"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5, 6

The Telltale Sign.
(Audio: 39 min. Computer generated voice.)


Dean Gotcher
(Personal note.)

"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 2:16

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

"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

When it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior the telltale sign that Marxism, that is that which is only "of the world" is being promoted is when dialogue is used instead of discussion, making the child's carnal nature, that is the flesh and the world that stimulates it the bases from which to establish behavior instead of being told, that is instead of doing the Father's will. Dialogue is associated with that which "the Lord God formed" from "the dust of the ground," that is the flesh, which is "of the world." Discussion on the other hand is associated with that which "the living God," breathing "the breath of life into the nostrils" of, created in His image a "living soul." Discussion and dialogue are not the same. "I feel" and "I think" are not the same as "I KNOW." "Sense experience" (sight) is different than being told (faith). The soul KNOWS by being told, based upon what the Father says. The flesh knows by "sense experience," based upon stimulus-response, that which is only "of the world."

There is no Father's authority in dialogue. In dialogue 'reasoning' is made subject to "sense experience," to man's lust for pleasure and dissatisfaction with, resentment, or hatred toward restraint, 'justifying' his questioning, challenging, denying, disregarding, attacking the Father and His authority for getting in the way, resulting in only that which is "of the world" becoming the outcome. The Father's authority, on the other hand is made manifest in discussion, where reasoning is made subject to what the Father says, with doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is doing the Father's will, that is doing what you are told being the outcome.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9

"No man 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." Matthew 6:24

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3

Discussion and dialogue are two opposing political systems. Which one is used, or a person turns to when it comes to behavior (or reasoning) determines his or her paradigm, that is his way of feeling, thinking, and acting toward his self, others, the world, and authority. In discussion, God is God. In dialogue, you are God. When it comes to the issue of behavior when discussion, the Father's authority is replaced with dialogue, the child's carnal "feelings" a paradigm 'change' has taken place. For example, Karl Marx basing his ideology on Heraclitus, who stated: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." therefore Marxism is based upon dialogue, man's lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, that is hatred toward the Father's authority. This, 'change,' which is falsely called a 'shift' is taking place everywhere you turn these days, even in the 'church,' where "It is written" (faith) is being replaced with "I feel" and "I think" (human 'reasoning,' that is the 'wisdom' of men).

Bohm and Peat, in Science, Order, and Creativity wrote: "In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change."

Discussion divides upon being or doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is KNOWING from being told, which is formal, judgmental with the Father, that is the author retaining his authority, that is having the final say. "Because I said so," "Nevertheless," "It is written."

Bohm and Peat wrote: "A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "The spirit of dialogue, is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning."

Dialogue, on the other hand unites upon "feelings," that is upon "I feel" and-or "I think," which is an opinion, which is informal, non-judgmental (except toward those who insist upon discussion), with the child, retaining his carnal nature having the final say (against absolutes, against the Father's authority). There is no Father's authority in dialogue, or in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is only the child's natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating being 'justified.' Dialogue moves opinions to a consensus, negating the Father's authority in the outcome, negating the guilty conscience, that is the fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out for disobeying the Father in the process. When it comes to behavior, replacing discussion (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is doing what you have been told) with dialogue (approaching pleasure, that is approaching that which stimulates dopamine emancipation and avoiding pain, which includes the mental pain that comes with missing out on pleasure, that is the mental pain that comes with missing out on dopamine emancipation, which everyone has experienced, that is common to mankind), the Father's authority, that is doing what you are told is negated in the outcome. The Father turns to discussion, that is to His established commands, rules, facts, and truth when it comes to behavior. The child to dialogue, that is to his own sense perception, that is to his opinion.

Ervin Laszlo, in A Strategy For The Future: The Systems Approach to World Order wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making our objective center's 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." In the consensus process, where right and wrong are based upon common "feelings," or lust the Father's authority is negated, that is voided in the outcome. Focusing upon that which is "positive," that which everyone has in common, that which unites (that creates a "feeling" of "oneness"), that which is "negative," that is that which causes division is negated, called "the negation of negation."

After the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus meeting the participant (be it your child, your educator, your fellow worker or boss, your sheriff, your legislator, your mayor, your town councilman, your judge, your minister, your spouse, etc.,) will move conversation to dialogue when it comes to commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of what he or she wants or is lusting after (coveting), that is that get in the way of his or her self-interest. "Building relationship upon self-interest" is the hallmark of Marxism. For example, when your school board members are taken off to a week-end conference they will come back with a lobotomy. You cannot talk to them anymore. They will insist upon you carrying on dialogue with them instead of discussion when it comes to commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of what they want, that is when they get in the way of "the group's," "the people's" needs" (their common "felt needs").

When it comes to behavior, when dialogue (how you "feel" and what you "think") is used instead of discussion (what the Father says aka "Because I said so," "It is written") you are in the process of 'change.' Established commands, rules, facts, and truth are now subjective, that is subject to 'change.' In discussion God is God, He has the final say. In dialogue you are God, you have the final say. When the woman took dialogue to the "forbidden" tree she usurped the authority of God, making herself God instead. This is known as the dialectic process, the way of 'reasoning' that now permeates the world. Bring it into the fellowship and the assembly becomes apostate. It is a sublet 'change' with major ramifications.

A simple way of explaining the difference between discussion and dialogue is how we choose what to eat at lunch. The foods you like correlate with dialogue (you are as a god, choosing right and wrong behavior, that is what you like and what you do not like). But if you have been told there are certain foods that are bad for you (that you like), now you have to discuss with your self (and with others, if you choose) which foods you can eat and which ones you cannot or should not. If you go to dialogue, you will go ahead and eat what you like (what you want). If you go to discussion, you will more than likely not (having been told it is bad for you). Which one wins out (discussion or dialogue) determines what you will eat for lunch that day—dialogue for pleasure (that the world or environment is stimulating) or discussion in order to do right and not wrong (according to what you have been told).

Carl Rogers, in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy wrote: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?" During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" He wrote: "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." "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity." Parental authority correlates to discussion. The child's carnal desires to dialogue.

Wilfred Bion, in his book A Memoir of the Future explained the agenda is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space."

"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

". . . seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

"I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Romans 7:7

György Lukács wrote: "... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

When you leave the Father, that is what the Father might say, that is discussion out of your conversation with yourself and others, insisting upon dialogue instead, your carnal "needs," that is your lusts are in control of your thoughts, directly effecting your actions. When you are more concerned about your or other's social life instead of where you or they will spend eternity, you are a socialist. You can deny it, but you cannot refute it. Compromise ("suspending" Christ upon the cross) for the sake of relationship is now what is on your mind, directly effecting your actions.

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33

"He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22

In dialogue there is no Son. There is no Father. There is only you 'justifying' yourself, your self-interests, your lusts before men.

"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 16:15

"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure, that is lust is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating anyone preventing, that is inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it lusts after, hating anyone threatening to take or taking it away]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 The unregenerate (carnal) heart (the Karl Marx in you) cannot see its hatred toward the Father's authority as being evil, that is "wicked," that is "desperately wicked" because its lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. (Mark 7:21-23)

Karl Marx, in The Holy Family described the praxis of dialogue (the human heart, that is his heart): "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism [that is dialogue, that which is subject to man's carnal heart or desires] 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." In Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx wrote: "Criticism is now simply a means [that is the method being used]. Indignation is its essential pathos [that is what moves it along], denunciation its principal task [that is its objective, its desired or intended outcome]. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis [that is on to social action]." "The critique of religion [that is hatred toward the father's authority] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being [that is man being called a sinner, thus being judged, condemned, cast out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions]." In that same article Marx wrote the following, "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, that is, of faith, of true love, that is of love of God, of true will-power, that is of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." He found that by generalization, in has case using fruit trees as an example he was able to focus attention upon what they had in common overcoming their difference. Applied to man that commonality is found in the sensation of pleasure, as Karl Marx put it "It is not sensuality which is presented ..., but the attraction of what is forbidden." It was in lust, known as the "affective domain" that Karl Marx found the commonality of 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." James 1:14, 15

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3 (Read James chapters 4 and 5 for the total picture.)

The Marxist's solution to war, to the division between men is to make lust, that is man's "self-interest," that is the "eternal present" the basis for communication, especially when it comes to behavior, thus the focus upon dialogue instead of discussion when it comes to behavior. This requires removing from the environment those who adhere to the Father's authority, that is the negation of those who judge, condemn, and cast men out for their lusting after pleasure instead of doing the Father's will. To overcome resistance, that is the Father's authority what man lusts after must be identified and focused upon. In this way man becomes subject to, that is "human resource" to those who take "ownership" of them through their lust for pleasure, called facilitators of 'change.'

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." 2 Peter 2:3

The facilitator of 'change,' perceiving his self as being the personification of "the people," who, like him lust after the carnal pleasures of the moment the world stimulates, hating restraint, sees it as his duty to 'justify' "the people's" natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to 'justify' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure. When you question the facilitator of 'change's' actions he will respond with "It is not just about you," really meaning "It is all about me, so I can lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, that is my lusts or get in my way 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since having 'justified' their lusts I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for my 'good.'" This is the true meaning of "sight-based management."

Karl Marx, in Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual."

In otherwards only that which has meaning to you, that brings you pleasure, that stimulates dopamine emancipation in you has value. This includes the affirmation or praises of men.

It is in the "building of relationship upon self interest," that is upon what men have in common, that is lust, "What can I get out of this situation and-or object, people, or person for my self" that society is 'created.'

In his Thesis on Feuerbach #6 Karl Marx stated, "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations."

As recorded in John Lewis's book, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities."

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas, one of the youngest and probably smartest of the "Frankfurt School" members in his book Knowledge and Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory wrote (regarding the effect dialogue has upon a group setting): "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence."

In otherwards it is in compromise, that is the setting aside ("suspending") of commands, rules, facts, and truth that divide people from one another that a person is able to initiate and sustain relationship with others.

The Communist dictator Mao Zedong stated that "Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people."

The Marxist Max Horkheimer, who was for a time director of the Institute of Social Research ("The Frankfurt School") in his book Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung; that is Reasoning and Self Preservation wrote: "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." It is the effect of Protestantism, that is individualism, under God (that is the priesthood of all believers) that the Marxist is most dedicated in negating in order to 'create' a world of his own making, void of Godly restraint. Regarding behavior, replace discussion, what the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ say with dialogue, what men say and the deed is done.

"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 ". . . there is no fear of God before his eyes." ". . . God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 36:1, Psalms10: 4

You build relationship with dialogue, how you and others "feel" and "think." You fellowship with discussion, around what the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ say.

". . . and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3

"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

Tbis is where education comes into play in regard to the next generations paradigm, that is way they are to feel, think, and behave toward their self, others, the world, and authority.

Richard Paul, in his Critical Thinking Handbook wrote: "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts."

Georg Hegel, in System of Ethical Life wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [and I would add once he is 'liberated' from the Father's authority to become as he was before the Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), making him "of and for self" and the world only]."

Karl Marx, in his article Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' wrote: "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man."

Frederick Engels (the finacial supporter of Karl Marx) in his book The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle wrote: "Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time."

Karl Marx, in his Third Thesis on Feuerbach wrote: "Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated."

Kurt Lewin, in his article Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics wrote: ". . . the group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions"

Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne's book, Human Relations in Curriculum Change wrote: "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group."

Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover's book A Sociology of Education explained the effect leadership style has upon the group and the child. "The child 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."

Kurt Lewin, regarding the effect different types of leadership have upon people wrote: "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, and Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development)

"A change in the curriculum is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents . . . ." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." ". . . people involved who were loyal to the older pattern must be helped to transfer their allegiance to the new." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group." "For actual changes in 'content' and 'method' we must change the people who manage the school program. To change the curriculum of the school means bringing about changes in people—in their desires, beliefs and attitudes, in their knowledge and skill . . . curriculum change should be seen as a type of social change, change in people. Curriculum change means a change in the established ways of life, a change in the social standards. It means a restructuring on knowledge, attitudes, and skills in a new pattern of human relations. Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." (Benne)

All educators are certified, and schools accredited today based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom. The "taxonomies" are treated as being scientific despite, forty years after their publication Benjamin Bloom admitting, "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) In Benjamin S. Bloom's first "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain Bloom wrote: "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." This is the same ideology as expressed by Karl Marx, "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." In the second "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain Benjamine Bloom along with David Krathwohl wrote that the "taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents." That they are to be used to 'change' the students paradigm, that is to 'change' the way the next generation of citizens are to feel, think, and act toward their self, others, the world, and authority. "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed." "The effectiveness of this new set of environmental conditions is probably related to the extent to which the students are 'isolated' from the home during this period of time." "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." Bloom explained, "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "… ordering and relating the different kinds of affective behavior." "… we need to provide the range of emotion from neutrality through mild to strong emotion, probably of a positive, but possibly also of a negative, kind." "… organized into value systems and philosophies of life …" Bloom then admitted that the "taxonomies" "Weltanschauung1" or world view or paradigm was Marxist, sighting two Marxists, "1Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950."

Erick Fromm, in his book Escape from Freedom wrote, "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical." "... to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being ... who can feel at home in it if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature." Theodor Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality wrote, "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." equating traditional parents and God as fascist. He wrote, "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." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "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 that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." The error in Adorno's "logic" is that all forms of socialism, including Fascism must negate the father's authority in the home and Father's authority in the individual in order to initiate and sustain the socialist's control over the individual, that is "the people." Adorno added, "Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. Eradication means re-education." The first communist dictator of the Russian people, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov declared "we must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere." (Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920)

In his second Taxonomy, Book 2: Affective Domain Bloom wrote: "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed. . . . many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." "The effectiveness of this new set of environmental conditions is probably related to the extent to which the students are 'isolated' from the home during this period of time." ". . . objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other."

In the book Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, explaining how the Communist "brainwashed" our soldiers, Warren Bennis, et. al. wrote: "The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of 'unfreezing,' in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of 'readiness' to be influence; and (2) a process of 'change,' in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of 'the people's standpoint' and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure."
"Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to 'help' their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance. Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image."

". . . Once this process of self of self re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others." (Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele)

By changing the communication used in the classroom from discussion (what the Father says, that is the preaching of commands and rules to be learned and obeyed and the teaching of established facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and applied) to dialogue (where the students "affective domain," their lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint is the focus) when it comes to behavior the deed is done, the next generation of citizens paradigm is 'changed' from Patriarich, where their loyalty is to the Father and His authority to Heresiarch, where their loyalty is to what they can get out of the world, that is the current situation and/or object, people or person for their self, which includes the affirmation (or praises) of men. Dialogue, when it comes to behavior is the telltale sign that 'change' is on the way. 'Shifting,' that is 'changing'' education from the teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is and obeyed or applied to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus the outcome of education has moved from doing the Father's will to the students doing their will instead, in defiance to the Father's authority. Bloom, in the second "taxonomy" wrote, "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 . . .." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.'" "Pandora's Box" is a mythological story of a "box" (originally a bottle) full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed—once parental authority, that is the Father's authority, that is fear of judgment, that is "the lid" is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again. He stated, "It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found." The "affective domain" Bloom is referring to is the unregenerate heart, void of Godly restraint. By focusing upon the affective domain, that is upon the students' lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, that which all students have in common, their parent's standards, which differ between families (causing division amongst the students) is overcome (that is is negated). Few American ministers, if they are not using the process in "their church," are aware of what is happening to their congregation, both in the classroom and in the workplace, resulting in it proceeding unabated, even in the "church."

Inscribed on Karl Marx's tomb is his statement, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Feuerbach Thesis #11)

The "educator" (the facilitator of 'change') does not have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority when they get home from school, if they were not doing that already (telling them would be "old school," maintaining the "old" world order of being told even if it was done for the 'purpose' of 'change,' that is for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order), all they have to do is use a curriculum in the classroom that "encourages," that is that pressures the students to participate in the process of 'change,' that is into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, 'justifying' their carnal nature, establishing "lust" over and therefore against their parent's authority. Being told to be "positive" (supportive of the other students carnal nature) and not "negative" (judging them by their parent's standards) pressures students to 'justify' their and the other students love of pleasure and hate of restrain, doing so in order to be approved, that is affirmed by "the group," resulting in "the group" labeling those students who, holding onto their parent's standards, that is refusing to participate in the process of 'change' or fighting against it as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, maladjusted, unadaptable to 'change,' resisters of 'change,' not "team players," lower order thinkers, in denial, phobic, prejudiced, judgmental, racist, fascist, dictators, anti-social, etc., that is "hurting" people's "feelings" resulting in "the group" rejecting and turning on them—the student's natural desire for approval and fear of rejection forces him to participate. The same outcome applies to adults as well, in any profession who participate in the process. Once you are 'labeled,' you are 'labeled' for life. In the Soviet Union, once you were 'labeled' "psychological," no matter how important you were in the past, your life was over, your career was ended.

"Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9, 10

"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," that is, 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, that is their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates, establishing lust over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2024 (5/17/2024)