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

The Institution for Authority Research

About, Issues, Articles, Booklet, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Radio, Sources, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks! P.S.

deangotcher@gmail.com.

Introduction
Part 2

(Continued from Introduction-Part 1, Introduction-Part 3—I have also divided Part 2 and Part 3 into 31 and 36 sections respectively for easier bite size reading.)

   Sorry for the length of the following but sit back in your easy chair and read it, trying to keep your cool. Because of the following information (explaining the formula for 'change') this website is being censored, i.e., labeled as "extremist" by those promoting the process of 'change' in the hope that you will not read it and remain ignorant of their method of controlling you, i.e., making you "human resource," i.e., subject to their will.
   Like a child playing with a stick of dynamite, ignorance is bliss—until it goes off. There is a price you will pay for playing (roleplaying) their game. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25, 26
   There is a world of difference between truth and perceived truth. Perceived truth makes truth subject to "feelings," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, making truth an opinion, subject to the situation of the 'moment,' i.e., of sight, thus making truth subject to 'change.' It is why Henry Kissinger's statement to the world's leaders, "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true." is so damning, "affecting" you, your family, property and business, i.e., your liberties. In a world of "perceived truth," i.e., in a world of opinions and 'change,' truth, i.e., faith becomes the enemy, the object to overcome in the name of "peace and affirmation."
   Karl Marx believed "sense experience"—"sensuous needs" and "sense perception"—was the total of life. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Therefore, according to his (and Freud's) way of thinking, since pleasure is the 'drive' of life, the augmentation of pleasure must become the 'purpose' of life, i.e., making all of life "of and for" "nature (pleasure) Only," giving both man and child the "right" and "duty" to negate that which prevents, i.e., that which inhibits of blocks them from enjoying ("experiencing") the pleasures of the 'moment.' Carl Rogers, in agreement, wrote: "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
   In brief, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' synthesis, i.e., consensus (a "sense perception" of "oneness"), i.e., world unity (or rather "worldly unity") can not be accomplished while there are opposing positions of right and wrong , i.e., of "true - not true" (antithesis) dividing us, i.e., preventing 'change.' "Worldly unity" (and "socialist harmony") can only become a 'reality' when our common "feelings," i.e., our common desire for pleasure, i.e., that which is of the flesh and the world only, and our common dissatisfaction with authority, i.e., our hate of restraint are 'discovered' (revealed) through dialogue and put into social action (called praxis), uniting us as "one," in consensus, with us working together as one in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' ourselves and the world from our parent's and God's authority and restraints, i.e., from the standards of the "past." Discussion is facts or truth (position) based while the dialoguing of opinions is "feelings" of the 'moment' ("sensuous needs" and "sense perception") based. You do not have to tell people to attack God (or children to attack their parents), just 'liberate' their love of pleasure from their parent's/God's restraints (through the dialoguing of their opinions with one another to a consensus, engendering affirmation) and hate of parents/God and their/His restraint will naturally follow. The dark side of our love of pleasure and the world that stimulates it, is our hate of restraint and the restrainer.
  The seedbed of the "new" world order (Marxism) lies within you, in your dialoguing with your "self," 'justifying' your desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., your opinion—thinking about how the world "is," restrained by authority, and imagining how it "ought" to be, full of pleasure—making you common with, i.e., subject to, i.e. a slave to all that is of the world only. The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to "help" you 'discover' (through the dialoguing of your opinion) with others your 'common-ness" (consensus) with all who are (and that is) of the world, "helping" you 'liberate' your "self" from those who are (and that which is) not, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system—something you have been doing or trying to do (like two "children" did in a garden called Eden) since the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth and threat of punishment came into your life, getting in the way of you being "of and for self," i.e., "of and for" the world only, i.e., "human," i.e., "normal." It is what the consensus process, group psychotherapy, Transformational Marxism, Globalism, Church Growth, Emergent Church (and any other new label or name that follows) all have in common—why they are all one and the same.
   When justification is found outside your "self," requiring you to humble, deny, control, discipline your "self" in order to do right and not wrong, then obedience to authority (with chastening for disobedience) follows. Rebellion is when 'justification' is found in your "self" alone. Revolution is when 'justification' is found in your "self" and outside your "self," i.e., in the world as well, i.e., in your thoughts responding, in harmony, with the world around you, i.e., in theory and practice, with both (emotion and motion) becoming in essence one—"building relationship" based upon "self interest," i.e., according to the "feelings" or "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment, i.e., according to the laws of nature (of the flesh) only. (Chart)
   God is not like the laws of nature, subject to stimulus-response, but is patient and full of mercy, or he would have killed us after our first sin. The great deception is, believing ourselves to be subject to stimulus-response, i.e., loving the pleasures of the 'moment' (which are stimulated by the world) and hating restrain, i.e., anything that gets in the way, since we are still alive after our first sin, there is no God (except us), thus making us subject to those who believe in stimulus-response only, having no patience for or mercy on those who get in their way.
   When the Apostle Paul wrote: "Who can deliver me from this body of death?" which is ever 'changing,' i.e., never satisfied, "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment,' hating restrain—to the last breath—he responded with the only one who can fill the hole in our soul, as well as give us hope of eternal life, Jesus Christ. (Romans 7:14-25) At the end of the day the only thing that can fill that hole, i.e., that void in our soul, is not pleasure, which is ever fleeting, leaving us hollow, i.e., unsatisfied, but having done what is right. Since we are not righteous in and of our self, it is the right-ousness of Christ Jesus alone, who was obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded (Hebrews 12:5-11), imputing His righteousness to those of faith in Him, that not only the hole in our soul can be filled, but the grave, judgment, and eternal death, i.e., damnation be overcome as well. The balance of love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., of "human nature," i.e., of "self " 'justification' (Genesis 3:1-6), can only be overcome by the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on our heart, resulting in abnormal behavior—with us no longer thinking and acting like the world, "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment,' hating those who get in our way, i.e., persecuting those who preach and teach the Word of God uncompromised, i.e., who expose our deceitfulness and wicked ways, i.e., who make us "feel bad" for our sins (for being "normal"), but loving, forgiving, and blessing those who hate us instead, preaching and teaching the Lord Jesus Christ that they might repent and come to know our Heavenly Father and His love for them, i.e., that they might turn from their wicked ways and be saved. The Marxist know this truth yet refuse to repent, i.e., turn from the consequence of their praxis. "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice )
   Bracketed information (in and following the quotations below) is added by me in order to aid in understanding. The asterisks (*) below note some of the authors used by Benjamin S. Bloom in 'creating' his Taxonomies of educational objectives (both Cognitive and Affective Domains). Most of the others authors were foundational to his work as well. "Bloom's Taxonomies" (modernized by Marzano—Goals 2000, No-Child-Left-Behind—and Webb—Common Core) are still being used in the classroom today, unabated.

* Carl Rogers wrote: "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood [individuality, under God]." "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow."
   "
Now that we know how positive reinforcement works
[the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus—the affirmation of pleasure], and why negative doesn't [parental commands and rules to be obeyed and chastening for disobedience]... we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design." "We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement—there's no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises."
   "We must accept the fact that some kind of control of human affairs is inevitable. We cannot use good sense in human affairs unless someone engages in the design and construction of environmental conditions which affect the behavior of men." "Environmental changes have always been the condition for the improvement of cultural patterns, and we can hardly use the more effective methods of science without making changes on a grander scale . . ."
   "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic."
(Carl Rogers, on becoming a person : A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) [How do you hold incest, murder, and other crimes in check in a "wholesome and constructive manner?" Especially with the use of psychology, since psychology is based upon 'liberating' man's "deepest nature," i.e., incest and murder.
   Irvin Yalom wrote:"Freud noted that patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) "Patricide" is the children killing (and devouring) their father—as Herbart Marcuse noted Freud's historiography (view of history) in his book Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud—"... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan, which in turn deifies the assassinated father and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality," what Freud called the "neurosis of society." "Incest" is the children carrying out their carnal impulses and urges of the 'moment,' having sensual (sexual) relationship with the mother. Freud considered all children as being sexually active in thought and action. "Neurosis" is the result of the child or the person having a guilty conscience for doing wrong or for sinning, for committing incest and murder (for loving pleasure and hating restraint in their thoughts and actions)—with the child or person living life feeling guilty for not thinking and acting according to their parent's or God's standards, i.e., for disobeying their commands, rules, facts, and truth. In other words, the "neurotic" person is a person who "feels" guilty for being "human," i.e., for "lusting" after the pleasure of the 'moment' as well as hating (and attacking) anyone who inhibits or blocks them from having pleasure—preventing them from being "normal."]

"In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." ". . . 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 the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." "The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore." "Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship." "For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian submission, an overweening interest in the future development of the child—in other words, a child ["feelings" of the 'moment'] centered orientation." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) [Our framing father's gave us a government of "local control," i.e., limited, representative government, recognizing the father as the head of his home, ruling over that which was his, as a King, i.e., his family, property, and business, with as little government encroachment as was possible. Thanks to the 'liberal' courts, congress, and leaders, following after the ideology of Warren Bennis above (and the men below), that has all 'changed.' Prior to Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court wrote: "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic friction's and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." (Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, 1941) Roe v. Wade rejected COMMON LAW making law's subject to the whims of the times, i.e. adaptable to 'change,' The court decided in Roe v. Wade that "there has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973) Thus law moved away from the scientific fact or truth that life begins at conception to an opinion, which is based upon a person's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his love of pleasure (without accountability to God) instead, making all laws subject to the judge's, mayor's, town council's, president's, student's, etc., opinion of the 'moment, i.e., ever subject to 'change.' "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) "Jurisprudence of terror" is found in the consensus process being used by judges, legislators, leaders as well as heads of departments of government, educators, business, etc., to 'change' the world, 'liberating' it from Godly restraint. Since there is no Godly restraint or authority system in an opinion, by moving communication from the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as given, i.e., by faith and obeyed (as long as it does not go against the person's conscience of doing right and not wrong, i.e., "freedom of the conscience"), to the dialoguing of opinions, i.e., to how everyone is "feeling" in the 'moment' ("freedom from the conscience"), God's/parental authority "withers away," i.e., respect for authority (respect toward "elders") is negated in the students feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in the way they relate (communicate) with one another and respond to authority, i.e., "freedom of the consciences" (the voice of the father in the child, i.e., do right and not wrong) is replaced with (negated by) "freedom from the conscience" (the voice of "the village," i.e., augment pleasure, i.e., make us all "feel" good) instead.]

* "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" "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 or antidemocratic thought and action in crucial situations." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) ["Authoritarian submission" is the child submitting himself to his father's authority, as Jesus submitted himself to His Heavenly Father's authority, obeying His Heavenly Father in all things commanded. The child's "'secret' thoughts" are his "secret" desires (for pleasure) and dissatisfactions or hatred (toward authority and restraint) which he dialogues within himself about, keeping his thoughts (opinion) to himself for fear of being reprimanded. A person exposes their "'secret' thoughts" in the act of dialoging their opinion, i.e., how they "feel" in the 'moment,' with others. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' "democratic" in "thought and action" means the person is social, 'liberal,' i.e., liberating and revolutionary, "building relationship with others based upon common self interests," tolerant of deviancy, permissive, informal, affirmative or 'justifying,' unifying, positive, non-judgmental, adaptable to 'change,' flexible, 'compromising,' subject to the "feelings" of others (having a "super-ego"), being "Reasonable" (like two children in the garden in Eden, questioning and challenging the Father's authority). "Antidemocratic" in "thought and action" means the person is individualistic, 'conservative,' i.e., "repressive" and "alienating," "building relationship with others based upon established principles, facts, and truth they hold in common, i.e., upon morality and competence," intolerant of deviancy, strict, formal, contradictory, "divisive," negative, prejudiced, judgmental, unadaptable to 'change,' ridged, uncompromising, subject to "privet convictions," i.e., having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, being "Unreasonable" (like the only begotten Son of God in obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded). Of importance to note, the "Democratic" are deceived, believing (perceiving) that they are unprejudiced, positive, non-judgmental, tolerant, etc., when in fact they are prejudiced, negative, judgmental, intolerant, etc., instead, i.e., "Anti-democratic" toward the "Anti-democratic," only being so, i.e., "Anti-democratic" without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong.]

"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) [The "authoritarian student" is anyone who thinks and acts like Jesus, accepting (as given) and obeying their father's (parent's, teacher's, boss's, etc., God's) commands and rules, having faith in his/His facts and truth.]

"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 Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) [The "new system of values and beliefs" is the child establishing right and wrong upon "feelings," i.e., upon his desires of the 'moment,' i.e., upon his love of pleasure, including his love of (desire for) the approval of others, i.e., his love of "the group" for affirming him and his desires, and dissatisfaction with authority—his hate of restraint—which he has in common with "the group," basing right and wrong upon group approval or affirmation instead of upon commands, rules, facts, and truth being preached and taught by "higher authority," i.e., by parents, teachers, "bosses,",, God, and reinforced through their threat of punishment for disobeying or being wrong. Fear of rejection by "the group," which 'justifies' his desires of the 'moment,' becomes stronger in the child then fear of rejection by the parent, who inhibit or block his desires of the 'moment.']

"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 to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions" (Kurt Lewin, Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics) [The "behavior pattern" of the "adult leader of the group" directly affects the "characteristic behavior of the group" which directly affects "the child," with the leader of "the group" either preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, without question, and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, preventing 'change,' or "encouraging" children to dialogue their opinions (their "feelings" of the 'moment') to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness" with one another), putting their "oneness," i.e., "We working for Us" into social action (called praxis), engendering 'change,' negating respect toward traditional authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with one another and the world and having a guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process.]

"It is not individualism [under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ['compromise'] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

* "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest" and "collective identity," i.e., consensus] be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical [that personal thought and social action, i.e., "theory and practice" become one and the same]." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

* "It is not the will or desire of any one person [the parent, teacher, boss, ... God] which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group ["the group's" consensus, i.e., the "feeling of oneness" being put into social action, negating the spirit of restraint, i.e., individualism under God] . Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education)

"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 [can the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the parent and/or God be negated]." "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man [the guilty conscience for disobeying the parents/God] can ever be redeemed by freedom [with the child 'justifying' his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' resulting in "human nature" being established over and therefore against the parent's/God's authority, once and for all], then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence [as we were before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into our lives, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only].'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

* "In the process of history [through human "Reasoning," dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification'"] man gives birth to himself ['liberates' himself from God's authority]. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods: A radical interpretation of the old testament and its tradition)

"Changing a group atmosphere from autocracy [respect towards and obedience to authority] toward democracy [questioning and challenging authority] through a democratic leadership [facilitator of 'change'] means that the autocratic followers [obedient children] must shift toward a genuine acceptance of the role of democratic followers [children of disobedience]." "It is of utmost importance that the trainer of democratic leaders establish and hold his position of leadership." "In a democratic process deviation [unrighteousness and abomination] is welcomed as a possible source of improvement in common ways of thinking and acting." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

*"Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power. " "One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates, and to consider itself no longer subject to the demands of parents and teachers." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) [The "Adolescent Society" is a time in the children's life of rebellion against authority becoming the law of the land, why Coleman's' work, "Equality of Opportunity," was used by the Supreme Court in making ('justifying') their landmark education decisions, resulting in laws being passed which were and still are dedicated to the "weakening of family power."]

"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)

All certified teachers must learn how to apply the following in the classroom. All accredited institutions of learning must make sure that all teachers apply it.

"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed." "...many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

The object of education today is to accept the child as he "is," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, with the child thinking about how the world "is," subject to parental authority, restraining pleasure, and how it "ought" to be, full of pleasure, 'liberated' from parental restraints. Education today is all about 'liberating' the child (and thus the world) from the "old" world order of parental authority, 'creating' a "new" world order around the child's carnal nature, with everyone thinking and acting according to their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., thinking and acting according to "human nature" only, counter to God's command. "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." 2 Timothy 2:22

"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 has learned, through dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., through self 'justification' to 'liberate' himself from the father/Father and his/His authority system of commands and rules to be obeyed, as given, and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, so that he can be himself, carnal, of the world only, again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

"'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." (Sigmund Freud in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

   Instead of children humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining themselves, under their parent's/God's authority, reproving, correcting, rebuking themselves and others when they disobey and/or do things "wrong," through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification,'" i.e., through their participation in the consensus, i.e., "group grade" process in the classroom, they are being "conditioned" to disregard, question, challenge, disobey, disrespect, dishonor, defy, and/or attack their parent's/God's authority. Because of their participation in the dialectic (consensus) process, i.e., the "group grade," "feelings" or affective based curriculum in the classroom, children are now doing what they want to do, when they want to do it, with no guilty conscience for doing wrong or for disobeying, tolerating, participating in, and/or promoting, i.e., serving and protecting deviancy, depravity, and debauchery, i.e., unrighteousness and abomination instead. Education over the past fifty years—through its use of "Bloom's Taxonomies"—has engendered a culture of unrighteousness and abomination—requiring a police state to maintain order (as history has shown; but who cares about history, i.e., the lessons of the "past" when everybody is enjoying the pleasures of the 'moment.' "What can go wrong?"). "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9
   The 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning' goes like this: If you want to 'change' the world, i.e., if you want to 'create' a world of 'change,' i.e., a world of pleasure you can not start with the parents, i.e., with their authority, i.e., with their restraints, i.e., with their commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., with their "can not's," "must not's," "Thou shalt not's," and "Because I said so's," i.e., with that which is "of and for" the "past," restraining the present (the pleasure of the 'moment') and the future, i.e., you can not start with that which inhibits or blocks 'change' (pleasure), including the guilty conscience for doing wrong and/or for disobeying. You have to start with the children, i.e., with their carnal nature, i.e., with their opinion, i.e., with their desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' (which engenders the so called "super-ego"—where the "feelings" of the 'moment' are used to determine right from wrong) and their dissatisfaction with restraint and their hatred toward the retainer, i.e., you must start with that which is "of and for" the present and the future, i.e., with the children's "self interest," i.e., with that which engenders 'change,' The so called "old" world order of "top-down" authority—where the father/Father (God) rules over the children/man, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system—has been supplanted with a so called "new" world order of "liberté, equalité, fraternité," with facilitators of 'change' seducing, deceiving, and manipulating children, 'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority system (using them as natural resource) for their own pleasure and gain.
   The so called "old" world order does not determine right from wrong based upon the children's "feelings" of the 'moment'—the children's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'—but upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which are preached and taught, to be accepted as is, by faith instead. The so called "new' world order determines right from wrong based upon the children's "feelings," i.e., upon their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (stimulated by and responding to, i.e., seduced by the current situation, with the world around them being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the great deceiver)—making "right" that which engenders pleasure and "wrong" that which inhibits or blocks it, 'liberating' "the children"/"the people" from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., with the children/mankind no longer having to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's standards (will), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process.
   By 'shifting' the classroom curriculum from the preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith (reflecting the father's/Father's authority system, with the teacher explaining to, i.e., discussing with their students where they, i.e., the students went wrong and what they need to do to get things right), to where children now dialogue their opinions (their "feelings" of the 'moment') to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") with one another, the father's/Father's authority system is negated in the children's' feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with themselves, others, and the world, negating respect for authority and a guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process. In other words: Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, leading to the need for repentance to and forgiveness from the father/Father—with the God, the Heavenly Father, resulting in 'redemption' from judgment and eternal death through the Son's, i.e., Jesus Christ's obedience, i.e., through His humbling and denying of His "self," dying to His "self" daily in order to do the Father's will, obeying His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, even to the point of death on the cross (being the proportion for our sins) and 'reconciliation' to the Father through the Son's, i.e., Jesus Christ's resurrection from the grave by the Father, with righteousness, i.e., the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded being imputed to all of faith in Him, being therefore filled with the Spirit of holiness, i.e., the Spirit of the Father, being able to overcome self, the will of the flesh, and the world—has been supplanted with Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., with the dialectic process, i.e., with the child's carnal nature, i.e., the system of "human nature," "self 'justification,'" and the "consensus process" being put into praxis, i.e., into social action, with children doing wrong, i.e., disobeying, i.e., doing what they want to do, when they want to do it, i.e., thinking and acting according to the flesh without having a guilty conscience in doing so, i.e., with "no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:18) When you deviate from two plus two being four (and no other number), believing that all other answers are (or can be) "right," i.e., believing in "tolerance of ambiguity," anywhere you end up will be wrong.
   The "new" world order is facilitated by "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:" Ephesian 2:2—the master facilitator of 'change' who seduces, deceives, and manipulates all who are "of and for self," i.e., who follow after and worship the spirit, i.e., the "light" ("illumination," "enlightenment," "Reasoning") that "worketh" in them, some even doing so in the name of the Lord, deceiving themselves, taking pleasure in deceiving others. "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35; "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15
   All who participate in the so called "new" world order, including the master facilitator of 'change' himself and all his understudies, will be judged by God the Father according to their abominable ways—John 2:15b, Luke 16:15, and Proverbs 16:5. Woe be unto the minister (the facilitator of 'change') who use the bride of Christ for his own gain, pimping her to the world as a prostitute, persecuting her when she refuses to cooperate.
   People who want to live a lie, denying that they will be held accountable before God for their carnal thoughts and actions, will vote a liar, i.e., a seducer, deceiver, and manipulator, i.e., a facilitator of 'change' into office. As socialist (permissive) parents (and teachers) reflect the heart of their children (perceiving that all children are their children, needing deliverance from their parent's authority), socialist leaders reflect the heart of "the people" (perceiving that all people are their people, needing deliverance from God's authority).
   "The heart," i.e., the affective domain is "deceitful above all things" and "desperately wicked." In other words, with the child deceived in his thinking, thinking that since the pleasure of the 'moment' "feels" so good, it (pleasure) must be the standard for "good" itself, he becomes wicked in his thinking, thinking that the negation of whatever or whoever inhibits or blocks the pleasure of the 'moment' (called the "negation of negation") is "good" as well. The heart is as "Pandora's box," a container full of evil, which, once opened, i.e., once 'liberated' from parental/Godly restraint, can not be closed.
   It is not that God and parents are against pleasure. It is that when pleasure becomes more important to the child than doing what the parent commands—doing right and not wrong according to their standards—when it lies outside, i.e., is antithetical to the realm of the parent's domain, i.e., establishing itself over and therefore against the restraints of authority, it becomes "lust" ("covetousness"), i.e., the mental occupation of the child, i.e., the catalyst for deceitfulness (with the child, being seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable, following after anyone or anything engendering, 'justifying,' and/or offering pleasure) and wickedness (producing hatred in the child's heart toward authority, i.e., toward anyone inhibiting or blocking him from having the pleasure he desires in the 'moment,' i.e., preventing him from having his way). It is the child's "lust" for pleasure and hate of restraint that is the catalyst for 'change.' 'Loose' the child's natural "lust" for pleasure and his hate of restraint and hatred toward the restrainer naturally follows. With the child's ability to 'justify' pleasure, i.e., using dialectic 'reasoning' to "'justify' himself" ("self" loves pleasure and hates restraint, worshiping you as a god, i.e., deciding right from wrong based upon your nature, i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., your flesh), pleasure becomes the standard for "right," i.e., for "good" itself, turning good, i.e., doing right and not wrong (according to the parent's and/or God commands and rules, inhibiting or blocking the flesh) into evil and evil, i.e., "lusting" after the pleasure of the 'moment' (hating and negating anyone who inhibits or blocks it) into "good." Becoming "righteous" "in and for himself," thinking himself invincible, the center of the universe, as a god ("self" worships you as a god), nothing, in the mind of the child, becomes impossible that he sets his mind to do, i.e., that he imagines, especially if it is done collectively, i.e., with others of like mind (what I call the "Tower of Babel" syndrome, i.e., "We working for Us").
   "We working for Us" is a gnostic construct, with its affective domain, i.e., the consensus process being put into praxis, i.e., into social action. It is the parent's chastening of the child (for doing wrong) that reveals to the child that he is not god and it is the parents casting the child out (for rejects their authority) that reveals to the child that the parents do not need him to "become" complete, i.e., to know themselves. The same is true for man—when God chastens or casts him out.
   It is better to be chastened (and repent) instead of cast out (into hell). One restores while the other destroys. Dialectic 'reasoning'—rejecting God's, i.e., the Father's authority (choosing "human nature," i.e., "lust" instead)—takes all who use it down its pathway which leads to destruction and death. It is not how far down the pathway you have gone, with others being "worse" than you, i.e., farther down the pathway than you, or you being "better" than them, i.e., not as far down the pathway as them. It is that you are on the pathway of "self 'justification'" in the first place, "having stepped in it," that leads to judgment and death. God creates from nothing, man can only "create" by destroying. When man speaks of 'creating' a "new" world order of peace and affirmation, i.e., of "self 'justification'"—rejecting the Father's authority—destruction and death follow, at his hands first (on any who refuse to participate) and then at God's (on him and any who participate). "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28
   Dialogue is the activity of the child's mind where the child 'liberates' himself from the father's authority system, i.e., where he 'justifies' to himself his "hearts desires," i.e., his desires of the 'moment' (for pleasure and the approval of others, i.e., peace and affirmation) and dissatisfactions (with restraint and the restrainer), 'liberating' himself from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong. With his imagination—role-playing his heart's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' he is able to 'create' a world of his own making, out of his own carnal nature, 'liberating' himself from the father's authority for the 'moment,' establishing himself over and therefore against the father's authority system of restraint.
   The trickery of the dialectic (dialogue) process is: by pulling those of the father's authority system into dialogue (in their effort to be "fare"), those of the father's authority system end up loosing (abdicating their authority)—since the father's authority system has no footing in the process of dialogue. You preach and teach truth, meditating upon it, not 'changing' it but letting it change you. To dialogue it with yourself and with others turns it into an opinion, making it subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to your (and others) "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., subject to your "sensuous needs" ("felt needs") of the 'moment' (and the "sensuous needs" of the 'moment' of others), which includes not only your desire for pleasure but your desire for "affirmation," i.e., approval as well, making it subject to your "sense perception," i.e., opinion of the 'moment,' which is subject to the situation of the 'moment' and anyone manipulating it, i.e., selecting the "appropriate information" to talk about, guaranteeing the desired outcome, i.e., the negation of the preaching and teaching of truth, i.e., "judgmentalism," "prejudice," "intolerance," etc., thereby 'liberating' the mind from having a guilty conscience, i.e., from coming under conviction for doing wrong.
   Incapable of comprehending the "joy unspeakable" and the "the peace of God, which passeth all understanding," which comes from knowing the Lord Jesus Christ (or rather the Lord Jesus Christ knowing them), those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., facilitators of 'change' can only see life under God's, i.e., the Father's authority as being a life of pain, of "repression" and "alienation," as a man holding onto the edge of a cliff, looking up (hoping) for someone to save him. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., facilitator's of 'change' say quit looking up, i.e., quit looking for a savior, other than in yourself and in those of like disposition. Life is about living for the pleasures of the 'moment.' Since you and everyone else is naturally 'driven' to enjoy pleasure, the 'purpose' of life must be about augmenting it, not only for yourself but for all others as well, with them, i.e., the facilitator's of 'change' in control, "helping" counsel you and all who will listen to them, i.e., submit to their seduction, deception, and manipulation, i.e,. lies. Let go (along with them) and "enjoy" the fall, rejecting any warning of judgment and damnation (for you carnal thoughts and actions) to follow, thus rejecting any need for salvation.
   "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:16-21

   I knew (discerned) that something was wrong with my teacher training when I earned my teaching degree (certification) forty-five years ago (during the time when classroom curriculum was 'changing' from teachers teaching facts to where teachers were becoming 'change' agents, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' "encouraging" students to dialogue their feelings or opinions with one another, 'liberating' their affective domain from the restraints of the father's/Father's authority system in the classroom, negating respect for authority, i.e., 'liberating' them from their parent's authority in the home, engendering 'change'). After attending seminary (which was more about man's opinion of God's Word, i.e., weighing God's Word on the scale of man's "felt needs," i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment,' making God's Word subject to the opinions of men rather than man living by "every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God," i.e., weighing the Word of God with the Word of God, thus weighing his thoughts and deeds from it, making him subject to God and His Word—learning in a "Church Growth and Administration" class how to preach a "good" sermon from the pulpit, gain the congregations "trust," then announce a need for 'change,' facilitating 'change' by bringing the process of 'change,' i.e., the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus into board meetings, youth groups, cell groups, church functions, "bible" studies, etc., getting rid of the "old" boring hymns of doctrine, replacing them with "contemporary music," making the service "lively," while still preaching "good" sermons from the pulpit, to silence the critical, i.e., the discerning, until all are on board the ship of progress, the discerning having been either converted—unable to stand alone with the Lord, desiring group approval instead, giving in to the process—or left; or growing the "youth group" and taking them with you along with some elderly—need cash flow—and starting a new "church" of your own, etc., all of which I considered blasphemies and abominable), working construction for twenty-five years (where facts matter), and taking university classes on European history, focusing mainly on the French and Russian revolutions as well as on Fascism, and what engendered them—[FYI, Fascism, i.e., "National" socialism is an offshoot of "Global" socialism, i.e., common-ism aka Communism, which is based upon the praxis of the "Third Estate" of the French Revolution, with five-hundred seventy-six men uniting as one in consensus, with one objecting, i.e., 'creating' the "peoples council," i.e., a soviet, i.e., resulting in the formation of the directorate, usurping and then negating the King and his authority, as children uniting as one, usurp and then negate, i.e., establishing themselves equal with and therefore greater than the authority of their parents—this similarity or correlation between the authority of the King and the father's authority in the home is taken seriously by those of dialectic 'reasoning.' "Global" socialism was in essence hijacked by "National" socialists in Italy and Germany. While socialism itself, whether "Local," "National," or "Global," is based upon man's desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint—which is common with all men and children, which therefore can be used to engender unity amongst men and children—"Global" socialist's agenda is to unite men by "encouraging" them to work together in consensus (only attainable through the dialoguing of their opinions, i.e., their "feelings" of the 'moment,' to a common understanding and agreement, i.e., affirmation), 'liberating' themselves from the "repressive" system of traditional "top-down," "right-wrong" authority, along with its commands and rules, which are to be obeyed without question, and its facts and truth which is to be accepted as is, by faith, which divides, i.e., which "alienates" man from himself, others, and the world, thus inhibiting or blocking unity, preventing 'change.' "Global" socialist's base a persons worth or values upon the way they think and act, with their worth or value increasing as their thoughts and action ("theory and practice") become progressively the same, i.e., of nature only, as well as their loyal to "global," i.e., social, environmental, and economic issues. "National" socialists, on the other hand, base a persons worth or value upon their ethnicity, i.e., good genes vs. bad genes and their loyalty to National issues, an "us vs. them," i.e., "in-group - out-group," i.e., "lander - ausländer" way of thinking and acting (or so it is taught, the truth being "The love of money is the root ...."). All forms of socialism, whether "Regional," "National," or "Global" must negate the father's authority in the home (individualism) in order to initiate and sustain control over "the people." "Global" socialists, in error, generalize that the traditional family and National government are one and the same in structure, negating gemeinschaft, i.e., neighborhood, i.e., autonomous families in a community, i.e., private family, property, and business, by correlating the King over "the people" being the same as the father over "the children," i.e., with good and bad, right and wrong being established by the one in authority {where in America, we made the father of the home King, limiting the power of government, giving him, through the bill of rights the greatest of powers, which is now, thanks to the Supreme Court and Congress, all but gone}, replacing it with gesellschaft, i.e., society, i.e., with all individuals {all the children of the homes} united as one in consent, i.e., with "feelings," with what "the group" thinks, i.e., with what is "good" according to and for "the people"), claim that when the German fathers turned to the National government and its leader to protect their traditional authority system, i.e., to protect their traditional way of doing things from the "Globalists," they created Fascism, i.e.., "National" socialism. "Global" socialists, i.e., transformational Marxists, therefore consider traditional Communists, i.e., traditional Marxists, as "National" socialists, since their form of government caters to a "Nationalistic" "top-down" father's authority system, with a "father figure" at the top. This is still the paranoia of Globalists, i.e., transformational Marxists today, fearing that the father's of the nation might turn to a national leader, i.e., "Nationalism" to protect them from Globalism, engendering Fascism again. While "National" socialist's took control over the curriculum of the classroom and used education to replace the father's authority in the home with the Fuhrer's authority over the nation, Global socialists, i.e., transformational Marxists use education {'changing' the curriculum}in order to negate the children's respect for the father's "top-down," "right-wrong" authority system itself instead, whether in the home or at the head of the nation, weakening if not destroying the traditional families structure in order to cut off the potential of Fascism, i.e., "National" socialism, with its "father figure" rising up again, cutting off the "Globalists" agenda to control the world for themselves. I know, TMI but it does, for example, explain the issue of immigration, i.e., legal, i.e., those loyal to National, i.e., "sovereignty" issues, vs. illegal, i.e., those loyal to self and social, environmental, economic issues, i.e., global, i.e., "self interest" issues]—and philosophy (focusing especially on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who believed that the "absolute" comes from the child, i.e., from "the people," whose nature is to approach pleasure and avoid pain, and not the father, whose system of authority insists that children do right and not wrong, according to his standards), I spent five years (on my own) researching the dialectic 'process,' reading over 600 social-psychology books (many of which are required reading for a PhD in philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, education, administration, etc., I do know my subject). I then taught at a university (an upper four hundred level class) on the people who brought the method of 'change' from Europe to American, using it to 'change' America(ns), i.e., using the consensus process to negate the father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of children and in their relationship with themselves, others, and the world, with educators, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapist, i.e., Transformational Marxists, i.e., globalists using Kurt Lewin's "force field analysis," "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing," and "group dynamics."

1). "force field analysis"—finding out where along the continuum or spectrum of 'change' your child resides (or you, your spouse, senator, etc., resides, the same process works in the workplace, government, church, etc., as well) in the 'moment,' in order to predict whether your child will be willing to 'change' in a given situation in the future, i.e., whether he is to be trusted, i.e., is "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e., tolerant of deviancy ('compromise'), letting "feelings," i.e., 'change,' i.e., deviance have its way or whether he is not to be trusted, i.e., is "intolerant of ambiguity," i.e., intolerant of deviancy, i.e., is 'judgmental," i.e., "prejudiced" against 'change,' insisting upon doing right and not wrong according to standards which he has been taught in the past, insists upon applying them in the present and future, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., deviancy; in other words, "force field analysis" grades your child along a spectrum or continuum of whether he is more 'loyal' to the commands, rules, facts, and truth (which you taught him) that restrains him, i.e., which are "alien" to his nature, inhibiting or blocking him from satisfying his carnal desires of the 'moment,' with him accepting your authority to chasten him for disobeying or for doing wrong, along with him accepting your authority to cast out those who disregard, disrespect, question, challenge, defy and/or attack your authority as a parent (a system or way of feeling, thinking, acting and relating with self, others, and the world as well as responding to authority, i.e., having faith in, honoring, and obeying authority, known as a Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. the father's/Father's authority system of doing right and not wrong, i.e., an "either-or" system, rewarding those who obey and/or do things right, chastening those who do wrong and/or disobey, and casting out those who insist upon doing wrong, i.e., who disrespect and defy authority, in order to initiate and sustain the "old" world order of "top-down" authorityaccording to those possessed with the dialectic process of 'change,' a "negative force field," inhibiting or blocking 'change') or whether your child is more 'loyal' to those who's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with themselves, others, and the world are in line with his own carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., "self interests," desiring pleasure and resenting restraint as he does, i.e., resenting that system which inhibits or blocks him from having the pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, fearing the pain of not only missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' which both he and they, i.e., "the group" desire, but also missing out on the pleasure which comes from their approval of him, i.e., fearing being rejected by them if he holds them accountable to a "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting, i.e., "hurting their feelings"—tell a friend or someone you want as a friend, what they are doing, or are thinking about doing, is wrong, something they really want to do, and see how relationship is going—with the child from then on progressively moving in the direction of desiring approval from "the group," i.e., doing what "the group" (and he) wants to do rather than doing right and "not wrong" according to pre-learned commands, rules, facts, and truth of the "past," i.e., "justifying himself, i.e., 'justifying' his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' by receiving approval, i.e., affirmation from other children of like desires and dissatisfactions," finding "common-ism" with them, therefore "building relationship with them based upon 'self interests' which he finds he has in common with them" (a system or way of feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with self, others, and the world, as well as responding to authority, i.e., disregarding, questioning, challenging, disrespecting, disobeying, defying, dishonoring, and/or attacking authority, known as a Heresiarchal Paradigm, where the child's carnal system of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain becomes the focus of life, i.e., where the child's "freedom" of expression is "tolerated," know as a Matriarchal Paradigm, allowing the child to begin the process of 'change,' then with the "help," i.e., the "encouragement" of a facilitator of 'change,' transforming his way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating with himself, others, and the world, as well as how he responds to authority, i.e., i.e., disregarding, questioning, challenging, disrespecting, disobeying, defying, dishonoring, and/or attacking authority, learning to use dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification,'" in order to 'justify' his carnal desires of the 'moment,' along with the carnal desires of others, becoming "at-one-with" them, i.e., uniting himself with them, and them with him, according to the desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., "self interests" they have in common in the 'moment,' establishing his and their "new" way of thinking and acting, i.e., his and their "new" world order [replacing the father's "top-down" authority system with the facilitator of 'change's' system of "equality," "helping" the children 'liberate' themselves from their parent's authority] over and therefore against the Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e., when children, 'driven' by pleasure, are able to 'justify' their "lust" for pleasure, making the 'purpose' of life the augmentation of pleasure, they are able, through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification,'" to 'justify' the praxis or social action of negating the Patriarchal paradigm, i.e., removing "right-wrong," "either-or" thinking from their lives and the lives of others, i.e., "annihilating" that system which engenders pain, i.e., that system which inhibits or blocks them and others from having the pleasures they desire in the 'moment,' i.e., the idea or "logic" of the Heresiarch Paradigm being: if children, who are naturally 'driven' by pleasure, are able to 'justify' their desire for pleasure, then the augmentation of pleasure becomes the 'purpose' of life, requiring the negation of those who insist upon the child doing right and not wrong according to their standards, inhibiting or blocking pleasure, i.e., inhabiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., in brief, augmenting pleasure requires negating any authority system which inhibits or blocks it—this is a "positive force field" according to those who embrace the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e., when you dialogue your opinion, i.e., your feelings and thoughts, i.e., your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with others, or when you refuse to participate instead, preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, without question, i.e., without question authority, and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith [with "Why" being asked in response to facts and truth, for more information instead of being asked in response to commands and rules, to question authority], you reveal your preferred "force field" of the 'moment,' i.e., where you reside on the spectrum or continuum of 'change' in the 'moment,' your movement in one direction or the other, i.e., whether you are willing to 'compromise' your standards in the current situation [to be silent in the midst of 'compromise' is to 'compromise,' i.e., to be silent in the midst of 'change' is to consent to 'change'], for the sake of initiating and sustaining relationship with others, or you are unwilling to, i.e.,refuse to 'compromise' your standards, i.e., are willing to loose relationship with others because doing right and not wrong, i.e., obedience to authority is more important to you than their approval and "doing your own thing," determines your worth or value, i.e., your, or your child's, grade for the day—being graded along the spectrum of 'change,' according to your adaptability to 'change,' your willingness to 'compromise' your principles for the sake of "the group," engendering "social-ist" harmony and "world-ly" peace is what the "group grade," i.e., "National" testing, i.e., "force field analysis" is all about),

2). "unfreezing, moving, refreezing," i.e., through the use of dialogue —with you sharing your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment with others, and them doing the same with you in a "non-judgmental," non-"preachy- teachy" environment, i.e., in an anti-patriarchal or facilitated (manipulated) environment (dialogue is based upon feelings, discussion is based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth, by adding feelings (your opinion) to a discussion you turn discussion into dialogue, negating commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., negating doing right and not wrong as an outcome, resulting in the outcome being based upon feelings, i.e., your (and others) carnal desires (opinions) of the 'moment' instead—the father's authority system is found in, and thus can be supported in a discussion but is not found in, and therefore can not be supported in a dialogue, i.e., by your participation in dialogue, you abdicate the father's/Father's authority system, negating your right to hold anyone accountable for doing "wrong" in the end, just don't be the low man on the totem pole, with "rightsizing" removing you for the "good" of "the group," i.e., "the people,"

3). and "group dynamics"—created by your desire to relate with others who you like, are drawn to, or have something to gain in the relationship or because of it, engendering in you a willingness to compromise, i.e., to set aside or deny the father's/Father's standards because of your desire for their approval, i.e., "self preservation," with them "affirming" your (and their) desire for pleasure (for the things of the world) and dissatisfaction with restraint (with the father's/Father's authority system), i.e., affirming your and their "self interest" which you and they have in common,

4). engendering a "consensus"common-ism, i.e., a "feeling" or "perception" of "oneness"—putting consensus, i.e., "the group's" common desire for pleasure and common dissatisfaction with restraint (which are "feelings"), into "group," social, or community action, with everyone working together as "a team" on a community project—praxis, in order to (as in "new" world order)

5). engendering globalism—a combination of capitalism and socialism where "self-interest" is not isolated from "the collective interests of 'the people'" or usurping it, as capitalism by itself does, but is instead united with "the collective interest of 'the people" (what is a perception), i.e., the "community of interest," i.e., that which is "of and for self and 'the people,'" called communitarianism, i.e., "public-private partnership," where private (that which is nobody's business) goes into partnership with public (that which is everybody's business), thus sacrificing private upon the alter of public interest without knowing it, doing so for the "common good" of "the people" (a perception). Are we really this stupid?—treating a facilitator of 'change' as a god and those who follow him as saints, entrusting our children, our spouse, our business, our land, and even our very own souls to them (as two "children" did in the garden in Eden). There is nothing new under the sun

That is the formula for 'change'—which I covered in one of my fourteen, three hour class periods (which included explaining J. L. Moreno's role-playing procedure and the effect it has on those who participate, as well as Kenneth Benne's "Human Relations in Curriculum Change," dealing with Group Task Rolls, Group Relationship and Maintenance Roles, and Individual Roles—which are correlated with the Patriarchal paradigm, which are negated through the role playing procedure). And by the way things are looking, it is working, i.e., having its way (for now that is). The only problem for those of dialectic 'reasoning' is the Father sending His Son the second time, to get his bride and judge them for their wicked thoughts and actions ("theory and practice").
  Over the last twenty years I have been speaking (from coast to coast) on the subject of 'change,' i.e., on the dialectic process—which was my teacher training ("Bloom's Taxonomies" are based upon it, explained below). It appears I may be one of only a few who are interested in knowing the truth (about teacher training), with most, if interested, dealing with only the symptoms (poor grades, with standards being lowered in order to "keep" the grades "up," with the youth
disregarding, questioning, challenging, disrespecting, disobeying, defying, dishonoring, and/or attacking authority, engendering crime) or the labels (which are many and ever changing: Goals 2000, No-Child-Left-Behind, Common Core, etc., despite the fact that they are all using the same underlying process, i.e., the dialectic process) but not the source of the problem, i.e., the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "group psychotherapy," i.e., the consensus process in the classroom—where the focus of education is on socialist's-environmentalist's, i.e., globalist's concerns, the three E's, i.e., ethnicity, economics, and environment, 'liberating' students from learning to do right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth established by their parents, their teacher, their boss, ,,, "the laws of nature and natures God." The same dialectic process or system of revolution (call it "velvet" all you want but it is still violent in the end) is being used by the government, the military, the police, the medical profession, businesses, etc., to set policy, as well as by "youth groups," "cell groups," and board meetings in the "church," 'changing' the way everyone feelings, thinks, and acts, as well as how they relate with themselves, others, and the world, negating respect for and faith in authority. Jesus mentioned something about faith, i.e., the lack thereof before his return.
   I would hope that some educators, after reading the following, would repent, i.e., would turn from their use of the dialectic process
i.e., from their using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., the "group grade" system in the classroom, as I did, and expose it for what it is, a process of deceit and wickedness (secularized Satanism, intellectualized witchcraft), 'changing' students, i.e., 'liberating' them from having faith in their parents (and/or God), from respecting their (and His) authority, and from obeying them (and/or Him). Dialectic 'reasoning' is used to initiate and sustain 'change'—used to 'liberate' students (and teachers, parents, etc.,) from the father's/Father's authority system (from having faith in the father/Father, i.e., from doing right and not wrong according to his/His will, i.e., from thinking and acting according to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying/for sinning in the process, so that the child can do wrong (disobey) with no sense of guile and man can sin with impunity.
The laws of nature and the law of the flesh are not one and the same, as those of dialectic 'reasoning' teach and praxis (put into social action)—treating their theories (opinions) as a fact or truth, while treating facts and truth as theories, as just another opinion. Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law" (Critique of Judgment) is just another way of say man is to live by the law of the flesh (according to his feelings of the 'moment'), 'liberated' from the law of God (doing right and not wrong according to the will of God, i.e., living by
"every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God"). The laws of nature were created (are established) by God, for all times and in all places. They are observable and consistent (repeatable). The law of the flesh is, on the other hand, not consistent. For example: the law of the flesh is the child's attraction toward an object in the environment (imagined or real) that stimulates pleasure, i.e., that stimulates his desire to relate with it, with him desiring to control the object of pleasure (or the environment it resides in) in order to continue or augment the pleasure it stimulates. It is also the child's resentment of or hatred toward an object in the environment (imagined or real) that stimulates pain, i.e., that stimulates his desire to avoid it, desiring to gain control over the object of pain (or the environment it resides in) in order to negate it (in order to have and control the object in the environment that stimulates pleasure). The law of the flesh is "observable and definable" but not consistent as the laws of nature which are subject to stimulus-response. The law of the flesh is influenced by the child's will to do right and not wrong, with the child having a guilty conscience when he does wrong, which inhibits or blocks 'change,' i.e., which restraints the law of the flesh. With God, man is either right or wrong, redeemed or lost, etc., an either-or paradigm (a paradigm is the way you feel, think, act, and relate with yourself, others, and the world around you, as well as with God), as reflected in the laws of nature. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' man is becoming better or worse over time (progressively), with his use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' the law of the flesh being better ("good sense") and his faith in God's Word and thus obeying God—with God, the Heavenly Father requiring him to repent of his carnal thoughts and actions, i.e., his praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., his "self 'justification" and, being 'redeemed' by His Son, Jesus Christ, be 'reconciled' to Himself, humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining his "self," bringing his flesh (that which makes him subject to this world only) under submission to His will—being worse (evil), i.e., irrational, therefore irrelevant.
   Using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialoguing with himself, his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' the child is able to 'justify' his carnal desires, i.e., the law of the flesh, i.e., his wicked thoughts and actions of the 'moment,' deceiving himself into believing (in his own eyes, i.e., according to his own perception or opinion) that since the things which stimulate pleasure are "good, i.e., "feel good" to him in the flesh, in the 'moment,' he himself,
who by nature desires them (who "lusts" after them, i.e., who covets them), is "good" as well. The object of those possessed with (blinded by) dialectic 'reasoning' is to make the law of the flesh, which is common to all children (and men and women), the law of the land (the basis of common-ism AKA Communism), negating any law established by God, the creator, making man subject to his carnal flesh, i.e., his carnal desires, i.e., that which is of the world only (what is, interestingly, also an either-or condition, i.e., either work with us for the "common good," i.e., for the "good" of "the community" or be 'labeled' a resistor of 'change,' i.e., not a "team player").
   Disappointed, but knowing as much at the beginning of this research, I have found that truth is always censored,
in other words has to be 'labeled' as "extreme" and blocked from public access (as this website is labeled and blocked by MacAfee and many other companies such as Raytheon, Fed Ex, Kinko's, etc., and many Universities, including Christian) in a society of 'change,' i.e., in a society of opinions, i.e., in an "open minded" society, where a person's "feelings" of the 'moment'—which engenders the "super-ego"—and not some authority over or above him such as the child's parents or God—which engenders a guilty conscience for doing wrong—determines how he is to think and act, thus making him subject to seduction, deception, and manipulation instead, i.e., making him "human resource" to be used, as "natural resource," by facilitators of 'change' for their own gain, i.e., for their own pleasure, so that they can do wrong (sin) with impunity, i.e., with no sense of guilt for their wicked thoughts and actions. When you add "feelings," i.e., the affective domain, i.e., the deceitful and wicked heart of man to the conscience, i.e., to "right" and "wrong" it (the conscience) becomes a so called "super-ego" (is negated), making the person subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the situation of the 'moment,' as well as subject to the person manipulating the situation (the environment), i.e., the facilitator of 'change', who by "helping" "the group" determine the "appropriate information" to be used in the so called "discussion," i.e., censoring "inappropriate information"—the preaching and teaching of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which engenderers a guilty conscience for doing wrong in the individuals in "the group"—which would inhibit or block the outcome, i.e.., the consensus process, i.e., the dialectic process of 'change' and the facilitator of 'change's' control over the people and their land, using them for his own pleasure, for his own gain. In the end that is what dialectic 'reasoning' is all about, 'liberating' the child/man from the father's/Father's authority system, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong/for sinning in the process, so that the master facilitator of 'change' can rule the world unimpeded, i.e., rule over a "new" world order where all men's thoughts and actions ("theory and practice") are uninhibited, i.e., are one and the same, i.e., are subject to "nature" only. The scriptures warn us of such a "man" and of such a day, i.e., of such a times as these.
   When believers—those who not only share with others God's love for them but also inform them of their deceitful and wicked heart and warn them of God's judgment upon them (
damnation) for their carnal (unrighteous, i.e., deceitful and wicked) thoughts and actions, informing them of their need to 'repent' (therefore being "negative" to them according to the flesh), i.e., of God's judging them for their use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' themselves, thus setting aside (negating) the "negative" (having denied God's authority over them, in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, they have negated the consequences of their doing wrong, in their feelings, thoughts, and actions) in order to "feel better" about themselves and be less "offensive" to others (in order to feel "good," i.e., "positive," according to the flesh)—are silent in the midst of unrighteousness (not reproving, correcting, and rebuking those who praxis sin, i.e., those who desire to make sin, i.e., mans carnal nature, i.e., the law of the flesh, i.e., "human nature" the law of the land)—because of their desire for the approval of men—their silence gives consent to doing wrong, i.e., to sinning, resulting in unrighteousness and abomination (the removal of righteousness [and the righteous, i.e., those made righteous in Christ Jesus] from setting policy) becoming the "norm," i.e., the law of the land. The moment a minister does not address the iniquity of a leader, that leader's inequity become the law of the land. To be silent in the midst of unrighteousness—in order to initiate and/or sustain relationship with (peace with and affirmation from) men—makes unrighteousness (and abomination) the "norm," i.e., the law of the land, using "human nature," i.e., man's carnal nature, i.e., men's carnal desires and dissatisfactions to determine right from wrong with. It is why the dialectic process is called "the negation of negation," i.e., the removal of the fear of God, i.e., the negation of the father's/Father's authority system in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of men, including in their relationship with one another and the world. Remove the threat of chastening or judgment (damnation), i.e., the fear of God from the land and the law of the flesh (the heart of man, i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint [and the restrainer]) will rule the day, making unrighteousness and abomination the law of the land. It is why we have arrived at where we are today, with "Christians," including "ministers" (especially "ministers") becoming "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e., setting aside the Word of God, exalting the opinions of men (treating the Word of God as thought it is just another opinion), embracing 'change' in order to "grow" the "church," 'changing' the message of salvation into "salivation"—for the pleasures ("feelings," i.e., "sense experiences") of the 'moment,' i.e., for the pleasures of this life ("peace") and the pleasure which comes from the approval of men ("affirmation," i.e., "self esteem"). (G. W. F. Hegel, in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel; in reference to Hegel's "peace" and "affirmation" and his negation of the word "wrong," replacing it with the word "badly")
   God's love is not the same as man's love (1 John 2:15). God's love (and peace) is tied to his nature, which is spiritual, i.e., doing right and not wrong (with doing right and not wrong, according to His, i.e., the Heavenly Father's will being peace), man's love (and peace) is tied to his nature, which is flesh, i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain (with man's augmentation of pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from the approval of men and the attenuation or negation of pain, including the pain which comes from being rejected by others, being peace), resulting in man deceiving himself, believing since his flesh "feels so 'good'" when it get's its way (especially when he receives the approval, i.e., the affirmation of men), he is righteous in and of himself, making himself righteous , i.e., "good" in his own eyes, turning God's love, with its restraints upon his nature, i.e., upon his flesh, into evil and his love, with its desires ("lusts" for pleasure, including the approval, i.e., affirmation of men) and dissatisfactions (hate of restraint, including the restrainer) into good. If you love the world you have to hate (destroy, i.e., kill, i.e., negate) the father/Father (and his/His system of authority) no matter how many times you say "I care" while doing it. Your "caring" just covers up (in your mind, i.e., in your perception) the wickedness of the deed (praxis). A "healthy" world (read "Health Care Package"), according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is a world 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., 'liberated from doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, so that man can be "of and for" himself, i.e., of the world (nature) only.
    Man's "peace," which is "of and for" this world, rejects God's peace, which is not "of this world." Christ Jesus has called no man to kill another man for His Kingdom, His Kingdom is not of this world. He has only called us to repent of our sins, i.e., to turn from our carnal desires and dissatisfactions, and follow after Him, preaching and teaching the Word of God that all men might repent of their carnal ways and come to know Him and His Heavenly Father's love for them. Any acts of violence by the "church" has been by the deeds (the carnal desires and dissatisfactions) of men, even when done in the name of the Lord. Man is only to defend himself, his family, his property, and his business from the thief, with government serving and protecting his right to do so. God, and He alone, will judge every man according to his deeds, ushering in His Kingdom by His own authority and power, that no man may boast, i.e., take pride in himself, i.e., glory in the flesh and in the praises of men. Religions of violence (using force, i.e., death or the threat of death by roaming "groups," i.e., gangs all the way up to the power of government to initiate and sustain its religion—from tribalism, to nationalism, to globalism) reveals man's heart, i.e., his 'loyalty' to this world, basing "good" upon his carnal desires ("lusts") and dissatisfactions (hate). Only those who accept that God (and God alone) will judge man (whether he will receive life or death for his thoughts and actions—the first death being in place already, because of man's sins, the second yet to come, for those who refused to repent, i.e., who refused to 1. turn from their carnal desires, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint [and the restrainer], 2. who, loving the pleasure which comes from the approval or affirmation of men, are unable to endure the rejection of man, and therefore 3. loving the pleasures of this life, i.e., including the approval of men, i.e., making "heaven" subject to (in common with) their fleshly desires, refuse to follow after the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., doing His Heavenly Father's will), will seek for 'limited' government in this world, where government is civil, so that they can preach and teach faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., God's love, in peace (called freedom of the conscience, religion or belief, and speech—whereas dialectic 'reasoning' is freedom from the conscience, religion, and speech, replacing the preaching and teaching of truth with the dialoguing of men's opinions, treating belief as an opinion and truth as a theory, making them ever subject to 'change,' i.e., ever subject to man's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment').
    Having spoken in liberal universities, with liberal professors at the end of my presentation stating they could not refute a word I said (having read their "hero's" books, I quoted them, [as I quote one of them below] exposing their hatred toward God, i.e., their hatred toward the Lord Jesus Christ and those of faith in Him), that they simply did not like me for what I said (exposing their agenda—needless to say, I am not invited back), I know what I am saying is true. Although I do not need their "confirmation"—truth stands on its own—it in some way helps. It is "ministers" who are most deceitful and dishonest (and rude), doing what I call "damage control" after my speaking, in order to neutralize what I shared with "their" congregation—'justifying' their use of the dialectic process (the compromising of God's Word) in order to "grow" the "church," "building relationship upon 'self' interest," labeling those who use the Word of God to expose them, i.e., their use of dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., "self 'justification'" to "grow" the "church," as being divisive, i.e., the source of dissention and division within the "church."
   As the "church" goes the nation goes. Satan, instead of fighting against the "church," has joined it instead, becoming an administrator, i.e., a facilitator 'change,' "helping" it "grow" by making the Word of God subject to the opinions of men, i.e., subject to what people "think," based upon their "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment,' thereby establishing the "church" upon, i.e., making its foundation the praxis of men dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, thus making the facilitator of 'change' its cornerstone, making it, i.e., the "word of God" and the "church," readily adaptable to 'change,' i.e., subject to man's "felt needs" (carnal desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,' i.e., 'driven' by man's desire ("lust") for pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from the approval of men (affirmation, i.e., "the pride of life"), 'purposed' in augmenting pleasure (peace and affirmation according to the laws of the flesh) for all mankind. It is why it is so difficult to communicate with those infected with dialectic 'reasoning,' the only response you get from them, if not indifference, argumentation, accusation, and/or hostility, being that "deer in the headlight" look. If you are not into the Word, not just studying it but applying it to your mind and heart daily as well, meditating upon on it day and night, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you in not only what to share (preach and teach) but when to share (preach and teach) it, all you have in response to the dialectic process is your feelings and thoughts (your opinion) of the 'moment,' 'justifying' the process.
   Believers, who were once key to the fabric (culture) of this nation, have now—with the "help" of "ministers," i.e., facilitators of 'change'—become labeled "extremists" (because they continue to hold fast to the Word of God without compromise—what was the heart and soul of the Protestant Reformation, i.e., doing their best [individually] as unto the Lord, accepting the "priesthood of all believers," putting no man between them and God, understanding that salvation is by grace and not by works [with works following after faith], that righteousness is imputed through faith in Christ Jesus alone, and preaching and teaching that on the day of judgment the Lord God will hold everyone accountable, according to the thoughts which they are entertaining and the actions which they are doing today, etc.,). As Max Horkheimer (a Marxist) noted in his book, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung (Reasoning and the Preservation [salvation] of Self): "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism."—something which had to be negated if globalism ("We working for Us") was to become a 'reality.' In his book, Eclipse of Reason, Horkheimer wrote: "For the men who made the Constitution there was no principle that did not derive its authority from a religious source [from an authority above human nature]." "Government and its trust [quoting John Dickenson] is 'found on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker and . . . [is] therefore sacred. It is an offence against Heaven to violate that trust.'" Changing duality (above-below) into plurality (diversity of religions, i.e., diversity of men's opinions—treating belief as a theory, therefore God's Word as an opinion amongst opinions, which makes the uncompromising, i.e., "entrenched" believer, i.e., "fundamentalist" appear as being irrational, i.e., "hateful"), secularism has progressively negated the affect of the Word of God on the affairs of men. Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [under God] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["the group" in consensus, i.e., setting aside their differences, i.e., their beliefs, i.e., their faith, , i.e., "judgmentalism" ("prejudices") so that they can working together as "one" for the "common good"] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority system] and individuality [freedom to do as one pleases] are made realities." (Karl Marx, quoted in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) If the authority of God's word were accepted by men, then we would not be where we are today, subject to laws protecting, supporting, and promoting the unrighteousness and abominations of men. As the Marxist Jürgen Habermas in his book Theory and Practice admitted: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." I do not blame the secular world for what has happened to this nation, the last six commandments of the Ten Commandments are secular in structure, dealing with man's relationship with man. I blame "Christians," who, abdicating the faith, have chosen the approval of men, i.e., the opinions of men over and therefore against the approval, i.e., the Word of God.
   The dialectic process (the consensus process) is simply the method used by the first (and master) facilitator of 'change,' "helped" two "children" become "themselves," i.e., "of and for self" and the world only, in the garden in Eden, i.e., Genesis 3:1-6—using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (the formula for 'change') to 'discover' "truth" —"Reasoning" (aufheben) from their "feelings" (desires, "lusts," impulses and urges) of the 'moment,' in the "light" of (stimulated and "illuminated" by) the current situation and the desires it stimulated (with the facilitator of 'change' manipulating the situation by creating a "safe zone," i.e., a "positive" environment for dialogue, i.e. "you will not die"), thus 'justifying' their desires, i.e., pleasures, i.e., "Self" (sight) over and therefore against the "Father's" commands, rules, facts, or truth (faith), putting their desires (love of pleasure and hate of restraint) into action (praxis), negating the "Father's" authority system, i.e., Hebrews 12:5-11—no longer doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, i.e.., no longer thinking and acting according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth—and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., Romans 7:14-25—disregarding (considering as irrational and therefore irrelevant) their need to ask for forgiveness from the father/Father, repent, and turn from their wicked ways—in the "children's" feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with one another and the world, so that they could sin with impunity, i.e., do what they want to do, when they want to do it, with others in consent, without considering the consequence, i.e., without having a sense of judgment or damnation (in their perception), 'justifying' themselves, i.e., their feelings, thoughts, and actions by blaming someone else, i.e., their parents, siblings, spouse, neighbors, society, (with Adam blaming the woman, and the woman blaming the serpent, i.e., the woman being the first environmentalists, i.e., "tree hugger," choosing the pleasure of the tree over God and Adam being the first humanist, choosing the woman, i.e., "human relationship" over God, with both being the first socialists, blaming someone else for their problems), etc., or blaming something else, i.e., the environment, living conditions, lack of support, sleep, food, money, education, etc. for their problems.
    It is the same method (consensus process, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions, i.e., desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint to a "feeling" of "oneness" with "Self," others, and the world, affirming the child's carnal nature, i.e., what he or she has in common with all that is of the world only—as he or she was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his or her life—engendering socialism-globalism, i.e., common-ism) being used today in our classrooms, town hall meetings, board meetings, socialist gatherings, etc., even in the "church," in the name of "change," , i.e., "Making the world safe for Democracy," i.e., "Building relationship upon Self interest," etc.,. engendering a culture of unrighteousness and abomination, with everyone living in (and for) the 'moment,' thinking and acting according to ("of and for") the flesh, i.e., according to "the law of sin," i.e., according to "human nature"as in the days of Noah.

    It is a subtle and complex process with one agenda, replacing the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) and obeyed (with threat of chastening for disobedience or being cast out for disrespecting authority—with God, who is perfect and demands perfection, judgment and damnation for sinning, requiring 'reconciliation' via. atonement and 'repentance' i.e., faith in His Son, with obedience to His will following—which engenders a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning) with the dialoguing of opinions (what you are think about in the 'moment,' stimulated by your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., in the "light" of the current situation, manipulated by the facilitator of 'change') to a consensus (to a feeling of "oneness" with others, making 'truth' subject to man's carnal interpretations of the 'moment' only), negating the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., a method or a away of thinking and acting where truth is objective, i.e., external to man's carnal feelings ("lusts") of the 'moment,' not subjective, i.e., taken captive to his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'—negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobedience in the process. It is a process we all do internally (naturally, i.e., carnally), talking to ourselves, i.e., dialoguing with ourselves about our carnal desires of the 'moment' (for pleasure) and our dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., resenting (hating) the restrainer. When voiced externally it engenders anarchy. When shared through dialogue with others, who are in agreement—in consensus or affirmation—and put into social action—into praxis—it engenders revolution, i.e., 'change.' When brought under submission, i.e., when we are chastened, thereby humbling, denying, controlling, and disciplining our "self," under the parent's/God's authority, a "peaceful fruit of righteousness" (maturity, i.e., knowing right from wrong, doing right, reproving, correcting, rebuking wrong) is produced, something the facilitator of change' hates, not being able to gain control over us, i.e., not being able to seduce, deceive, and manipulate us for his own gain (pleasure).
    With dialectic 'reasoning,' life is a progression (a process of "changingness") from "authoritarianism," i.e., the father's/Father's authority system to 'liberty,' i.e., to where the child's carnal nature is 'liberated from the affects of the father's/Father's authority system, determining a persons worth based upon where along the spectrum or continuum of 'changingness' they reside at any given 'moment,' in any given situation—making "truth" subject to the 'changing' situations of the 'moment'—rejecting truth based upon "morality and competence," i.e., upon doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will—where truth is established for all times and in all places. All "certified" teachers and "accredited" schools are established upon what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies," which state: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Book 1: Cognitive Domain, p. 32)
    This is the classroom procedure (curriculum) which (from the 50's on) 'changed' America, negating (in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children) respect for parent's/God'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. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2: Affective Domain, p. 83) The correlation (generalization) between the parent's (the earthly father's) authority (with the children obeying) and God's' (the Heavenly Father's) authority (with the Son and those following after Him obeying) is key to understanding the dialectic process, i.e., is at the heart of dialectic 'reasoning.'
    One of Bloom's sources, Theodor Adorno, wrote: "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "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) "Bloom's Taxonomies" are based upon the works of Marxists' (Transformational Marxists', those who merge Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud in the praxis of "group psychotherapy") such as Theodor Adorno.
    You and your children may be Marxists and not even know it. If you are concerned about your own children's or someone else's children's social life rather than their doing right and not wrong, then who needs Karl Marx around, when you will do.
    While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be down right tyrants, the office they serve in, under God, is. Dialectic 'reasoning' has only one 'purpose,' the negation of that office. As Abraham Maslow, the "father" of "the hierarchy of 'felt' needs,'" wrote, revealing his attitude and behavior toward college students who held to their parents and/or God's position, maintaining a "right-wrong" attitude regarding personal-social issues, "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) This is the spirit behind dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of facilitators of 'change,' who might appear (at first) to be the nicest people on the face of the earth, dedicated to "helping" you satisfy your "felt needs," i.e., "helping" you 'actualize' your "self interests" until you cross them, i.e., get in their way, telling them that what they are doing is wrong, engendering a guilty conscience in them, at least in those following them, inhibiting or blocking 'change.'

Continue to Part 2. (Part 2 and Part 3 are broken up into 31 and 36 sections respectively for easier reading).

Endnotes:
(portions of continuation which are linked to from above)

    "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25, 26

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

   You have to know, i.e., clearly understand what it is you want to 'change,' i.e., what it is you want to destroy or negate, if you are to successfully initiate and sustain 'change,' i.e., its negation. Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, the facilitator of 'change' for COPS (Community Oriented Policing System) wrote (defining what had to be negated if a police state, i.e., globalism was to become a reality): "Social control is most effective at the individual level. The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated. The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior. Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted by neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control, than on internal self-control." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing: The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing) This by the man who advocated using crime to gain access to (and control over) the community, engendering a police state ("external control") over the people. "The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow community policing officers [international law and global enforcement] an entry into the geographic community [with regionalism superseding local, township, city, county, state, national control]." (ibid.) By taking a policeman or sheriff outside his county to work together as a "team" with other policemen or sheriffs in other counties, or bringing one(s) from outside his county to work together with him as a "team" in his county, his (and their) conscience, i.e., loyalty to doing right and not wrong according to the culture, traditions, or customs of his (their) county (or family) is negated, transformed him (them) into 'loyalty' to regional or global (socialist) interests. It is why the French directorate, during the French revolution, restructured (regionalized) all the parishes, in order to destroy the loyalty of the local sheriff to his parish, which would prevent 'change.' The same applies to all professions of life.

    "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh [the love of pleasure, stimulated by the world, more than God, who is not of the world], and the lust of the eyes [the imagination of the heart's carnal desires, stimulated by the world], and the pride of life ["self 'justification," i.e., "of and for self" and the world which 'justifies' (affirms) it], is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:15b, 16 [bracketed information added] "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

  "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
    You are never deceived because somebody lied to you. You are deceived because you liked them and/or had something to gain from them, i.e., pleasure, including the pleasure of their approval, and therefore you trusted them. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 "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

    As strange as it may seem, the so called "new" world order, i.e., the dialectic process, i.e., the consensus process is based upon the carnal nature, i.e., the carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child—as stated by George Hegel "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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

    "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 When children 'justify' their "self," i.e., their "sensuous needs," i.e., their "lust of the flesh," and their "sense perception," i.e., their "lust of the eyes," approving or affirming their "selves" in the consensus process, i.e., in what is "the pride of life," i.e., the approval (affirmation) of men ('justifying' their carnal "self interests"), they harden their hearts against the father/Father and his/His authority, blinding themselves to the consequence of their praxis in the process. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "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 While the earthly father is not perfect (he could be a downright tyrant or absent), his office is, having been given to him by God, to serve under Him in. Yet division comes between the child and the earthly father when the Heavenly Father, through His Son, becomes the Father, unless both accept Him as their Father. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 It is in negating the Heavenly Father's authority that dialectic 'reasoning establishes its 'purpose,' and it is in the Heavenly Father, and His Son Jesus Christ that, for the believer, life is found. "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1

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

    All facilitators of 'change' are deceivers and liars, backing down as far as is necessary (when exposed) in order to maintain their position of authority (like the old Marxist waltz, i.e., with them taking you two steps forward until you squeal, then one step back—with you then thinking that you have won—then two steps forward, etc., until they have waltzed you across the floor,with you thinking all the while that you are in control), i.e., in order to, as pedophiles or pimps, seduce, deceive, and manipulate children or you for their own pleasure and gain. "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

 "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 2, Affective Domain) The scriptures warn us of our "affective domain." "The heart is deceitful ... and desperately wicked ...?" Jeremiah 17:9

 "No servant 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." Luke 16:13 "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15b

 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35

While "intellectuals," i.e., the "enlightened," i.e., the "illuminated" laud dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., man 'justifying' his sinful nature so that he can sin with impunity (deceiving himself and those who listen to him into believing that it is just "academics," worshiping those who have advanced dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., promoted "Self" 'justification' down through the ages), none dare expose it for what is, "an abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

   By focusing upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' by making the child's nature the ground of being, his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (his desire or "lust" for the pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction toward restraint and the restrainer), i.e., the child's opinion of the world (thinking about how the world "is"—under parental and/or Godly restraint, and how it "ought" to be—tolerant of his carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., philosophy, i.e., man's opinion) supersedes the authority of the parent and God, making their commands, rules, facts, and truth "irrational" (impractical) and therefore their authority "irreverent" (of the past), thereby negating the "guilty conscience" in the child (the father's voice, i.e., his commands, rules, facts, and truth in the child) for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning, allowing the child to sin with impunity, allowing him to think and act (called theory and practice) according to his perception of the "new" world order that he has created out of his own imagination, a "new" world order subject to his carnal nature, "of and for 'Self"' only over and therefore against the "old" world order which is subject to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., subject to his preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted and obeyed as given (by faith), teaching his children to humble, deny, control, and discipline themselves in order to do right and not wrong, despite their missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' and having to endure pain, including the pain of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' ("repression") and the rejection of men ("alienation"), for judging them, i.e., for making them "feel" bad, i.e., "feel guilty" for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning, i.e., for being "normal," i.e., for being "human," i.e., for being children ("children of disobedience") in adult bodies, i.e., for being "of and for their 'Self'" and the world only.

When the children rule, the people are oppressed.

"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 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

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine [Godly restraint]; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers [facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapists], having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables [unto their own imaginations]." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21-32

"... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2016