authorityresearch.com

"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." Proverb. 3: 5-6
"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

The Institution for Authority Research

About, Issues, Articles, LinksBooklet, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Radio, Sources, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!, P.S., Donate.
deangotcher@gmail.com.
(
Note regarding the censorship of this website by McAfee.)
Bracketed information in quotations and verses (as in the following verse) which is not in bold print is information added by me.

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5

   Marxism is alive and well in America today—in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church." It is marching in the streets and sitting in government chambers, making laws forcing you to support it's "self"-ish way, as "adults," acting as sulking spoiled children in defiance to their parent's authority, demand their way—having a tantrum if they can not have what they want, when they want it, blaming you, or anyone else not supporting them, for getting in their way. Marxism is based upon the concept that if it does not make you feel "good" in the 'moment,' inclusive of affirmation, i.e., consensus it is not worth thinking about mentally or doing physically, making "theory and practice," i.e., your personal thoughts and your social actions, one and the same, basing life upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., approaching/augmenting pleasure and avoiding/attenuating pain (including the pain of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment') negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will in the process. Yes I said child, who, under the influence of affirmation, i.e., the consensus process is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the Patriarchal Paradigm i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's command and rules in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, resulting in the child questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., the father/Father (and his/His authority) without having a "guilty conscience" when he/He (it) gets in his way. George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud understood this would take place when we focus upon and affirm the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which restrain, i.e., which prevents 'change.' While their words differ, calling the child's carnal nature the "proletariat" and the father's authority the "bourgeoisie," the structure of thought and action are the same.
   If you look at structure of thought and action, Marxism is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11 , i.e., the father's/Father's authority and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that children/mankind can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. By "helping" children dialogue their opinions to a consensus in a facilitated "group grade," "team building," "relationship building on self interest," etc., classroom, the outcome is the same, children questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., their parent's authority when they get home—manifesting the presence and 'liberation' of Karl Marx in the child's heart. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) All teachers are certified and schools accredited today (including "Christian"—as well as, increasingly, home school material) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, opening "Pandora's box," i.e., making the "affective domain," i.e., the children's "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' the focus of the curriculum, i.e., the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of education, turning the children against their parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the process. (See diaprax and affirmation charts in Links.)
   Marxism has always been here
(it is closer to you than you might think, want to know, or may be willing to admit) but was blocked or inhibited, i.e., restrained by parental authority. In the past it was referred to as the "tyranny of the masses," now it is called "civil disobedience," i.e., "Making the world safe for democracy," i.e., "Building relationship upon self interest," i.e., "being your self (without restraint)." If you do it in the name of "the people" and/or for "the environment," with affirmation, i.e., through the consensus process (which makes you, and "the people" who are participating with you in the consensus process, both now the same, "feel good") it makes you "good," making anyone apposing you, i.e., apposing "the people" or standing in your, i.e., standing in "the peoples" way "evil," including your parent's and God.
  The sovereignty of this nation has always been based upon the parent's authority in the home. Negate the parent's authority in the home and you negate the sovereignty of the nation. That is what 'change,' i.e., Marxism has always been about—negating the father's/Father's authority thereby negating the idea of sovereignty, i.e., "Mine. Not yours," as in "My property. Not yours." "My business. Not yours." "My children. Not yours." "My nation. Not yours." Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [children (including those in adult bodies) who are dissatisfied with how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority, thinking about how it "ought" to be, subject to their carnal desires of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [establishing their opinion as the only right way, thus, making themselves sovereign, inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the 'change' process itself, i.e., the consensus process—there is no father's/Father's authority (sovereignty) in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process, only the feelings and thoughts, i.e., collective opinion of the children, i.e., 'discovering' through dialogue that what they all have in common is their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their hatred toward restraint, i.e., their resentment of the father's/Father's authority, telling them what they can and can not do and say, making all children one and the same when 'liberated' from parental restraint, of and for "human nature" only—the basis of common-ism]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Karl Marx understood that the child, submitting his "self" to the parent's authority, stood in his own way, preventing 'change,' i.e., preventing him from becoming "of and for self." "The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent—when the child, humbling, denying, disciplining, controlling his "self," obeys his parent's commands and rules as given and accepts their facts and truth as given, by faith ] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) "Once the earthly family [where the wife submits her "self" to her husband and the children obey their parent's, doing the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son obeys the heavenly Father, doing the Father's will], the former [the traditional family] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [the father's/Father's authority must be negated in the child's/man's private thoughts and social actions, i.e. negated in his relationship with his "self," others, and the world]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4) Look around you today and witness the 'change,' i.e., children questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking their parents, doing as they please, having a fit if anyone gets in their way, with children (in adult bodies) in government and social programs and institutions supporting (propagating) their deviant (abominable) ways.
   Marxism exists because Karl Marx is in the child's heart (believing pleasure, i.e., that which the child naturally craves, i.e., "covets" is the standard for "good," making restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority which blocks or inhibits him [or her] from being his "self"—keeping him from "enjoying" (becoming at-one-with) the world which stimulated pleasure within him—the source of evil, i.e., the object of hate) just waiting to be released, i.e., 'liberated' from restraint, i.e., 'liberated' from your authority as a parent, i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority system of "doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth. By simply creating an environment, i.e., a "safe zone" where children can be their "self" without parental restraint, they will discover that the Karl Marx in their heart makes them one and the same. In that collective 'moment' they will be 'changed'—making their carnal desires of the 'moment' the standard for "good" instead of their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth which restrain—questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking their parents, i.e., their parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority when they get home.
   Deceive in believing pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will, they become wicked, treating the father/Father and his/His authority with disrespect, contempt, and hate. This is why those caught up in 'liberalism,' claiming that what they are doing is for "the people," when in truth it is for their "self," hate those in authority, saying and doing anything to get them "out of the way"—treating authorities business and property as theirs, including their children, so they can use them for their own pleasure and gain—in the name of "the people." This is Marxism in its essence, i.e., the praxis of 'change.'
    While fathers (in the true meaning of the word) love, i.e., do not hate their children, hating their bad behavior instead, children, loving pleasure, hate not only the father's restraint but the father who restrains them as well—both, to the child, being the same. While children, being to weak (and not willing to die) to accomplish the deed, strike out at the father/Father on their own in order to get rid of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts and truth, fail (traditional Marxism), according to contemporary Marxists (Transformational Marxism) if children, i.e., "the people" are to be 'liberated' to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, i.e., to be "normal" they must first, with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' get rid of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "negativity" in their verbal and physical actions, i.e., in their "self," negating the father's/Father's authority to enforce them in their feelings and thoughts, thereby negating their having a "guilty conscience" for disobeying them, doing wrong, or sinning, i.e., for questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., the father and his authority when they get home (or in public office, or on the streets, or in the media, or in the workplace, or at the town hall meeting, or on "social media," etc.). When children, i.e., "the people" embrace the voice of "the people," i.e., "the group" affirming the Karl Marx in their heart, their "self" is 'liberated' from the voice of the father/Father, i.e., from "self" restraint, allowing them to do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., to seduce, deceive, and manipulate others for their own pleasure and gain, i.e., to lie to, steal from, destroy, and/or kill whoever gets in their way without having a "guilty conscience," doing it (or rather initiating and/or sustaining, i.e., passing and/or supporting laws and/or disregarding, bypassing, or circumventing laws, "allowing" others to do it for them) in the name of "the people," defending the Karl Marx in their heart—loving pleasure, hating restraint and the restrainer. "Tyranny of the masses" has now become the law of the land, doing its deed under the banners of "civil disobedience," "Making the world safe for democracy," "Building relationship on self interest," Synergism, etc., ad nauseum, doing so in the name of "the people," for the sake of the environment, making sure the Marxists, i.e., the facilitators of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapists," i.e., the seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of children, men and women get paid, i.e., are well taken care of and praised for their service to mankind.
   While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be or may have been down right tyrants—acting as children, placing their love of pleasure over and therefore against their love for their children—the office they serve in is perfect, given to them by God to serve Him in. If you make pleasure the standard for "good," making your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' the 'drive' of life and the augmentation of pleasure the 'purpose,' then you must hate the father/Father and his/His authority, responding to it as being "evil." As you will see, Karl Marx (Georg Hegel, Sigmund Freud, etc.) understood this, establishing the child's nature, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a "new" world order where all can be "human," i.e., "of and for self," 'liberated' from Godly restraint.
   Marxism is the child within you, i.e., your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., "youthful lust" which the world around you is stimulating, and your dissatisfaction with whatever or whoever is preventing you from "enjoying" it, being put into praxis, i.e., into social action. All I have to do is 'liberate' the Karl Marx in your child's heart in the classroom and he or she will, by nature, question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack, etc., your authority when he or she gets home. Your children (as well as you) must "Flee" "youthful lusts:" following after "righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart" instead (2 Timothy 2:22), or they (you) will have "no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:18), i.e., thinking and acting, as Karl Marx, that ('justifying' their/your "sensuous needs" as Karl Marx would say, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," and their/your "sense perception" as Karl Marx would say, i.e., "the lust of the eyes," basing all that there is, i.e., 'reality' upon "sense experience" as Karl Marx would say, i.e., "all that is of the world") they/you can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity—the attitude that most have today, even in the "church"—treating the Word of God as being "irrational," i.e., out of touch with man's "felt needs" (the consensus process can ONLY deal with man's "felt needs," making it necessary to either set aside, i.e., suspended, as on a cross, or redefine any portion of the Word which interferes with man's "felt needs," making the "Word of God" and man's "self interest" one and the same), therefore making the Word of God "irrelevant" when it conflicts with the 'changing' times, i.e., when it interferes with man's "felt needs." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3 vs. 1 John 2:16)
   George Hegel sought to 'change' the world by 'liberating' the child/mankind from the father's/Father's authority through the use of philosophy (philosophy is your thinking about how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority, how it "ought" to be, subject to satisfying your carnal desires of the 'moment,' and how it can "be" once everyone's carnal nature is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., subject to continuous 'change'). Karl Marx sought to 'change' the world by 'liberating' society from the father's/Father's authority through the use of violent force, 'changing' society by killing the fathers in society outright. Sigmund Freud sought to 'change' the world by 'liberating' the individual from the father's/Father's authority as well, through the use of psychology, i.e., asking them for their opinion (there is no father's/Father's authority in an opinion), making their opinion, i.e., their "feelings" of the 'moment' the standard for right and wrong, killing the father's/Father's authority in the individual's feelings, thoughts, and actions in the process, 'changing' the individual ('changing' the world one individual at a time).
   By merging Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, i.e., merging the individual and "the group," i.e., society, making them one and the same (in the 'moment'), 'changing' them both at the same time, i.e., by 'creating' "group psychotherapy" (J. L. Moreno said he kept telling Freud to do it in a group, you get greater results for your time), and using it, i.e., the consensus process, i.e., the facilitated "team building," "relationship building" process in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church," not only is the individual 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, "the group," i.e., society is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority as well, both being 'changed' at the same time. The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is Marxism (Transformational Marxism) being put into praxis, 'liberating' you and society from the father's/Father's authority. It is children (in adult bodies) 'justifying' their "self" before one another, i.e., 'justifying' their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their resentment toward restraint, establishing man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's restraint.
   Our highest court has been putting Marxism into praxis since the 50's, 'liberating' the schools, the workplace, government, and even the "church" and the family from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negating private convictions, property, and business, under God, by making all citizens subject to "building community," i.e., focusing upon "social-ist needs" (the "need" to think and act with no sense of God, i.e., no fear of God in their lives) with legislators and presidents joining them hand in hand. The seeds of destruction lay in the document itself, as pointed out by men such as Patrick Henry who warned "We the people" should read "We the states," the area of sovereignty, under God (the state of Hawaii being the only state with a constitution not recognizing its sovereignty as being under God), with "more perfect union" reading "in order to prevent war between the states" instead, the intent of the meeting in the first place, retaining the recognition of States rights, where the citizens could have greatest control over government policy (whether it be good or evil). F.D.R.'s "New Deal"—sending money's into the states from the Fed's to "the people"—was not readily carried out by many States, who did not accept and disperse Fed money to its citizens out of fear that their citizens might grow dependent upon Fed money, circumventing 'loyalty' to the State, undermining the citizens recognition of and support for States rights. All Fed money carries with it a circumventing of State rights—which carry with it a recognition of sovereignty, under God—bypassing the ability of the citizens to protect their homes, communities, counties, and state from Fed (and now international, i.e., globalist, i.e., Marxist) control. "Making the world safe for Democracy" 'liberates' "the people" from Godly restraint. The courts simply pushed the agenda into high gear, with legislative, presidential, media, and citizen support (now addicted to and dependent upon Fed money), leaving recognition (fear) of God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority out, i.e., in the dust, preparing America (a nation of "Facebook" mentality children—under the influence of, intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed by affirmation, i.e., the approval of men—being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by "children of disobedience," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists") for judgment day. When we 'justify' our "self," especially with the approval of others, i.e., when we reject, i.e., set aside (suspend, as on a cross) God and His Word in the praxis of "building relationships" based upon "self interest," we abandon our children to the world, with God turning his back not only us but on them as well. "[S]eeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 "Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., who establishes his "self" above and therefore against God's restraints] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
   "Children of disobedience" and "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' ("reasoning" through dialogue) go hand in hand. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' "before men," while claiming to be academic, i.e., "higher order thinking skills" (in morals and ethics) is spiritual instead. It is Georg Hegel's dialectic process, i.e., the "scientific method" being applied to "the group," i.e., society and "the individual." It is "group psychotherapy" (Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud) being used (put into praxis) in all venues of life, from the classroom to the highest offices in our land, justifying the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the authority of God, i.e., 'liberating' children from parental authority, i.e., the earthly father's authority and men and women (as well as children) from God's, i.e., the Heavenly Father's authority, at least in their thoughts and action, i.e., in "theory and practice" (that is until judgment day)—engender the "wrath of God" upon all who participate, i.e., who walk "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air." "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 2:2,3 "Let no man deceive you with vain words ["self" 'justifying' 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 Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the consensus process, is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11 , i.e., the father's/Father's authority and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning.
   Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification' before men," i.e., the consensus process, i.e., affirmation is like a drug, i.e., intoxicating, addictive, and possessive, making it impossible for a person to see their "SELF" as it really is, i.e., from the father's/Father's perspective. The so called "new" world order, with children refusing to listen to their parents, i.e., doing wrong, i.e., disobeying with no sense of guilty—who, not only question and/or challenge their parents, i.e., question and/or challenge their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth when they get in the way of their carnal desires of the 'moment' (which is natural with all children at some point in their life, expressed in their "Why?" in their response to their parent's restraining command, with the parent's "Because I said so" sometimes, if not always, following, and the threat of chastening if "Why?" is asked again, cutting off dialogue, preventing the child from getting his way, i.e., from being his "self," i.e., from thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, resulting in the child having a guilty conscience or "fearing 'judgment'" if he disobeys), but also, ignoring, disregarding, circumventing, defying, attacking, etc., the parent's i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the Patriarchal paradigm itself as well (a paradigm is the way a person thinks, acts, and relates with his "self," others, and the world, as well as responds to authority—see diaprax chart), which is not natural with children, who use the father's/Father's authority system themselves, demanding others listen to and obey them, replacing it, i.e., "shifting" it or rather negating it with a Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' making not only pleasure the standard for "good," instead of doing the father's/Father's will, but the negation of the father's/Father's authority the standard for "good" as well—is the result of children being programed, i.e., seduced, deceived, and manipulated i.e., lied to by facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," learning how to (through the "teacher's" use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., basing "education" upon the students "feeling," i.e., their affective domain, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, "encouraging" the students to dialogue their opinions to a consensus in the "group grade," "team building," "relationship building" classroom) put dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., the consensus process, i.e., affirmation into social action, i.e., into praxis, through "group projects" uniting "theory and practice" (what I call diaprax) in order to initiate and sustain a world of 'change.', i.e., a world 'driven' by (ruled by) the child's carnal nature (George Hegel), with children "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., their heart's desire 'purposed' in augmenting pleasure over and therefore against their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system (Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud), creating a "new" world order of "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., a world where all children can 1). 'discover' through dialogue that their carnal nature, that which all children have in common (the basis of "common-ism"), makes them equal (Equalité), 2). and coming to a consensus, i.e., experiencing a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e., affirmation (see affirmation charts), engendering a "feeling" of Fraternité, they are able to 3). 'liberate' their "self" (Liberté) and everybody else (society) from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from parental/Godly restraint, i.e., from having to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, ignoring, disregarding, circumventing, defying, attacking, etc., their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority without having a guilty conscience. No longer having a guilty conscience when they do wrong, disobey, sin, they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, putting into praxis (personal-social action, i.e., theory and practice) all the elements of the French Revolution, i.e., "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité" in their "group grade," "team building," "relationship building" classroom—dialoguing (equalité) their opinions (liberté) to a consensus (fraternité). The dialectic "logic" (dialectic 'reasoning') is: if everybody who participates in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, i.e., the soviet system does it by nature, i.e., does it naturally, i.e., dialogue with their "self" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'justify' their "self"—attempting to wash their brain of the father's/Father's authority (brainwashing)—then it must be OK, i.e., the "norm," i.e., 'justified,' making all who refuse to participate, resist, inhibit, or block the consensus process "the problem," needing to be converted (programed) or at least silenced (become tolerant)—or be removed (negated) if they get in the way.
   All who participate in the dialectic, i.e., consensus, i.e., "relationship building," i.e., affirmation (fraternité) process, including and especially the facilitators of 'change,' are deceived, taking pleasure in deceiving others by telling them that what they are doing is for "the people" when in truth it is for their "self," i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment,' seducing, deceiving, manipulating all who come their way, i.e., who enter their lair, i.e., who listen to their lie, negating (dismissing as irrelevant, i.e., of no importance) any who resist or refuse to participate, having no sense of guilt when they remove any who get, or they perceive as getting in the way (including the unborn child and/or the elderly). Kurt Lewin's three conditions for 'change' come into play in this praxis of seduction, deception, and manipulation by the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., 1) his "force field analysis," with "positive" forces being the child's nature, i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' including the pleasure which comes with being affirmed ('justified') by others, and "negative" forces being the father's/Father's restrains, i.e., inhibiting or blocking the child ("human nature") from having its way. 2) his "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing," with "unfreezing" being the removal of the father's/Father's restraints (liberté) in sharing opinions, "moving" or 'change' being the act of dialogue (equalité) itself, and "refreezing" being group affirmation, i.e., consensus (fraternité), and 3) "group dynamics," the desire that all naturally have for affirmation over and therefore against the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., naturally loving and approaching pleasure, i.e., doing their will, i.e., the "positive," which includes being affirmed by others, which (as mentioned above) is not only intoxicating, but addictive and possessive as well—blinding them to the consequences, i.e., dangers of their actions—and naturally hating and avoiding the "negative," i.e., the pain of being reproved, corrected, reprimanded, i.e., restrained, which includes being rejected (or the fear of being rejected, i.e., cast out by the father/Father and those in agreement with his/His authority) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for refusing to do right, obey, repent, i.e., for doing their will, which is of and for nature, i.e., "of and for self" only, instead of doing the father's/Father's will (which goes against their nature, preventing them from satisfying their carnal desires of the 'moment,' especially when they go against the father's/Father's will). In the end, the intended purpose of consensus, i.e., affirmation is to negate the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, allowing the person to be "human," i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.(PowerPoint presentation in PDF format on the affect affirmation (the consensus process) has upon the students in the classroom, resulting in children defying their parent's authority when they get home, without having a guilty conscience.)
   While the American Revolution removed the father's/Father's authority in the general government, limiting the power of government, it left it in tact in the home, guaranteeing private convictions, property, and business, engendering a generation of citizens and leaders who (generally speaking) had a guilty conscience when they did wrong, disobeyed, sinned. We have now embraced the structure of thought of the French Revolution, i.e., the ideology of Georg Hegel, as well as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, not only in the general government but in the home as well, i.e., negating individualism, under God, making the individual (and therefore the home) subject to the "group," i.e., to the "village," i.e., to the "community," i.e., to society instead. As Karl Marx explained it: "It is not individualism [under God's and/or parent's, bosses, etc., authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning] and individuality [to be one's "self," i.e., "of and for self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "Once the earthly family [where the wife does the husbands will and the children do the parent's, i.e., the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son does the Father's will], the former [the traditional family] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [in the child's/man's private thoughts and social actions, i.e., in his relationship with his "self," others, and the world]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4) For any who might think Karl Marx did not fully understand what he was doing, the following statement by Marx reveals that he did. Karl Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the Christian of faith] also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith [remember Karl Marx is writing this, understanding that, for the believer, "true reason" is grounded upon "faith," i.e., faith in the Father and in His obedient Son Jesus Christ, i.e., reasoning from the Word of God instead of from your own "sense experience"], of true love, i.e., of love of God [that "true love," for the believer, is grounded in the Son's love of the Father, where love of and for the Father and the Son is greater than (must supersedes) our love "of and for self"], of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ [that "true will-power," for the believer, is grounded in the Son's will to obey His Heavenly Father, i.e., that we (as He) are to do His Father's will in all things commanded. Karl Marx recognized, as most ministers do no today, that apart from faith in, love for, and will to obey the Father, above all else, all we have is sensuousness, i.e., our love of "self" and all that is of the world, i.e., all that is "of and for self"]." Karl Marx therefore clearly understood as well that the husband-wife relationship, according to the Word of God, was "Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh," i.e., not for "self," "but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply," i.e., that the husband-wife relationship was to do the Father's will as well, affecting the home, the neighborhood, and society. (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) He then set out, as a scientist, knowing what it was he had to do, to destroy the traditional marriage and home (under God), focusing upon man's "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," negating faith in God for the sake of "the people," i.e., for his own "self interest." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Norman O. Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History:, explained the "problem" Karl Marx was seeing in society and its solution (through the use of psychology, i.e., Sigmund Freud, in the form of "group psychotherapy," i.e., merging Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who both saw, as Georg Hegel, the "problem" of the individual and society being the same, i.e., the father's/Father's authority): "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, . . . leads to neurosis [doing the father's/Father's will in opposition to your nature, i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment']." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "Psychoanalysis offers a way out of . . . neurosis [the father's/Father's authority]." "The key to the nature of dialectical thinking may lie in psychoanalysis, more specifically in Freud's psychoanalysis of negation [negation of the father's/Father's authority]." "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion [God, the Father's authority]." "Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'– the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged."
    Once liberté, equalité, fraternité' , i.e., the consensus process become a reality, returning to the father's/Father's authority becomes an impossibility. Warren Bennis explained it this way: ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching." "… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
   According to Marx, in the name of "the people," i.e., "self interest," laws must be readily adaptable to 'change,' allowing those in control of the consensus meeting, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' along with those following him (or her), to have their own way, i.e., to "do their own thing" without having a guilty conscience—resulting in children/adults, 'liberated' from parental/Godly restraint, having sexually relations with one another, removing the unwanted (as well as censoring any who object to their adulteries/abominations) when they get in the way. Marx wrote: "Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's/man's carnal desires, i.e. pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature"]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [carnal desires and abilities] of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) Such praxis results in laws become unpredictability, i.e., ever 'changing,' making all subject to the "self interest" of the facilitators of 'change' and those following after their adulterous/abominable ways—doing so in the name of "the people." As history has taught us, with other nations trying the same praxis: "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) But who is interested in the lessons of history today, especially when they get in the way of everyone's "enjoyment" of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which the world stimulates—doing that which seems right in their own eyes. The scriptures warn us: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
   This 'change' in how children respond to authority has not happened by accident. The classroom has played an essential part in this process of 'change,' i.e., in the engendering of the French Revolution in America, negating the father's/Father's authority in the hearts, minds, and actions ("theory and practice") of the children (cutting the father's/Father's head off in their thoughts and actions in the classroom) by "teachers" "encouraging" the students to be "positive," sharing, i.e., dialoguing their "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e., opinions of the 'moment,' which are subject to their "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' without fear of being "judged," "condemnation," or "put down"—making "feelings" the foundation of evaluation—and not "negative," i.e., preaching and teaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed, restraining, i.e., inhibiting or blocking, i.e., "hurting" others "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., making them "feel bad," i.e., feel guilty for their carnal thoughts of the 'moment' and actions—resulting in their rejecting, attacking, defying, disregarding, etc., their parent's authority, i.e., questioning and challenging, etc., their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth which are "negative" to them in the 'moment' (when they get home), not only 'changing' the environment of the home, but the "community," the nation, and the world as well. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) The idea being, if 'change' does not take place in the home (requiring outside support) it can not be initiated and sustained in society. Therefore the agenda was (and still is) to "use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child," negating the father's/Father's authority in the home., thereby negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, for disobeying, for sinning, in the "community," the nation, and the world. (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
   Assisted by facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., "educators," i.e., "youth ministers" (in the "church") children are learning (in the classroom, via. the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies") how to evaluate (aufheben) the world and rule it according to their carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., according to their "self interests" of the 'moment' ("self" and "interest," which, by nature, are the same, are antithetical to the father's/Father's authority), negating the "old" world order of 1). the father's/Father's authority and 2). faith (which requires resisting the carnal pleasures, i.e., temptations of the 'moment' in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, in order to receive a reward/inheritance from the father/Father in the future—the very structure of capitalism, where people capitulate their desires, i.e., their "self interests," at least for the 'moment,' in order to do a job right and not wrong according to the one in authorities' desires, i.e., conditions, in order to receive a reward or pay from them later on—"Humble yourselves [your "self"] therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:" 1 Peter 5:6—otherwise "self" will "exalt" you, i.e., 'justify' you, i.e., 'justify' your carnal nature, i.e., your carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., "interests" of the 'moment,' i.e., in the "here-and-now" instead), 3) negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so they can ('living in and for the 'moment,' i.e., "of and for self") do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity—"feeling good" about their "self" in the praxis.
   The world has become as the saying "Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink," i.e., "Children, children everywhere but not a father's/Father's restraint." Whether two or ninety-two, or anywhere in between, i.e., whether in the daycare center, the classroom, the workplace, government, or even in the "church," the behavior is the same, children, men, and women—enamored with their "self," others, and the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—thinking and acting with "no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18
   In the experience of "group" affirmation , i.e., the consensus process, with "the group" affirming their carnal nature, i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' the child learns that his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' are his guide to what is "right" in the present situation, i.e., in the 'moment,' bypassing or circumventing his parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., perceiving them as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant," negating the father's/Father's authority (system) in the process. Affirmation (consensus) replaces the father's/Father's' authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning with the child's carnal nature, i.e., the nature of the child, i.e., "human nature," i.e., the voice of the "village," 'justifying' his carnal nature, i.e., his love of the carnal pleasures of the moment' and his hate of restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, making him at-one-with, i.e., at peace with his "self," the "group," i.e., the "village," and the world in the process. For the sake of "relationship," i.e., "peace and harmony" ("worldly peace and socialist harmony"), those who cause tension and conflict in the room, i.e., those who insist upon being "negative," insisting upon everyone doing right and not wrong according to their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's will, obeying their, i.e., his/His commands and rules (as given), accepting their, i.e., his/His facts and truth as given (by faith) must either become "positive," i.e., silent (tolerant), participate (abdicate), or leave the room (being labeled as being "not a team player," a "resistor of 'change," "negative," "divisive," "maladjusted," a "lower order thinker," "hateful," "intolerant," "prejudiced," "unadaptable to 'change,'" "psychological," "judgmental," "phobic," " in denial," a "dinosaur," etc.,). It is an either-or situation no matter which direction you go or pathway you choose. "... know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4 "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
   Chasten your child (when he or she disobeys you) in any public arena and you will quickly find out how many "children" in adult bodies hate the father's/Father's authority, defending your child's (and their) rebellious, i.e., carnal nature over (and therefore against) your God given authority as a parent over your family, negating your right of private convictions, property, and business. It is all about how policy is established, i.e., politics, affecting the issue of rights, either the parent's, i.e., sovereignty and jurisdiction (borders), following after the Lord, i.e., "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) or the child's, i.e., anarchy and revolution (borderless), following after Rousseau, i.e., "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality). How you respond to your children's behavior (doing the father's/Father's will or the "villages" will) determines what form of government your children will serve and protect. While the earthly father is not perfect, he may be a tyrant, his office is, given to him by the Heavenly Father to serve Him in, doing His will in. Karl Marx understood this (as quoted above, i.e., "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret ..."). Negate ("annihilate") the father's/Father's authority and all you have is a world of 'change' (Karl Marx's dream), i.e., a world of and for the child's carnal nature, i.e., "of and for self," subject to the powers that be, i.e., facilitators of 'change.' Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [those dissatisfied with how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority, thinking about how it "ought" to be, subject to their carnal desires of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [established their opinion as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the process of 'change' itself, i.e., the consensus process—there is no father's/Father's authority in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process, only the feelings and thoughts, i.e., collective opinion of the children, i.e., common-ism]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Georg Hegel 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 [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Therefore sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born) Hegel could write: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." ibid.
   The "new" world order is the result of facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., "educators," i.e., "youth ministers" (acting as a "big brother" with his "self interest" in mind) seducing, deceiving, and manipulating children (men and women), i.e., "helping" them—through the dialoguing of their opinions with one another to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness"—1). to affirm their "self," i.e., their "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their resentment toward restraint, which all children have in common, making the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., unrighteousness the "norm," 2). to 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, so they can enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., become at-one-with the world in pleasure, living for the "sense experiences" (sensuousness/sensation) of the 'moment' only, and 3). to disobey the father/Father, i.e., negate the father's/Father's authority, so they can do wrong, sin without having a guilty conscience (no longer have a sense of contrition, brokenness, remorse), no longer needing to repent for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., no longer abhorring evil, only 'justifying' their "self," blaming someone else or the situation they happened to be caught up in, if they get caught for their problems or the problems of life, so they can be 4). used (as "natural resource") by facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., "educators," i.e., "youth ministers" for their own pleasure and gain (getting them to negate the father's/Father's authority so they can have no sense of guilty, i.e., a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as well). It is not enough that the father dies or is killed (or is no longer in the home), the guilty conscience in the child, for doing wrong, which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority (in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others) must be negated as well (that is, the child's guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father must be replaced with the "super-ego," i.e., the child's "feelings" of the 'moment, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' as well as his desire for affirmation from others, affirming him, i.e., his carnal nature and therefore affirming their "self," i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" as well), or, according to dialectic 'reasoning' "repression," "alienation," and "neurosis" will remain in the child, resulting in the child re-introducing the father's/Father's authority back into society when he (or someone else he is following, i.e., obeying) gets into a position of authority, expecting everyone to obey him, i.e., do what he says "or else."
  The very praxis (act) of affirmation by "the group," i.e., the consensus process replaces the child's conscience with the "super-ego," i.e., replaces the father's/Father's authority (the voice of the father/Father in the child, restraining his carnal nature, i.e., his natural "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the moment') with "group" approval (with the voice of the other children, i.e., the "village," approving/affirming his carnal nature, i.e., his natural "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' along with his dissatisfaction with restraint) negating his fear of, respect for, and honoring of his parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, questioning, challenging, disregarding, disrespecting, defying, attacking, etc., his parents and their authority instead, when he gets home, i.e., when his parents, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth get in the way of his carnal desires of the 'moment,' including their coming between him and his relationship with "the group," with relationship with others, i.e., "the group," i.e., "the community," etc., now being based upon "self" interest, i.e., pleasure, i.e., "self" 'justification' instead of upon his parent's, i.e., the father's/Fathers' commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong, replacing his 'loyalty' to the one (doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will), with 'loyalty' to the many (finding his identity—common-ism—in "the group," thereby 'justifying' his and their carnal nature, i.e., his and their love of pleasure and hate of restraint in the praxis of affirmation, i.e., through the consensus process). In the praxis of affirmation, i.e., in the consensus process, fellowshipping with those who are 'loyal' to his father's/Father's authority is replaced with "building relationship" with "the group," 'liberated' (or 'liberating' its "self") from the father's/Father's authority, following after the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., his way of thinking and acting instead. To "build relationship" with diversity, i.e., deviancy requires setting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth aside, i.e., compromise, i.e., 'change.' Affirmation is simply the outcome of such praxis, i.e., the uniting of thought (theory), i.e., a persons "self interest," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his resentment toward restraint and action (practice), i.e., his desire for relationship with (affirmation by) others of like mind, i.e., desiring the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and resenting restraint as well. In the praxis of affirmation, you can not have the love without the hate, i.e., the "lust" (love) for the pleasures of the 'moment' without resentment toward (hate of) the father's/father's authority. Putting affirmation into action (praxis) simply means negating the father's/Father's authority (restraint), not only in the individual but in all of society as well—so that all can sin with impunity. "Civil disobedience" is the praxis of putting disobedience, i.e., rebellion against the father's/Father's authority (revolution) into social action, negating the father's/Father's authority in the citizens feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another and the world.
   "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48), i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will is negated in the "feeling" (sensation) of "oneness" with others who deviate from, i.e., disagree with the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in the "lets be positive and not negative" meeting, with differences being set aside, i.e., disregarded, i.e., suspended (as on a cross) in the 'moment' for the sake of unity, i.e., affirmation, i.e., "human nature," 'justifying' your "self" and others in the "group hug," "feel good," "I'm OK. You're OK" 'moment,' elevating your carnal "feelings" above, i.e., over the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (they can never be equal with the father's/Father's authority), turning you, by nature, against the father's/Father's authority in the process. By making your "feelings" equal with (above) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (putting the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth aside for the sake of the "feeling" of unity, i.e., affirmation), the father's/Father's authority (your private convictions, i.e., guilt for thinking of doing wrong or disobeying the father/Father) is negated in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in your relationship with others, turning you against the father/Father and his/His authority. This can take place in one "youth group" meeting in the "church" (to your child), one subcommittee meeting at the capital (to your legislator), one "team building" meeting in the workplace (to your spouse), one "in-service" training session (to your teachers, policemen, servicemen), one "community," i.e., common-unity project (to your neighbor, minister), etc.,. "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief, i.e., their position, i.e., their faith (trust) in authority, be it in their parent's, their teacher's, their boss's, their leader(s), or God's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity [especially when "the group" is heading, hand in hand, down the road of your carnal desire of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest," "enjoying" it without you, turning on you, i.e., rejecting you (or your child) for not joining-affirming them, i.e., for not being a "team player"]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) When "tolerance of ambiguity," i.e., deviancy/unrighteousness, i.e., your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (which you are dialoguing with your "self" about, i.e., "tolerating" privately) are made public (through your dialoguing, i.e., sharing them with others) and are approved (by "the group," i.e., affirmed in the consensus process—becoming a part of "the project"), you are in the process of 'change,' being asked to sell your soul for the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., for "group approval," i.e., for the experience of affirmation. "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" 2 Peter 2:11 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world [the approval of men, i.e., affirmation, which is temporal, i.e., of the 'moment' only], and lose his own soul [which is eternal]?" Mark 8:36 You are of no worth to "the group," i.e., to the facilitator of 'change,' it is your affirmation that creates worth, i.e., you setting aside your private convictions (the father's/Father's authority) for the peace of mind of others, i.e., for the sake (peace of mind) of "the group," i.e., for the sake (peace of mind) of the facilitator of 'change.' Where you spend eternity is no longer an issue when you (or your children, spouse, legislator, minister, etc.) participate in the consensus process, i.e., in the praxis of affirmation.
   When, for the sake of affirmation, i.e., consensus, i.e., i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness" with "self" and "the group,"—out of fear of being rejected by the other children (and missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment')—the child remains silent in the midst of unrighteousness (diversity/deviancy), i.e., not reproving, correcting, rebuking others (the deviant) for doing what he knows (by his father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) to be wrong, unrighteousness ("human nature") becomes the "norm," turning "the group" (and progressively the child) against any who try to expose them for their wicked ways, 'justifying' their deceitful and wicked hearts (searing their conscience) in the process. It is therefore essential, through dialogue, to 'discover' the child's desires and dissatisfactions (what the child is already, in private, talking to his "self" about), for without knowing them, i.e., the child's "self interests," i.e., going beyond them or not incorporating them in "group discussion," the child, resisting (fearing) 'change,' i.e., remaining subject to the father's/Father's authority will not join in with "the group" in 'justifying' (affirming) them, i.e., his "self" and "the group," collective/common "self interest," putting them into praxis (collective action). "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual's potential for democratic ["positive," i.e., socialist, globalist, i.e., adaptable to 'change,' anti-"authoritarian"] or antidemocratic ["negative," i.e., individualist, nationalist, i.e., unadaptable to 'change,' pro-"authoritarian"] thought and action in crucial situations." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
   In the praxis of questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, rejecting, etc., the father's/Father's authority in the "group grade" classroom, the child or children who refuse to affirm "the group" in the "group grade" classroom, i.e., who continue to hold onto (have faith in) the father's/Father's authority are questioned, challenged, disregarded, defied, attacked, rejected, etc., as well, thus preparing the rest of the children, for the sake of affirmation, i.e., in order to initiate and sustain the consensus process, to question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack, reject their parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority when they get home. Without the praxis of martyring (questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, rejecting, etc.,) those who resist 'change' in the classroom (without having a "guilty conscience"), martyring (questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, rejecting, etc.,) those outside the classroom (without having a "guilty conscience") can not take place. In this way the classroom becomes the laboratory (the halfway house) for 'change.' The praxis of affirmation not only 'justifies' the child's "lust" for pleasure (including the pleasure which comes from being affirmed by others) it 'justifies' his praxis toward authority, i.e., his hate of restraint and the restrainer as well, i.e., it 'justifies' his questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, rejecting those who do not affirm him and "the group," i.e., "the people" as well. The consensus process is the biggest bully session on the face of the earth (being done behind closed doors in the "group grade," "relationship building," "team building" classroom). The same praxis affects (changes the way) your legislator in the consensus subcommittee, your spouse in the "teambuilding" workplace, etc.,. thinks and acts, i.e., respond to you as well. "Tolerance of ambiguity (deviance)" requires you to suspend the truth, as on a cross, for the purpose of "affirmation," i.e., consensus., i.e., "building relationship upon self interest." It is not just disobedience to parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority that the facilitators of 'change' are after, it is no one telling them that what they are doing is wrong, i.e., that they will be damned for what they are doing in their "make me feel good" meeting, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, including seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others, i.e., buying and selling their souls (as "human resource") for their own pleasure and gain with no sense of "guilt," i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity with group support, i.e., affirmation—with those they are seducing deceiving, and manipulating following, praising, defending, and supporting them, as god.
  "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3 By using double speak ("feigned words," i.e., plastic words in the Greek), i.e., words you (or your children) want to hear (vain, i.e., "self interest" words) which have more meaning than you (or they) understand or are willing to see or admit (out of fear of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' and the affirmation of others, approving of your "lusting" after, i.e., "coveting" them), facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists" are able to seduce and deceive you (and/or your children), i.e., get you (your children) into dialogue, i.e., into revealing your (their) "self interest" (carnal desires) of the 'moment"—thinking they have your (their, i.e., your children's) best interest in mind—whereby they can manipulate you (them), i.e., turn you (them) into "human resource," (turning them against you) using you (them) for their own carnal pleasures and gain. By rejecting the authority of God's Word in their lives, i.e., refusing to let the Lord direct their steps, children, men, and women become subject to the warnings they provide (the Lord gives them), resulting in their paying the price, i.e., facing the consequences of their praxis, i.e., seduction, deception, and manipulation in this life and "damnation" in the next, as well as missing out on the peace and joy the Lord provides in this life and in the life that lies ahead. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God," Matthew 4:4 "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee." Isaiah 26:3
  What all socialist revolutions, including the national ones, have in common is their negation of the father's/Father's authority in the home. The American revolution, although removing the father's/Father's authority from the general government left it in tact in the home, guaranteeing the right of private convictions, family, property, and business, as well as guaranteeing a guilty conscience in the next generation for doing wrong/sinning. If you do not see your elected "representative" as being your child, sent by you to the store to purchase your goods, he will spend your money on his (and his friends) own "self interest," taking that which is yours and using it for his (and his "friends") own personal pleasure and gain, putting you into debt (with no guilty conscience)—all the while 'justifying' his "self," claiming that what he was doing was for the "good" of "the people." All of history, from the garden on, manifests the child's animosity toward the father's/Father's authority, with the child "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing the father's/Father's will. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life [the child 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' "human nature," i.e., 'justifying' his propensity to "lust" after the pleasures of the world, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' in disobedience/defiance to the father's/Father's will], is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 "Worldly peace" and "socialist harmony," i.e., the "new" world order can not be initiated and sustain until children, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (affirmation) in a facilitated meeting, learn how to 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, and, putting it, i.e., their consensus, i.e., their "feeling of oneness" (affirmation) into praxis (into group, community, and/or social action), negate the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong/sinning not only in themselves but in the community, society, and the world as well. If the "new" world order is to be successful, it must 'liberate' the children from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in the home, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong/for sinning in the process. After all it is the guilty conscience for doing wrong, which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority that (according to dialectic 'reasoning') engenders "repression," "alienation," and "neurosis" in and between the children around the world. The idea being, negate the father's/Father's authority in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with the other children of the world, with the other children's affirmation, and his guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father will disappear.
   The so called "new" world order is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11 , i.e., the father's/Father's authority and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong/for sinning. It is antithetical to the gospel message. It is not a matter of whether the father/Father is autocratic (dictatorial, uncaring, and unforgiving) or benevolent (caring, merciful, and forgiving) or anywhere in between, it is the father's/Father's authority system itself, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will that is under attack, i.e., being negated in the "new" world order. The "new" world order is Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose" world order ("Zweckmäßigkeit ohne Zweck; Gesetzmäßigkeit ohne Gesetz,"), where law is 'discovered' in the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., in the carnal nature of the children, i.e., in the consensus 'moment' negating the laws of the "past," i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the laws of restraint and the "purpose" of life is living in the 'moment,' 'liberating' the world of the restraints of the "past," i.e., the father's/Father's authority. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) It is a world where the lawless one rules, along with the "children of disobedience," making laws ever subject to 'change' (unpredictable), until the "wrath of God," i.e., judgment comes their way. Dialogue makes all people, parents and children, man and God, branches of government one and the same, i.e., subject to the "felt needs" (crisis, i.e., desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,' stimulated by the information people are receiving and sharing (experiencing in the 'moment'), being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change.' While everyone is going after individuals, organizations, institutions, etc., they all miss the problem, the process of 'change' itself, being used to 'change' how children respond to their parent's authority, i.e., how parents raise (train up) their children. Change the parent-child relationship, i.e., negate the father's authority in the home, under God, i.e., the Heavenly Father's authority and you 'change' everything. The agenda is to "use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) God (and those who are His) will not cooperate with, i.e., participate in the process of 'change,' with the Lord judging all who do, on judgment day.
   Despite its advancement by men such as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who built their ideology upon Georg Hegel's ideology of the child, the "new" world order first took place in the garden in Eden, where, with the "help" of the master facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the master "psychotherapist," two "children" were able to 'liberate' their "self" from the "Father's" authority (God's restraint), deciding right from wrong according to their carnal desires ("self interest") of the 'moment' ("building relationship upon self interest") instead of from the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, making knowledge subject to their "feelings" (desires, i.e., "felt needs") of the 'moment' (and the world stimulating them, and the facilitator of 'change' manipulating it, therefore manipulating them) instead of subject to God, who created the world, making it subject to established laws (limits and measures) and them, with the ability to choose between being subject to His will, i.e., subject to His commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong, or subject to their will, i.e., subject to their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires of the moment,' i.e., doing what they please, making them subject to the world, making them subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the master facilitator of 'change.' The woman was absolutely correct in her "scientific" evaluation of the world, i.e., her reasoning that there was nothing in the "forbidden" tree that would hurt her (that it was not dangerous to her in and of itself). It was not the tree that was the issue, i.e., the tree did not kill her, it was her making knowledge subject to her "feelings" of the 'moment' (the affective domain) instead of subject to the "Father's" commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., it was her use of dialectic 'reasoning' (making science, i.e., the facts and truth of nature subject to her carnal desires of the 'moment') to 'justify her "self" over and therefore against the Father's authority, i.e., it was her disobedience to the "Father," i.e., her disobeying the Father's command, rule, fact, and truth that resulting in her (and Adam—for abdicating his office of authority, under God, to follow after her) being removed from the garden, prevented them from having access to the tree of life (the Father's blessing/reward). They were both judged and found guilty for their praxis of "self" 'justification,' i.e., for putting the "new" world order into action, i.e., for putting theory (their opinion) into action (as children, in a "group grade," facilitated, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus and putting it into action in a "group project" classroom do today) over and therefore against the Father's authority, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth. Just because (in your perspective/perception/mind/opinion) you can do something you desire without it "hurting anyone" or "someone," especially with everyone's (or the other persons) approval (consent), i.e., with everyone (or the other person) affirming you does not make it right. A million (or seven and a half billion and counting) wrongs, with everyone doing it, i.e., affirming you (and everyone else) does not make it right, i.e., does not make you (or anyone else) righteous, i.e., "good."
   The "new" world order is based upon the same dialectic pattern of "self" 'justification' Adam and the woman used to 'justify' themselves before God, blaming someone/something else, i.e., something in the environment for their "bad behavior"—the idea being, if you remove what is bad from the environment you would/could/should become "good" (again), the problem being, for that to happen, you have to remove God, i.e., the "Father" (who says you are not good in and of your "self"). The so called "new' world order is that "new," enticing you and your children to join in: 'justifying' your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating ("emancipating," "liberating") in you, in defiance to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., God's will—till judgment day. "And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' more than God] 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 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ["human nature"], is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 "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 2:2,3 "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 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 "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 "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
   Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' is man, deceived in believing that he is "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" by doing "good works" (for others), taking pleasure in deceiving others by making them "feel good" (therefore perceiving him as being "good"—making him "feel good"), establishing the child's nature, i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which are stimulated by the things of the world (which makes them ever 'changing,' i.e., ever subject to the changing situations and desires, i.e., "felt needs" of the 'moment')—as the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's (God's) will, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (which are established for all times and places). "Self" 'justification' is Georg Hegel's "Universal," what all children have in common (the basis of common-ism). His "Particular" is how far, i.e., how much or little the child has learned to 'justify' his "self" (along with others), i.e., to "actualize" his "self" (Abraham Maslow's "Self actualization" theory), i.e., to 'liberate' his "self," i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' from the father's/Father's authority (along with others). The "grading" system of today is based upon the child's use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., how much he or she has embraced (or resists) the dialoguing of his or her opinion with other children—in order to arrive at a consensus, i.e., in order to "build relationship" with them based upon the "Self interests" they have in common (instead of upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts and truth they have in common), thereby 'liberating' their "self" from preaching the father's/Father's commands and rules to be accepted as given and teaching his facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith (which divides them not only from their own carnal nature, "repressing them," but "alienates" them from one another when their fathers commands, rules, facts, and truth conflict with one another; a child holding onto his father's authority, obeying his father's commands and rules which conflict with the other children's father's commands and rules, yet wanting relationship with the other children, according to their common "self interests," is classified as being "neurotic"—what György Lukács meant when he wrote: "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?) According to dialectic 'reasoning' it is the father's/Father's authority that divides, i.e., causes "repression," alienation," and "neurosis." Thus as long as the father's/Father's authority remains in place not only will the person be divided against his "self," the world will be divided against its "self" as well. Negate the father's/Father's authority and the child can become his/her "self" again, as he/she was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his/her life, carnal, i.e., of the world only—making it possible to unit all children (the world) as one, upon what everyone has in common, i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint (the "seedbed" of rebellion and revolution).
   Our culture today is established upon Georg Hegel's ideology of the child, i.e., upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' instead of upon the father's/Father's authority. It is enamored and intoxicated with (and addicted to) the pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will. Education has been at the forefront of this 'change,' making "knowledge" subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., the "affective domain"—instead of subject to truth which is established for all times and in all places. Training manuals for teacher certification and school accreditation (referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomies") read: "[W]e 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." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain, p. 32) "The affective domain [the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evil, which once opened can not be closed—the lid being the father's/Father's authority (restraint)].'" The objective of education today is to open the lid, i.e., 'liberate' the child's carnal nature, negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in his or her relationship with others and the world in the process, resulting in the child (when he or she gets home) questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking his or her parent's authority. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) The word of God warns us of the consequence of this way of thinking, i.e., making knowledge subject to our "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., subject to sensuousness instead of to the truth, i.e., righteousness: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness [doing the Father's will], and going about to establish their own righteousness [thinking and acting according to their own carnal nature, i.e. their "felt" needs, i.e. pleasures, enjoyments, "lusts," desires of the 'moment'], have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness [who make the truth subject to their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'];" Romans 1:18
   What I am sharing here explains the conflict and tension that is found in you and in every one you meet today (or have ever met or will ever meet) and therefore is found in the home, in the classroom, in the neighborhood, in the workplace, in government (politics), in entertainment, in the media, and even in the "church," i.e., the antithesis between the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., obeying the father's/Father's commands and rules, having faith in his/His facts and truth, which engenders a "guilty conscience" in you for doing (or for thinking about doing) wrong or for disobeying/sinning and the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "doing what you want to do, when you want to do it" ("Now!"), i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., loving pleasure, i.e., "lusting" after the carnal ("natural") pleasures of the 'moment' and resenting/hating restraint, i.e., having to do the father's/Father's will—missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will instead. "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15
   You either have the love of the child (for the things of the world; approaching pleasure avoiding pain, i.e., living for the 'moment') or the love of the Father (for the child; insisting he does right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will). You can not have it both ways. You either humble/deny your "self" before the Father, doing the Father's will or consent to the child, doing your will, 'justifying,' i.e., esteeming your "self" instead. "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
   If Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud understood this (and they did), so should you. Government, business, education, and even the "church" has embraced their ideology, their way of thinking and acting—the way of the child. It directly affects you today. It definitely will in the future, i.e., on judgment day. But then, who thinks about that any more. According to their way of thinking judgment day is "irrational," making it "irrelevant" in todays "new" world order—a world where everyone, like a child, lives for the 'moment,' i.e., lives in the "eternal present" without considering the consequence of their actions (praxis). The scriptures inform us: "[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36 But then you might say: "Why be so negative? "Why spoil my day?"
   Politics and history is wrapped up in this conflict between either obeying the father/Father, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will—missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire—and receive the father's/Father's blessing (approval/reward/acceptance) or disobeying the father/Father—enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire—and face the father's/Father's chastening or wrath (disapproval/punishment/rejection). In other word: humble, deny, control, discipline your "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will and you will miss out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire. Go for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire, in disobedience to the father/Father, and you will have a guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father. Get caught by the father/Father and he/He will chasten you. Defy the father/Father, i.e., question, challenge, disregard, and/or attack the father/Father and his/His authority and he/He will cast you out, i.e., reject you.
   According to those who praxis dialectic 'reasoning' i.e., who "justify their self before men," i.e. who do the dialectic process—dialogue their opinions with one another to a consensus—and put it ("self 'justification'" and their "feeling of oneness," i.e., affirmation) into social action (praxis), i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same) there is a "third way." Start with the child's desires of the 'moment,' i.e., make pleasure itself (the child's nature, i.e., his love for the carnal pleasure the 'moment' that the world stimulates within him and his resentment toward whoever or whatever is preventing him from "enjoying" it) the standard for "good" and the father's/Father's authority (inhibiting or blocking the child from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, i.e., preventing him from becoming at-one-with the world) will become the source of pain, i.e., "evil." By "helping" the child 'justify' his "self," i.e., 'justify' the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, 'justifying' his resentment toward restraint—negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others and the world—and the child, along with others (including the facilitator of 'change'), can enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, i.e., do wrong without having a guilty conscience., i.e., sin with impunity. In the "brew" of the child's "likes and dislikes" is the child's desire for affirmation, either receiving approval from the father/Father (for doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will) or affirmation from other children, affirming his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' affirming what he and they have in common, i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., their love for pleasure—which the things of the world stimulate—and their dissatisfaction with restraint—which the father's/Father's authority engenders. It is the conflict and tension between these two desires (approval from the father/Father for doing right and not wrong and affirmation from the other children, affirming his and their carnal desires of the 'moment,' making right and wrong subject to the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., ever 'changing,' instead of the father's/Fathers' commands, rules, facts, and truth, which inhibit or block change) that the process of (desire for) 'change,' dialectic 'reasoning' emanates.
   When the child's desire for approval from the father/Father and affirmation from other children is brought into conflict (in an environment, such as in the "group grade" classroom, where the child, along with the other children, is free to dialogue his desires and dissatisfactions without fear of reprimand—absent the father's/Father's authority) "cognitive dissonance" is engendered. The child is then "pressured" (internally) to choose between the two, either adhering to the love of the father/Father, i.e., his belief and faith, engendering restraint, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong or embracing the love of the child, i.e., his love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world, i.e., the current situation, i.e., the other children stimulate. With the other children affirming his and their love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' "helping" him "choose" between the two, he finds it easier to 'discover' his identity (common-ism) in them, i.e., in "self" and the other children instead of in the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which inhibit or block him from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, i.e., which prevent him from being his "self."
   This tension between the love of the father/Father (doing the father's/Father's will) and the love of the child (doing his will instead) is what engenders the process of 'change.' Dialectic 'reasoning' (dialogue) resolves this tension (for the 'moment'), resulting in the child choosing the children of the world ("human nature") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (godly restraint). It is what is happening around you and to you today. It is called the dialectic—dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., the consensus—process. The so called "new" world order (Globalism) could not exist without it. As the song might go: "Where have all the fathers gone? Off to consensus every one," i.e., they have all been sacrificed on the alter of "group approval," i.e., affirmation., 'justifying' the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's restraints. By affirming the child's carnal nature you negate the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, negating the father/Father of the future in the process.
   Politics, history (which is being rewritten—history is the preaching and teaching of the events of the past—and what lead up to them, i.e., what engendered them—in order to learn from them, in order not repeat the bad ones, while social(ist) studies incorporates the students opinion, i.e., their "thoughts" of the 'moment,' which are subject to their "feelings" of the 'moment,' in interpreting them instead, making them subject to 'change,' i.e., manipulation), education, and even the "church" is traveling down the dialectic pathway, i.e., the pathway of dialogue, i.e., of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., the "third" way (and the "fourth" way; making it a religion of and for itself, i.e., "of and for self" only), trying to take you, your family, friends, etc., with it. The issue is not how far down the dialectic pathway you have gone (or not gone), it is that you have stepped in it in the first place. Take one step in it, as in a pig pen, and your "in it." The 'moment' you set aside (suspend, as on a cross) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order—as in "new" world order—to receive "group approval," i.e., affirmation, i.e., "build relationship with others upon self interest"dialoguing your opinion with others to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness")—you are "in it." "He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction." Proverbs 13:3 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14 "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5
   The "negation of negation," i.e., "Don't be so negative. Be positive," i.e., setting aside (suspending, as on a cross) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "get along" (build relationship), "good time," "Facebook" mentality of today (making the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will) is the broad path "that leadeth to destruction." "And he [Jesus] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23
  The gospel message is not about us doing "good works," i.e., "growing the church," i.e., "building relationship," it is about the Father—sending His obedient Son, Jesus Christ, to redeem us from His wrath upon us for our disobedience/sins (by the Son shedding His blood on the cross, taking our place, covering our sins), reconciling us to Himself (by raising His Son from the grave), with us (living and walking in the Spirit, sent by Him and His Son) doing His will, as His Son. Apart from the Father, i.e., apart from His directing, all that follows (in thought and action) is vanity. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God," Matthew 4:4 The Apostle Paul wrote: "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10
   It is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith that changes us and thus the world we live in, engendering a "guilty conscience" in us (and in others) when we (and/or they) do wrong/sin. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialoguing our opinion with others to a consensus, affirming our carnal nature, i.e., our desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and resentment toward restraint negates the father's/Father's authority, thus 'changing' us and the world we live into the image of the child, 'liberating' us from the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., 'liberating' us from having a "guilty conscience" when we do wrong/sin. It is what the "group grade," "building relationship upon self interest," "team building," "Be Positive. Not Negative," dialoguing opinions to a consensus classroom/workplace/town hall/"church"/youth group/neighborhood etc., meeting is all about these days.
   A "group," i.e., a committee dialoguing their opinions must leave the father's/Father's authority out of the room (why "representatives" must leave their constitutes position out of the room) if they are to come to a consensus. Putting their consensus , i.e., collective "self interest" into social action (praxis) they are able to negate the father's/Father's authority (their constituents position) in establishing policy, 'changing' the world, transforming it into the image of the child, with everyone thinking and acting according to their carnal nature, "lusting" after or "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, which the world stimulates (offers)—resulting in them being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by pimps, pedophiles, etc,. i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Transformational Marxists, i.e., "children of disobedience," "transforming" them (as natural resource) into "human resource" for their own pleasure and gain. It is how the directorate of the French Revolution and the soviet of the Communist Revolutions worked, i.e., made law.
   The consensus process is such a powerful procedure (now being put into practice, i.e., praxis in our classrooms and government) that over 570 "representatives" at the famous tennis court oath (Serment du Jeu de Paume) of the French Revolution, with only one (1) abstention, cast aside their constituents ballets and came to a consensus to kill the King, i.e., to negate the father's/Father's authority. In the American Revolution we separated from the King, creating a Constitutional Republic, limiting the power of government instead. Yet, instead of negating the father's/Father's authority, we via the "Bill of Rights" left it in place, in the home—with the father ruling over his family, property, and business (with his private convictions), engendering a guilty conscience in the next generation for doing wrong/disobeying/sinning—why the liberal court, with its dialectic 'reasoning' judges have worked so hard to undermine, i.e., pervert, i.e., negate (bypass, i.e., circumvent) it. There is no representation in the consensus process, only the perception, i.e., an illusion of it.
  It is how "bipartisan government"—government establishing policy through the consensus process, i.e., affirmation—works, i.e., makes law today. It is why the education establishment, using "Bloom's Taxonomies" (or modifications of them) as their curriculum, has removed the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, replacing it ("old school") with the students dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, i.e., "group grade," "team building," "relationship building (on self interest)," "Don't be Negative (prejudiced, preaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, hurting our "feelings"). Be Positive (tolerating deviancy for the sake of everyone's "feelings," making everyone "feel good"), i.e., "Make me 'feel good' and I will listen to you," i.e., "'like' or 'friend' you" system (who would dare speak against that these days), preparing them to embrace the directorate/soviet (brainwashing, i.e., washing from the brain the father's/Father's authority) system of the "new" world order, i.e., preparing them to be the "grave diggers" of the "old" world order, negating parental authority, i.e., removing the father's/Father's authority system not only from their own thoughts and actions but from the world, i.e., the "community" as well. (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
   The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process does the trick. It is less messy then shooting/beheading/hanging/etc., the fathers (and those who adhere to their authority system) outright (as in the French and Traditional Communist Revolutions). As Sigmund Freud (the "father" of psychology) put it: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer insists upon his children obeying him, doing his will over and therefore against their carnal nature, 'discovering' "common ground" with them through dialogue, therefore thinking and acting according to the child's nature, i.e., "human nature" only, instead]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) "Group psychotherapy," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., facilitated meeting is the result of Marxists (Transformational Marxists) merging Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud—their common ground being the negation of the father's/Father's authority. One in society. The other in the individual. Using the consensus process (in order to establish policy, i.e., make law) and putting it into social action (praxis) does both (negates the father's/Father's authority in the individual's feelings and thoughts and in his relationship with others, i.e., in his social actions, i.e., in how he establishes policy) at the same time. "The basic structure of Freud's thought is committed to dialectics [where the child's thoughts and actions are 'liberated' from parental authority, i.e. man's thoughts and actions are 'liberated' from Godly restraint, i.e. where the child and man is purely of and for himself, i.e. of "human nature" only, individually and socially]." "Freud's finest insights are incurably 'dialectical.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education) "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) In their effort to initiate and sustain social-ist harmony in the "here-and-now," facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapist" 'liberate' the child's/man's thoughts from where he will spending eternity in the "there-and-then." To "purge [man] of sin with all the aids of the dialectics, therefore, is to rob him of true salvation, of his eternal destiny." (Rene Fulop-Miller, The Power and Secrets of the Jesuits, p.468)
   As the Transformational Marxist György Lukács explained it: "the Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie [those initiating and sustaining the father's/Father's authority] produces its own grave-diggers [their children, i.e., the "proletariat"].'" Everyone thinks the Berlin Wall came down because Communism was defeated—it was in its Traditional form—when in fact it came down because Communism had succeeded—in its Transformational form ("group psychotherapy," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, facilitated meeting).
   If you love the father/Father you hate your "self" when you do wrong or disobey/sin, repenting of your disobedience/sins, asking for forgiveness from the father/Father. If you love your "self" you hate the father/Father and his/His authority when he/He (it) prevents (inhibits or blocks) you from enjoying the pleasures of the moment' you desire, 'justifying' your "self," questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority. The antithesis condition can only be resolved by you either humbling your "self" before the father/Father, doing the father's/Father's will (Hebrews 12:5-11) or using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' negating the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions and in your relationship with others and the world, so that you can be your "self," i.e., "of and for self" only, doing your will instead (Genesis 3:1-6) without having a guilty conscience. While the Christ (the obedient Son of God) redeemed us from the Father's wrath, reconciling us to the Father (imputing His righteousness to whosoever believes upon Him), the anti-Christ, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapist" "redeems" man from the Father, "reconciling" him to his "self" and the world only, instead.
   The father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature is an either-or (antithesis) situation—you either accept the father's/Father's authority, humbling and denying your "self" under it, or 'justifying' your "self," reject it, thinking and acting "of and for self" only, instead. Synthesis (the consensus process), of dialectic 'reasoning,' only means the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, i.e., in his relationship with his "self," others, and the world, so that he can be at "peace" with his "self," being "affirmed" by (and affirming) that which is of the world only, i.e., "human nature," that is until death and judgment. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5

   Apart from the deception of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the child 'justifying' his "self " before other children, all the child can do is obey the father/Father—doing the father's/Father's will, missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires—or disobey the father/Father—"doing his own thing," having a guilty conscience for disobeying/sinning afterwards (Romans 7:14-25). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the consensus process, when you 'justify' your "self" with others (Genesis 3:1-6), negating the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with others and the world, the guilty conscience for disobedience/sinning (Romans 7:14-25) disappears.
   If you do not have the love of the Father, humbling your "self" before the father/Father, doing His will, then all you have (and this includes the earthly father who has not humbled his "self" before the Father, doing his will instead, i.e., using his office of authority, given to him by God to do His will in, to attain the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires for his "self" instead) is your "self," i.e., the love of the child, 'justifying' your "self" before men, blaming the environment, i.e., something in it for your problems (like Adam, blaming the woman and the woman blaming the serpent—both loving the creation, i.e., the pleasures of the world more than God and therefore 'justifying' their "self," in essence blaming God, who created them before they sinned, i.e., before they (with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist") 'justified' their "self," i.e., before they established the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desired, i.e., doing their will over and therefore against Him, i.e., His authority, i.e., doing His will). Instead of recognizing the problem as being their heart, which is deceitful—thinking that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will—and therefore wicked—hating the Father for getting in the way of their desires, i.e., their "lusts" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulated, they blamed something or someone in the environment instead. The dialectic idea (way of thinking and acting) being: identify (aufheben) whatever it is in the environment that is preventing you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire and 'change' or remove it and life will be "good" again, i.e., the world will be a "better" place to live in. Apart from the Father, i.e., humbling and denying your "self" before Him, having His love in you, doing His will, all you have is the nature of the child, loving the things of the world that stimulate pleasure, 'justifying' your "self," identifying and removing whatever it is in the environment that is inhibiting or blocking you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire—which includes the Father's authority—placing your "self," i.e., your "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' in His place. This is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of all the "ologies" of men—basing life upon the carnal nature (desires and dissatisfactions) of the child, i.e., upon "human nature"—'liberating' children, men and women, and the world from the Father's authority so that all can be their "self," i.e., be "normal," i.e., can sin with impunity (without having a guilty conscience).
   The "old" world order is based upon the father's/Father's authority i.e., "doing right and not wrong" according to his/His will, i.e., thinking and acting according to the father's/Father's standards, having a guilty conscience for doing wrong or for disobeying/sinning, while the so called "new" world order (the "new age") is based upon the carnal nature of the child ("human nature"), i.e., the child "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment,' striking out at restraint, i.e., hating the father/Father and his/His authority, "'justifying' himself before others"—considering the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth as being "irrational," i.e., out of touch with his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., "out of touch with the times," therefore responding to his/His authority as being "irrelevant," i.e., of no worth in his eyes, i.e., in the 'changing' times—resulting in the child having no guilty conscience as he does wrong or disobeys/sins. Georg Hegel, in defence of the child's carnal nature over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority, 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." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) It is what is going on today, i.e., the child/man 'justifying' himself before other children/men, i.e., using the consensus process in order to "build relationship upon self interest," which is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority. "Every one that is proud in heart ['justifies' his "self"] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
   The antithesis between the father's/Father's authority and the child's nature is explained in scripture. While man attempts to resolve the conflict and tension in this life (by 'justifying' the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., synthesizing the children's desires of the 'moment' with the world, making their thoughts and actions the same—to where there is "no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18—negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing disobeying/sinning in the process), the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), which engenders the "guilty conscience" for disobeying/sinning (Romans 7:14-25), and the child 'justifying his "self" (Genesis 3:1-6), will be once and for all time settled by God on judgment day.
   If you go with the father's/Father's authority there is inheritance in the end, i.e., in the "there-and-then"—providing you set aside your will, i.e., your "self interest" in the "here-and-now" in order to do the father's/Father's will, making your will, i.e., your interest to do his/His will, i.e., his/His interest (living according to his/His principles/Word) instead. If you go with the carnal nature of the child, i.e., your "self," following after "the children of disobedience," following after the facilitator of 'change,' all you get is the "here-and-now," loosing your inheritance to whoever, coming between you and the father/Father, manipulates you out of it—by getting you into dialogue, i.e., into sharing with him (and with others) your "self interest" instead. Dialogue, i.e., sharing your "feelings," i.e., you carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' opens you up to manipulation (since there is no inheritance in dialogue, all you get is in the "here-and-now"—whoever gets you into dialogue detaches you from your inheritance, getting your inheritance instead, putting you into debt, supporting them), while discussion requires persuasion, i.e., facts and truth, holding you to a position, preventing you from being readily adaptable to 'change' i.e., easily manipulated. Dialoguing your opinion, i.e., your thoughts—which are subject to your feelings of the 'moment'—moves you into disobeying the father/Father, i.e., questioning, challenging, disrespecting, defying, attacking, etc., the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., refusing to do the father's/Father's will, especially when done with "group approval," i.e., with affirmation via the consensus process. (In the consensus process Republicans and Democrats become one and the same, i.e., Democrats, subject to their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' instead of doing "right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's will). Dialogue negates the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in your relationship with others and the world, doing your will, i.e., living for the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., following after your "self interest" in the "here-and-now" instead—thereby negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, negating the antithesis (at least in the "here-and-now," i.e., in the 'moment') until judgment day. Leave the father's/Father's authority out (in order, as in "new" world order, to negate the conflict and tension, i.e., the antithesis condition, i.e., "negativity") and all you have is the carnal nature of the child ruling the world, until the Son's return—who was, is, and will always be obedient to the Father, doing His will in all things commanded, calling all to deny their "self," i.e., to die to their "self interests" daily, to endure the rejection of men (because they refuse to affirm their "self," i.e., the child's carnal nature), and follow Him—doing the Father's will. "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 ["self interest"] 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 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
   The child's nature is wrapped up in dialogue—the core of dialectic 'reasoning'—talking to his "self" about his desires of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with or resentment toward restraint (focusing upon the "here and now," finding his identity in the things around him, i.e., the things of the world that bring him pleasure), while the father's/Father's nature is wrapped up in preaching, teaching, and discussing (at his discretion) established commands, rules, facts, and truth, holding to his position of authority, insisting upon things being "done right and not wrong" according to his/His directing (focusing upon the lessons of the "past"—which were relevant in the past, are relevant in the present, and will be relevant in the future—and the rewards of the future, i.e., the "there and then"—providing the lessons of the "past" are learned and applied in the "here and now"). As the child's nature is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, dialogue is antithetical to discussion, 'liberating' the child's nature from the father's/Father's restraints, negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying/sinning in the process.
   Those of dialectic 'reasoning'—having no respect for the father's/Father's authority—dialogue with the children (about their desires and dissatisfactions), come between the father/Father and his/His children, while those of the father's/Father's authority—respecting and honoring the father'/Father's authority—preach, teach, and discus (at their discretion) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to the children, to be learned and obeyed, maintain the father's/Father's authority in the children's feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with each another and the world. If those in a position of authority—in order (as in "new" world order) to negate the conflict and tension—dialogue with the children, encouraging them to do the same with each other, they 'liberate' the children, i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, turning the children against the father/Father and his/His authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with each other and the world, questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, and/or attacking the father/Father and his/His authority (referred to as "theory and practice," where the child's personal thoughts and his social actions become one and the same). If those in a position of authority—in order (as in "old" world order) to negate the conflict and tension—preach, teach, and discuss (at their discretion) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to the children, demanding the children accept and/or obey them, they sustain the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, as well as in their relationship with each other and the world, respecting and honoring the father's/Father's authority (referred to as "belief-action dichotomy," where the conflict between the child's nature and the father's/Father's authority is resolved, at least externally, via the child submitting his will, i.e., humbling and denying his "self" to the father/Father and his/His authority, doing the father's/Father's will instead). "[Kurt] 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)
   "The group" experience is an essential part of the process of 'change.' The child's desire for affirmation, i.e., approval of his (or her) "self," i.e.., of his carnal desire(s) of the 'moment,' i.e., his carnal nature of "lusting" after the pleasure(s) of the 'moment' and his resentment toward restraint, i.e., hate of the retainer (which is common with all children) is the dynamo that makes him readily adaptable to 'change,' i.e., willing to compromise his learned standards (which are not "of and for his self") in order to initiate and sustain relationship with those of common "self interest," i.e., "building relationship" with those who are of and for his carnal desires of the 'moment' as well. In the quest for affirmation, i.e., group consensus, any preaching and teaching of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth must be set aside, i.e., suspended (as on a cross) in order for dialogue, i.e., the child's nature to have its way. "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 Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "Individualism," the result of the father's/Father's authority (rewarding or disciplining each child—individually—according to his behavior, i.e., for "doing right" or "doing wrong" according to the father's/Father's standards), is sacrificed in "the group" experience, where the child is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority in order to be his "self," i.e., becoming what he has in common with all the children of the world, i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., that which is of Nature only. Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority, being personally held accountable before them/Him for his behavior] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ['compromising' for the sake of affirmation] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The group" experience, i.e., "group" affirmation 'liberates' the child from the conflict and tension which, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is initiated and sustained by the father's/Father's/ authority "repressing" the child, preventing him from being his "self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, "alienating" him from the other children who have the same carnal nature, i.e., who are of the world only as well.
   Since our "feelings," i.e., or desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' tie us to the world, we, according to dialectic 'reasoning' are of nature only, and therefore can be evaluated scientific, making all things, including us, material. Karl Marx, affirming the carnal nature of the child over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, wrote: "Sense experience [sensuousness, i.e. the child's "feelings" of the 'moment" in response to the world] must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx MEGA I/3) The Apostle Paul warned Timothy (and us) about taking this pathway. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20 Benjamin Bloom ("Bloom's Taxonomies") was warned about taking this pathway of "so called science" as well, but took it anyway, applying it in the classroom. "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain) "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom Book 2 Affective Domain) "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) In applying this "scientific process" on children in the classroom, Benjamin Bloom's "Educational Objective" was the same as Karl Marx's, to produce children who were loyal to their carnal nature and the world only. Applying this "scientific process" in the natural sciences has wracked havoc as well. "Thomas S Kuhn spent the year 1958-1959 at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavior Sciences, directed by Ralph Tyler [who Benjamin Bloom dedicated his first Taxonomy to], where he finalized his 'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods.'" "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology." "Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it." "Kuhn states 'If a paradigm is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied . . . (which eventuates in) an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances (where upon) the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; the last quotation is Max Planck's famous dictum)
   I will repeat it again and again, i.e., the conflict and tension between the father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature (it is what happened in the garden in Eden and has been happening ever since—which, in the case of the Father, can only be resolved by a mediator, 'reconciling' the child/man with the Father or, in the case of the father, can only be "resolved"—according to dialectic 'reasoning'—by the father abdicating his authority or the children killing the father, having a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist" "help" them negate the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another and the world), adding new information along the way—including quotes from Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and many others associated with the dialectic process, as well as verses from the Word of God, which is antithetical to dialectic 'reasoning,' the Word of God exposing and condemning dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., not only explaining the problem but also giving us the solution, since it is the solution to the problem, which we can not understand since we use our 'reasoning' ability, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., our opinion, which is set in motion by our "sensuous need," i.e., our "felt needs" of the 'moment' and our "sense perception," i.e., our ability to evaluate the situation, i.e., aufheben in order (as in "new" world order) to 'justify' our "self," i.e., 'justify' our enjoying or "lusting" after the object(s) of pleasure that we desire in the 'moment' (or rather "lusting" after the pleasure the objects of natures stimulate within us), i.e., having the "I'll just die if I can't have (or do) it now" 'moment,' overcoming, i.e., negating any obstacle, real or imagined, that inhibits or blocks, i.e., prevents us from enjoying the object of pleasure now or "lusting" after it, which blinds us to what the problem is, i.e., our use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., "the pride of life," i.e., the wisdom of men, i.e., philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., which can never understand, much less address and/or overcome the problem, since it is the problem—coming between the father/Father and the child (or the children), 'liberating' the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority (restraints), i.e., synthesizing the child with his carnal nature (thus synthesizing him with all the children of the world—since all children have the same carnal nature), turning the child (children) against the father/Father and his/His authority (since, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the father's/Father's authority is the initiator and sustainer of antithesis, i.e., conflict and tension, coming between the child and his carnal nature), negating the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father in the process, engendering peace within the child (between his "self" and his carnal nature and the world which stimulates pleasure in him) and affirmation (being approved by all the children "of and for" their "self" and the world which brings them pleasure). The Word of God warns us of our use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self" 'justification and the consensus process, i.e., of the affirmation of men. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 Our heart is deceitful in that it establishes pleasure as the standard for "good" and wicked in that it establishes anyone who (and anything which) inhibits or blocks it (us from having the pleasures of the 'moment' we desire) as being "evil," resulting in us, as a defiant child, hating and striking out against it, i.e., the father/Father and his/His authority. Marxism would not exist if Karl Marx was not already in you, i.e., in your (or your child's) heart, waiting to be 'liberated,' i.e., with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change' 'liberating' your "self" from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well in your relationship with your "self," others, and the world, thus feeling no guilty in questioning, challenging, disregarding (perceiving as being "irrational," i.e., not in touch with your "feelings of the 'moment,'" and therefore being "irrelevant," i.e., of no worth), defying, and/or killing the father (and any who support, i.e., who submit, i.e., who humbly and deny their "self" before him/Him and honor and respect his/His authority). "Freud noted that patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)
   The father/Father (enforcing his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, requiring the child to humble, deny, discipline, and control his "self") and the child ('justifying' his carnal nature, i.e., esteeming his "self") are two political systems which are at odds with (are antithetical to) one another. Both systems determine how policy is to be established, i.e., how policy is initiated and sustained, one system or paradigm upon obeying established commands, rules, facts, and truth (faith) and the other system or paradigm upon the person's "feelings" of the 'moment'—in the "light" (illumination or enlightenment) of the current situation (imagined or real)—(sight). "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35
   The "Heresiarchal Paradigm" of 'change,' i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., pleasure (and the augmentation of it), which is "of and for self" is antithetical to the "Patriarchal Paradigm," i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will—having to miss out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., not yield to the "lusts" of the 'moment.' "Paradigm" means a system or way of thinking and acting, i.e., how you respond to or relate with your "self" (either humbling and denying your "self," i.e., dying to your "self" daily in order to "do right and not wrong," i.e., in order, as in "old" world order to do the father's/Father's willwhich is "negative" to your "self"—or 'justifying' and esteeming your "self" in order, as in "new" world order to do "what you want to do, when you want to do it"—which is "positive" to your "self") and how you relate with others and the world around you, as well as your feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e., your attitude toward authority. "Paradigm 'shift'" simply means 'changing' the way you think and act, away from obedience toward authority, i.e., from respecting and honoring authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), thus having a guilty conscience for disobeying/sinning (Romans 7:14-25), to the questioning and challenging, i.e., disregarding, disrespecting, defying, and attacking of authority, i.e., doing your will instead (Genesis 3:1-6).
   It is not that the father/Father is against pleasure. God, the Heavenly Father created pleasure and the world that stimulates it, with the earthly father, as the Heavenly Father, giving his children gifts that they might enjoy them. It is that "doing right and not wrong," according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (requiring, on the part of the child, faith in the father/Father and his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth) must come first and foremost in the child's life. Children come into this world with their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain (with pleasure being "good" and pain, including chastening and/or the pain which comes with missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' in order to do the father's/Father's will, being "bad—in their eyes). As explained in the link, the carnal nature of the child, the child/man, by nature is not in love with the object stimulating pleasure, he is in love with the pleasure, i.e., dopamine emancipation the object stimulates ('liberates') within him, choosing pleasure (stimulated by the object the father/Father gave him—or the object the father/Father told him he is not to play with or become at-one-with) over (and therefore against) the father/Father who gave the object of pleasure to him (or told him it is not his to have or play with or become at-one-with). The child's nature ("human nature") is made manifest when the father/Father tells the child to put the object of pleasure the child desires aside or up ("now") in order to do what he/He commands, i.e., in order (as in "old" world order) to do his/His will instead.
   The father's/Father's authority is introduced into the child's life along the way with the child learning to "do right and not wrong," according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truthwhich sometimes requires the pain of chastisement and/or the pain of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment.' While we, as children, could readily identify with approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, we could not readily identify with doing "right" according to the father's/Father's authority when it got in the way of pleasure and/or engendered pain—pleasure being "right" or "good" and pain (including the pain of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' we desired) being "wrong" or "bad" in our eyes—hating the father/Father who got in its (pleasures) way, i.e., our way. It is upon the nature of the child that dialectic 'reasoning' (the so called "new" world order) is based (and defends), intent upon 'liberating' the nature of the child ("human nature") from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority which gets in its way. A culture and its leadership, based upon and defending the nature of the child, i.e., "human nature" does not love you. It and its leadership loves the pleasure you and all that is yours, i.e., your wife, children, property, business, etc., stimulates within it, thinking they own everything they see (anything, imagined or real, that engenders pleasure within them), turning on you when you claim they (your wife, children, property, business) are yours and not theirs, taking that which is yours, negating you when and if you get in their (the "communities," i.e., "the peoples," i.e., the facilitator of 'change's') way—refusing to share with them that which is yours, refusing to join with (become at-one-with) them "building relationship upon common self interest." This is the common core of Hegel's, Marx's, Freud's, contemporary ideology. "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Timothy 3:1-4
   Both (the father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature) are political systems, i.e., systems that shape how policy is initiated and sustained. One according to faith in authority, denying "self," "doing right and not wrong" according to established standards (in plurality requiring majority vote to resolve differences), the other by trusting in man, 'justifying' "self," "building relationship upon self interest" (requiring consensus in order to overcome, i.e., set aside, i.e., suspend differences, i.e., "I'm right and you are wrong"—as on a cross), working together as one according to what everyone has in common, their natural desire to "enjoy" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' resenting/hating (thus working together as one in fighting against and overcoming—negating) that which stands in the way.
   In the end it comes down to this, what you did today—with the Father directing your steps or you directing your own steps. This is to hard for contemporary man to comprehend, much less accept (even in the "church"). "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 If what you did today was according to your own understanding, you can only glorify your "self," i.e., the works of your hands, trusting in your "self" instead of in the Lord. "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. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." Proverbs 3:5-7 We can either humble and deny our "self," giving our heart to the Lord, letting him direct us or trust in our "self," i.e., our heart's desires, 'justifying' our carnal nature, i.e., our "lust" for the pleasures of the 'moment,' letting it deceive us into 'justifying' our "self," i.e., its wicked ways.
   Since the heart is deceitful (above all things)—perceiving pleasure as being the standard for "good"—and wicked (beyond measure)—hating anyone who gets its, i.e., pleasure's way—man can only perceive the father/Father and his restraints as being "evil," resulting in him trusting in himself, "building relationship" with those of like mind, i.e., of like "self interest." "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 Trusting in his "self" and those of like thought and action ("theory and practice"), man can only glorify the flesh, the works of his hands, and the things of the world (which engender pleasure), turning his thoughts and actions against the father/Father and his/His authority, which restrains/condemns him. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:17 You can only let one direct your steps. You can not have it both ways, trusting in your "self," i.e., in man, i.e., in the flesh (in sight, in that which is of and for the world, i.e., "of and for Self," i.e., "building relationship upon self interest") and in the Lord (by faith, trusting in He who is not of and for the world. i.e., not "of and for Self," i.e., doing the Father's will instead) at the same time, deceiving your "self" and all who trust in you. In essence God's way, i.e., the Father's way of thinking and acting is not man's way of thinking and acting. "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 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4
  These are two paradigms, i.e., ways of feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with your "self," others, and the world, as well as responding toward authority that are antithetical to one another. While the father has a semblance of the Father's authority he still has the nature of a child, which is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, making all that are of nature antithetical to God, the Father and His authority. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self" 'justification,' i.e., "of and for" "human nature" ("of and for Self") can only think and act to 'liberate' the child/man, i.e., "self," i.e., "human nature" from the father's authority, 'liberating' mankind (collectively—based upon what all men and women have in common), i.e., "Self," i.e., "human nature" from God, the Father's authority. In their love of "Self," i.e., driven by pleasure, having "no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18), those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., facilitators of 'change,' 'justifying' their "self," are purposed in negating the father's/Father's authority from the face of the earth, placing their "self" in his/His place. "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4
   These paragraphs may be tmi—to much information—for you right now, so I placed them in a link (Individualism vs. Collectivism) so as not to interrupt the flow of thought. Suffice it to say, individualism, under God, i.e., the Father's authority is antithetically to collectivism, under man's authority—one (the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ) being holy, pure, and righteous (in and of Himself) the other (man) not (no matter what man thinks and/or deceives others into believing—being "of and for Self" only [righteousness and holiness being what Christ does for us alone, imputing His righteousness to us by faith in Him alone, not something we can ever be or earn by doing "good works," in and of ourselves). As Martin Luther stated: "By believing in a Christ who is good, I, even I, am made good: his goodness is mine also, for it is a gift from him and is not my work." (Luther's Works: Vol. 44, The Christian in Society: I, p.300) No amount of "good" a man does (even for the Lord) can make him good or righteous or holy. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23 As quoted above but bearing repeating here, pointing to the importance of the only begotten, obedient Son of God, reconciling us to the Father: "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 "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 "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 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9 "For after that in the wisdom of God [His Word revealed by preaching, accepted by faith, confirmed by His Spirit] the world by wisdom [leaning to its own understanding, trusting in the flesh and sight, i.e. the sensuous 'moment'] knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 2:21 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world ["leaning to his own understanding"], let him become a fool ["trusting in the Lord with all his heart"], that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Corinthians 3:18-19 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law [which condemns me], but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith [which redeems me]:" Philippians 3:9 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6
   While the father/Father does not hate his/His child, hating only his (or her) bad/wicked behavior/thoughts and actions, chastening him for disobeying/sinning that he might do what is right (casting him out only when he refuses to accept his/His authority to chastise him for disobeying, i.e., when he refuses to repent and change the way he is thinking and acting), the child, by nature hates the father/Father, who is the author of the commands and rules he must obey and the facts and truth he has to accept as is, by faith, hating the father/Father when he enforces them, inhibiting or blocking him from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires (murmuring within himself against the father, i.e., dialoguing with his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his "self" when he can not have his way). The child/man, made in the image of the father/Father—with the ability to evaluate, i.e., determine what is "good" and what is "evil"—loves "good" and hates "evil." But instead of loving the father/Father, evaluating his "self" and the world from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., doing that which is "good" (no matter what), the child/man, loving the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., that which is "good" in his eyes, i.e., thinking and behaving according to his carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," hates the father/Father and his/His authority which gets in his way (I am explaining Hegel, Marx, and Freud, i.e., the mindset of the so called "new" world order here). A society based upon the father's/Father's authority to 1) give commands and rules to be obeyed, 2) bless the children (citizens) who obey, 3) chastise those who disobey, requiring repentance (engendering a guilty conscience in them for disobeying/sinning), and 4) cast out those who reject his/His authority, i.e., who refuse to repent, is antithetical to a society based upon the nature of the child, i.e., "human nature," enamored with the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., "lusting" after the things of the world, which must negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., kill the father, i.e., the King (and all who support his way of thinking) in order to initiate and sustain its way of thinking and acting ("theory and practice"). While the French Revolution killed the King, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (along with all revolutions since, including the so called "velvet" ones, following after its system of "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité," i.e., the consensus process), the American Revolution left the King, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in tact, not in the general government itself (breaking it up into three separate branches, limiting the power of government instead), but, thanks to the bill of rights (inalienable rights), in the home with its private convictions, property, and business, engendering a guilty conscience in the next generation of citizens for doing wrong or for disobeying, i.e., for disrespecting authority, knowing they will be held accountable before God for their thoughts and actions.
   That has all 'changed' since the 50's (actually a long time before then, but it really took hold then), when we made "having a better life" (focusing upon the child's/our "feelings") rather than "doing right and not wrong" (doing the father's/Father's will) the purpose of life in the thoughts and actions of the next generation. Education, by removing "the fear of God," i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the traditional curriculum (teaching method) from the classroom, replacing it with dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., the child's "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment (injecting the "affective domain" in the classroom curriculum), changed' the way the next generation of citizens felt, thought, and behaved toward authority. The classroom of twenty individual students, with fathers of differing positions on issues, instead of learning to obey commands and rules and accept facts and truth being taught as is by authority, holding their "self" (individually) accountable to the father's/Father's authority, began (in the 50's) to dialogue their opinions (their carnal, i.e., natural desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' along with their dissatisfaction with/hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness"), making "self interest," i.e., pleasure, including the pleasure of approval, i.e., affirmation (by "the group," i.e., the "community") the drive and purpose of life (instead of doing right and not wrong, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will), 'liberated' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with their "self," one another, and the world—no longer having a "guilty conscience" for disobeying the father/Father, i.e., for questioning and challenging the father's/Father's authority—in the process. "Bloom's Taxonomies" were at the heart of this 'change,' 'changing' how the next generation of citizens thought and acted toward authority in the classroom—taking their 'liberated' "feelings" back into the home, challenging parental authority.
   One paradigm (way of thinking, acting, and relating) is structured upon those with authority preaching, teaching, and discussing (at their discretion), i.e., persuading with commands, rules, facts, and truth (of the "past"), with morality and competence, i.e., "doing right and not wrong" according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth leading the way ("directing their steps"), inhibiting or blocking 'change,' especially rapid 'change,' while the other is structured upon everyone's "feelings," i.e., desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (affirmation), i.e., being seduced, deceived, and manipulated (by the facilitator of 'change, i.e., the psychotherapist) with their "feelings," i.e., their "sensuous needs" of the 'moment and their "thoughts," i.e., their "sense perception" of the current situation, with the way they "think"—subject to their "feelings," i.e., their "sense experiences" of the past and present, i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (making them subject to "nature [human nature] Only" instead of to the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the "past"—leading the way ("directing their steps"), initiating and sustaining 'change,' especially rapid 'change.' (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) 'Change' is a process which is based upon the satisfaction of (or hope of satisfying) one's carnal desires of the 'moment' ('justifying' "self")—which is ever changing—instead of true and lasting change, i.e., change of the heart, i.e., repentance for doing wrong (humbling and denying "self"). The merging of the two only leads to the latter's outcome in the end—making commands, rules, facts, and 'truth' subject to the child's/man's "feelings" of the 'moment,' materializing him, making him of (and for) the world only, negating the father's/Father's authority, replacing it with the nature of the child, i.e., "human nature," initiating and sustaining 'change,' i.e., "self" 'justification' and the "eternal present." "Ye are they which justify yourselves [your "self," i.e., "human nature"] before men; but God knoweth your hearts [which are deceitful—classifying pleasure as the standard for "good"—and wicked—hating anyone who gets in the way of pleasure, classifying them as being "evil"]: for that which is highly esteemed among men["human nature," i.e., "self" 'justification'] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5
   The agenda (there is an agenda) is to 'liberate' the child from the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a so called "new" world order based upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature." By "esteeming" the child's nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal desires of the 'moment' over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority in the classroom (removing respect for the father's/Father's authority in the child), the child is simply being "shifted" back to the way he was, carnal, of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth came into his life—the idea (agenda) being, don't attack the father/Father outright, engendering his/His wrath against you (the "educator"), 'liberate' his/His children from his/His authority in the classroom and (since he/He is "out of touch with the times," i.e., "their feelings of the 'moment'") they will attack him/Him and his/His authority when they get home instead, with your approval and support (of course). In this way the nature of the child ("human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature, void parental/Godly restraint) is increasingly becoming the law of the land, negating, in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, respect for the father's/Father's authority. By the "educator" replacing the preaching, teaching, and discussion (at the teacher's discretion) of the father's/Father' commands, rules, facts, and truth, becoming a facilitator of 'change' instead, "helping" the children dialogue their opinions to a consensus in the "group grade" classroom, working on personal-social/community project, the "guilty conscience"—for doing wrong or for disobeying—is being replaced with the so called "super-ego"—which is based upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' negating parental/Godly restraint in the child in the process. What you see going on around you today it is not happening by accident. The following information will explain how it is being done and why.
   While the earthly father is not perfect, he might be (or might have been) a down right tyrant, his office is—given to him by the Heavenly Father, who is perfect, in which to do His will. The conflict and tension (antithesis) has always been between you doing Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., (with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change') 'justifying' your "self," and Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., respecting and honoring the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, resulting in Romans 7:14-25, i.e., you having a guilty conscience for doing wrong or for disobeying, i.e., for doing your will instead of the father's/Father's, i.e., for sinning, needing to repent, (because God is perfect) needing a savior, one who is perfect to take your place, paying for your sins ('redeeming' you from eternal damnation), 'reconciling' you to the Heavenly Father. This is the difference (antithesis) between you reasoning from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, doing the father's/Father's will and 'reasoning' from your own carnal "feelings," i.e., your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' doing your will instead, engendering covetousness (even though you might claim to be doing it in the name of the Lord), making you subject to facilitators of 'change,' i.e., seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of children, men, and women, using you, as "natural resource," for their own pleasure and gain, resulting in you facing damnation along with them. "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3
  Not only is the situation or crisis of the 'moment' the issue (more importantly) so is the way it is being dealt with and/or being resolved. One leads to freedom from the flesh, i.e., thinking and acting according to the Father's will, i.e., "doing right and not wrong according to established facts or truth" (according to the Word of God, with the Holy Spirit confirming it; see John 16 and John 17), the other to bondage to it, i.e., to the flesh and to the world stimulating it, i.e., thinking and acting according to the child's "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature"—negating "belief-action dichotomy," where the father's/Father's authority restrains the child's carnal nature, replacing it with "theory-practice unity," where the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature" rules the day instead. One disciplines, controls, humbles, and denies "self" in order to produce (manifesting the nature of a father, being responsible and accountable, i.e., dependable, i.e., mature), the other 'justifies,' i.e., esteems "self" in order to consume (manifesting the nature of a child, being irresponsible and unaccountable, i.e., undependable, i.e., immature). Merging the two only makes the immature appear ("seem" to be) mature, like "a wolf in sheepskin," deceiving all who follow them in their deceitful and wicked ("self-ish") ways.
   The dialectic agenda of dialoging opinions (where everyone openly shares—with no "put downs," i.e., "fear of God," i.e., judgment—their personal "feelings" and "thoughts," regarding the current situation, with one another) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," with everyone affirming one another) is to negate the earthly father's authority, thereby negating the Heavenly Father's authority. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the Heavenly Father and His authority system of "above-below," "top-down," "Do what you are told, i.e., what I say, or else" "Mine. Not yours" system of control is "created" (by the children) when the children obey their earthly father's commands and rules (without question) and accept his facts and truth as given (by faith), i.e., when they "humble" and "deny" their "self" before the father/Father (missing out on their carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., going against "human nature" in order to do the father's will), thereby 'creating' the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority (system) with its "top-down," "do right and not wrong, according to my commands, rules, facts, or truth, or else," "Mine. Not yours" way of thinking and acting—keeping children from being their "self," "repressing" them, "alienating" them from the other children of the world. According to the 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning,' only through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' with all children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, can a "new" world order, based upon the child's carnal nature only, i.e., "human nature," become the law of the land—with facilitators of 'change' "helping" all children become their "self" by 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority system through the dialectic process of dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, putting their consensus ("class consciousness") into social-ist action, i.e., praxis., negating the father's/Father's authority, not only in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, but in their relationship with others, i.e., in society as well, in the process.
   If you do not understand the information in the links above—explaining the "conflict and tension" (antithesis) between father's/Father's authority system ("doing right and not wrong," according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., obeying his/His commands and rules without question and accepting his/His facts and truth as given, by faith) and the carnal nature of the child ("lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., loving the "dopamine emancipation" an object—perceived or imagined—stimulates, i.e., being stimulated by the world around him, responding to it in accordance to his carnal nature, i.e., doing what he wants to do when he wants to do it, hating restraint, i.e., hating that which gets in his way, i.e., in nature's way) with the father's/Father's authority being reflected in the preaching of his/His commands and rules, to be obeyed as given and the teaching of his/His facts and truth, to be accepted as is, by faith, and the child's nature being reflected in his dialoguing with his "self," i.e., his talking to his "self" internally, i.e., privately (out of fear of being punished and/or rejected for sharing what he is thinking about openly) his desires of the 'moment,' along with his dissatisfaction with restraint (having to do the father's/Father's will, missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment'), internally resenting (hating) the restrainer (the father/Father) for getting in his way, preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking him from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires,

   with the Lord Jesus Christ stating (in obedience to the Father, advocating the Father's authority): "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do," "I can of mine own self do nothing: ... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." "[W]hatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:19, 30; 12:47-50 therefore stating: "I and my Father are one." and, since no man has seen God the Father ("No man hath seen God at any time." 1 John 4:12), "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" (John 10:30; 14:9), that His kingdom is not by appearance ("The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:" "for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20, 21 excerpts) and is not of this world ("Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36), insisting that we do His Heavenly Father will as well, with the scriptures giving us the same pattern (or system) in the home, "God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness." (excerpts from Hebrews 12:5-11), yet establishing the Heavenly Father and His authority over (and therefore against) the earthly father's authority, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9) "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. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me:" (Matthew 10:32-37),
   Georg Hegel stated (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority
, deferring to the carnal nature of the child instead—in order to negate the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the earthly father in order to negate the guilty conscience for sinning, i.e., for disobeying the Heavenly Father, his idea being, negate the one and you negate the other in the mind and therefore the actions of the child, 'liberating' man and society from Godly restraint, i.e., from being judged and condemned, therefore feeling guilty for being "human," i.e., for being carnal, i.e., for being "of and for Self," i.e., for being of and for the world only, needing to repent): "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 [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life), with the affirmation of the child's nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., that which is common to all people, the father's/Father's authority (with it's "do right and not wrong," judgmental, prejudiced commands, rules, facts, and truth), according to Hegel, is left out of the picture, engendering in a world of peace: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener),
   Karl Marx stated (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., following after the ideology of Heraclites, who suggested that children, i.e., "minors" should rule, i.e., that the "adults" of his city should "hang" themselves for casting out someone greater than them, i.e., a thinker who created unity, i.e., common-ism out of opposites, requiring 'change,' i.e., advocating that if there is any constant, it is 'change'): "Once the earthly family [with the children being subject to the earthly father's authority, preventing 'change'] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with man being subject to the Heavenly Father's authority, preventing 'change'], the former [the traditional family with the father's "Do what I say or else" authority system] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4), "theoretically and practically" means that the father's/Father's authority ("prejudices," i.e., judgment or condemnation for doing wrong or for sinning, i.e., for disobeying his/His established commands, rules, facts, or truth) is to be negated (no longer rule or exist) in the children's thought (privately) and in their practice (publically), resulting in both "theory and practice" (the child's thoughts and actions) becoming united (as one) based upon that which is common with all children, their carnal nature, i.e., their desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' (which initiates and sustains 'change') and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority ("Do what I say or else" system) which inhibits or blocks 'change,' thus Marx concluded: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways [established their opinion as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the process of 'change' itself]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11), (have you heard the word 'change' recently?),
   and Sigmund Freud stated (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority): "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer insists upon his children obeying him, doing his will over and therefore against their nature, 'discovering' common ground with them, according to "human nature" only, instead]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)
   Merging Karl Marx, i.e., society and Sigmund Freud, i.e., the individual, resolved the problem which comes with politically attacking the father/Father and his/His authority outright—leaving his/His "top-down" authority system in place. By children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, i.e., through the children's participation in "group psychotherapy," i.e., the "group grade" classroom, they come to realize that the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth are "irrational" (do not fit) in a rapidly 'changing' world, in their thoughts and actions making the father's/Father's authority system "irrelevant," resulting in their treating him/Him the same, i.e., "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant"—in defiance, i.e., in indifference to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth doing what they want to do, when they want to do it instead.
   Irvin Yalom, in his book The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, summed up the merging of Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud as the praxis, i.e., the seduction, deception, and manipulation of "group psychotherapy" (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority): "Freud noted that patricide [the children, by nature, hating (wanting to kill) the father/Father when he/He gets in the way of their "enjoying" the carnal (natural) pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., being stimulate by and responding to the world around them, i.e., becoming at-one-with it instead of with the him/Him, by nature hating and fighting against the father/Father and his/His authority when he/He and it gets in their (nature's) way] and incest [the children, by nature, doing what they want to do, when they want to do it, "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' with whoever/whatever is stimulating it, i.e., "dopamine emancipation," i.e., the pleasures of the 'moment'] are part of man's deepest nature."
   Herbart Marcuse, in his book Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud (from where we get the phrase "If it feels good, just do it"), explained the essence, i.e., the drive and purpose of Freud's psychology (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority) as "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—[which] culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan." Freud noted, according to Marcuse, that the "brother clan," feeling "guilty" for their deed, memorialized the father. Thus, restoring the father's "top-down" authority system, i.e., engendering "civil society," they prevented man from being his "self" again. It was therefore Freud's agenda to use the language of dialogue, i.e., the language of "I feel" and "I think," i.e., the language the woman in the garden in Eden used, in order to overcome the affects (the restraints) of the father's/Father's "thou shalt not," i.e., "It is written," "Because I said so," in order to overcome (negate) the "neurosis" of "civil society." "Neurosis" is 'created' when the child is caught between doing his will or doing the father's/Father's will, doing the father's/Father's will, despite it going against his will, in order to not be punished and/or to gain his/His approval, resulting in him feeling guilty when he disobeys (or is thinking about disobeying), i.e., for being "normal," thus becoming "neurotic." When the "brother clan" established "civil society," by creating a council or a select group of people to rule over "the people," they sustained the fathers'/Father's "top-down" authority system over "the people," sustaining "neurosis." Thus according to Marcuse (explaining Freud's agenda), "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge [disregard the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., disregard the father's/Father's authority] in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" ibid.
   Normal O. Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History, explained the "neurosis of civilization" this way: "Neurosis is an essential consequence of civilization or culture." "The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction." "The core of the neurosis of individuals lay in the 'memory-traces of the experiences of former generations.'" According to Brown, as the child's parents indoctrinate him with their belief, he becomes less of his "self," therefore "neurotic," "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion." "Psychoanalysis must treat religion [denying your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] as a neurosis." Therefore the agenda of psychology (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority) is to overcome "neurosis," i.e., the fathers'/Father's authority in the child, "helping" the child to overcome that which is preventing him from being his "self." Brown, commenting on his book, stated: "The entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange world and a strange language―a world of sick men, ....It is a shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to the Western traditions of morality and rationality to take a steadfast, unflinching look at what Freud has to say. To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader." "Our real choice is between holy and unholy madness: open your eyes and look around you―madness is in the saddle anyhow." "It is possible to be mad and to be unblest, but it is not possible to get the blessing without the madness; it is not possible to get the illuminations without the derangement," "I wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx."
   and Mike Connor, at Brown's funeral, stated: "But Brown believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin—namely, that alienation would be overcome, and the return of the repressed completed, rendering problems of sin permanently moot. Life Against Death established Brown, along with his colleague and friend Herbert Marcuse, and later Charles Reich, as an intellectual leader of the New Left …. a Marxist mode of Freudian analysis." (March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz)

you will never understand what is happening in you, to you, and in the world around you today, i.e., in the home, in the neighborhood, in education, in the workplace, in entertainment, in government, etc., i.e., in the nation, around the world, and even in the "church." It is simply the nature of the child ("human nature," i.e., man's sinful nature) becoming the law of the land, negating the father's/Father's authority in the process—rejecting the Son's reason for coming (not only to 'redeem' us from our sins, i.e., our "human nature," thus saving us from eternal death, i.e., damnation but also to 'reconcile' us to His Heavenly Father, that we might inherit eternal life). "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
   When policy is established through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (children/men and women seeing their "self," i.e., what they have in common with in one another, 'justifying' and thus affirming "self" as being "normal," thus making "self interest" the way of life, "building relationship upon self interest," i.e., building "worldly peace and socialist harmony" upon "common-ism," i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature"), the father's/Father's authority (fear of God and judgment) is negated in the feelings, thoughts and actions of the children/men and women, turning every fact or truth (belief) into an opinion (theory), making all things subject to 'change'—in order to satisfy the child's/man's or woman's carnal desires of the 'moment.' In the consensus process of "self" 'justification,'—'justifying' the carnal nature of the child (including children in an adult bodies) so that (having no fear of judgment and damnation, i.e., void of the Father's authority) all can sin with impunity—a "new" world order of unrighteousness and abomination is engendered (of course to the Godless and the "contemporary Church"—rejecting the deceitfulness and wickedness of man's heart, the wrath of God upon "the children of disobedience," i.e., upon those affirming man's carnal nature, and eternal damnation, in order for man to "feel good" about his "self," living in world of his own 'creation,' initiating and sustaining "worldly peace and socialist harmony"—that is a dream come true). The consensus process is in fact a religious service, with man ('liberating' his "self" from God) making his collective "self" god, worshiping the creation, i.e., the thoughts (opinions) and actions (praxis) of men instead of the creator.
   Synthesis (the consensus process) is not about reconciling the child with the father (or man with God, the Father), keeping the father's/Father's authority in tact, it is about reconciling the child/man with his carnal nature, negating the father's/Father's authority in the process. Put another way synthesis reconciles the child/man with his carnal nature, making his (and everyone else's) "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' ("covetousness," i.e., "self interest") the standard for "good," negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will (making the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., his inhibiting or blocking, i.e., preventing the child from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—in order to do right and not wrong according to his/His will—"evil"), in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e., in his relationship with ("love" of) himself ("self"), others, and the world, as well as in his response (hatred) toward the father/Father—questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority. Synthesizing the child with his carnal nature automatically, i.e., in harmony with "human nature" engenders hatred toward the father/Father and his/His authority—which restrains him.
   While Hegel did not use the terms thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, they are the common descriptive of the dialectic process. The synthesis of the dialectic process is not between the father/Father, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (the thesis) and the child/man (since the child's/man's nature is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority—the father's/Father's authority being "negative" to the child's carnal nature, preventing him from "enjoying" his carnal desires of the 'moment') but between the child and his nature, so that the child can satisfy his carnal desires ("self interest") of the 'moment'—become "positive"—thereby making all children/mankind one, i.e., united in their carnal nature as well as in the "common cause" ("common-ism") of negating the father's/Father's authority system (called "the negation of negation"). The "duty" or role of the facilitator of 'change' is not to bring peace and harmony into the home/nation/"church," i.e., into the traditional home/nation/fellowship, i.e., between the parent's and their children, the leaders and the citizens, the believers and God, supporting (serving and protecting) the father's/Father's authority over his/His children, but that of 'liberating' the children/man from their parent's/leader's/God's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's "autocratic" authority ("authoritarian") system, doing so in the name of "the children," i.e., "the people," i.e., "growing" the "church" (in the name of the Lord).
   When the facilitator of 'change' ask you to be "positive" (and not "negative") he really means leave the father's/Father's authority out of the decision (policy) making procedure, allowing him to 'justify,' i.e., "enjoy" his "self," using that which is the father's/Father's for his own "enjoyment." When the facilitator of 'change' says he is doing his 'job' for the sake of "the people" (the children) he really means he is doing it for his own "self," i.e., for his own pleasure and gain. When the facilitator of 'change' says to you "It's not about you," he really means "It's all about me," i.e., his "self." Don't be deceived. By submitting your "self" to his "self," becoming "at-one-with" him (and those following him, i.e., 'justifying' their "self," and therefore him) he simply wants you to leave the father's/Father's authority out of your communication (relationship) with him (and with your "self" and with others) so that he (and you and others) can do wrong, i.e., take that which is not his (negating the innocent [doing "co-lateral damage"] and the righteous—those submitting their "self" to the father/Father, sustaining the father's/Father's authority system), without having a "guilty conscience," so that he (along with you and all others, as Karl Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, etc.,) can sin, i.e., disobey the father/Father with impunity.
   While Karl Marx proclaimed: "The proletariat [the "child of disobedience"] thus has the same right as has the German king when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse." (Karl Marx, Critique of 'Hegel's' Philosophy of Right—while the American Revolution removed the father, i.e., the king from having authority over the citizens, unlike the French Revolution, which killed the father, i.e., the king, we left him in tact in the home, protecting him, i.e., his private convictions, home, property, and business with the bill of rights), in essence (according to Karl Marx), "The King's horse is my horse," as two children in a garden in Eden, i.e., as "children of disobedience", proclaimed, in essence: "God's tree is our tree," as town councils today, using the consensus process to initiate and sustain policy, proclaim "Your property is our (my) property," saying in essence, "What we (I) see we (I) own," 'justifying' their praxis (socialist action) in the name of "building community," as Jean-Jacques Rousseau proclaimed: "[T]he fruits of the earth belongs to all of us [to me], and the earth itself to nobody [and no one has the right to restrain me]." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality)—thus whatever the facilitator of 'change' sees, and those following after him see, they own, i.e., they act as though they own it (as the children of today behave)—the Word of God says: "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26), with God giving man "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26), with man behaving toward one another according to His will, "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Exodus 23:7 (which describes what the facilitator of 'change and those who follow him, i.e., the "children of disobedience" do).
   By starting with the child's desires (individual-social issues, i.e., how the child "feels" and what he is "thinking" about in the 'moment, i.e., his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment') as the focus of "discussion," making the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" (of the 'moment') the thesis—thus making the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth (of the "past") the antithesis, i.e., the source of conflict and tension—the antithesis (the father's/Father's authority) is negated in the outcome, synthesizing the child/man with his carnal nature, making him "at-one-with" that which is stimulating it, i.e., the world (thus making him subject to the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the manipulator of the environment, i.e., establishing how policy is, i.e., decisions are to be arrived at—not through the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' but through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., being "positive," i.e., "building relationship upon self interest" initiating and sustaining the process of 'change,' i.e., sustaining, i.e., supporting the facilitator of 'change' in the process). The facilitator of 'change's' tool of manipulation is his emphasis upon everyone being "positive," uniting the child with his carnal desires of the 'moment,' thereby uniting him with the situation, i.e., the world, i.e., "the group" which is stimulating them, negating the "negative," i.e., the father's/Father's authority which inhibits or blocks the child from being "of and for self," preventing the child from becoming "at-one-with" his carnal nature and the world ("the group").
   In truth there is no synthesis, only the antithesis between the father's/Father's authority and the child's/man's carnal nature, with the father/Father directing the child/man, i.e., the child/man having fellowship with the father/Father (by the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ's perfect obedience to the Father, i.e., 'redeeming' us from the Father's wrath upon us for our sins, i.e., for our disobedience, covering our sins with His blood, shed at the cross, imputing His righteousness unto all who place their faith in Him, i.e., believe upon Him—denying their "self" daily, enduring the rejection of men, and following after Him in His obedience to His Heavenly Father, doing the Father's will—'reconciling' us to His Heavenly in His resurrection from the grave, that we might have fellowship with His Father and with Him, not only now, but throughout all eternity) or the child/man living a life of illusion (lie), thinking and acting as though he will not be held accountable for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions. "[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36
   Instead of fighting against the father's/Father's authority, keeping the father's/Father's authority system in tact, Hegel's agenda was to negate the father's/Father's authority system in the child's/man's 'reasoning,' with the child 'reasoning' from his "feelings," i.e., from his desires (along with others with the same desires) of the 'moment' (instead of from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth), making the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth "irrational" in the "light" of his own understanding, i.e., according to his own experiences ("sense experiences"), therefore making the father's/Father's authority "irrelevant" in regard to his daily life, i.e., his daily decisions—needing no savior, repentance, or reconciliation with the father/Father in order to be "right," i.e., in order to become "righteous," being sufficient in (of and for) his "self," i.e., "righteous" in his own eyes—according to his carnal nature and the world stimulating it. While Karl Marx put Hegel's "scientific method," i.e., the dialectic process into social action, killing the fathers outright (leaving it still in tact in the individual) and Sigmund Freud put it into individual action, killing the father's/Father's authority in the individual's thoughts and actions (leaving it in tact in society), facilitators' of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists" merged the two (Marx and Freud, society and the individual, i.e., "the group" and the student), killing the father's/Father's authority in the individual (in the student) as well as in society (in "the group") at the same time, as policy was being established through the consensus process and put into social action (praxis; what I call "diaprax"). "Human rights," i.e., the rights of the child (loving pleasure and hating restraint and the restrainer) negates inalienable rights, the rights of the father, i.e., private property, business, and convictions (with his/His children, having faith in him/Him, loving him/Him, doing right and not wrong according to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth).
   While dialectic 'reasoning' "reconciles" man to his carnal nature, the gospel reconciles him to his Heavenly Father. That has been the conflict and tension since the garden in Eden—where the master facilitator of 'change' came between the "children" and the "Father," "helping" them 'justify' their carnal nature, i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment' over and therefore against the Father's commands, rules, fact, and truth, 'liberating' themselves from the Father's authority. Leave the father/Father out of the equation (the decisions you make today) and all you have is your "self," the world around you stimulating you, and the facilitator of 'change,' seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you (as natural resource) for his own pleasure and gain. While the father/Father persuades, the facilitator of 'change,' "group psychotherapist" manipulates. As far as I am concerned, I would rather be persuaded with the Father's facts and truth than manipulated by the master facilitator of 'change's' lies (which "seem to" be true, i.e., which make you "feel good" in the 'moment'). The "great psychotherapist," Carl Rogers, wrote: "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Where you spend eternity depends upon which one you turn to for direction. While the facilitator of 'change' motivates you into living in the "eternal present," i.e., what "seems to" be right to you in the 'moment,' he is, in the end, leading you down the pathway of eternal death. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
   Moving communication away from the preaching of the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given, and the teaching of his/His facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), with the discussion of them being subject to the father's/Father's discretion ("old school"), to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus ("new world order school"), moves the establishment of policy away from the father's/Father's authority, toward the carnal nature of the child, 'liberating' both the child and society (all children—including those in adult bodies) from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority (in the thoughts and actions of the children and society) in the process. It is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning being used in the classroom to determine right from wrong behavior ("life choices"). Deductive reasoning is in essence the child evaluating his "self" and the world around him from the father/Father perspective, i.e., from what the father/Father brings into the room—doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, with obedience being "good" and disobedience being "bad"—inhibiting or blocking the process of 'change.' Inductive reasoning is, on the other hand, the child evaluating (aufheben) his "self" and the world around him, including the father/Father himself, from his own perspective, i.e., from what he (the child) brings into the room—his own life experience of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, with pleasure being "good" and its restraint being "bad"—initiating and sustaining the process of 'change.' The latter (inductive reasoning) is the bases of Hegel's, Marx's, Freud's dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' synthesizing the child's carnal nature with the world around him, making all subject to their carnal nature (their natural desire for pleasure of the 'moment' and their natural dissatisfaction with restraint—inhibiting or blocking them from "enjoying" it) and the world around them which stimulates pleasure within them—'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's "do right and not wrong" authority system, negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, so they can be "of and for self" only, i.e., so they can sin with impunity.
   As the Transformational Marxist (Marxist's who merge Karl Marx, i.e., "the group," i.e., society with Sigmund Freud, i.e., psychology, i.e., the individual, creating "group psychotherapy") Theodor Adorno explained it: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) According to the 'logic' of Transformational Marxists, the "problem" is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "authoritarianism" which engenders "prejudice," i.e., "right-wrong" thinking and acting, engendering Nationalism (Isolationism), i.e., "Us vs. them," i.e., "lander-ausländer" (ingroup-outgroup), which (when globalists, i.e., Transformational Marxists attempt to negate the father's/Father's authority in order to overcome Nationalism, the fathers turn to government to protect their authority, which then) engenders Fascism, i.e., totalitarianism, inhibiting or blocking Globalism, i.e., worldly peace and socialist harmony. Transformational Marxist, i.e., "group psychotherapist" 'logic' is: if the father's/Father's authority is created by children, abdicating their carnal nature to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (going against their carnal nature in order to do the father's/Father's will—as Karl Marx explained it: "The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." Karl Marx, MEGA I/3, pp. 83-84), then 'liberating' the children's mind and actions ("theory and practice") from the father's/Father's authority in the classroom (cafés), i.e., "helping" the children, i.e., the next generation of citizens "transcend" their parents customs, traditions, boarders, differences, beliefs, etc., negates, in the mind and actions of the children, the father's/Father's authority in the home, negating, in the mind and actions of the children, the father's/Father's authority in "society," 'liberating' the children and all of "society" from "the fear of God," i.e., from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father—so that all can sin with impunity. i.e., be human, i.e., be "of and for self" and the world only, instead.
   Abraham Maslow's response toward the "authoritarian" reveals the underlying contempt (hatred) Transformational Marxist's, i.e., social-psychologists, i.e., "group psychotherapists—seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of children, men, and women," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "children of disobedience" have toward what they call "authoritarians," i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority and those who, as the Lord Jesus Christ, do the father's/Father's will "in all things commanded"—holding onto their faith (belief) in the father/Father, his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, and his/His authority, refusing to become at-one-with the world around them. "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of A.H. Maslow)
   Kurt Lewin, in typical social-psychological, i.e., "group psychotherapy," i.e., Transformational Marxist language, explained the "problem"—regarding the child's faith in the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "authoritarianism"—and its solution: "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." In other words, the guilty conscience is the result of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, along with his/His threat of chastening/punishment/judgment for disobeying/sinning, preventing the child/man from enjoying the carnal (natural) pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, i.e., preventing him from being "normal." According to Lewin, if we start with (communicate with) the father's/Father's "can not," "must not," "Because I said so," "Thou shalt not," "It is written," "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4), i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth, along with his/His authority to chasten/punish/judge (typical of the traditional classroom) the guilty conscience (the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and therefore the actions of the child) is sustained, inhibiting or blocking the child from being "normal," i.e., preventing him from being his "self' when he is apart from the father/Father being tempted to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, i.e., in the 'moment,' along with others. But, according to Kurt Lewin, if we start with the child's/man's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e., introduce the "affective domain" ("Pandora's box," see Bloom's Taxonomies) into the child's classroom experience, i.e. allowing him through dialogue to freely share his opinion—with no fear of being chastened or being cast out for sharing his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' 'liberating' his feelings and thoughts from the father's/Father's authority (the child will instead be pressured, i.e., bullied by or cast out of "the group," i.e., rejected by "the group" if he persists in holding to the father's/Father's authority, preaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to "the group," refusing to suspend truth, as on a cross, in order to become at-one-with, i.e., create peace and harmony within "the group")—the "negative valance," i.e. the "guilty conscience" for disobeying the father/Father or for doing things wrong is negated, "freeing" the child to be his "self," i.e., of (and for) the world only, 'liberating' society from the father's/Father's authority in the process, i.e., engendering "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité. "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers) According to Kurt Lewin, it is in the child's desire for, i.e., his thinking about the "forbidden object," which is antithetical to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (the thesis) that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' resides, with synthesis (between the child and his carnal desires of the 'moment') becoming the resolution to the conflict and tension (the antithesis) between the father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature, the child's ability to 'justify' his carnal desires (that which is of and for nature, i.e., "self" only) as being "reasonable," i.e., "rational" and therefore "normal," negating the father's authority, making the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (the original thesis) "unreasonable," i.e., "irrational" and therefore "abnormal," making the father's authority (or anything that stands between the child and his nature, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment') "irrelevant," i.e., of no value in an ever 'changing' world (where the child, stimulated by the world before him, responds according to his carnal nature, i.e., according to his carnal desires of the 'moment,' only , instead)—what "values clarification" and "situation ethics" were, and still are, all about.
   It is the child's "desire" for the "forbidden object"that the child keeps to his "self," dialoguing only with his "self" about (out of fear of the "field of force of and adult," not sharing it with anybody else)that is of interest to the "group psychotherapist," i.e., to the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., to the Transformational Marxist. "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual's potential for democratic ... thought and action in crucial situations." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Without gaining access to the child's "secrete thoughts," i.e., his "private convictions," in order for him to participate in the process of 'change,' he will remain loyal to the father's/Father's authority, inhibiting or blocking the process of 'change.' The objective is, therefore, to the 'liberate' the child's "secret thoughts" (in order to negate his "private convictions") in the classroom, initiating and sustaining 'change' not only in the classroom, but in the home, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church" in the process, turning both children and adults against those who, holding onto the father's/Father's authority system, inhabit or block the process of 'change,' especially when it affects public policy, i.e., society. "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
   The "group" experience ("group dynamics") is an essential element in the process of 'change,' with the child's desire for approval, i.e., for affirmation by the group 'changing' how he thinks and acts, especially when "the group's" goal is to achieve consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness"). "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief, i.e., their faith (trust) in authority, be it in their parent's, their teacher's, their boss's, their leader(s), or God's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity [especially when "the group," excluding (rejecting) him (because of his "ridged," i.e., "prejudiced," i.e., unadaptable to 'change' father's/Father's position), is heading down the road, hand in hand with his carnal desire of the 'moment,' "enjoying" it without him]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) By simply moving the classroom away from the preaching and teaching (and discussion, at the teachers discretion) of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (indicative of the father's/Father's authority) to where the students are free to dialogue their opinions (how they themselves are "feeling" in the 'moment' in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., what they are thinking about in the 'moment' regarding personal/individual-social issues—the social issues or crises of the times being authoritarian leadership, i.e., nationalism oppressing "the people," associated to children being oppressed by their parents, i.e., the father's/Father's "top-down," "do what I say, or else" authority system, needing 'liberation' from "authoritarianism," i.e., needing democracy in order to be their "self") to a consensus, initiates and sustains the deed. In the scriptures, the Kingdom of God is advanced by the preaching of the gospel, not through dialogue, i.e., children/men and women finding common group with one another based upon their common carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment.'
    The classroom environment (curriculum), i.e., how the teacher and the students relate (communicate) with one another initiates and sustains, i.e., engenders the outcome. "[Kurt] 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) For example: a group dialoging their opinion, i.e., their "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' regarding the Word of God, basing their interpretation of it upon their own "sense experience," questioning and challenging it when it does not "make sense" to them, i.e., when it conflicts with their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e., "sense experience" (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3), produces a different outcome, i.e., a different way of thinking and acting than a group hearing the Word of God preached and taught, accepting it as is (by faith), submitting ("humbling") their "self" to the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11). The law (of God the Father) which is perfect, reveals to man that he is not perfect, who is to be perfect ("Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48; "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17) needing a savior (Romans 7:14-25). In dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification,' law (external to man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature") is negated, 'liberating' the child/man from his need of a savior, having saved his "self" instead, actualizing his "self" ("self-actualization")—with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change'—from the law and the law maker, i.e. from God the Father, 'liberating' his "self" from the father's/Father's authority (Genesis 3:1-6). Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of nature without the law of God, i.e., the law of the child's/man's carnal nature without the law of the father/Father restraining it, sums up the child's classroom experience, where he, dialoguing his opinion with the rest of the class, to a consensus, 'liberates' his "self," along with the rest of the class, from his parent's and/or God's restraints, from then on finding his "purpose" in life, i.e., Kant's "purposiveness without purpose," 'liberating' others ("Self") from the father's/Father's authority system as well, ' creating a "new" world order "of and for Self" only—with everyone, through dialogue, seeing their "self" in each other, becoming as one in the process. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves [your "self," i.e., "human nature"] before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men["human nature"] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5
   All of philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., i.e., contemporary education, i.e., "group psychotherapy" (the "group grade") is based upon "resolving" this conflict between "self" and the laws restraining it, i.e., between the children and their parents, i.e., between the child/man and the father's/Father's authority, i.e., between man and God (in the home and in society). They are all based upon the child "thinking" about how the world "is" (subject to the father's/Father's authority), how it "ought" to be (subject to his "felt needs," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment), and how it "can" be (if he, along with all the children of the world—all having the same desire for the pleasures of the 'moment,' and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., being equal in nature—united their "self" as one, 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, in their relationship with one another, and in the world in the process). As Abraham Maslow explained it: "We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-["self interest"] perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." "If we wish to permit the facts [our "feelings" of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them] to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic." "Here the fusion comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the is, [the child/man getting what he wants only, making the world subject to his "self" only] but from a scaling down of the ought, from a redefining of expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality [closer to what "the group" needs (to how "the group" feels and thinks), i.e., to what society needs] and therefore to attainability." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
   By 'liberating' the children's/man's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment," i.e., what the children/men are "coveting" in the 'moment,' from the father's/Father's threat of chastening (for disobedience) or wrath (for defiance to his/His authority), the children/men are 'liberated' (in their mind, i.e., in their dialogue with their "self") from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (in the "group grade" classroom/in the consensus meeting), so they can be "of and for self," i.e., "of and for" that which is of the world (sensuous) only, instead, i.e., subject to the facilitator of 'change's' seduction, deception ("feigned words," i.e., doublespeak, saying "It is not about you" when it is really all "about him," i.e., what he wants to gain from the "situation" for his "self"; when he says what he is doing is "For the sake of the people'" he really means "For is own 'self's' sake"), and manipulation (turning you into "merchandise," i.e., "human resource" for his, and his fellow facilitators of 'change,' own financial gain, i.e., carnal pleasures) instead. "And through covetousness [wanting what is not yours, that which belongs to someone else, i.e., that you are told you are not to have] shall they with feigned words [doublespeak, i.e., Gr. "plastic words"] make merchandise of you ;" 2 Peter 2:22 "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 The Apostle Paul warned Timothy to avoid this process, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., Hegel's so called "scientific method" of men "justifying' their 'self' before men": "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20
   As the students dialogue their opinion with one another to a consensus, they overcome (negate in their thoughts and actions, as well as in the thoughts and actions of the facilitator of 'change') the father's/Father's "Because I said so," "It is written" (preaching), which cut off their "Why?" (their attempt to get the father/Father into dialogue), i.e., their effort to overcome the father's/Father's commands and rules (authority) which got in the way of their carnal desires of the 'moment,' in the "past." By student's being allowed to finish their dialogue (their "Why?") with one another (since the father would not "cooperate") they are able to 'justify' themselves, i.e., 'justify' their carnal desires of the 'moment' with one another, negating the father's/Father's authority system (the threat of chastisement/judgment/damnation and therefore the "guilty conscience" for disobedience/defiance to the father/Father and his/His authority) in their thoughts and actions in the process, going home, i.e., living life with a new frame of mind—instead of obeying their parents, i.e., the father/Father (and therefore missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' in order to do what they are told to do by their parents) they question, challenge, disregard, defying, and attack their parent's/God's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority instead, especially when it gets in the way of their carnal desires of the 'moment.' "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices [in the classroom] are producing between parents and children [when the children get home]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2: Affective Domain, p. 83) You do not have to attack the parents, i.e., their authority, in the classroom, 'liberate' the children's carnal desires (thoughts) of the 'moment' in the classroom, with "group approval," i.e., affirmation (consensus) and they will do that when they get home.
   Even though the parents, i.e., the father is not perfect, they/he may be a downright tyrant (the office is given to them/him by the Father to serve Him in, who is perfect), there is a price to pay when you negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., when you 'liberate' the child from the father's/Father's authority system. Hegel, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born), stated: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lust" for the pleasures of the world, including (and especially) their desire for approval from one another (affirmation)], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Hegel, System) When the child's nature ("human nature") becomes the foundation for "rights," private property, private business, inalienable rights, all fade away, with those in authority (children in adult bodies) having no guilty conscience in how they respond (what they do) to those who do not "co-operate," i.e., who make them "feel" bad, i.e., who get in their way—preventing them from having their way, i.e., enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment.' Capitalists, i.e., those who capitulate to authority—as a child capitulates the pleasures of the 'moment' in order to obey his parent's, doing their will instead of his, doing his best, as unto the Lord, being rewarded and rewarding others for doing good work, i.e., for doing "right and not wrong" (morality and competence being of issue)—mind their own business, recognizing, respecting, honoring, and protecting other peoples right of property, while Communists, i.e., the children of the world (of disobedience), i.e., those "of and for self"—as children insisting that whatever others say to them and do to them makes them "feel good," even when their work is done "badly," i.e., done wrong, being rewarded and rewarding others for bad work, even for not working (the way others think and act being of issue)—make everybody's business their business, thinking (and behaving as though) everything they see (everybody's property) is their property (describing most town councils and government departments, agencies, and institutions today).
   The scriptures warn us
: "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12 "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17 "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12 "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 "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 When children, loving the toys their parent's buy them more than their parent's, no longer receive toys from their parent's, because of their (the children's) bad behavior, the government steps in making the parent's buy them toys or purchases them for them (with the parent's tax dollars)—'justifying'' the children's disrespect toward their parent's authority in the process. 
   Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud set out to use the conflict between the child's nature, i.e., the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment, i.e., that which is of the world and his (or her) natural resentment toward the father's/Father's restraints (which all children have in common—the basis of "common-ism" AKA Communism), and the father's authority, i.e., directing the child's steps, teaching him to do right and not wrong according to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth (which, according to Transformational Marxists, i.e., "group psychotherapists," divides the child from his own nature, "repressing" him, "alienating" him not only from his own "self" but from the other children of the world as well [engendering individualism, under God, i.e., associated with nationalism, i.e., "Us vs. them," leading to Fascism], preventing him from finding ('discovering') common ground, i.e., common-ism with the world [globalism, i.e., "We working for us"] in the process—"The dialectical method [globalism] was overthrown―the parts [the children] were prevented [by the father's/Father's authority] from finding their definition within the whole [within their nature and the world]." György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness; What is Orthodox Marxism?) in order to negating the father's/Father's authority, thus allowing the children to become as one, i.e., "of and for self," uniting their "self" as one through the dialoguing of their opinions i.e., their feelings and thoughts, i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' 'discovering' common ground, i.e., synthesis (consensus), 'creating' a "new' world order based upon their nature, i.e., the child's nature, i.e., "human nature" only, negating the "old" world order of the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right and not wrong, according to my will, or else" authority system in the process. As Abraham Maslow explained it: "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." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature) "Marxian theory ["the group"] needs Freudian-type instinct theory [the child's carnal nature] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." [Since the 'drive' of "the group" is the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure (including affirmation) and his hate of restraint, the 'purpose' of "the group," as well as the individual, becomes the augmentation of the child's carnal nature, i.e., the "lust" for pleasure and hate of the father's/Father's authority, with the 'purpose' of life being the 'liberation' of "human nature" from the father's/Father's authority—at all cast, i.e., costing "much blood."] "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.)" "The new Zeitgeist is value-full (value-directed, value-vectorial), human-need & metaneed centered (or based), moving toward basic-need gratification & metaneed metagratification—that is, toward full-humanness, SA, psychological health, full-functioning human fulfillment, i.e., toward human perfection as the limit & as the direction [making the limits and measure of life the pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing right and not wrong according to established standards of the "past"]." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of A.H. Maslow)
   In essence Karl Marx lies within your child (as well as in you, your spouse, your friends, you neighbors, your educators, your boss, your legislators, your judges, your minister, etc.,) revealing his "self" when he can not have his way, wanting to be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's restraints—doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—so that he can do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it—"Now!" He is your child dialoguing with (within) his (or her) "self," regarding his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (that which is of the world) and his dissatisfaction with (resentment /hatred toward) restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority, needing a "savior," i.e., a facilitator of 'change' (Genesis 3:1-6) to come along and rescue him, i.e., "help" him 'liberate' him ("Self"), i.e., the Karl Marx in him, from the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right-not wrong," "preaching-teaching," "obey or else" authority system (Hebrews 12:5-11), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong/for sinning (Romans 7:14-25), i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, i.e., for questioning, challenging, disregarding defying, attacking, and removing the father/Father and his/His authority (as well as those submitting their "self" to him/Him, propagating his/His way of thinking and acting) in the process.
   "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 Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) When you dialogue with others, what you are dialoguing (murmuring) with your "self" about, i.e., your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment'—thinking about how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority, with you, having to do his will, missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' how it "ought" to be, with you being able to do what you want to do, when you want to do it, and how it "can" be, "of and for "self," if/when it is 'liberated from the father's/Father's authority—'justifying' your "self," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., your resentment or hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, you are revealing what you have in common with them (the world) and what they have (the world has) in common with you—the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "self" 'justification.' In that 'moment' of consensus ("feeling" of "oneness" that results from setting aside that which divides—"doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—suspending the truth, as on a cross, in order to "build relationship" with others, i.e., in order to initiate and sustain "common ground," i.e., "common-ism" with them and the world—with you seeing your "self," i.e., Karl Marx in them and them seeing their "self," i.e., Karl Marx in you), you and they are in essence 'justifying' (affirming) the Karl Marx in each other, "building relationship" upon "Self interest,'" i.e., upon your and their deceitful and wicked heart, in praxis negating godly restraint (the Father's authority) in the marriage (in the parents), in the home (in the children), in education (in the teachers), in the neighborhood (in "the people"), in the workplace (in the boss), in government (in the legislators, judges, and leaders), in the world, and even in the "church" (in the minister, elders, deacons, and members). When you 'justify' your "self" you no longer need a savior—the Karl Marx in you 'liberating' you from any fear of God, i.e., judgment and wrath, i.e., damnation for your sin's, i.e., for being "human." When you do it ('justify' your "self") in "the group," i.e., "before men," i.e., when you receive "the group's" approval, i.e., affirmation for being "normal," i.e., for being carnal, i.e., for being of the world only, the leader of "the group," i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of children, men, and women becomes your new "savior" (referred to as "big brother"), engendering a "new" world order 'created' in his image, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., "of and for the children of disobedience," i.e., "of and for human nature," i.e., of and for the world only, instead.
    "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ["human nature"], is not of the Father, but is of the world." "If any man love the world ["human nature," the children loving the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which are stimulated by the world around them—hating anyone who gets in their way, i.e., inhibiting or blocking them from enjoying the carnal pleasure's of the 'moment,' and the world that is stimulating them], the love of the Father [loving the children, not what they are doing that is wrong, chastening them when they do wrong, that they might do what is right (righteousness)] is not in him." 1 John 2:16, 15. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 ["Deceitful" in that you, by nature, establish your heart's desires, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' as the standard for "good" and therefore "wicked," since you, by nature, establish that which inhibits or blocks you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., the father's/Father's authority as being "evil."] "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves ["human nature"] before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men["human nature"] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5
  The essence of Marxism is in the nature of the child, i.e., in their love of the world—the pleasures that are stimulated by the world—and their resentment/hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority. How the child respond to the world around them—what they see that is not theirs (that stimulates pleasure in them), with them either thinking and acting as though they own it, i.e., coveting and "taking ownership" of it, or recognizing it as not being theirs, i.e., belonging to someone else, respecting, honoring, and protecting their, i.e., the other child's (persons) ownership of it—and how they respond to the father's/Father's authority—recognizing, respecting, and honoring it or questioning, challenging, defying, and/or attacking it—reveals where they are in regard to either embracing or rejecting Marxism. The question is, are your children Marxists (or becoming Marxist). How they respond to your authority reveals the answer. The next question is, Are you a Marxist? How you respond to your children reveals the answer.
   The Marxist agenda for America, from the 50's on, was to "use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) It appears to have worked. The reason America has become a Marxist nation (including the "Church") is because its citizens (leadership and members) are 'justifying' their "self," i.e., "esteeming" their "self," i.e., in consensus doing what they want to do, when they want to do it—letting someone come between them and their children, rescuing them from their authority, i.e., letting someone come between their "self" and the Father, rescuing their "self" from the Father's authority—instead of humbling their "self," denying their "self," doing the Father's will.
   "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 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 While Jesus Christ (by his death on the cross covering our sins by His blood, imputing his righteousness to us according to our faith in Him) came to 'redeem' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us (damnation) for our sins, i.e., for our love of "self," i.e., "human nature" and the world, He also came, and was raised from the grave, to 'reconcile' us to His Heavenly Father—that we might have fellowship with His Heavenly Father, as well as with Him. "[A]nd truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 All fellowshipping (between believers) stems from their fellowshipping "with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" first and foremost—otherwise their "fellowshipping" is apostasy. Placing anything (including the "church") or anyone (including your "self," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the Karl Marx in you) between you and the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, cuts off the fellowship. That is why you must die to your "self" (refuse to 'justify' your "self," thereby putting Karl Marx in his place) daily, endure the rejection of others, i.e., "the group" (for your not 'justifying,' i.e., affirming, i.e., esteeming the Karl Marx in them) and, following after the Son, Jesus Christ, do His and your Heavenly Father's will. "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
   The fellowshipping of believers is called ἐκκλησία, i.e., the "called out ones" for a reason: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Fellowshipping with believers and "building relationship" (which is of "self" and the world) are not the same thing. When your "fellowship" "builds relationship" with that which is of the world, in order to "grow itself," it's members (and leaders) are no longer fellowshipping "with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." When you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, not reproving, correcting, and/or rebuking it (as according to the Word of God), in order to "get along," i.e., in order to "build relationship," unrighteousness becomes the norm. "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 True believers can handle the chastening (by the Word being preached as is—untainted by man's "wisdom," i.e., men's opinions—and the work of the Holy Spirit, bringing them under conviction), repenting of their sins, while those "of and for self," i.e., of the world can not, leaving (refusing to repent), therefore no longer supporting the minister and the building project. Instead. believers are leaving (being excommunicated without writ), i.e., coming out of her, because the "fellowship," i.e., the "church" is growing itself upon the "building of relationships," i.e., according to its will, instead of the Lord adding to it, according to His. It is not that believers have forsaken the "assembly," it is that the "assembly" has forsaken "the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."
   When the dialoguing of opinions ("feelings" regarding personal-social, i.e., self-relationship issues) to a consensus (affirming that which is of nature, i.e., of the world only, i.e., material and therefore manipulatable) came into the fellowship (making God's Word subject to man's opinion, i.e., to man's feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' instead of man being held accountable to it, i.e., to the Father's, and His Son's authority) it became a "church" (an institution of and for the state, i.e., of and for the world), i.e., subject to your feelings (desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') and thoughts (opinion), i.e., subject to the Karl Marx in you. Instead of Karl Marx fighting against the "church," covered with the cloak of psychology he joined it instead, 'changing' it from the inside out through your and others feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' seeking peace and unity, i.e., consensus, i.e., affirmation, making it subject to "human nature." Karl Marx wrote of your nature, the same nature as the woman's in the garden in Eden: "Sense experience ["human nature"] must be the basis of all science ["Reasoning"]." "Science ["Reasoning"] is only genuine science ["Reasoning"] when it proceeds from sense experience ["human nature"], in the two forms of sense perception [what the woman saw in the garden in Eden, i.e., what you see (or imagine) in the world around you] and sensuous need [what she desired in the 'moment,' i.e., what you desire in the 'moment'], that is, only when it proceeds from Nature [from her "self," i.e., from her carnal desires of the 'moment' and the garden which stimulated them, i.e., from your "self," i.e., from your carnal desires of the 'moment' and the world around you which is simulating them]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority, being personally held accountable to them/Him] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ['compromising' for the sake of affirmation] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) The praxis of consensus (affirmation, i.e., the 'justification' of "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority) is the manifestation of Marxism ("Self" 'justification'), even in the "church." When it rejects, i.e., negates the father's/Father's authority, all that it has left to work with is "Self," making the "drive" and "purpose" of life "of and for Self," i.e., of and for the Karl Marx in all children, men, and women. As the Marxist Jürgen Habermas explained it: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation [where children, men, and women have faith in and obey the Father, doing the Father's will, becoming individuals, accountable to Him alone], then Marx [with children, men, and women 'justifying' their "self," uniting as one according to their common carnal nature] must collapse into a bottomless abyss [be cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched]." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice) After all, as the Marxists know, all of life is about the father's/Father's authority and the carnal nature of the child, with them trying to convince you (and your children, your spouse, your friends, etc.,) into choosing the nature of the child, i.e., the pleasures of the 'moment' of this life over and therefore against the Father's authority, disregarding (not carrying a bit about) where you (your children, your spouse, your friends, etc.,) will spend eternity in the next. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

continue to complete article, Part 1; If printing be forewarned it is a Very Long Article.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2017