The Shell Game. by Dean Gotcher

The Shell Game.

by
Dean Gotcher

Through the use of three shells and a BB you can be conned out of your money. The objective is to roll the BB around on the table with the shells, allowing you to see which shell the BB is aiming towards just before the con artist (as far as you can see) sets it on top of the BB. Your mind will come to the conclusion that the BB is under the last shell you saw it aiming towards. But (after much practice) the con artist has learned to grasp the BB between his fingers and place it under another shell. You, already having made up your mind which shell the BB was aiming towards, did not see him place it (skillfully and quickly) under the other shell.

The same procedure is being used in meetings which are setting policy or making decisions for you, your family, your neighborhood, your county, state, and nation. By 'changing' how policy is being made in the meeting, away from the use of Roberts Rules of order (with an honest chairman at the helm), i.e. where you are given enough time to instruct (preach to or teach) the audience or committee on your position regarding the issue, i.e. what the real problem is and the right way solve it, along with why the other persons way of solving it is "wrong," to where you are asked, along with everyone else, to share your opinion, i.e. how you are "feeling" and what you "thinking" in the 'moment,' regarding the problem, with not "negative" putdowns, i.e. "You are wrong" type of statements, the "participants" of the meeting are 'changed.'

The answers are in the questions. If you are asked what you "know," you give your position, i.e., your facts and truth. They might be wrong facts and truth but they are your position on the issue. While you might call someone else's position wrong, and someone else might call your position wrong, persuasion (with facts and truth) becomes the driving force of the 'meeting. But if your are asked to share your opinion regarding the issue, you only give how you are "feeling" and what you are "thinking" in the 'moment,' with the approval of "the group," i.e., not calling anyone wrong, influencing your response.

There is no lasting position, i.e. property rights, business rights, parents rights, etc. in an opinion, i.e. everyone in the room becomes "equal" in an a room full of opinions, where "wrong" is replaced with "tolerance." By negating right and wrong (your position), replacing it with the "feelings" and "thoughts" of everyone in the room, i.e., with what everyone in the room (or group) is "feeling" and "thinking" the right solution might be for the 'moment,' coming to a conclusion, i.e., to a consensus on the feelings and thoughts which are common and therefore agreeable to all, not only is the way policy is being made, but the way people relate with one another is being 'change.' While you might think that the meeting is about solving a problem or crisis, such as potholes in the streets or a new water system, having a facilitator of 'change' (the shell game expert) orchestrate the meeting, the meeting is really about "fixing" you, i.e. 'changing' your way of "feeling," "thinking," and "acting," and "relating" with others, toward authority, and the world around you, i.e., with no longer "judging" others for being "wrong" but letting their "right," i.e., their opinion (which is wrong) have as much right as your right. Being silent in the midst unrighteousness, i.e., not reproving, correcting, or rebuking wrong, makes wrong, i.e., unrighteousness and abomination the norm.

Through the consensus process (getting everyone's opinion on how to solve the problem at hand, in a way that everyone can 'freely' participate and "feel good" about being involved in the decision making process) the traditional way of "doing business" (doing the job right and not wrong, according to your, or someone else's prior learned knowledge on the issue or subject) is negated. You have been conned our of your right, it now made "equal" with wrong, negating it. You might discern that something is wrong, but policy has been made, like the "National Health Care Package" (a directorate, i.e., soviet, politburo form of government, i.e., government by committee), where, if you want to get what they need (what is right), you are forced into supporting wrong (abomination).

Where the people were once sovereign, having a limited, representative form of government (guaranteeing local control, so that they could preach and teach their commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), retaining a "guilty conscience" in the child, the family, the neighborhood, the county, the state, and the nation for doing "wrong"), everyone is now being made subject to everyone else's opinion, including the parent's the children's, pressured into listening to and giving in to the "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' being forced to support and participate in a "common-ist" form of government, a government dedicated to 'liberating' man's carnal nature, 'justifying' his deceitful and wicked heart ('liberated from Godly restraint), engendering a culture of unrighteousness, desecration, and abomination.

Just know this: the next time your town council, school board, county, state, and national representatives, church leadership, or children in the classroom (even in the "youth group") have a consensus meeting, where they are 'liberated' to freely share their carnal desires and resentment toward restraint with "group approval" (for the common good), you are being been conned out of your inalienable, private rights, negating limited, representative government, replacing it with unlimited government pushing unrighteousness and abomination down your throat, forcing you to supporting it with your tax dollars, donations, money, and time (against your will). It is not how far down the dialectic road of 'change' you have walked (the consensus process), it is that you are on it. One step on it (like stepping in a pig pen), you stink, i.e., you lose your rights to the con artist with his "shell game" of 'change.'

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transforming public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)