 'situation,' whereas position, which we receive from someone else, is not. We are all being taxonomised, i.e. classified, our worth or value being determined along this continuum (this spectrum) from traditional ("fixity" or a patriarchal paradigm), through transitional ('changeable' or a matriarchal paradigm), to transformation ('changingness' or a heresiarchal paradigm) way of thinking and acting, in this "new" world order (color coded with traditional being red, i.e. high risk, transitional, being yellow, i.e. moderate risk, and transformational being green, i.e. low or of no risk, regarding the person's thoughts and actions vis-à-vis the process of 'change'—by throwing you into a crisis and seeing how you respond, i.e. which paradigm you use or revert to, your color, i.e. your worth or value, will be exposed), with "the children of disobedience," i.e. facilitators of 'change' (the Department of Human Resource) in control, negating the Father's authority, i.e. the "guilty conscience," faith in God, in the thoughts and actions of the children (the families, the workplaces, the classrooms, the governments, the "churches," "the people") around the world. It is what the "new" world order, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning', i.e. 'change' is all about. Carl Rogers explained dialectic 'reasoning' this way:
"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." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
Social-psychology (psychology and sociology, i.e. Transformational Marxism which merges Marx with Freud and Freud with Marx) is built upon the same foundation of "enlightened" thought (experiential, "sense experience," dialectic 'reasoning'): "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason [man using human reasoning to 'justify' "himself" ('justifying' his carnal "human nature") in his own eyes] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself [his carnal nature and 'reasoning'], needing neither revelation [the Lord God, by His Word telling man how he is to think and act, i.e. by faith, correlated with the Father's authority] nor that authority of the church [the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. the only begotten Son of God, through the believer telling man how he is to think and act, i.e. by faith in His Word, correlated with the children of obedience to the Father's authority] in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) When 'change' (human 'reasoning' 'justifying' "human nature") becomes the way of a nation, abomination becomes king. The overall goal is to determine the predictability of a person's (the "masses," "the group's") support for 'change,' i.e. for tyranny, i.e. for abomination, in the midst of 'change,' i.e. in the midst of tyranny, i.e. in the midst of abomination, so that tyranny, 'change,' i.e. abomination can become the only way of life (without the people, out of fear, turning back to a "top-down" system, this time, having been freed from their Father's authority, not back to their Father's authority but to a socialist Father figure, i.e. to a Hitler). So that man, controlling his life and the world according to his fallen nature only, without the Lord God engendering a "guilty conscience," restraining the children, the fathers, the neighborhoods, the cities, the counties (the parishes), the states, the nations, and the world, can become the only way of life.
Culture (ethnicity) can only be 'changed' by 'changing' the way people think and act, i..e. by the way they communicate between one another and behave toward one another. Only by negating "the people" thinking and acting according to "the will of the Father," i.e. according to the will of God (not that the earthly father is God but that his structure of authority is of God, i.e. "top-down," i.e. requiring the children to live by faith, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' by the spirit, i.e. that which is not of the "sense experience" of the child in the 'moment'—parent's are not perfect, but the office they serve in is perfect, given to them by God, establishing the "top-down" order of God, the so called "old" world order in the thoughts and actions of the next generation of citizens), to where they will instead think and act through their "feelings" in the 'moment, i.e. living by sight, i.e. according to their own "sense experiences," i.e. only according to the will of the flesh (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain instead of right-wrong, i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain being the only 'drive' and 'purpose' of life), i.e. living "life" only according to the will of "the people," i.e. only according to the will of "the children of disobedience," i.e. being lead by the facilitators of 'change' (who manipulate the environment, i.e. man's "sense perception," in order to seduce and deceive "the people" into participating in their desired outcome, 'changing' their paradigm from the Patriarchal Paradigm of the Father, i.e. from "It is written" and "Because I said so," i.e. from the Word of God—"But he answered and said, 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— to the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change', i.e. to the way of thinking and acting of "the children of disobedience," i.e. to the "I feel" and "I think" of 'change,' revolution, development, as in "sustainable development," i.e. to the opinions of men) can the world (culture) be 'changed,' i.e. 'liberated' from Godly restraint. "The philosophers [the children] have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) It is not a passive 'change,' but will, as Abraham Maslow stated it: "cost much blood." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
What needs to be 'changed' if 'change' is to be made: By 'changing' the environment (the condition or procedure) in which policy is being established (from the home, the classroom, etc., to the highest offices in the land) from the preaching and teaching of truth and facts to be accepted "as given" (where you persuade people with facts, holding them accountable to established commands, i.e. "do this or else," in the home, private business, private land, or the assembly of believers, where the Father, the boss or landowner, the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ require obedience, chastening those who disobey, and casting out those who disrespect authority, i.e. where in representative government, whether you win or loose, Robert's Rules of Order and majority vote is used, leaving you with your truth and facts, i.e. your traditional paradigm, limiting government as much as is possible to deal only with those issues which are essential to the service and preservation of each and all individual families, landowners, businessmen, etc. without usurping their inalienable rights, i.e. the rights given to men by God—with the home, business and land being directed by the father, boss or landowner, with his authority establishing right conduct and engendering a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, and with the "church" being directed by the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, basing its direction upon confirmation with the Word of God, with conviction, contrition, and repentance for doing wrong, i.e. for disobedience, with everyone "thinking about and doing what is right 'and not wrong,' as established by a higher authority than themselves or 'the group'"—this is key to an understanding of dialectic 'reasoning' in that desiring "not to do wrong" keeps the person subject to the authority that established what was "not to be done," i.e. the source of "Thou shalt not," whereupon, Hegel, in opposition to Godly restraint, wrote: "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 [don't fight against God, keeping him in the mind, just treat man's carnal nature as being "normal" and God will become perceived as being irrational and therefor irrelevant]." G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener; source: Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel; with "affirmation" being of the flesh, i.e. with man's "lust" being 'justified' through his reasoning ability, thus leading all participants) to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus where there is no absolute, "as given" right or wrong (where people are seduced, deceived, and manipulated through their "feelings"—why facilitators bring "feelings," "human nature," i.e. the desire for "the approval of men," engendering in everyone "thinking through their feelings and thinking about the feelings of others to determine what is right and wrong," i.e. with "wrong" being that which is "negative," of God or the Father restraining and judging the flesh, i.e. judging man's or the child's carnal desires, preventing 'change,' and "right" being of the flesh, i.e. being "positive") into the room to initiate and sustain 'change,' establishing 'changing' rights, i.e. "human rights," i.e. "rights" established upon the carnal nature of man, upon "human nature" only), a persons paradigm is 'changed' from a "top-down" to an "equality" way of thinking and acting, from capitalism to socialism, from representative government to common-ism (common-ism and the "new" world order being as "new" as the garden experience: "God's tree" was everyone's tree since "God's tree" was like all the other trees with the only difference being if man could eat of "God's tree," he would become the same as God—the only difference being that man is subject, by nature, to his flesh and God is spirit—having access to all the tree's, negating "Mine, Not yours," i.e. private property, sovereignty, "top-down," right-wrong thinking and acting), from facts, truth, and belief to theories and opinions, from "intolerance of deviancy" to "tolerance of deviancy," from righteousness to sensuousness, from worship of the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ to the worship of man, his works, and the world, i.e. to abomination. Abomination can no procreate (at least in the moral way) it can only proselytize, making "lust" and pride (the dialectic 'justification of "lust," i.e. "Everyone is doing it," "It's just 'human nature,'" "It if feels good, just do it") the totality of life.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways to acknowledge him and he will direct your paths." Proverbs 3:5, 6
Whoever we let control the environment, whoever we let lead us, controls the outcome, i.e. how we think and act. It is ultimately all about choice (not as the world gives 'choice'), i.e. either you let the Lord God rule over your life, "directing your steps," which is life, or "the lust of your flesh, the lust of your eyes" and "the pride of your life" is in control of your life, which is death. Seeing the former in nature, i.e. man's desire for direction, those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. facilitators of 'change,' reject the truth, 'justifying' their sinful nature, i.e. loving a lie, instead seek to negate the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of all mankind. "Freud referred to the group's 'need to be governed by unrestricted force . . . it's extreme passion for authority . . . it's thirst for obedience.'" "Among the strongest of these is man's need for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnicaring parent, which together with his infinite capacity for self-deception creates a yearning for and a belief in a superbeing." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Rejecting the soul, seeking authority and order, they can only 'reason' through the flesh, hating restraint. They can only do that which does not come naturally. In their own words, regarding the role of a facilitator of 'change': "Neither of these modes of collaboration, between persons and groups with different interests in change and between 'theorists' and 'practitioners', comes 'naturally' to people." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Without an outside source, without the "gadfly," i.e. the facilitator of 'change,' without Satan in the garden, 'change' would not naturally take place, the "guilty conscience," i.e. the fear of judgment, the recognition of and desire for a "higher authority" than "human nature" would keep authority, under God, i.e. the antithesis condition, i.e. the Father-child "top-down" order in place.
Satan hides behind our heart's desires. Only when we give them to the Lord is he exposed: Satan, the master facilitator of 'change,' hides behind our heart's desires, i.e. our flesh's desires, influencing and controlling us through the environment (even in the environment of our imagination of how the world "'ought' to be"), which holds the perceived potential of fulfilling them, and our 'reasoning' abilities along with our strength to attain them, i.e. through self-justification and action. As long as he keeps us focusing upon our heart's desires he can seduce, deceive, and manipulate us, (capture our attention through our feelings, lie to us without us seeing it, and use us for his end desires, i.e. moving us away from faith in the Lord) alluring and keeping us under his influence and control (even doing so in the "name of the church," to deceive the innocent or naive). Our "ought's," as in "We ought to have more people in the 'church.'" (the basis of "Church Growth") is based upon our heart's desires, i.e. is of our carnal desires, i.e. is 'driven' by the works of the flesh, 'purposed' in 'justifying' our vain glory (praise of the works of men), and is not of the Lord. The Pastor is to "preach and teach" the Word of God, i.e. "feed the flock," with the Lord giving the increase. Only a wolf in sheepskin would say "ought," making the "church" dependent upon polls, surveys, and feasibility studies (according to sight), moving it away from the Word of God to the opinions of men, building it upon the "sense experiences" of man and "human reasoning" (Gnosticism) instead upon sound doctrine (according to faith), as the Word of God instructs.
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 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. Do not err, my beloved brethren. 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 1:13-17
Only when you give your heart's desires, i.e. only when we give all that we have and desire to have, to the Lord (as a wife to her husband, "thy desire shall be to thy husband" Genesis 3:16) is Satan exposed. Only in Christ Jesus are we freed from the world's and "the prince of the power of the air's" control. Only in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ is there liberty from our flesh (which is temporary, desiring the things of the world only) and liberty for our soul (which is eternal, finding satisfaction only in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ). While the Lord Jesus Christ changes our heart (our heart's desire), thereby changing the world (the environment) by our changed behavior (including our preaching and teaching of the truth, i.e. what God says, to be accepted as is, by faith), and gives us eternal life, the master facilitator of 'change' changes the world (the environment) by our behavior (by our dialoguing of opinions, i.e. how we "feel" and what we "think") so that we can live according to our heart's desire, leaving us dead in our sins. Starting with the premise that man is "good," is basically "good," or has the potential of becoming "good," providing he is exposed to or raised up, i.e. educated in the "right" environment, i.e. leaves his heart as it is, with "the prince of the power of the air" controlling him and the world, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating him for his own end, i.e. 'liberating' him from the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, keeping him for himself.
King David showed us a better way, the only way: "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 hast 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." Psalms 73: 25-28
"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)
How 'change' is done: "Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child [as well as the adult] 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 [with the leader either teaching and preaching truth, to be learned and applied 'as given,' or facilitating 'change' through the dialoguing of opinions, where "truth" becomes subject to the situation, i.e. 'changeable']." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) The same is true for adults, only with more effort. While the traditional leader directs the course of action, the facilitator of 'change' manipulates the environment to engender his desired outcome. With use of group dynamics (our desire for "the approval of men"), through the assistance of the facilitator of 'change,' not only can the adults in a group be 'changed,' but all of society can be 'changed' as well. Lewin noted that the Father is able to keep the child subject to his will by means of an environment of commands to be accepted as given and the use of force or threat of force ("a field of force") to enforce them ("It is written" and "Because I said so") which engenders a "guilty conscience" for disobedience or thought of it, which Lewin called "a negative valance." Therefore, only by negating ('changing') the environment which engendered the "negative valance," could the child be freed from the Father's control over his thoughts and actions. While the Father used force (or threat of force) to inhibit or block a child's desire to attain a "forbidden object," Lewin knew that by removing the threat of punishment (the Father's authority) from the environment (replacing the preaching and teaching of truth with the dialoguing of opinions), the child could be freed of the "negative valance," i.e. 'liberated' from the "guilty conscience," and therefore 'liberated' to attain the desired object, i.e. the "forbidden object," i.e. freed to be himself again (no longer "made in the image" of his Father, perpetuating His "top-down" way of thinking and acting upon society).
"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: Selected Papers)
Only by making sin (man's disobedience to God, i.e. the child's disobedience to his father, i.e. doing wrong and not right according to God's or the parent's standards) no longer the issue in the home (or the "church"), can sin (and therefore righteousness) no longer be the issue in society. If the parent's no longer use the method of preaching and teaching truth, facts, and commands to be accepted "as given," to be obeyed by their children but instead use the method of dialoguing opinions, seeking to find common ground with their children and between their children, then the issue of sin and the "guilty conscience" (and righteousness) in both the parents and their children is negated. Society is thereafter no longer affected by the children, i.e. the next generation, carrying their father's standards into society, engendering either a "guilty conscience" in others (for their disobedience) or alienating themselves from others (who refuse to repent), preventing 'change.' Marx wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism [questioning authority, i.e. dialoguing opinions] 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, "human nature," i.e. the child's sinful nature, i.e. the child expressing how he "feels" and what he "thinks" (engendered by his urges and impulses of the 'moment,' his here-and-now desires) challenging his Father's commands and authority, must become accepted in the home environment if society is to be 'changed,' i.e. become freed of Godly restraint, condemnation, and the "guilty conscience" (and righteousness), become freed from anything which and anyone who inhibits 'change,' i.e. obstructs socialist harmony and worldly peace (death and destruction). Christ, who came to obey his Father in all things, calls us to follow Him, doing the same: "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 facilitator of 'change' must become the Christ of 'change,' 'liberating' man from the Father's authority, i.e. negating the gospel message by making it another gospel, based upon "human nature." According to dialectic 'reasoning,' because man (the child) can think outside his Father's authority (reflecting upon his own feelings and thoughts which are in step with the "current times" which are counter to or different than his Father's commands) 'reality' resides in the world which transcends the Father's authority, i.e. 'reality' resides in the child's nature, i.e. his desire to become at-one-with the world of 'change,' freed of the Father's authority of "fixity."
"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity [according to the right-wrong way of thinking and acting of the Father, i.e. the individual thinking and acting to receive "the approval of God" or his Father and therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the child, through obedience to his parents, initiating and sustaining the Patriarchal Paradigm of absolutes, of "fixity"], though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process [according to the 'changeability' of man's "feelings" and "thoughts" which are subject to "shifting" situations, i.e. the individual thinking and acting to receive "the approval of the group" or of "society" and therefore his ability to initiate and sustain a Heresiarchal Paradigm of "changingness"]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) It is along this spectrum of 'change' that a person progressively moves (transforms himself) from the paradigm of "fixity" to the paradigm of "changingness," becoming at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment.'
"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Heraclitus) "What truly is always true is that all is in flux, the truth-seeker ought properly to address himself to the study of this life process of truth seeking itself [the pleasures of the flesh, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. "lust" seeking to know itself in, with, and through the world, freeing itself from the Father's restraint, not only in the person's thoughts but also in his actions]." (G. W. F. Hegel) "The objective sought [uniting upon "feelings," negating righteousness, negating the Father's authority, right-wrong thinking and acting which restrains 'change'] will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen [from his desire for 'change' which overstep his Father's commands]." "An outright enforcement of the new set of values and beliefs is simply the introduction of a new god ["fixity"] who has to fight with the old god, now regarded as a devil." (Kurt Lewin and Paul Grabbe, "Conduct, Knowledge, and Acceptance of New Values" The Journal of Social Issues)
Kurt Lewin knew that by bringing everyone's heart's desire (being free to express their opinions, i.e. how the "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' i.e. free to express their desires for 'change') into the policy making environment, the rules (the rigidity or "fixity") of the "past," i.e. the way rules of conduct were established (initiated and sustained) in the past could be made subject to 'change' in the present and the future, with the participants themselves (how they feel, think, and behave) being 'changed' as well, i.e. through their 'willful' participation in the process. "Much stress is laid on the creation of an atmosphere of freedom and spontaneity—voluntary attendance, informality of meetings, freedom of expression in voicing grievances, emotional security, and avoidance of pressure." "A feeling of complete freedom and a heightened group identification are frequently more important at a particular stage of re-education [brainwashing, washing from the brain the Father's authority] than learning not to break specific rules." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group [where the desire for approval by others is heightened, i.e. "group-dynamics"] than to change any one of them separately." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "Change in organization [from the Father's "top-down" rule of authority to the children's paradigm of "equality" through dialogue] can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior [making the Father's authority ("barrier behavior") subject to the child's feelings ("play behavior"), giving the child's "rule of 'feelings'" authority over and against the Father's "rule of 'law'"]. To be governed by two strong goals [to establish rules of conduct and have affirmation (a "feeling" of approval) by everyone in the room] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [negating the Father's "top-down" authority]. (Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI, Kurt Lewin, Frustration and Regression, Kurt Lewin) By changing communication in the room from the Father's "It is written" and "Because I said so" ("negative") to the children dialoguing their opinions, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" ("positive") regarding an issue, to a common agreement, the Father's authority ("negativity") is negated. This is called, in dialectic circles, "the negation of negation" where the children, freed of fatherly (Godly) restraint, rule according to their carnal desires, i.e. "human nature," thus negating the "guilty conscience," i.e. negating the "negative" and engendering the "positive," i.e. the flesh uninhibited, i.e. abomination.
The four steps to 'liberation,' from (washing the brain of) the Patriarchal Paradigm (and its effects) which are experienced in a facilitated meeting, is: 1) "In the first phase various members of the group quickly attempt to establish their customary places in the leadership hierarchy [attempt to retain or restore an above-below, right-wrong, Patriarchal Paradigm]." The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to prevent such action from having affect, i.e. taking over the group. 2) "Next comes a period of frustration and conflict brought about by the leader's steadfast rejection of the concept of peck order [preventing a top-down, above-below, good-evil, hierarchy from "taking over" the meeting] and the authoritarian atmosphere [preventing the room from experiencing God, parent, or some higher authority as being in control, directing and judging human action, resulting in the room becoming confused, destabilized, the natural result of being detached from an above-below way of thinking] in which the concept of peck order is rooted [to the humanist, it is not God who is the problem, it is the people who maintain an environment, a system which recognizes and supports a top down way of thinking, putting God at the top. To the humanist, if you get rid of the system, you get rid of God, i.e. man becomes God as he discovers that he is a god amongst gods, dialectically negating the God above him, judging him, condemning him, as he can becomes as-one-with God; God is "becoming" by discovering himself as being man at one with himself, i.e. man discovering himself as being at-one-with God, i.e. himself and society]." 3) "The third phase sees the development of cohesiveness among the members of the group [everyone is discovering their one-ness with others in their approach pleasure-avoid pain, tolerance of human nature, developing a tolerance of ambiguity paradigm, and their contempt for the top-down, righteousness-unrighteousness, holy-wickedness, spirit-flesh, judging/chastening/condemning paradigm], accompanied by a certain amount of complacency and smugness [an unstable stage which requires skills in facilitation to keep it from falling apart into an uncontrollable anarchy, making the meeting subject to the patriarchal paradigm retaking control to regain order—now perceived as Fascism in that it is "group" oriented]." 4) "In the fourth phase the members retain the group-centeredness and sensitivities which characterized the third phase, but they develop also a sense of purpose and urgency which makes the group potentially an effective social instrument [the consensus plan is to divide the individuals from their Patriarchal roots and unite them within the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' thereby taking captive (conquering) the individual, the family, the village, the nation, and the world]." (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Diaprax prevents stage 1 (a right-wrong, good-evil, righteousness-wickedness, above-below Patriarchal paradigm) from taking over the meeting and inhibiting or blocking stages 3 and 4 from coming into praxis (stage one, if it succeeds in gaining or retaining control, prevents common-ism from being put into praxis). "…the therapist is the living personification of all parental images, Group therapists [the facilitator, as Satan in the Garden came between the woman and God, coming between God and man, the parent and the children, the citizen and their representative] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. [It is] essential … that the group feel free to confront the therapist [confront or question the parent, confront or question God, confront or question authority, as the therapist puts himself in the parent's or God's place and allows all participants to confront and question authority through the action of role-playing, programming them to confront God's or parental authority], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
The Father's participation in such a situation, as explained by the Marxist György Lukács "would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the children's viewpoint, according to their "feelings"] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the Father's position of authority, according to doing right and not wrong as established by a "higher authority" than the child's "feelings" of the 'moment']. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness) Not only is the Father's authority being negated in this "new" world order (in this new way of establishing policy), so is the "guilty conscience" (the voice of the Father in the child), the Father being replaced with the "village" and the "guilty conscience" with the "super-ego" (the voice of "the village," i.e. the voice of "the people")—the rule of "law" now becoming: "don't get caught," or at least be able to 'justify' your unlawful behavior as benefiting "the village," i.e. society, i.e. your "unlawful" behavior either augmenting or not inhibit or block the socialist agenda of the day, with the lawless one's, i.e. the "children of disobedience" exonerating you, protecting you from punishment. Just note that, while with the Father there is hope of mercy and grace, with "the group" there is no hope of mercy and grace—since repentance by the individual is replaced with socialist 'justification,' which must sacrifice the individual (his soul under God) to the socialist cause at all times.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' by starting with the Father and His authority (righteousness) you start with "anxiety," i.e. with the "guilty conscience" for disobedience to the Father's will, preventing 'change.' Only by starting with the child (with sensuousness, i.e. with how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the given 'moment,' i.e. in the "here-and-now" situation) in a "non-hostile" (a non-Father) environment, an environment "tolerant of ambiguity, of diversity, of deviancy," can you overcome the condition which engenders anxiety, negating the condition which engenders "the guilty conscience" which prevents 'change.' Key to understanding the difference between the "guilty conscience" and the super-ego is that the conscience can only have one position (command) while the super-ego must have two or more differing positions (opinions) regarding how to respond to the current situation. A person can only have a position which has been given to him by a "higher authority," his opinion being his only true "position," i.e. proceeding from him" self." There is more than one of me. There is not only me and you in this world there is also my "self" and your "self." While I can talk to you and you can talk to me, only I can talk to my "self" and only you can talk to your "self." I can not talk to your "self" and you can not talk to my "self." Self is always in agreement with pleasure, i.e. all that is of the world. That is why we talk to ourselves (reflect) when we do not "want" or desire to do that which we are told.
Self is always in agreement with our heart's desires. By dialoguing with our "self" we can 'justify' that the Father's position (the one) is wrong and that we (I and my "self," i.e. the collective) are right. This is reflected in our "ought," as in "I 'ought' to be able to go out" (me talking to my "self") when our Father told us we could not, against our desires, i.e. against our "want"—dopamine. The sequence of language goes like this: "You can not go out." (the Father's command being preached to us) "Why?" (our effort to get our Father into dialogue, i.e. there is no Father's "top-down" authority in dialogue, only the "equality" of opinions) with His response being: "Because I said so." (His restoring or affirming of His position of authority over us, i.e. "I cause to be," i.e. "I am the creator and you are the created"—the wording reflecting the threat of force and position of authority if we proceed any further on the subject, i.e. challenging His authority to establish the conditions for right and wrong behavior based upon our "feelings" and "thoughts"). We then dialogue with ourselves, to escape the humbling and denying of ourselves to the Father's authority, i.e. the same represented in the secular practice of self control and self discipline. If we don't, the Father (or traditional teacher) will discipline us, humble us (to encourage us to disciple ourselves). A child from a broken home, with two father's will often work between the two (or between the parents) to get their way, while, when they become a believer, they come to know that there is only one Father, restoring their conscience. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven," Matthew 23:9 As a side note: Marxists, countering the Catholic Church with its Pope, i.e. the "Father," in error perceive Martin Luther (and the Protestant Revolution) as delivering the children, i.e. the church from the "Father," i.e. from the Pope, furthering their agenda of 'change,' when in truth he reattached the believer to their Heavenly Father.
"The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
So in secret, while in our sins, we say to our self "I ought to be able to .... (do what I want to do)." Here lies the dynamo for dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. for 'change,' philosophy simply being us thinking about (reflecting upon) how the world "ought" to be, because we don't like the way it "is," restraining our hearts desire, our carnal nature. When our "ought" comes out in an environment where the Father then appears, via the "guilty conscience," the fear of judgment, i.e. anxiety rules the day, preventing 'change.' Abraham Maslow wrote: "We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) Therefore it is essential that all participants in the 'change' process be given the same freedom to share their "ought's," i.e. to freely share their opinion on how they "feel" and what they "think" the world should be like, without fear of accountability to a "higher authority" than "human nature" itself, i.e. "human nature" being that which all participants can 'discover' and built "oneness" upon, i.e. their common feeling of resentment toward authority which tells them what they can or can not do, or inhibiting or blocking them from attaining their hearts desires. Two or more opinions, united as one in consensus, negates the "guilty conscience," i.e. negates the "voice of the Father," negates the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the child, the super-ego, i.e. the child's heart desires (united as "one" with others of like desires, i.e. the "voice of the village" thereafter purging of the Father's voice from culture, i.e. from "the group," from "the village") leading all participants into the way of the "new" world order.
"Thinking through the process it is dialectically faulty to start with the negative, with anxiety [with the Father, i.e. with God, with what the Father or God wants, expects, or demands]." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive)
Not understanding the work of the Lord in the heart of man, those of dialectic 'reasoning,' can not comprehend a person having peace "apart from the world," with the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ ruling over them. "Be careful [anxious] for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:6, 7 "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 6:6, 7 "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." John 14:27
God describes the futility of man's efforts to create a world of peace: "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked." "The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace." Isaiah 48:22; 59:8
"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
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. Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them. 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
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. according to "human reasoning" being used to 'justify "human nature," the only means to worldly peace and socialist harmony is through the negation of the Father's authority over His family. It is the only pathway which the world has to offer fallen man to free himself from Godly restraint.
Max Horkheimer wrote: "The family is one of these social forms which ... cannot be changed without change in the total social framework." (Max Horkheimer, Kritische Theori) "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
Warren Bennis wrote: "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―One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." "Any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequence of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt―but it would be difficult to reverse the process one begun." "Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
Theodor Adorno wrote: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: (1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, (2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, (3) inhibition of spontaneity, and (4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "An attitude of complete submissiveness toward 'supernatural forces' and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of 'many important things' strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form." "Authoritarian submission 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." "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." "A tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
Benjamin Bloom wrote: "A psychological classification system." "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." ("In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." Karl Marx) (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain) "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 and getting them to discuss issues." "The major impact of the new program is to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box." "a Weltanschauung1" "1 Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950" (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, etc. Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2 Affective Domain)
Karl Marx: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family, the former must be destroyed [annihilated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)
Sigmund Freud: "'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." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)
George Hegel: "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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
The political ramifications: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis ["top-down" authority] 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 [if you reject God's "top-down" authority, you reject the husband ruling over his home well, his wife submitting her desires to her husband, and the children obeying their parents in the Lord]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) As J. L. Moreno stated it in his book Who Shall Survive?: "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality." Rousseau put it this way: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) vs. "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." 1 Corinthians 10:26 Since, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the "earth ... and the fulness thereof" belongs to "no one," your family, your property, your business, and your very own life belongs to everyone, i.e. to society. With public-private partnership swallowing up the private, making it and you, your family, your property, your business, and your very own life subject only to the public, the master facilitator of 'change', i.e. the Antichrist, i.e. Satan, controls the world.
"Freud and Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality." "The individual is emancipated ['liberated from the Father's authority] in the social group [his lose of love (approval) by the Father is replaced with love (approval) by society]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
The spiritual ramifications: "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book [Life Against Death] cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader." (Source: the March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz, an article written by Mike Connor. Connor writes "But Brown believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin―namely, that alienation would be overcome, and the return of the repressed completed, rendering problems of sin permanently moot.")
Erick Fromm wrote: "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent—the symbol of wisdom and rebellion—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You Shall Be As Gods)
Herbert Marcuse wrote: "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
The gospel message is Jesus Christ 'redeeming' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience against Him and His authority, 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father only. It is Jesus saying "I want you to know my Father. I want you to know His love for you." "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
Jesus practiced what He preached, doing His Father's will even unto death: "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: 49, 50 "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." Hebrews 10:7 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself [as a child under His Father's authority], and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:8 "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Matthew 26:42 "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Matthew 26:39
And has called us to do the same: "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." "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Matthew 7:21, 10:32, 12:50, 6:9-13 "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." John 8: 24; 15: 9-10
The gospel is not about pleasing man (the flesh) but about pleasing the Father (Spirit), i.e. doing the Father's will, through Christ. "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:9-12
Jesus came not to bring peace but to divide, i.e. to divided the spirit from the flesh, the saved from the lost, i.e. to divide the father from the son (temporal, of the flesh) by making His Heavenly Father (eternal, Spirit) the only Father for both to serve under. The only way out of dialectic 'reasoning' and back to the Father is through Jesus Christ, "the only begotten Son of 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." John 3:16-18 "No servant 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." Luke 16:13
Apart from the Father and the Son, i.e. "the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ" (and the Holy Spirit who bears witness to both), all that man has is himself, i.e. his flesh, i.e. the imagination of his heart, and the world (man is deceived in believing that he can have both, i.e. "lust" of the flesh and righteousness with God—abomination, the way of man, and righteousness, the way of God, are anathema to one another, man either serving the one or the other. One step on the dialectic road {the broad path} and you are in it. It is not how far down the road you have gone {how perverse you have become}. It is the road that you are on. It is why you must be "born again," i.e. of the spirit and water, i.e. dead to the flesh and alive in Christ, enduring, i.e. loving not this life, to the end). "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 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. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-18 "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:1-5
The dialectic process is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, of man 'justifying' himself according to his carnal nature, negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. negating obedience to His Heavenly Father, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e. negating his "guilty conscience" for disobedience, 'justifying' his flesh, his sin, doing abominable things. When we evaluate ourselves and the world through our "human nature," i.e. according to the "feelings" and "thoughts" men (according to the opinions of men) in the 'moment,' "thinking through our feelings" instead of according to the Word of God, all we have is ourselves, the world, and eternal death, i.e. doing "whatever it takes" to "better" ourselves, the community, and the world, with no "guilty conscience," with no fear of God—"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." Proverbs 9:10; "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." Psalms 111:10.
"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:22-24
"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." 1 Peter 4:1-5
Charts used in meetings. Dopamine is the great "equalizer" of the world, drawing all men to the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment.' The dialectic process (public-private partnership) is the pattern used in Total Quality Management (in the Workplace, audio by Steve Goss), Total Quality Leadership (in the Navy), Community Oriented Policing (COPS in the police force, audio by Phillip Worts), Goals 2000/Outcome Based Education/No Child Left Behind-"All Children are At Risk"/Education Nation/Common Core, all based upon the use of Bloom's Taxonomies in the classroom (in Education), School-to-Work (in government; it is all about making a worldly workforce, "human resource" for the "children of disobedience" to "guide"), "Church Growth," "Emergent Church," etc. (in the "Church," audio by Dr. Robert Klenck, his video is on YouTube or can be ordered here), etc., delivering ('liberating,' 'emancipating') souls from the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and eternal life, "saving" them for judgment with the world, and eternal death. It is the same process used by the supreme court to 'justify' abortion (just as the Fascist defined the Jews as not being human beings) and abomination (treating God's right-wrong, good-evil, above-below, spirit-flesh, heaven-hell, saved-lost, sheep-goats, duality way of thinking and acting as "prejudice"—dividing man from man).
Since immorality and sin (unrighteousness) is now perceived as being "normal," those advocating morality and righteous are labeled as being hateful and prejudiced, i.e. fearful of "normality," narrow minded, bigoted, intolerant of ambiguity, resisters of 'change,' psychotic, anti-social, i.e. abominating abomination. As Abraham Maslow wrote in his Journals "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm [abomination—"Psychoanalysis is the mother, sociology the father, of sex-economy." "The child's and adolescent's natural love of life must be protected [from the Father's authority] by clearly defined laws [protecting their carnal nature]." "Those forces in the individual and in the society that are natural and vial [carnal] must be clearly separated from all the obstacles that operate against the spontaneous functioning of this natural vitality." "It is the elimination of all obstacles to freedom that has to be achieved." "Natural sociability and morality ["human nature"] are present in men and women. What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing [the Father's authority] which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being." "Sexually awakened women [". . . the right of the woman to her own body."], affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology." "The termination of pregnancy is at variance with the meaning of the family, whose task it precisely the education of the coming generation – apart from the fact that the termination of pregnancy would mean the final destruction of the large family." "The preservation of the already existing large families is a matter of social feeling; . . the large family is preserved because national morality and national culture find their strongest support in it." (Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism)]." "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." and in Maslow on Management "In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company [and church] that helps to improve the whole society [supporting abomination], and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." "The goals of democratic education can be nothing else but development toward psychological health." so that all social activity must now be dedicated to the negating of righteousness, labeling those who fear God as being fearful ("hateful") of abomination, i.e. as "homophobes" (falsely so called, the true "homophobe" being the lawmakers, governors, presidents, judges, etc., fearful of what the homosexuals will do to them, i.e. fearful "a worse thing will happen" to them if they don't support their cause {Genesis 19:9}, i.e. sexual pleasure with no accountability, i.e. no pro-creation—with abortion being the most vile form of sodomy), extremists (fundamentalists), potential terrorists, etc. needing to be watched, prevented from having any position of influence, being neutralized, marginalized, and removed when they (and their children) can not be converted, i.e. seduced, deceived, and manipulated into tolerance and support of, if not 'willful' participation in, the "brotherhood," with any criticism of or resistance against abomination being perceived and responded to as a "hate crime." Love of the "flesh," i.e. of "human nature" engenders "hate" of the Father and His authority in the thoughts and actions of "the children of disobedience," i.e. the facilitators of 'change.' Because the Father's chastening of His children, restraining, inhibiting, and blocking their carnal thoughts and actions, alienating them from their own nature, i.e. that which they have in common with all the children of the world (from which we get the concept of common-ism AKA communism), "the children of disobedience" can only perceive and respond to the Father's authority as being a system of "hate."
"Alienation is the experience of 'estrangement' (Verfremdung) from others," "Alienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation." "Alienation will continue so long as the subject [the child or man] engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity [makes himself, his flesh subject to his Father's will or to God's will]." (Stephen Erik Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists).
"Alienation" (division between people) is the result of information or ways of thinking and acting which come between people, causing confrontation ("negativity"). Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the "attitude" of absolutes, resulting from faith or fear of judgment for disobedience, has to be 'changed' if people are to overcome the condition which engenders "the guilty conscience," i.e. social division. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' faith in God or the Father, i.e. honoring and respecting their office of authority must be negated in the thoughts and actions of "the people" if "alienation" is to be overcome.
In a dialectic world all are guilty until they are proven innocent, i.e. until they are "freed" of a "guilty conscience" ('liberated' from "judgmentalism", from prejudice), i.e. reeducated in the right way of thinking and acting, their brain washed of the Patriarchal Paradigm (Godly restraint). In a dialectic world, in the "new" world order where the "children of disobedience" control the "environment," the citizen, his family, his property, his business, his money (which he has or will inherit), and his very own life belongs to the "children of disobedience" and their cause (this includes volunteering his time and efforts to the advancement of worldly causes, i.e. for the 'purpose' of augmenting socialist harmony and worldly peace, i.e. initiating and sustaining immorality and abomination around the world, seeking for and following after educators, ministers, and leaders who initiate and sustain an environment "after their own lusts," negating the Father's authority and righteousness from the face of the earth). "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 They will turn their ears from the truth of God's Word, turning instead unto the opinions of men.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:36-38
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2013-2015