Who is coming between you and your children? by Dean Gotcher

Who is coming between you and your children?

Dean Gotcher

The secret to dialectic success is its ability to come between the parent's (the father) and the children, i.e. to come between God (the Father) and man. While Jesus declared that he came to divide the son from the father and the father from the son (Matthew 10:34-39), he did not come destroy the Father's authority system itself. He came that His Heavenly Father would become the Father of one or of both of them. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 3:1) Satan, from the beginning (from the garden on) has come between the "children" and the Father, i.e. between man and God. From Genesis to Revelation this has been, continues to be, and will be the common theme: Satan coming between man and God, as a facilitator of 'change' comes between the children and their father, negating the father's authority, while God the Father comes between the father and his son, becoming God the Father of one or both of them instead, retaining the Father's authority. While Satan negates the father's/Father's authority, God retains it for Himself.

Dialectic 'reasoning' is simply the process of a 'child' being "helped" by a facilitator of 'change' to "rationally" 'liberating' himself, not only from his father's authority but from the father's authority system itself, negating the father's authority system within his feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationships with others (questioning the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenging his/His authority). The nature of the child is of the world, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, "lusting" after the things of the world, by dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' his thoughts and actions. The father's authority (as God the Father's authority) consists of four things: 1) to give commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as given, i.e. by faith, 2) to bless or reward those who obey or do what is right and not do what is wrong, 3) to chasten those who disobey or who do what is wrong or do not do what is right, and 4) to cast out those who question and challenge his/His authority to do 1-4. While the earthly father is not perfect, he could be a down right tyrant, the office he serves in is perfect, given to him by God. While the father has the right to chasten or cast out the child who refuses to obey his wicked ways, refusing to obey his wicked commands, the child still honors the father's office of authority, accepting the father's right to give commands and rules, to bless, to chasten, and to cast out.

While someone can come between you and your child, 'liberating' them from your authority, your child can still retain the father's authority system within his feeling, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, insisting that his children honor his authority over them when he becomes a parent himself. Dialectic 'reasoning' negates the honoring of the father's authority system itself. It negates the very system or paradigm itself (called a Patriarchal Paradigm), resulting in the child replacing the father's authority system with "the group" or with the "community" or society. By your child not only finding common interest ("self interest") with the other children of "the group," but also 'discovering' that they, as he, resent the father's authority restraining their impulses and urges of the 'moment,' he is able to unite with them in common cause, i.e. work with them for "the greater good," i.e. actualizing their "self interest" within "the group" while negating the father's authority from their life, i.e. from the life of "the group," and therefore from society. 'Liberating' "human nature" (the child) from the father's restraint purges society of Godly restraint.

The key to understanding the rewriting of history is to understand it is all being done to support this common theme, i.e. the 'liberating' of children from the father's authority system, i.e. the 'liberating' of man from Godly restraint (associated with feudalism, capitalism, nationalism). In dialectic 'reasoning,' the father's authority (including God the Father's authority) is correlated to nationalism (from isolationism to totalitarianism, i.e. "Us vs. them." rather than "We working for Us."). Without someone (the facilitator of 'change') coming between the children (who, living in the 'moment,' seek 'change') and the father (who retaining the lessons of the past, resist 'change'), the children could never find identity (unity) within and with themselves and be used to 'create' a "new" world order controlled by and for themselves (or rather controlled by and for facilitator's of 'change'). This is the message of Marx, Freud, and Hegel, and Obama as well, i.e. the negation of parental authority (national sovereignty) by encouraging the children to 'think' for themselves (transcend ethnic, race, religion, and national borders, i.e. transcend sovereignty by becoming a "world species"—"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." A. H. Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature), thereby 'liberating' themselves from parental (national and religious) restraints.

By replacing the father's authority with the feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationships of the child, the father's authority system (individualism, capitalism, nationalism, and faith in God, not that God is synonymous with the others but that individuals depend upon God for direction, capitulate to His will, and fellowship with those of like faith in Him only) is negated. Anyone coming between the parents and their children, i.e. anyone coming between the nation and its citizens (children), encouraging the children to think for themselves (according to their "self interests," i.e. according to their urges and impulse of the 'moment,' which are subject to the 'changing' times and the facilitators of 'change' who manipulate them) set this course in action. Schools would not (in the past) teach international history until the eight grade, not until the children were first grounded in the family, neighborhood, state, and nation, i.e. in the principles of sovereignty. Starting with kindergarten (a garden without parental authority, a garden of group activity united in common cause, as in the first garden) the learning environment of the child has been 'changed.' Whoever is teaching your child how to think (didactically, with established facts and truth or dialectically, with feelings of the 'moment,' 'justifying' 'compromise') or how to act (doing right and not wrong or being "tolerant of wrong") influences your child's way of thinking and acting, and thereby determines the future world.

Obama's theme (mantra) is the encouraging of children to transcend their ethnicity, race, religion, and national borders, i.e. parental authority, i.e. to 'liberate' themselves from the "dark" history of the past, where man is accountable to a sovereign, i.e. to God the Father directing their paths. This was Satan's message in the garden and the same message we hear today, leading us to judgment and death. See if you can find the theme in Obama's speech of March 26, 2014 (below). I counted three, bolding the first one, but there may be more. Note: The key to dialectic 'reasoning' is the craft of generalization, i.e. calling apples and oranges the same because they are "Fruit" (Karl Marx, The Holy Family), leaving out important (prior historically understood) information (the rest of the story, such as faith in God establishing the founding of this nation) which would hinder or block his audience from participating in his desired outcome (a Godless world, i.e. a world controlled by children thinking and acting without a father's restraint, i.e. 'creating' a new world "order" where only man's carnal nature rules).

Obama, speaking in Brussels, March 26, 2014:

Thank you. (Cheers, applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you. (Cheers, applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, please have a seat. Good evening, (goedenavond ?), bonsoir, guten Abend. (Cheers, applause.)

Thank you, Lara (sp), for that remarkable introduction. On -- before she came out, she told me not to be nervous. (Laughter.) And I can only imagine -- I think her father is in the audience. And I can only imagine how proud he is of her. We’re grateful for her work, but she’s also reminding us that our future will be defined by young people like her.

Your Majesties, Mr. Prime Minister, and the people of Belgium, on behalf of the American people, we are grateful for your friendship. We stand together as inseparable allies. And I thank you for your wonderful hospitality. I have to admit it is easy to love a country famous for chocolate and beer. (Laughter, cheers.) (Chuckles.)

Leaders and dignitaries of the European Union, representatives of our NATO alliance, distinguished guests, we meet here at a moment of testing for Europe and the United States and for the international order that we have worked for generations to build. Throughout human history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves, the proper relationship between the individual and the state, the best means to resolve the inevitable conflicts between states.

And it was here in Europe, through centuries of struggle, through war and enlightenment, repression and revolution, that a particular set of ideals began to emerge, the belief that through conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose, the belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding.

And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all men, and women, are created equal.

But those ideals have also been tested, here in Europe and around the world. Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. Often this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others and that individual identity must be defined by us versus them, or that national greatness must flow not by what people stand for, but what they are against.

In so many ways, the history of Europe in the 20th century represented the ongoing clash of these two sets of ideas, both within nations and among nations. The advance of industry and technology outpaced our ability to resolve our differences peacefully. And even -- even among the most civilized of societies on the surface, we saw a descent into barbarism.

This morning at Flanders Field, I was reminded of how war between peoples sent a generation to their deaths in the trenches and gas of the first world war. And just two decades later, extreme nationalism plunged this continent into war once again, with populations enslaved and great cities reduced to rubble and tens of millions slaughtered, including those lost in the Holocaust.

It is in response to this tragic history that in the aftermath of World War II, America joined with Europe to reject the darker forces of the past and build a new architecture of peace. Workers and engineers gave life to the Marshall Plan. Sentinels stood vigilant in a NATO alliance that would become the strongest the world has ever known. And across the Atlantic, we embraced a shared vision of Europe, a vision based on representative democracy, individual rights, and a belief that nations can meet the interests of their citizens through trade and open markets, a social safety net, respect for those of different faiths and backgrounds.

For decades, this vision stood in sharp contrast to life on the other side of an Iron Curtain. For decades, a contest was waged, and ultimately, that contest was won, not by tanks or missiles, but because our ideals stirred the hearts of Hungarians, who sparked a revolution, Poles in their shipyards who stood in solidarity, Czechs who waged a Velvet Revolution without firing a shot, and East Berliners who marched past the guards and finally tore down that wall.

Today what would have seemed impossible in the trenches of Flanders, the rubble of Berlin, a dissident’s prison cell -- that reality is taken for granted: a Germany unified, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe welcomed into the family of democracies. Here in this country, once the battleground of Europe, we meet in the hub of a union that brings together age-old adversaries in peace and cooperation. The people of Europe, hundreds of millions of citizens, east, west, north, south, are more secure and more prosperous because we stood together for the ideals we shared.

And this story of human progress was by no means limited to Europe. Indeed, the ideals that came to define our alliance also inspired movements across the globe -- among those very people, ironically, who had too often been denied their full rights by Western powers. After the second world war people from Africa to India threw off the yoke of colonialism to secure their independence. In the United States citizens took Freedom Rides and endured beatings to put an end to segregation and to secure their civil rights. As the Iron Curtain fell here in Europe, the iron fist of apartheid was unclenched and Nelson Mandela emerged upright, proud, from prison to lead a multiracial democracy; Latin American nations rejected dictatorship and built new democracies; and Asian nations showed that development and democracy could go hand in hand.

The young people in the audience today, young people like Lara (sp), were born in a place and a time where there is less conflict, more prosperity and more freedom than any time in human history. But that’s not because man’s darkest impulses have vanished. Even here in Europe we’ve seen ethnic cleansing in the Balkans that shocked the conscience. The difficulties of integration and globalization, recently amplified by the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, strained the European project and stirred the rise of a politics that too often targets immigrants or gays or those who seem somehow different.

While technology has opened up vast opportunities for trade and innovation and cultural understanding, it’s also allowed terrorists to kill on a horrifying scale. Around the world sectarian warfare and ethnic conflicts continue to claim thousands of lives. And once again, we are confronted with the belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way -- that recycled maxim that might somehow makes right.

So I come here today to insist that we must never take for granted the progress that has been won here in Europe and advanced around the world, because the contest of ideas continues for your generation.

And that’s what’s at stake in Ukraine today. Russia’s leadership is challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident, that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law matters, that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future.

To be honest, if we define our -- our interests narrowly, if we applied a coldhearted calculus, we might decide to look the other way. Our economy is not deeply integrated with Ukraine’s. Our people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of Crimea. Our own borders are not threatened by Russia’s annexation. But that kind of casual indifference would ignore the lessons that are written in the cemeteries of this continent. It would allow the old way of doing things to regain a foothold in this young century. And that message would be heard, not just in Europe, but in Asia and the Americas, in Africa and the Middle East.

And the consequences that would arise from complacency are not abstractions. The impacts that they have on the lives of real people, men and women just like us, have to enter into our imaginations.

Just look at the young people of Ukraine, who were determined to take back their future from a government rotted by corruption; the portraits of the fallen shot by snipers; the visitors who pay their respects at the Maidan. There was the university student wrapped in the Ukrainian flag expressing her hope that every country should live by the law; a postgraduate student speaking for fellow protesters, saying, I want these people who are here to have dignity. Imagine that you are the young woman who said, there are some things that fear, police sticks and tear gas cannot destroy.

We’ve never met these people, but we know them. Their voices echo calls for human dignity that rang out in European streets and squares for generations. Their voices echo those around the world who at this very moment fight for their dignity. These Ukrainians rejected a government that was stealing from the people instead of serving them, and are reaching for the same ideals that allow us to be here today.

None of us can know for certain what the coming days will bring in Ukraine, but I am confident that eventually those voices, those voices for human dignity and opportunity and individual rights and rule of law, those voices ultimately will triumph.

I believe that over the long haul as nations that are free, as free people, the future is ours. I believe this not because I’m naive. And I believe this not because of the strength of our arms or the size of our economies. I believe this because these ideals that we affirm are true. These ideals are universal.

Yes, we believe in democracy, with elections that are free and fair, and independent judiciaries and opposition parties, civil society and uncensored information so that individuals can make their own choices. Yes, we believe in open economies based on free markets and innovation and individual initiative and entrepreneurship and trade and investment that creates a broader prosperity.

And yes, we believe in human dignity, that every person is created equal -- no matter who you are or what you look like or who you love or where you come from. That is what we believe. That’s what makes us strong. And our enduring strength is also reflected in our respect for an international system that protects the rights of both nations and people -- a United Nations and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law and the means to enforce those laws.

But we also know that those rules are not self-executing.

They depend on people and nations of good will continually affirming them.

And that’s why Russia’s violation of international law, its assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, must be met with condemnation, not because we’re trying to keep Russia down, but because the principles that have meant so much to Europe and the world must be lifted up.

Over the last several days, the United States, Europe and our partners around the world have been united in defense of these ideals and united in support of the Ukrainian people. Together, we’ve condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and rejected the legitimacy of the Crimean referendum. Together, we have isolated Russia politically, suspending it from the G-8 nations and downgrading our bilateral ties. Together, we are imposing costs through sanctions that have left a mark on Russia and those accountable for its actions.

And if the Russian leadership stays on its current course, together, we will ensure that this isolation deepens. Sanctions will expand, and the toll on Russia’s economy, as well as its standing in the world, will only increase.

And meanwhile, the United States and our allies will continue to support the government of Ukraine as they chart a democratic course. Together, we are going to provide a significant package of assistance that can help stabilize the Ukrainian economy and meet the basic needs of the people.

Make no mistake, neither the United States nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine.

We have sent no troops there. What we want is for the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions, just like other free people around the world.

Understand as well this is not another Cold War that we’re entering into. After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology. The United States and NATO do not seek any conflict with Russia. In fact, for more than 60 years we have come together in NATO not to claim other lands but to keep nations free.

What we will do always is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty, to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies. And in that promise we will never waver. NATO nations never stand alone.

Today NATO planes patrol the skies over the Baltics, and we’ve reinforced our presence in Poland, and we’re prepared to do more.

Going forward, every NATO member state must step up and carry its share of the burden by showing the political will to invest in our collective defense and by developing the capabilities to serve as a source of international peace and security.

Of course Ukraine is not a member of NATO, in part because of its close and complex history with Russia. Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force.

But with time, so long as we remain united, the Russian people will recognize that they cannot achieve the security, prosperity and the status that they seek through brute force.

And that’s why throughout this crisis we will combine our substantial pressure on Russia with an open door for diplomacy.

I believe that for both Ukraine and Russia, a stable peace will come through de-escalation, a direct dialogue between Russia and the government of Ukraine and the international community, monitors who can ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, a process of constitutional reform within Ukraine and free and fair elections this spring.

So far, Russia has resisted diplomatic overtures, annexing Crimea and massing large forces along Ukraine’s border. Russia’s justified these actions as an effort to prevent problems on its own borders and to protect ethnic Russians inside Ukraine. Of course, there is no evidence, never has been, of systemic violence against ethnic Russians inside of Ukraine.

Moreover, many countries around the world face similar questions about their borders and ethnic minorities abroad, about sovereignty and self-determination. These are tensions that have led in other places to debate and democratic referendums, conflicts and uneasy co-existence. These are difficult issues and it is precisely because these questions are hard that they must be addressed through constitutional means and international laws, so that majorities cannot simply suppress minorities and big countries cannot simply bully the small.

In defending its actions, Russian leaders have further claimed Kosovo as a precedent, an example, they say, of the West interfering in the affairs of a smaller country, just as they’re doing now. But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.

Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq war was a subject of vigorous debate, not just around the world but in the United States, as well. I participated in that debate, and I opposed our military intervention there.

But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decisions about its own future.

Of course, neither the United States nor Europe are perfect in adherence to our ideals. Nor do we claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong in the world.

We are human, after all, and we face difficult decisions about how to exercise our power.

But part of what makes us different is that we welcome criticism, just as we welcome the responsibilities that come with global leadership. We look to the east and the south and see nations poised to play a growing role on the world stage, and we consider that a good thing. It reflects the same diversity that makes us stronger as a nation and the forces of integration and cooperation that Europe has advanced for decades. And in a world of challenges that are increasingly global, all of us have an interest in nations stepping forward to play their part, to bear their share of the burden and to uphold international norms.

So our approach stands in stark contrast to the arguments coming out of Russia these days. It is absurd to suggest, as a steady drumbeat of Russian voices do, that America is somehow conspiring with fascists inside of Ukraine but failing to respect the Russian people. My grandfather served in Patton’s Army, just as many of your fathers and grandfathers fought against fascism. We Americans remember well the unimaginable sacrifices made by the Russian people in World War II, and we have honored those sacrifices. Since the end of the Cold War, we have worked with Russia under successive administrations to build ties of culture and commerce and international community, not as a favor to Russia, but because it was in our national interests.

And together, we’ve secured nuclear materials from terrorists, we welcomed Russia into the G-8 and the World Trade Organization. From the reduction of nuclear arms to the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons, we believe the world has benefited when Russia chooses to cooperate on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.

So America and the world, and Europe, has an interest in a strong and responsible Russia, not a weak one. We want the Russian people to live in security, prosperity and dignity like everyone else, proud of their own history. But that does not mean that Russia can run roughshod over its neighbors. Just because Russia has a deep history with Ukraine does not mean it should be able to dictate Ukraine’s future. No amount of propaganda can make right something that the world knows is wrong.

You know, in the end, every society must chart its own course. America’s path or Europe’s path is not the only ways to reach freedom and justice. But on the fundamental principle that is at stake here, the ability of nations and peoples to make their own choices, there can be no going back. It’s not America that filled the Maidan with protesters. It was Ukrainians.

No foreign forces compelled the citizens of Tunis and Tripoli to rise up. They did so on their own. From the Burmese parliamentarian pursuing reform to the young leaders fighting corruption and intolerance in Africa, we see something irreducible that all of us share as human being: a truth that will persevere in the face of violence and repression and will ultimately overcome.

For the young people here today, I know it may seem easy to see these events as removed from our lives, remote from our daily routines, distant from concerns closer to home. I recognize that both in the
United States and in much of Europe, there’s more than enough to worry about in the affairs of our own countries.

There will always be voices who say that what happens in the wider world is not our concern nor our responsibility. But we must never forget that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. Our democracy, our individual opportunity only exist because those who came before us had the wisdom and the courage to recognize that ideals will only endure if we see our self-interest in the success of other peoples and other nations.

Now is not the time for bluster. The situation in Ukraine, like crises in many parts of the world, does not have easy answers nor a military solution.

But at this moment, we must meet the challenge to our ideals, to our very international order, with strength and conviction. And it is you, the young people of Europe, young people like Laura (sp), who will help decide which way the currents of our history will flow.

Do not think for a moment that your own freedom, your own prosperity, that your own moral imagination is bound by the limits of your community, your ethnicity or even your country. You’re bigger than that. You can help us to choose a better history. That’s what Europe tells us. That’s what the American experience is all about.

I say this as the president of a country that looked to Europe for the values that are written into our founding documents and which spilled blood to ensure that those values could endure on these shores. I also say this as the son of a Kenyan whose grandfather was a cook for the British, and as a person who once lived in Indonesia as it emerged from colonialism.

The ideals that unite us matter equally to the young people of Boston or Brussels or Jakarta or Nairobi or Krakow or Kiev.

In the end, the success of our ideals comes down to us, including the example of our own lives, our own societies. We know that there will always be intolerance, but instead of fearing the immigrant, we can welcome him. We can insist on policies that benefit the many, not just the few, that an age of globalization and dizzying change opens the door of opportunity to the marginalized, and not just a privileged
few.

Instead of targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can use our laws to protect their rights. Instead of defining ourselves in opposition to others, we can affirm the aspirations that we hold in common. That’s what will make America strong. That’s what will make Europe strong. That’s what makes us who we are.

And just as we meet our responsibilities as individuals, we must be prepared to meet them as nations because we live in a world in which our ideals are going to be challenged again and again by forces that would drag us back into conflict or corruption. We can’t count on others to rise to meet those tests.

The policies of your government, the principles of your European Union will make a critical difference in whether or not the international order that so many generations before you have strived to create continues to move forward, or whether it retreats. And that’s the question we all must answer: What kind of Europe, what kind of America, what kind of world will we leave behind?

And I believe that if we hold firm to our principles and are willing to back our beliefs with courage and resolve, then hope will ultimately overcome fear, and freedom will continue to triumph over tyranny, because that is what forever stirs in the human heart.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)