What is the dialectic process?
It's all about seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you.


Dean Gotcher

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."   John 8:44   What was the devil's lie?  "Ye shalt not surely die."   What is man's lie?  "I'm OK, your OK."  "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [the Greek word for deeds is praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."  Colossians 3:9, 10

We are, as children under a Father's authority, all accountable before God for our thoughts and our actions.  Facilitators of 'change,' seeing themselves as "innocent bystanders," yet doing as their "father the devil," simply remove the fear of God, the Father's authority, from the child's life, to let the child's nature, i.e. his lover for his carnal nature ("human nature"), take its place, i.e. do it's thing.  "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  "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

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' "human nature," i.e. man's sinful nature, is not sinful but simply "normal."  Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the source of "sin is the Father figure (who uses his authority to "repress" "human nature"), i.e. it is the Father's authority which engenders "neurosis," "repression," and "alienation."  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is the earthly father who engenders the Heavenly Father figure in the thoughts and actions of his children (engendering religion, the source of "neurosis" where a person is caught between being himself, 'discovering' his own image, i.e. thinking and acting according to his will seeking to be at-one-with nature, walking according to his flesh, and someone else, i.e. being created in his Father's image i.e. thinking and acting according to his Father's will, walking according to His Spirit).  Therefore, if the children are to know themselves as they really are, i.e. if they are to become fully "human" again, it is incumbent that the earthly father figure be negated in the thoughts and actions of the children if the Heavenly Father figure is to be negate in their thoughts and actions as wellAccording to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is only through the child's ability to 'justify' his own "human nature," i.e. 'justifying' to himself that "human nature" (his sinful nature) is "normal," that he can overcome the affect of his Father's authority and live a life freed from the "guilt" of sin (freed from the "guilty conscience"), placing the "sin" instead upon his Father for "repressing" his "normal human nature," i.e. for not only "alienating" himself from himself, i.e. engendering "neurosis," but also for "alienating" himself from the rest of the children of the world—preventing him from 'discovering' "oneness" with them, i.e. all having the same sinful nature, i.e. "human nature," that which is of the flesh only.

The key to dialectic success is not for the adults to confront one another, i.e. for the teachers to confront the parents and the parents the teachers, telling each other how to raise their children, i.e. keeping the "top-down" Father's authority in place, it is rather for teachers to get the children themselves to confront their parents, challenging their Father's authority, negating the Father's office of authority in their thoughts and in their actions in the classroom, and therefore in their homes as well. "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [having a "guilty conscience" while in the world, because of the Father's standards], Critical Criticism [the "child of disobedience"] must set up a sinful world in its own home [must "convince" the parents that their sinful nature is "normal," thereby negating the "guilty conscience" in the home, i.e. thereby making peace with the world]." (Karl Marx The Holy Family)  For 'change' to take place you have to start with the children first.  You have to create an environment where they can feel free to share their opinions, i.e. encouraging them to share how they "feel" and what they "think" regarding personal and social issues (voiding the Father's restraints, i.e. freeing them of his "prejudice"). "It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas."  (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)  It is only then that the Father's authority over the home, and therefore over society, can be destroyed, i.e. be negated from within.  Therefore it is the role of educators, i.e. the facilitators of 'change' to create a classroom environment where "attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents" can be freely experienced and put into praxis by all the children in order to create "'conflict and tension between parents and children [when the children, back in their homes, openly question and challenge there Father's authority, i.e. treating it as being "irrelevant" when it interferes with or prevents the meeting of their "felt" needs, i.e. in their eyes, that is, in "the groups eye in them"]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain

While on the subject of education it is also important that the facilitators of the classroom environment, along with the school staff, neutralize any support group or groups which the children (who adhere to their Father's authority) might have, accusing them of "bullying," i.e. of being prejudiced, judgmental, and hateful, while augmenting the support group or groups that would be understanding of the children who are antagonistic toward their Father's authority, recognizing and praising them for their "tolerance of diversity," i.e. "tolerance of deviancy."  This is the same method of brainwashing which was used on our solders by the North Koreans, where, as Warren Bennis wrote: "the importance of the small group as a mediator of opinions and attitudes has led to some highly effective techniques of destroying group solidarity, as in the case of the POW's [or in our case, as in the case of the children holding onto their Father's values of restraint, i.e. who therefore advocate sovereignty, i.e. voicing a "Mine. Not yours" attitude] and of using groups [using "support groups" who champion 'change,' i.e. who advocate socialism, i.e.  voicing an "Ours. Not just yours" attitude] as a mechanism of changing attitudes, as in the political prisons [or in our case, as in the the children who are taken captive to the consensus process being used in their classroom environment—the basis for Common Core Curriculum]." (Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele, Interpersonal Dynamics:  Essays in Readings on Human Interaction)  

It has been proven that it is difficult for a child to hold to his Father's values under such conditions. "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [retain their belief, i.e. hold to their Father's rules or values which "restrain" "human nature," i.e. hold to the sovereignty of their position] in the face of apparent group unanimity;" (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  Without the "support group," i.e. the dialectic classroom (or the "youth group"), the child could not be as confident in his challenging of his Father's authority (when back in the home).  The dialectic of 'change' is therefore the continual confrontation of the child against the Father who is declaring what "is" and what "is not," i.e. the Father and His authority being challenged by the child's "ought," as in "I ought to be able to ..." (the child and his "feeling" and "thoughts" being influenced by the 'changing' times, desiring to become at-one-with it) which becomes an "is" itself, declaring what "is not," being challenged by what "ought" to be, ad mortem anima (until there is no Father's authority left in the child).  "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts [be freed from his Father's authority]." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking Handbook)

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is the Father's commands and threat of chastening which "represses" the child (Genesis 2:17).  Therefore, it is only through the child's ability to 'reason' dialectically, i.e. to 'justify' his "human nature" as being "normal" (Genesis 3:5), that he is able to not only (1) free himself from his Father's authority but also (2) kill his Father (negate his Father's authority in his thoughts and his actions, i.e. treat his Father with contempt, i.e. as being "irrelevant" i.e. serving no purpose other than to financially support his carnal "felt needs," and to turn Him over to others, who can "professionally," i.e. humanely "dispatch" Him, if and when he becomes a burden, i.e. a drain upon society, i.e. interfere with or cost him his pleasure) all without having a "guilty conscience."  The first is to free himself from his Father's authority (changing belief into a theory or an opinion) while the second is to free society from the Father's authority as well (putting theory or opinion into practice), making himself and society "one" in cause, i.e. "equal" with the Father (Genesis 3:22) and therefore establishing himself and society ("human nature," man's carnal "felt needs") over and against the Father and His authority (from which common-ism is derived).  The killing of the Father need not be physical (as Karl Marx put into praxis), providing the Father, through His use of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'willingly' abdicates his position of authority (as Sigmund Freud put into praxis), from then on perceiving His office of authority as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" in the "light" of the 'changing' times, i.e. in the "light" of the "feelings" (the "felt needs") of the children of the world.

 It is not that children do not have "felt needs," i.e. that they belong, i.e. that they are loved and will be cared for.  They do.  It is that children need a conscience, i.e. thereby, when they are tempted to do what is wrong they will not do it, but instead they will do what is right, when they are tempted to do what is evil they will not do it, but instead they will do what is good.  Children need direction from a Father in their lives, i.e. they need their Father's authority to give them commands to obey, without questioning Him and His authority, and they need to accept his authority to chasten them when they disobey, i.e. which engenders a "guilty conscience" (and therefore a "civil society").  As Dr. Trojanowicz (who developed and implemented the COPS program) wrote: "Social control is most effective at the individual level.  The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated [Note: if you want to create a society "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e. "tolerant of deviancy" then you are going to have a problem with someone with a strong conscience, i.e. having a "guilty conscience" when tempted to do what is wrong, i.e. "tolerate deviancy"]."  "The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior [Note: if you want a society of 'change' then you are going to have a problem with the parents who engender a strong conscience (a "guilty conscience") in their children, i.e. shaping the next generation of citizens in their image, i.e. not readily adaptable to 'change']." "Unfortunately [the same "Unfortunately" Lenin used in his 1920 speech on the need to destroy the traditional family because it engendered a strong conscience in the next generation which prevented socialist 'change' (common-ism) from taking place], because of the reduction of influence exerted by neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control [upon socialism, i.e. public-private family, public-private business, public-private property, with the public negating private (you can only have one or the other, you are being deceived when you are talking into believing that you can have both—public-private partnership is what a soviet is made up of, negating the private while giving the people a semblance of it to hold onto, i.e. only existing in their mind), and a police state to silence any who figure it out and might want to prevent or stop it], than on internal self-control [upon individualism, i.e. private home, private business, private property, etc. which limits government]."  (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)  Note: COPS would be better understood as a "Communist Oriented Policing Service" but that might be too strong for some to take (particular those who love socialism and don't want to know the truth).

The dialectic process is noted for its thesis, antithesis, synthesis cycle. Tradition would have you think that thesis would be the Father, antithesis the child, and synthesis the child and the Father united as one.  But because of the Father's authority over the child there can be no synthesis.  There can only be antithesis, with the Father above and the child below, i.e. a "top-down" order, with the Father ruling over the child and the child obeying his Father "or else"—the Father and the child can not become as one (as "equals") when the child has to submit his will to his Father's authority.

The trickery of dialectic 'reasoning' is that the thesis is the child (his "feelings," i.e. his "natural inclination" to approach pleasure and avoid pain).  That makes the Father the antithesis (giving commands to His child to be obeyed without question, chastening them when they disobey, thereby engendering a "guilty conscience," i.e. preventing them from 'changing' from their Father's commands when the are tempted to do so in 'changing' times).  Therefore, it is only through the child's ability to 'reason' dialectically that he can negate his Father's authority, i.e. (1) through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "human reasoning" (with two or more children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" with children of like "feelings" and "thoughts," all 'justifying' their "human nature" as being the "norm" over and against their Father's authority to restrain it), he can 'discover' himself, i.e. become at-one-with (in synthesis with) his "human nature" as well as become at-one-with (in synthesis with) the world (with all the other children of the world coming into synthesis with him), all united as "one" in pleasure in the 'moment,' and then (2) by putting "human reasoning" into practice i.e. into socialist action (into praxis), he can "help" free the world (the other children of the world) from their Father's authority, freeing all children from a 'guilty conscience," with the devil, the author of dialectic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6) thereafter becoming his savior, i.e. his guiding "light,"  'redeeming' him (along with all the other children of the world) from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' all the children back to the world, back to their "feelings" and "thoughts," making them again subject to the 'changing' times before the Father's first command and threat of chastening for disobedience. "Enlightenment""The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason [making "himself" (along with the other person or persons) "feel good"] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation [the Word of God telling him how to think and act] nor that authority of the church [the only begotten Son of God showing him how to think and act] in order to know good and evil."  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

In all of this, the issue of judgment and death, i.e. the issue of righteousness and unrighteousness (because of the child's sin against the Father, i.e. which engenders the "guilty conscience") is negated.  While those of dialectic 'reasoning' might kill (negate) their earthly fathers (mentally as well as physically, i.e. in their thoughts and in their actions, i.e. "in theory and in practice"), there is a Father in heaven who they can not kill, one who will eventually not only judge them but also pour out his wrath upon them for their praxis of the dialectic process, i.e. for their dialectic thoughts and dialectic actions.  But don't tell them that, they won't believe you.  In fact they might just turn and rend you for being a "judgmental," "negative," "divisive," "hateful,"  "intolerant," "prejudiced," "maladjusted,"  "lower-order-thinking," "self-seeking," "self-righteous," "narrow-minded," "fundamentalist," etc., "extremist."

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."  Genesis 2:17  While man knows of physical death, he can (as in the days of Noah) still eat, drink, marry, and give in marriage with no "guilty conscience" (Genesis 6:5).  This is because through his use of dialectic 'reasoning'  (perceiving himself as being 'righteous,' i.e. 'justified,' in his own eyes) any sense of impending judgment for his sins (eternal death after death) can be negated in his thoughts (and therefore in his actions).   But the Lord warns us: "For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.  Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.  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 12:2-5

Dialectic 'reasoning' is Genesis 3:1-6 (the 'justification' of using "human nature" and "human reasoning," i.e. how a person "feels" and what they "think" in the given moment as the bases from which to determine good and evil, right and wrong thought and action from) being used to negate Hebrews 12:5-11 (negating the Father's authority to set standards for the child, in regards to what is good-right and what is evil-wrong thought and action, as well as negating His authority to chasten him when he does evil-wrong) thereby negating Romans 7:14-25 (negating the "guilty conscience").  "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself."  (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

In two sentences Kurt Lewin explained how the "guilty conscience" is initiated and sustained and how it can be negated. "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

"The negative valence" is the "guilty conscience" (Romans 7:14-25), i.e. when we do that which we do not want to do (disobey our Father) and don't do that which we want to do (obey our Father).  It is what keeps the Fathers authority in place, i.e. preventing 'change' from taking place, i.e. preventing the child from knowing himself and living according to his own "human nature."  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' when you see a "guilty conscience" in the child, you see the Father's authority still residing within him, preventing him from becoming himself, i.e. preventing him from thinking and acting according to his "human nature."  "The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself is the guilty conscience." (Erich Fromm Escape from Freedom

The "forbidden object which in itself attracts the child" is the child's "human nature" being "repressed."  "Repression" is the result of the Father's command which blocks the child's "natural inclination" to relate with an object of gratification in the environment, i.e. an object in the world that is desired by the child which, according to the Father, the child can not have, i.e. the object of gratification being the Father's ("Mine. not yours.") or someone else's ("Theirs. Not yours.").  "The induced field of force of an adult" is the Father's threat (or use) of chastening to prevent (or stop) the child from relating with the object of gratification which the Father "forbade" (Genesis 2:17, Hebrews 12:5-1, Romans 7:14-25).  Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the enemy of 'change,'  i.e. that which inhibits the 'actualization' of the "new" world order for the child, is the child's "guilty conscience"—that which is engendered by the Father's giving of commands to his child, commands which are to be obeyed without question, preaching to him what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, and teaching him truth and facts in support of his commands, all to be accepted "as given," chastening His child when (or if) he disobeyed. 

What needs to be kept in mind here is that while earthly parents are not perfect (all being subject to their carnal "human nature"), some being downright tyrants, the office they serve in (whether they know it or not or want to recognize it or not) is perfect.  It is an office given to them by God, which they are to serve in, according to His will, training up their children in the admonition of the Lord.  "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."  Ephesians 6:1-4

In the first sentence, Kurt Lewin described the condition of the traditional home, with the Father ruling over his child, i.e. ruling with authority, determining for the child what is right and what is wrong, i.e. what is good and what is evil thought and behavior, i.e. making the child in his own image, with the child evaluating the world through His Fathers commands.  Lewin's objective, as a socialist "scientist," was not to encourage the traditional family, i.e. to support the Father and His authority, but rather to clearly define what inhibited (prevented) 'change.'  By focusing upon the social structure of the traditional home he was able to clearly define what it was that prevented 'change' (what he had to destroy if  'change' was to take place), i.e. the Father's authority to give commands to his child, chastening him when he disobeyed (engendering a "guilty conscience").  Thus he was able to clearly define what kept antithesis (the Father above directing the child below, and the child below obeying the Father above, i.e. religion) in place, i.e. the "guilty conscience."  Put another way: "The guilty conscience (the fear engendered when thinking of disobeying or in the act of disobeying the Father's commands), which represses the child's 'human nature,' i.e. his 'natural inclination' to relate with the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' is the result of the Father's authority to chasten his child for disobedience." 

Lewin then described how 'change,' i.e. the negation of the Father's authority over the child is to be accomplished.  He wrote: "If the field of force," that is, if the Father's authority to chasten his child for disobedience "loses its psychological existence for the child" (Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. the Father' authority is negated in the mind of the child), that is, if the Father is not present to chasten his child for his "new" behavior and in the child's mind He has no power or desire to do so in the future (that is, in the mind of the child, he "will not die" for "acting" out his "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. like in Genesis 3:1-6 where the child is deceived, i.e. not perceiving that his being "equal" with his Father, i.e. deciding for himself what is right and wrong, good and evil according to his own "human nature,' i.e. according to his own "feelings" and "thoughts" in the given moment, is an act of disobedience, i.e. is being evil), then, in the mind of the child, the fear of chastening,  i.e. the "guilty conscience," i.e. the "feeling" of guilt, i.e. the barrier to 'change' is negated, or as Lewin described it "the negative valence also disappears" (therefore the condition of Romans 7:14-25, i.e. the "guilty conscience" for failing to obey the Father's commands is negated)  The child is now free ('liberated') to act according to his own "feelings" and his own "thoughts," no longer inhibited by his Father's authority, i.e. his "human nature" no longer restrained by a "guilty conscience." 

This opens the door ("Pandora's box") for the child to 'discover' commonality (common-ism) with all the children of the world, i.e. to do that which he could not do while he was under his Father's authority—when his behavior was directed by his Father's rules, i.e. when his carnal thoughts and carnal actions were "repressed" by the "guilty conscience"—"the dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) "What is particularly important here is that recognition of one's own individuality [where the child, freed from the Father's authority, is now "in touch" with his own "human nature"] is the basis for recognition of the individuality of everyone [where all children, freed from their Father's authority, are now "in touch" with their own "human nature"], and for the democratic concept of the dignity of man [where all the children, no longer having a "guilty conscience" for being "normal," are 'liberated' to think and act according to their own "human nature," i.e. they can now be united as "one" upon that which they have in common with the world, i.e. their carnal "human nature"]."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  The dialectic plan being, "Don't tell a child what he can or can not do (preventing him from 'discovering' himself, i.e. preventing him from actualizing his full potential), seduce, deceive, and manipulate him instead."  "In the process of history [children 'discovering' themselves, i.e. 'liberating' themselves from their Father's authority] man gives birth to himself.  He becomes what he potentially is [of his worldly nature only], 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 [deciding for himself what is right and what is wrong, i.e. what is good and what is evil, i.e. according to his carnal "human nature,"]." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods) 

In the second sentence, Lewin described the condition that is necessary if the traditional family, i.e. with the Father ruling over his home, is to be negated in the thoughts and actions of the child.  Lewin's objective was, as a socialist "scientist," to clearly define what is necessary to engender 'change,' i.e. to negate the traditional home, i.e. to negate the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the child (freeing the next generation to "be themselves," i.e. to be under the social-psychologist control).  Put another way: "If the Father's authority to chasten his child is called into question, i.e. that chastening is no longer recognized as proper conduct in raising the child, if the child is told that he will not be chastened for sharing his "feelings" and his "thoughts" which go counter to his Father's commands, i.e. that he will be protected from his Father's chastening by government agencies, the 'guilty conscience' in the child, that which was a product of the Father's authority, will be negated in the mind of the child, i.e. his conscience will be seared, i.e. replaced with the "super-ego," i.e. the child's thoughts and actions now guided by 'the voice of the village,' i.e. by the collective." 

Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the way of salvation for the child, i.e. salvation from the Father's authority, i.e. the child 'redeemed' from the "old" world order,  'delivered' from the "guilty conscience," freed to participate in the "new" world order, i.e. 'reconciled' to the world, united as "one" with it, is to create a controlled environment, a "special" time and a place, "an experiential chasm" (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) where the child can freely dialogue his opinion with other children of like "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. where he can openly share his opinions without fear of chastisement, without fear of reprimand, where he can therefore be more easily 'changed,' i.e. negating his Father's authority in his personal thoughts and in his socialist action, i.e. making himself in his own image (or rather in the image of "the group"—"the people"—in the image of "common-ist feelings" and "common-ist thoughts" engendering "common-ist action"), with the "group experience" 'delivering' him (his "human nature") from "repression," i.e. 'redeeming' him from taking on his Father's image.  Karl Marx stated it this way: "The more of himself man attributes to God [the more the child submits to his Father's authority], the less he has left in himself."  "The life which he has given to the object [by the child honoring his Father's office of authority, his Father's office of authority] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force ["repressing" his "human nature," "alienating" him from himself and the world, making it less likely he will become a common-ist]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3  

Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' (minus the Father) all that man has, that makes him "common" with all men, is what he has in "common" with the world. "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   Our "human nature" is what tempts to sin, i.e. to disobey God, i.e. to disobey our Father.  "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   According to dialectic 'reasoning,' "lust," i.e. "human nature," i.e. man's "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' is the only means whereby he is able to initiate and sustain a world of common-ist.

The key ingredient to 'change' is to create an environment where the Father's authority can be more easily called into question.  Lewin 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 [i.e. is more easily 'changed' from the "top-down" preaching and teaching of truth and facts which are to be accepted "as given" to the 'discovering' of "truth" through the "equality" of dialoguing opinions] by accepting belongingness to a group."  "Groups and organizations should be helped to define and redefine those areas of life in which common values and standards are necessary and where efforts to build common out of contrasting beliefs and practices are required."  "To change a group atmosphere toward democracy the democratic leader has to be in power and has to use his power for active re-education [a term used by the North Korean's during the Korean War which we called brainwashing]."  "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."   (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change 

For the 'change' process to be initiated and sustained, it is essential that the 'facilitator' of 'change' first attain a position of authority over the "group" and then, at all cost, maintain his position of authority over the "socialist group" in order to prevent the Father's authority from retaking the "higher ground" and stop the 'change' process i.e. inhibiting or blocking socialist-globalist government from controlling the outcome. "The individual is emancipated [from his Father's authority] in the social group."  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child submitting his will to his Father's authority, having a clear conscience] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [the group experience] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx)  "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)  While Jesus preached and taught the truth to His "group,"  facilitators of 'change' dialogue opinions with theirs to 'discover' it. 

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is essential that all policy making environments (from the home to the highest office in the land, including and especially the "church") be structured upon the consensus process (the children's opinions united as "one"), i.e. initiating and sustaining the dialectic process of 'change,' thereby "bypassing" the Father's authority and the "guilty conscience" which thwarts "worldly peace and socialist harmony"   "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform 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)

Education was once structured upon deductive reasoning (didactic reasoning), i.e. where the answer to a problem is subject to an established principle or truth (an a priori), where right and wrong is established by the Father and sustained by His authority to chasten (in the form of the teacher up front inculcating facts and disciplining those who did not learn them or who applied them incorrectly).  It is now based upon inductive 'reasoning' (dialectic 'reasoning'), i.e. where the answers to the problem is now subject to the "sense experiences" i.e. the "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. the opinions of the children.  By 'changing' the environment of learning from the Father's authority, from the learning of facts and truth to be learned and applied "as given," to the groups dialoging of opinions, how everyone is "feeling" and what everyone is "thinking" about the current social issues at hand, the child's way of thinking and acting is 'changed.'  "Lewin emphasized that 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."   (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)   If the style of leadership is 'changed' from the preaching and teaching of truth and facts to the dialoging of opinions to 'discover' "truth" and "'changing' facts," the way of thinking and acting of the child (and eventually the whole nation) is 'changed.'  It is what happened in a garden in Eden.

The difference between the home (the nation) being controlled by the child, i.e. by "big brother," or ruled by the Father is: When the Father rules the home, the national, state, and local governments are all limited in power (in their authority) in order to preserve the authority of the Father in the traditional home, thereby engendering a citizenry with a conscience, i.e. a "guilty conscience" when they think of doing wrong.  But when the child, i.e. "big brother" controls the home, he controls the national, state, and local governments as well, government becoming child driven instead.  With the citizens no longer having a Father's right or wrong directing their steps, they no longer have a "guilty conscience" when thinking of doing wrong.  Therefore it is no longer possible to have limit government.  An all powerful government (a police state) is necessary to "serve and protect" (control) "the people" instead. 

Another hallmark of dialectic 'reasoning' is that it makes informants of all its participants.  To put this in proper perspective, on the day of judgment you will not "give a hoot" about anyone else around you.  It is just you and God with God holding you accountable for every thought you had, every word you spoke, and all your actions, judging and condemning you for them, with no mercy.  Only those in Christ, their sin's covered by the blood of the Lamb of God, will escape damnation.  It is only then, as the rich man in torment in hell, who no one could help, that you will care about anybody else, as he became concerned about his brothers (wanting to warn them concerning their thoughts and actions, i.e. concerning their use of dialectic 'reasoning'). But the deceived mind, 'reasoning' dialectically, can only see others (including the environment) as the source for his actions, having wash from his brain his day of reckoning before God the Father, being judged by God for his unrighteous thoughts and unrightesous actions.  King David repented before God for his sins of adultery and murder, not before anyone else.  Instead mankind, like Adam and Eve will blame someone or something else (in the environment) for their behavior, informing on them, 'justifying' themselves before God, i.e. before the authorities, 'justifying' man's carnal nature.  Your neighbors, instead of coming over and helping you, so that you don't harm yourself or others, including themselves, i.e. responding to you out of a clear conscience, will instead, having no conscience, turn you in to the authorities to 'justify' the selling of their soul to "the village," i.e. to gain approval of "the village," i.e. group 'justification' instead of the fear of God (personal accountability before the Father) having become their way of thinking and acting.  They, like Adam, i.e. the first informant ("It's not my fault. It's her fault"), will manifest the effects of dialectic 'reasoning,' of self 'justification,' by blaming others, not themselves, for their thoughts and actions. "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 [the approval of men, 'justifying' "human nature"] is abomination in the sight of God."   Luke 16:5  Look into the eyes of the informant and you will see him looking into the eyes of "the authorities," wanting their approval for turning his neighbors in, i.e. desiring 'justification' from them for his thoughts and his actions.  The quickest way for a facilitator of 'change' to tell who is his (is of the process of 'change') and who is not (who is resisting the process of 'change') is by their willingness to inform on others.  (I speak of the consensus group as well, where, by informing on yourself, i.e. informing on your Father's standards in you, you learn to inform on others, i.e. inform on those who refuse to be like you, informants).  On the day of judgment you won't be informing on your neighbors, you will be instead concerned about your own thoughts and your own actions before God (as a child before his father), who will be weighing you according to His (not the other children's) standards.

The sacrificing of the individual's conscience (the 'freedom of the conscience' being sacrificed) to the "felt needs" of "the people" is the hallmark of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of democracy ("the tyranny of the masses"), of socialism, of common-ism, all three being one and the same.  It all depends upon how fast you want to get to totalitarianism that is. "What The Authoritarian Personality [a book on how to 'deliver' the children from their Fathers authority] was really studying was the character type of a totalitarian [an "equality" based, socialist controlled] rather than an authoritarian [a "top-down" based, family run] society ─ fostered by a familial crisis in which traditional parental authority was under fire [where the parents, in desperation to preserve their families, turn to the government for help, giving the government unlimited power, i.e. losing their authority (and their children, their business', their homes, their freedoms, i.e. their "inalienable rights," and their lives) to the government "in the process"]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

The truth is: the "guilty conscience" (the "negative valence") can only resides within the child who is under his Father's authority, i.e. the "guilty conscience" can only be engendered by the child fearing chastisement from his Father for his disobedience.  It can not be initiated and sustained in or through a socialist (two or more, i.e. opinion) based society. Many social-psychologists point this out: "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects [the Father's right-wrong way of thinking and acting] now part of ourselves:  the superego 'unites in itself the influences [the feelings, i.e. the "sense experiences"] of the present and of the past.'"  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards [the ever 'changing' feelings] of society [not the "ridged" standards of the parents]. Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development [to the development of social-ism/common-ism in the child]."  (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)   Bloom used Theodor Adorno's world view for his world view in developing his "Taxonomy" (Bloom used the German word "Weltanschauung" instead of world view).  Adorno, a Marxist professor out of Berkley, CA (a member of the "Frankfurt School"), wrote:  "It is a function of the ego to make peace with conscience [with the child's will (in support of his feelings, i.e. his "feelings" establishing what is right and what is wrong behavior in any given situation) there can be no "peace with the conscience," i.e. with the Father's authority—by Adorno adding the child's will to the Father's authority, the Father's authority is negated], to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony [there is no Father's authority in this witches brew, there is only the child's "I feeling" and "I will," which, when synthesized with the Father's authority (His "Thou shalt not"), negates the Father's authority (negates "Thou shalt not"]." "When this synthesis is not achieved [when the Father does not humble his authority to the child's will], the superego [what really is the conscience here, i.e. what Adorno considered a sick, i.e. undeveloped superego at this point] has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality [the child's Father's authority, residing in his thoughts and actions, continues to "repress" his will ("self") and his feelings ("emotional impulses"], and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above [Adorno, in error, claimed the autocratic German father figure was the source for Nazism—the truth is Hitler had to destroy the Father's authority to gain and sustain control, i.e. no "guilty conscience" allowed there, just brute force without a conscience—without a "guilty conscience" you can go either direction, to national socialist or global socialist (or maybe synthesize the two as seems to be going on today), nevertheless the brutality is the same]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Where does money fit in with all this.  Money is stored up pleasure, i.e. stored up dopamine.  Antonio Gramsci defined it as revealing 'the mode of economic behavior." (Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks)  Whoever has it determines how it is to be spent, i.e. either for their own pleasure or someone else's (which they can get pleasure out of as well). How it is acquired is of as great importance: either honestly, deceitfully, or by force.  Whatever the means of acquiring it or spending it is, the love of it (store up pleasure) more than the love of God is the root of all evil. "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."  1 Timothy 6:10   While the Father has authority over money, His values (and interests) determine how it is to be spend by (and for) the children.  He therefore shapes His children in His own image, their access to pleasure being based upon His determining for them what is right and wrong behavior in their acquiring of it and their use of it.  Accountability to a higher authority than their own "human nature" being the name of the game.  Socialists, i.e. "the children of disobedience," on the other hand, want the Father's money for their own pleasure, to use it to sustain their own carnal "human nature," living a life of pleasure, unrestrained by His "morals and ethics."  Restraint (greater than "human nature") no longer being the name of the game, socialist always have to live off the the money of others to sustain their carnal way of thinking and acting.  As in the days of Noah, i.e. eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage they must disguise their "lifestyle" with the typical socialist propaganda of "caring for others," using "empathy" to deceive others into feeding their carnal habits, i.e. using the Father's money to augment behavior which is unrestrained by the Fathers authority, or using outright force to acquire it through the power of taxation, using force to pressure the citizens into doing the will of "the people" (for the "goodness" of mankind of course), imprisoning (and/or oppressing) any and all who don't support their socialist agenda of negating the Father's authority, discouraging (preventing) any from doing business with those who do not supporting their praxis of negating the "restrainer" of their carnal habits, accusing any and all of committing a "hate crime" when they supporting their Father's authority—for holding children (in adult bodies) accountable to a higher authority than "human nature," for "criticizing" them, i.e. making them "feel guilty" for their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions, i.e. for thinking and acting according to their own "normal" human behavior.

 Correlate this to Fascism (national socialism) and Communism (global socialism) and you can see why so many have suffered and died (and many more continue to suffer and die) horrible deaths at the hands of those who have no "guilty conscience," doing their "socialist duty" as they "struggle" to serve their "socialist cause," i.e. "Making the world safe for Democracy," i.e. creating a "better world," i.e. a world freed of the Father's authority, i.e. a world controlled by "the children of disobedience," all united in propagating the dialectic process (the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6), i.e. all united as "one" (in synthesis, in consensus) initiating and sustaining "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e. in the name of the "new world order."

"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  The solution to the crisis of life (antithesis) is not found in negating Hebrews 12:5-11 i.e. in negating the Father's authority, as those of dialectic 'reasoning' seek to do through their use of Genesis 3:1-6 (through the 'justification' of "human nature" over and against the righteousness of God, i.e. synthesizing man with his "human nature," void the Father's restraints).  The solution to dialectic 'reasoning' is found in Romans 7:14-25 (in Jesus Christ who not only 'redeems' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our sins, i.e. for our disobedience, but also 'reconciles' us to His Heavenly Father).    The dialectic process is what I call "Satan's Genesis project," i.e. the use of Genesis 3:1-6 ("human reasoning") to negate Hebrews 12:5-11 (the Father's authority), negating Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience"),  'redeeming' the children from their Father, 'reconciling' them back to the world (back to "human nature"), bringing them under his power and control.  "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 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:  Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."  Ephesians 2:1-3

The dialectic process is not academics, as those who use it would like you to believe.  It is secularized Satanism, intellectualized witchcraft.  As in Genesis 3:1-6, the master facilitator of 'change' is "helping" man become dependent upon his "fleshly lusts," using his carnal nature to evaluate from, i.e. determining for himself what is right and what is wrong, i.e. determining good and what is evil according to his "human nature," according to how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the given 'moment,' i.e. being influenced and controlled by the "prince of the power of the air."  "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;"  1 Peter 2:11  "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."  Ephesians 6:12  "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness [who can see God's handiwork in the creation but refuse to recognize Him, worshiping it and themselves instead];"  "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them"  Romans 1:18, 28-32  "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.  Be not ye therefore partakers with them."  Ephesians 5:5-7  "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."  Revelation 14:9-1

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."  Romans 5:19  "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12  "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  "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 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; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled."  Colossians 10:3-6

There is no synthesis (plurality), as the devil would like you to believe.  There is no common ground between sensuousness and righteousness, i.e. no "as above-so below," making the children "equal" with the Father, i.e. negating the above-below, "top-down" order as established by God.  There is only man's effort (through his use of dialectic 'reasoning') to 'justifying' himself (to deceive himself), i.e. trying to negate in his thoughts and his actions the "ingroup-outgroup" paradigm of the Father ruling over His children, directing their steps, i.e. casting the children (those who are in rebellion against His authority, i.e. the "children of disobedience") out into utter darkness.  The scriptures are clear regarding those who use dialectic 'reasoning' to facilitate 'change' in the world (as well as in the "church"). "These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.  For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.  But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."  2 Peter 2:17-22

There is only antithesis (duality), i.e. the Father above (along with His only begotten son, i.e. Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, all in agreement as one) and the children below, i.e. either the redeemed, who through chastening (through Christ) are 'reconciled' to the Father, or the lost, refusing to accept the Father's chastening (refusing to be subject to the Father's will, refusing to obey Him through the work of His only begotten Son, the Lamb of God, who, in obedience to His Father's will, shed His own blood on the Cross to cover our sins, 'redeeming' us from His Father's wrath upon us for our sins), refusing to follow Christ as he leads us in obedience to His Fathers' will, being unable to live and walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, receiving His wrath instead. "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."  John 8:23-24

Jesus came that we might know His Heavenly Father, to live with Him and His Father in His glory, having eternal life. "Yet call no man your Father upon earth, for one is your Father which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  It is not what those of dialectic 'reasoning' want.  What those of the dialectic process want is to stop you from knowing the Father.  They want you to negate your faith in God above, making you, and therefore themselves, God instead, putting Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. the dialectic process, into socialist action (into praxis) making the world a "better" place for them to live within (a world freed of a "guilty conscience"), creating a world "in their image," i.e. a world of of abomination and death.  "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

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14  God's people are those who have been 'redeemed' from the Father's wrath through the shed blood of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and been 'reconciled' to the Father, through His resurrection, i.e. acknowleding His Grace only, living according to His Word only, through His Son only, in Faith only.  The land is where you live, i.e. your home, your neighborhood, etc. but especially your body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, humbling yourself, and praying, and seeking His face, and turning from your wicked ways.

For more on the dialectic process and it use in education and government go to "Your language reflects your culture."

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2013-2015