authorityresearch.com

Proverbs 3:5, 6 "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."

The Institution for Authority Research

Issues of today   -   RADIO (Sort Of)

Personal note. - My writing "style." - To support. - What Happened to Karen.
Contact: deangotcher@gmail.com

(NEW) The Dialectic Process - What It Is. Audio Part 1, Part 2

1 John 2:16 "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."

Having read and studied over six hundred social-psychology books, taught a 480 level University class on the subject of dialectic 'reasoning,' driving thirty thousand miles a year over an eighteen year period, traveling coast to coast giving five thousand lectures, including radio and TV explaining the process of 'change' to parents, teachers, University students, congregations and their ministers, government workers, town councils, state and Federal legislators and senators, even Federal Judges, since the passing of Karen my wife on October 11, 2023 (who I miss beyond words) I have dedicated my time totally to this website, explaining the process of 'change' as clear as I can to whoever stops by and takes time to read or listen. I may be up to traveling again and speaking. If you are interested in hosting a meeting let me know. deangotcher@gmail.com

The dialectic process, using dialogue to 'reason' from is so much a part of you you can not see its effect upon you and others. For that reason the following may not make sense to you at first but as you read through it will become obvious (I hope). You have two political systems within you. They are antithetical to one another. One is of the flesh and the other is of the soul (which those "of and for the world" make subject to the flesh—calling it the psycho-motor). The first one, dialogue is the result of God "forming" man from "the dust of the ground." The second one, discussion is the result of His breathed the breath of life into Adam, making him a "living soul." Then God TOLD Adam what he could and could not do. Doing something with man (besides forming him from the dust of the ground and then breathing life into him) that he did with nothing else in the creation. The soul KNOWS from being told, from what the Father says. The flesh by "sense experience," according to stimulus-response. Everything in the creation is subject to stimulus-response except the soul of man, who can reason either from what he has been told, doing what the Father says or reason from his flesh, 'justifying' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, making him subject only to stimulus-response, to his heart's desire, which is tied to his flesh. According to God good is doing right and not wrong according to His commands, that is doing His will while evil is lusting after the things of the world in disobedience. With man good is pleasure and evil is anyone inhibiting or blocking it. Man is like God in that he can reason but in his case when it comes to behavior, in defiance to God he can reason from his flesh via dialogue, where he has the final say instead of reason from God's word, from what God says, with God via discussion having the final say. Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" Jeremiah 17:9 Death is a reminder to man that he is not God, with God having the final say. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"  This is why David made dialogue, how he felt subject to discussion, to what God the Father said. Psalms 119:11 "Thy Word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." Language or communication goes with each. Discussion goes with the soul, with the Father telling man what is right and what is wrong behavior, with the Father having the final say, what is an either-or, right-wrong, above-below, Heaven-Hell way of thinking. Dialogue on the other hand goes with man's flesh, with man doing what he wants, according to how he "feels" and what he is "thinking" in the 'moment,' that the world is stimulating, with him having the final say (at least in his imagination, in dialoguing with himself 'justifying' his carnal desires, his lusts). Genesis 6:5; 8:21 "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;" In discussion, God is God. In dialogue, you are God. What God told Adam he could do, Adam could dialogue (go "I like" or "I don't like" and everything in between and beyond). In dialogue we are in control (at least in our imagination). It is called "the pride of life." In discussion God is in control, requiring us to humble, die to, deny our self in order to do His will. It was when the woman used dialogue ("I 'feel' like touching the forbidden tree," and "I don't 'think' there is anything wrong with the forbidden tree") in the realm of discussion, where the Father has the final say she sinned, with Adam following after her, lusting after the flesh, after the woman, wanting to dialogue with her instead of having to do God's will, discussing with Him. Anyone coming between the one in authority and those who are under his authority and draw them into dialogue regarding their behavior is doing what the serpent in the garden in Eden did, 'liberating' them from the Father's authority so they can be use by them for their own pleasure instead, as a predator, charlatan, pimp, pedophile does. That is why those "of and for the world" go to dialogue when they want their way, making discussion subject to dialogue so others have to do what they say, thinking they are in control of the situation when they are not, when they, like Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats, and Pavlov's dog are simply being seduced, deceived, and manipulated to do what someone else wants. Jesus never went to dialogue. John 5:30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." In all three temptation in the wilderness He went "It is written,"  in other words "Dad says." The closest He came to dialogue was in the garden, the night before the cross, cutting it off with "Nevertheless thy will be done." We use both discussion and dialogue, using dialogue when we eat, eating what we like and not eating what we do not like (it is a spectrum from love to hate). When told what we like is bad for us we have a choice between discussion, not eating it or dialogue, eating it. We use language to determine how we will behave. When it comes to behavior, when we accept discussion, what the Father says, with the Father having the final say we do what we are told. When we use dialogue, doing our will, we disobey having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning since we still accept discussion, what the Father says, only doing our will instead. It is this guilty conscience, those "of and for the world" want to negate since it is the guilty conscience that carries the Father's authority into society, with you telling others what they can and can not do, telling them they are wrong when they are wrong, not joining with them but judging, condemning, casting them out, that is refusing to relate with them, as a boss not hiring them but fire them instead. Kurt Lewin (a Marxist): "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality) By making your behavior subject to dialogue, to your "feelings" of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating (what dialogue does, having to remove the "negative," the "Thou shalt surely die" from the room, replacing it with the "positive," the "Ye shalt not surely die" in order for everyone to freely saying what they are thinking about and wanting to do without being judged, condemned, or cast out—as was done in the garden in Eden) the Father's authority is negated, negating your having a guilty conscience in the process, so those "of and for the world" can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust with your affirmation, not having to worry about your judging, condemning, and casting them out for their thoughts and actions since you have replace discussion, your having to do what the Father says with dialogue, with what you want to do, resulting in those "of and for the world" "owning" you, buying and selling their soul, with you following after, serving, protecting, defending, praising, worshiping, and even willingly dying (or at least giving your time and money) for them since they 'justified' your lust for pleasure. Carl Rogers (a Marxist): "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "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." "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." 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." "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." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Abraham Maslow: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those who adhere to the Father's authority] 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) Wilfred Bion: the agenda is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space," (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) In other words, the agenda for those "of and for the world" is to not let discussion, what the Father says get in the way of your dialogue, your talking to your self regarding what you want to do so you can do what you want without having a guilty conscience, as was done in a garden in Eden. Herbart Marcuse (a Marxist): "... 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.'" (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) Norman Brown (a Marxist): "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) In education, via Federal laws and the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" as the method of teaching in the classroom, call curriculum, the Father's authority, being told and discussion, with the Father having the final say was replaced with the students carnal nature, with "that which was formed from the dust of the ground," with dialogue, with how the students "feel," their "affective domain" and what they "think," their opinion regarding behavior. Benjamin Bloom (a Marxist): "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents." (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)  Jürgen Habermas (a Marxist, a member of the Frankfurt School): "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself [one's lust] 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)  Luke 16:15 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Which one you turn to, to discussion or to dialogue when it comes to behavior determines which political system you are going to live under, either under "rule of law," the Father's authority or rebellion, tyranny, and revolution, where the child's carnal nature where lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint resides, ruling over the world. Norman Brown: "By dialectic, I mean an activity of consciousness, struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." All Brown was saying is "I'm trying to figure out how I can get around what my parents just told me to do." Replacing discussion, what the Father says, where the Father has the final say with dialogue, with how you feel and what you think, where you have the final say when it comes to behavior, the Father's authority is negated so you can sin without having a guilty conscience, with "the people's" affirmation, dying in your sins. That is how it works. 1 John 2:18 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." All of this will be repeated below. This is only a heads up (an overview) on what will be covered in greater detail below. God's solution is not found in stimulus-response, in that which is of the world, with man's reasoning taken captive to it, used to 'justify' his self, his lusts but is found in faith in God and His word, requiring the same faith God required of Adam but now in His Son, Jesus Christ, 'redeeming' him, by covering his sins by His shed blood on a cross, with God the Father 'reconciling' him to Himself by His resurrection from the grave. John 14:6 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Mao Zedong: "Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people." Karl Marx: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') When you witness students in a classroom circled around a desk, or youth in a "youth group" dialoguing their "feelings" and their "thoughts," that is their opinions regarding personal-social issues (having to put aside their differences in order for everyone in "the group" to share their "feelings" and "thoughts," that is to share their opinion, having to be "positive," "tolerating ambiguity," having to be tolerant of the other person's unrighteous (or sinful or deviant) thoughts, statements, or opinion and-or behavior and not be "negative," judging, condemning, casting them out, that is refusing to listen to them and-or relate with them, telling them they are wrong instead), working on a "group project," receiving a "group grade" (based upon how well they are setting aside their principles for the sake of group harmony), striving for consensus, a "feeling" of oneness with one another, which requires compromise, suspending (as upon a cross) what the Father says, what they have been told in order to "build relationship" with one another based upon common "self interest," lust, silencing, censoring, and casting anyone out who, insisting upon everyone doing what the Father says, who refuses to participate in the process of 'change' being labeled as being not just "prejudiced" but a "Fascist," amongst other terms (lower order thinker, maladjusted, unadaptable to 'change,' a resister of 'change,' not a team player, divisive, hateful, intolerant, and so forth) you are witnessing Marxism, the dialectic process at work.

Marxism is created when a diverse group of people (which must include the deviant, the catalyst for 'change,' compromising one's position for the sake of relationship), dialogue their opinions to a consensus (there is no Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process), in a facilitated meeting (since the process of 'change' does not come naturally, you have to be seduced, deceived, and manipulated in order to participate correctly), over social issues (which requires everyone to set aside what the Father says in order for everyone to "get along") to a predetermined outcome (that the process just described is being used whenever any rule, policy, or law, that is right and wrong behavior is being established). In dialectic 'reasoning,' reasoning from how you "feel" (which is always through dialogue, where you have the final say) instead of from what you have been told (which is through discussion, where the Father has the final say) makes "human nature," unrighteousness, your natural inclination to lust after that which stimulates pleasure in you, that you want to have or do, that you are attracted to, which you have been told you can not have or do the "norm." In order to make "human nature," your natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, unrighteousness the "norm," that which gets in the way of pleasure, that which inhibits or prevents you from being your self, doing what you want has to be removed from the the environment, has to be removed from the room, from the classroom or work environment. In order to make behavior subject to dialogue, to doing what you want, to unrighteousness instead of subject to what you have been told to do, discussion, what the Father says, with the Father having the final say, the Father's authority, insisting that everyone humble themselves, die to, that is deny their lusts, doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, doing what they have been told instead has to be removed from the room. When discussion, what the Father says, with the Father having the final say stays in the room, has control of communication, dialogue, what you want, with you having the final say, the dialectic process is prevented from becoming actualized ("self-actualization" is prevented from becoming). György Lukács (a Marxist, the founder of the "Frankfurt School"): "The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition [their identity] within the whole [within one another, within "the group," through dialogue 'justifying' their carnal nature, their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Jürgen Habermas (a Marxist, a member of the "Frankfurt School"): "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself [one's lust] 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) Luke 16:15 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Your carnal heart, thinking pleasure is the purpose of life instead of doing the Father's will becomes desperate in its effort to acquire or retain the pleasure of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, striking out against anyone taking or threatening to take it away, not seeing its action as being wicked, "desperately wicked" since its lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the action, the hate. Sin resides in the human heart, where dialogue, what Karl Marx called "Critical Criticism" resides, 'justifying' his carnal nature, his natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, to hate the restrainer who is taking or is threatening to take his pleasure away. Karl Marx: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Marxism is the spirit of "You can't tell me what I can and can not do." Rejecting the Father's authority, those who are "of and for the world," Marxists, facilitators of 'change' reject any law that judges, condemns, or 'justifies' their being cast out (firing or not hiring them) for lusting after pleasure instead of doing what the Father says, for doing what they want instead of doing what they are told. While that definition (replacing discussion, what the Father says, righteousness with dialogue, with how you feel and what you think in the 'moment,' with unrighteousness when it comes to behavior, resulting in you hating the Father's authority for getting in the way) might go over a lot of peoples heads ("who can know it") it is what is going on right now in the public (as well as in the "Christian") classroom as well as in meetings in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church," across the nation and around the world. The Father's authority, having to humble and die to your self, deny your lusts in order to do right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, in order to do what you have been told is being negated, is being replaced with your natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, making you subject to the facilitator of 'change,' to the Marxist, who, 'justifying' your propensity to lust after pleasure and hate restraint "owns" you. 2 Peter 2:3 (with words added): "And through covetousness [your lust for pleasure] shall they with feigned words [words you love to hear, words that 'justify' your lust, that "tickle your ears"] make merchandise of you [buy and sell your soul]." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." We have become a Marxist nation and few people realize it, and fewer yet know what it is and how it was done (and continues to be done). I have sat across the table from heads of major Christian ministries who could have made a difference, sharing this information with them with them turning sideways in their chair, refusing to listen, wanting to hear the truth but not this much truth, which would cost them, getting in the way of what they wanted, the praises and support of men. In describing America today I am describing Marxism. In describing Marxism I am describing America today. America has become a Marxist Nation, a nation which lusts after pleasure and hates restraint, that hates the Father's authority, that hates being told what is right and what is wrong behavior according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that hates doing what it is told. Just try to take its i-phones or tablets away. While you might deny it. You can not refute it. It is everywhere you turn. 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

What is Marxism? Marxism is dialectic 'reasoning,' that is self 'justification,' the 'justification' of lust being put into action, called praxis. Antonio Gramsci (a Marxist): "The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) The idea being, don't attack the righteous or those who insist upon everyone doing the Father's will, just don't include them in your communication with one another, that is what dialogue, when it comes to behavior does. All there is in praxis is man's carnal nature and the world that stimulates it. The word praxis is found in the Bible. Colossians 3:9 "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;" The word "deeds" is the Greek word praxis. The "lie" of the "old man" is the praxis you can do what you want without God judging, condemning, and casting you out for your carnal thoughts and carnal actions. Psalms 10:4 ". . . God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 36:1 ". . . there is no fear of God before his eyes." The name for the national test for teachers is Praxis. Instead of reasoning from what the Father says the Marxist uses 'reasoning' to 'liberate' his self from what the Father says. (As will be soon covered it is the difference between using discussion or dialogue when it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior, with discussion siding with the Father and dialogue siding with what you want to do.) Friedrich Engels, a friend of Karl Marx explained Marxism this way: "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Benjamin Bloom explained Marxism in the same way: "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 Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain) That statement would be just another person's opinion except for the fact that all teachers are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom. Not only do the "taxonomies" 'justify' the students' lust for pleasure, what the "taxonomies" call the student's "affective domain," referring to their "affective domain" as being "a virtual 'Pandora's Box," that is a box full of evils which once opened can not be closed, "determining" "the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people" they also reject the Father's authority (true discussion), removing it from the classroom, from the student's learning environment in order for the students to openly share and thus 'justify' their lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint without being judged, condemned, and cast out, thus not developing a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, which the Father's authority engenders. "Bloom's Taxonomies" consider ''good teaching'" "the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs." (More will be explained on how this is done later on.) Marxism is the denial of the Father's authority, or what I call the negation or removal of the Father's authority from the environment, thus, when it comes to behavior removing it from the thoughts of the individual and from the thoughts of "the group" (or "the people"), so the Marxist can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, that is so he can sin without having a guilty conscience (which the Father's authority engenders), so he can sin with "the group's" affirmation (after all "the group" will affirm him after his having 'justified' their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions) without being judged, condemned, and cast out by "the group," with "the group" now removing the Father's authority, that is either converting or silencing, censoring, casting those out who adhere to the Father's authority, who insist upon everyone doing right and not wrong according to what the Father says, according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, removing anyone who gets in the way of pleasure, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, and the righteous without having a guilty conscience. In brief, Marxism, incorporating man's lust for pleasure as a part of "human nature," establishes lust over and therefore against the Father and His authority. For the Marxist or the socialist it is what you have in common with everyone else on the earth and they have in common with you, your and their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and be dissatisfied with, resenting or hating authority for getting in the way that unites you with them and then with you, with everyone having to reject the Father's authority which divides man one from another based upon who is doing the Father's will and who is not. For the Marxist "building relationship upon self interest," upon lust, upon "What can I get out of this situation, object, people, or person for my self?" is what unites. It is the Father's authority, having to do right and not wrong according to what the Father says that divides. Individualism comes from the Father's authority, from where we get "Individualism, under God." Socialism, Marxism, globalism on the other hand comes from what man has in common, his lust for pleasure and his hatred toward restraint. As long as the Father's authority, doing what the Father says occupies the individual's mind, effecting his actions, socialism, Marxism, globalism, the 'justification' of lust can not take control over his life and the life of "the people." In dialogue we 'justify' what we like. There is a place for dialogue, As long as we use dialogue, "I feel" and "I think" regarding what we have been told by the Father what we can do or we have it is fine, retaining the Father's authority in our thoughts, directly effecting our actions. But the moment we use dialogue to 'justify' what we want to do or have that the Father has told us we can not do or have it becomes lust, resulting in us using it, that is dialogue to 'justify' our dissatisfaction with, resentment or hatred toward the Father who is getting in the way of our lusts. The more you focus upon what you are lusting after, upon what you want, especially with others affirming, that is 'justifying' your lust, the the greater your resentment or hatred toward the Father's authority will become, preventing you from having what you want. It is here, in your natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint (that is hating to miss out on pleasure), with you not only dialoguing within your self but dialoguing with others 'justifying' your lust that hatred toward the Father authority resides, that Marxism resides. In discussion you hate yourself for being or doing wrong. In dialogue you hate the person or thing that prevents you from having what you want. The more you use dialogue when it comes to behavior the more Marxist, that is the more hateful toward authority you become. You can not see it happening since dialogue and what you want go hand in hand, blinding you to your increasing hatred toward authority, 'justifying' it instead.

Instead of being "born again," of the spirit, as the Lord requires, that is subject only to the Father, while being "in the world" being no longer "of it," socialism, Marxism, globalism requires man to be "born again," only "of the world," where lust for pleasure along with lust for being affirmed by others, makes him at-one-with himself and at-one-with the world, creating "worldly peace," where he can sin without having a guilty conscience and "socialist harmony," where he can sin with "the peoples" affirmation. Irvin Yalom (a Marxist): "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Kurt Lewin (a Marxist): "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) By the Lord Jesus Christ establishing the soul above the flesh, faith above sight, being told above stimulus-response, what the Father says above what man says, including what the earthly father says, He did not destroy the Father's authority as those "of and for the world" seek to do. He simply establishing His Heavenly Father's authority above all authority, since all other authority is subject to stimulus-response, is subject to the flesh and the world that stimulates it, is subject to "sense experience," is subject to "What can I get out of this situation and-or object, people or person for my self." He therefore causes division between man doing His Father's will and their doing their will instead. The difference being His Heavenly Father's authority deals with your soul, which is eternal. Man's authority deals with your flesh and the world that stimulates it, which is temporary, passing away. 1 John 2:18 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." Matthew 10: 28 and Matthew 10:32-38 "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." "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

It is the Father's authority the Marxist is against, the Marxist is out to negate, is out to remove from the face of the earth whether it be of God or of man. Marxism, the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is antithetical to the Father's authority, where the Father preaches commands and rules to be obeyed, teaches facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and applied, and discusses them with those under His authority at His discretion, rewards those who obey and do things right, that is who do what they are told, corrects and-or chastens those who disobey, that is who do not do what they were told, and castes out (grounds or expels) anyone who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks His authority. This is the same structure found in traditional education. This is important to know as dialectic reasoning, the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, the facilitated "be positive, not negative" meeting negates the Father's authority in all who participate, so the Marxist, the facilitator of 'change' can lust without having a guilty conscience, so he (or she) can sin with impunity. The scriptures explain the Father's authority, where the Father authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, obeyed or applied, and enforces them. You have to have both the authoring and the enforcing. If you negate the enforcement, as you have to do in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, "be positive, not negative" classroom or meeting you negate the Father's authority, that is you negate having to accept and obey His commands and rules and accept and apply His facts and truth). Marxism, simply put is the rejection of the Father's authority so the Marxist can sin without being judged, condemned, and cast out for his immoral thoughts and immoral actions, removing anyone who gets in the way of his lusts, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous without having a guilty conscience. The Father's authority is defined in Hebrews 12:5-11. "And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Ephesians 6:1-3 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." While the "earthly father" is not perfect, he may be (or may have been) a down right tyrant—as a child lusting pleasure without restraint—or MIA or AWOL his office of authority is perfect, having been given to him by the "Heavenly Father," who is perfect, in which to do His will, teaching his children to do right and not wrong according to what they have been told. The Father requires those under His authority to do what they are told. The Marxist requires everyone, when it comes to behavior to think and act according to their carnal nature, according to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," according to what they have in common, according to that which is only "of the world," establishing "sense experience" over and therefore against being told. (Take note: this is an indicator of what is going on in the classroom, the intended outcome)

Including lust as being a part of "human nature," that is as being normal makes man at-one-with lust and the world that stimulates it, that is makes man only "of the world," Karl Marx: "Sense experience must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) He simply secularized 1 John 2:16, redefining "the lust of the flesh" as "sensuous need," "the lust of the eyes" as "sense perception," and "the pride of life" as "sense experience," making that which is only "of the world," that is that which "only" "proceeds from Nature" all there is to life. If stimulus-response is all there is then man's ability to reason, to be told by others and to tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior, that is his ability to read or write a book, which nothing else in the creation can do, that ability being the result of God "breathing" the "breath of life into" that which He "formed" from "the dust of the ground," thus making man a "living soul" must be negated, negating the very tool (man's ability to reason) those who are "of and for the world" use to negate those telling them what they can and can not do. As the serpent in the garden in Eden when you truly understand what they are doing, they have no legs to stand on. As the laws of nature are established by God so are the laws He has established for man to obey, with man being told what is right and what is wrong behavior, with man having the ability to do what he is told or do what he wants, with God judging him according to his obedience or disobedience, according to his response to the laws He has established for him to do. Being guilty of sin, of disobedience to God's laws, there is no law of the creation that can save man from God's judgment upon him for his sins, for his disobedience, which is eternal death. Only an act of God, that is in His Son's obedience to the Father in all things commanded, even to death can man be saved, by faith in Him. This the Marxist, establishing lust, that is sin, that is immorality as a part of "human behavior" rejects, having to reject the Father and His authority in order for him to sin, to lust, to be immoral with impunity, without having a guilty conscience, with the affirmation of men. It can not be defined any simpler than that. As will be explained in greater detail below, when it comes to defining and establishing behavior when you replace discussion, what the Father says, with the Father having the final say with dialogue, what the child says, with the child having the final say "sense experience" negates being told, lust negates the Father's authority. In discussion "I have to do what the Father tells me to do." In dialogue "I can do what I want." Which one is being used in defining and establishing right and wrong behavior determines whether the Father's authority is being 'justified' and lust is being condemned or lust is being 'justified' and the Father's authority is being condemned. It has to be one or the other. With man, accepting the Father's authority yet yielding to the flesh, thus having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, called a "belief-action dichotomy,"" taking the Father's authority wherever he goes, taking it into society, the socialist's, Marxist's, globalist's agenda is to remove the Father's authority in the mind of man so he can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, called "theory and practice," where "I feel" and "I think" occupies his thoughts instead of what the Father says, 'justifying' his sinful behavior.

When you making behavior subject to stimulus-response, to science (the Holy Scriptures call it "so called science") you negate the Father's authority, you negate (in your mind) your having to do what you have been told to do, you negate the issue of sin, you negate the issue of righteousness, negating your having to do the Father's will. It is what is going on today in our nation and around the world. While people are going after organizations, institutions, parties, and individuals they are not addressing the problem, the very process itself, the dialectic process which 'justifies' the carnal nature of man, the human heart, establishing lust over and therefore against the Father's authority, over and therefore against doing the Father's will, over and therefore against the Word of God. Even George Washington recognized the problem, the human heart. George Washington: "despotism . . . predominates in the human heart." (George Washington, Farewell Address) Whether it is an individual 'justifying' his lusts or a group the outcome is the same, lust for pleasure ruling over and therefore against the Father's authority. Our framing fathers did not get rid of the King. They put him at the head of the family, with the father, according to his convictions ruling over his family, his property, and his business. Thus the Constitution with its "Bill of Rights" was established in order to limit the power of those in government in order for the father to train up his children according to his convictions, teaching them right from wrong when it comes to behavior (even if the father is wrong the children, knowing he is wrong keep the right-wrong way of thinking), having a guilty conscience when they do wrong, disobey, sin, when they lusting after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' that the world was stimulating do what they want instead of doing what they are told. Anyone in government without a Father's structure of thought, without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning will use the office they are serving in to satisfy their own self interest, their lusts using your tax dollars to create, promote, and support those who think like them, 'justifying' "the people's" lust for pleasure (that is their lust for pleasure), removing anyone who gets in "the people's" way (that is who get in their way). Any time you are (and-or your children, your spouse, your neighbors, your teachers, your fellow workers, your leaders, legislators, and judges, your minister is) participating in a facilitated, dialoguing of opinions to a consensus meeting, being told to "be positive," tolerant of ambiguity, that is tolerant of immorality and not "negative," judging, condemning, casting the immoral person out, in other words refusing to relate with them, not hiring but firing them instead, telling them that their immoral thoughts and immoral actions are wrong, you (and-or they) are being indoctrinated in Marxism. Robert Dale Owen, Robert Owen's son explained what his father's socialist project in America produced, a culture of lazy, incompetent, and vicious people in control of society.

Norman Brown (a Marxist) explained where the guilty conscience originates: "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:'" Robert Trojanowicz (a Marxist) explained what effect the guilty conscience has upon the individual and society: "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." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing) Kurt Lewin (a Marxist) explained not only where the guilty conscience (what he calls the "negative valence") originates but also how to negate it in the individual, removing it from society: Kurt Lewin: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality) When you use dialogue to 'justify' your doing what you have been told you are not to do you sear your conscience. There is no guilty conscience in dialogue, only self 'justification.' This the Marxist, the facilitator of 'change' knows, replacing discussion, where the Father the final say with dialogue, where the child has the final say when it comes to defining or establishing right and wrong behavior. It is the difference between right and wrong being an either-or, according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth or along a spectrum from love to hate based upon a persons "feelings" of the 'moment,' responding to the current situation or object, people, or person present. It is the difference between objective truth, which tells you what you can and can not do, which holds you accountable for disobeying and subjective truth where you decide for your self what you are going to do according to your "feelings" of the 'moment,' that is according to your "sensuous needs," which includes "the lust of the flesh" and your "sense perception" which includes "the lust of the eyes," making "sense experience," "the pride of life," only that which is "of Nature," which is "of the world" the only means to knowing right from wrong behavior. When the woman in the garden "saw" the forbidden tree as being "good" she was using dialogue, having negated discussion, what the Father said, "thou shalt surely die."

Marxism is the exclusion of "governance," "rule of law," what the Father (or the Constitution, parent, teacher . . ..) says, what the Word of God says when it comes to behavior, which holds man accountable for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions. Marxism is the inclusion of lust, that is your lust for pleasure, what you are dialoguing with your self about, what you are 'justifying' as a part of the outcome (as I will repeat over and over again, there is no Father's authority, no "can not," "must not," "thou shalt not" in dialogue, there is only your carnal desires of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating being 'justified'), thus making lust the "norm," negating the Father's authority (that is washing the Father's authority from your brain, and from the brain of everyone else who participates) in the process. It is the negation or exclusion of what God says regarding your and other's behavior. It is the rejection of Romans 10:17 "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Proverbs 3:6 "In all thy ways acknowledge him." Jeremiah 10:23 "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." You may not realize that in your silence in the midst of unrighteousness, in order to initiate or sustain relationship (say to "grow" the "church") you are making unrighteousness the "norm." Every lawyer knows "qui tacet consentire videtur" that is "silence is consent." If someone did not tell you, you would not know. While doing what you want you can not see what you are doing is wrong (when it is wrong) until someone tells you what you were doing is wrong. Romans 7:7 "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Romans 3:20 ". . . for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 5:13 "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." The objective of those "of and for the world," insisting everyone be "positive" ('justifying' lust) and not "negative" (judging, condemning, and casting those out, that is not relating with, not hiring and firing those who practice it) when it comes to behavior is to negate the law, thus negating the issue of sin, which requires their negation of the law giver, that is the Father and His authority. Since, as will be covered ahead there is no law of the Father in dialogue, only the law of the flesh, those "of and for the world" use dialogue when it comes to defining and establishing behavior, rejecting true discussion, where the Father has the final say, in discussion "rule of law" is retained.

While the American "Bill of Rights" made the Father King over his family, his property, and his business, ruling over them according to his convictions the French "Bill of Rights" (as all socialist revolutions do) 'liberated' "the people" from the King, negated the father's authority over his family, his property, and his business. Kenneth Benne (a Marxist): We "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations In Curriculum Change) In the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, in the "be positive, not negative" classroom or meeting private convictions must be set aside for the sake of "the group," for the sake of "worldly peace and socialist harmony." György Lukács (a Marxist): "... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (György Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Immanuel Kant wrote of a world where "lawfulness without law" reigned, where the law of the flesh ("sense experience") ruled without the law of God (being told) getting in the way. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) Karl Marx: "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words laws are not to be established by what the Father says, that is be subject to discussion, where the Father has the final say but must be subject to 'change,' to dialogue as the lusts (plural as in lust for pleasure and lust for the affirmation of others) of the 'child' changes in response to the current situation, and-or object, people, or person present. As will be explained in greater detail ahead, in discussion laws are established once and for all, that is by the Father's authority while in dialogue they are ever subject to 'change,' subject to your carnal desires of the 'moment.' Have you heard the word 'change' recently. In a world of 'change,' law or behavior is established through dialogue, where the child has the final say, 'justifying' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint instead of though discussion, where the Father has the final say, judging, condemning, casting those out who praxis lust, doing their will instead of His.

Walking in the spirit you always have a discuss with God if you have any questions, with God having the final say. We come into this world with both discussion and dialogue, wanting to do right and not wrong according to what we have been told and yet wanting to do our will instead, having a guilty conscience when we, doing our will do wrong, disobey, or sin. The solution to our conflict, according to those "of and for the world" is to reject discussion, what the Father says altogether and go strictly to dialogue, doing our will without having a guilty conscience. That is why you can not talk to children (or your elected officials or anyone else) today, insisting you dialogue with them, not being able to hear you if you try to have a discussion with them, with you having the final say. Matthew 13:15 "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is the praxis of Marxism, negating the Father's authority in the thoughts of the participants so the Marxist, along with "the people" can lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, so he (or she), with "the people's" affirmation can be immoral, no longer judged, condemned, and cast out for his and their immoral thoughts and immoral actions. By the Marxist rejecting (that is denying) God's definition of right and wrong behavior, with God distinguishing between righteousness (with man doing what he is told, doing the Father's will) and unrighteousness (with man lusting after pleasure, doing his will instead), turning to his definition of behavior instead, the Marxist makes lust a part of "human nature," "boys will be boys," "If it feels good, just do it" making lust disappear as an issue (in doing so the Father's authority, that is man being judged, condemned, and cast out for his immoral thoughts and immoral actions, judging, condemning, and casting others out for their immoral thoughts and immoral actions disappears as well, that is the Father's authority is negated, is no longer in the thoughts of "the people" other than to be hated when it arrives on the scene). Abraham Maslow: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those students who adhere to the Father's authority] 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) Carl Rogers: "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) There is no Father's authority in dialogue. Therefore when behavior is establish through dialogue the Father's authority is excluded (negated) in the thoughts of "the people," 'justifying' their immoral actions. After reading over 600 social-psychology books this is what they all boil down to, the 'justification' of immorality and hatred toward the Father's authority for getting in the way. I've shared this information in liberal universities, before hundreds of students to hear at the end of the lecture, from the professors, in front of their students "We can not refute a word you said." The following is going on right under your nose, in the local schools (even Christian), in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church," unabated.

According to those "of and for the world," facilitators of 'change, 'change' is all about negating the Father's authority in the thoughts of the individual so he can act (or behave) according to his carnal nature without having a guilty conscience (which is engendered by the Father's authority), resulting in his no longer judging, condemning, or casting others out for their immoral thoughts and immoral actions. When in a position of authority, having power over "the people" he will focus on supporting, financially and emotionally those who are immoral, establishing rules, making policies, and passing laws that 'justify' their immoral thoughts and immoral actions. The earthly father's authority in the family is negated when lust, the "affective domain," that is "human nature" is 'justified,' negating the Heavenly Father's authority in the heart of man, negating (or removing) from society, individualism, under God. That is the plan. Socialism, Marxism, "relationship built upon self interest," built upon the affirmation of lust, the tolerance of immorality (called "tolerance of ambiguity"), globalism can not be initiated or sustained as long as the earthly father retains his authority in the family and the Heavenly Father retains his authority in the heart of man, engendering a guilty conscience in the individual when he does wrong, disobeys, sins, taking the Father's authority into society with him, judging, condemning, casting out (not relating with, not hiring, not voting for, firing instead) those who are 'justifying' immorality. Jürgen Habermas (a Marxist) wrote: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation [that is according to what the Father says], then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice) In other words, any time you are told something you did not experience on your own you are prevented from being your self, thinking and acting according to your carnal nature and the world that stimulates it. Socialism, Marxism, globalism is based upon experience (stimulus-response) not upon being told (what the Father says). Romans 1:28-32 "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."

'Change' according to those "of and for the world" is not a person changing his position from one position to another, maintaining an either-or, black-white, right-wrong, above-below, heaven-hell structure of thought, called a Patriarchal paradigm but is based upon stimulus-response, where whoever in the environment stimulates or 'justifies' pleasure is right (is labeled as being "positive") and whoever inhibits or blocks it is wrong (is labeled as being "negative") needing to be "positive" or be removed from the environment in order for it to be right. Max Horkheimer (a Marxist) noted that in America "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Reasoning and Self Preservation) Protestantism, the priesthood of all believers; putting no object or person between you and the Lord; sola Scriptura (scriptures only), solus Christus (Christ only), sola fide (faith only), sola gratia (grace only), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God only)," 'liberated' the individual out from under the control of self interest and society, lust and "the group." The individual, under God while being "in the world" is not "of it." When it comes to behavior, the believer, rejecting stimulus-response (the idea that by creating a "healthy" environment you can create a "healthy" person, knowing there is nothing in man or in the creation that can make a man righteous or "good," that righteousness has to be imputed by God himself) submits himself to the Father and His authority, doing the Father's will as a result. John 14:6 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." While the Father demands no compromise society or rather socialism, Marxism, globalism does. It is the difference between the conscience, doing right and not wrong according to what the Father says, according to what you have been told and the "super-ego," the moral standard of society, which requires compromise, that is requires the setting aside or "suspending" of what the Father says, doing what you want in order to "build relationship with others" based upon what you and they have in common, that being lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, resentment toward the Father and His authority for getting in the way. Galatians 1:10 "Do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Doing the Father's will engenders "individualism." Socialism, Marxism, globalism, which 'justifies' "human nature" or lust negates individualism, making the individual subject to what "the group" or what society thinks (making all subject to lust and the world that stimulates it, thus making everyone subject to those manipulation it, controlling the "discussion" of the day). (By making all the news about a flood in one small town somewhere in the world the whole world becomes concerned about a flood. Snap your fingers and the whole world jumps. Personal-social issues exclude accountability before God. Noah son's building a tower, making a name for their self negated being scattered, having to trust in God.) Those "of and for the world" do not want the Father, that is what the Father says in your brain they want only what you have in common with others and others have in common with you, lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint in your brain. At the most you can have the Father in your brain as long as you keep Him to your self and do not let Him get in the way of what others think and do. Karl Marx: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) If you are concerned about your child's social life instead of where he or she will spend eternity (it is an either-or) you are a socialist. It is an absolute. You can deny it but you can not refute it. The plan is to turn everyone into a socialist, a Marxist, a globalist, creating worldly peace and socialist harmony. It is there for anyone to see, if they care. Karl Marx: "The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

Bohm and Peat: "In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change." "A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "The spirit of dialogue, is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) Discussion ties us to KNOWING by being told, making us subject to doing right and not wrong according to what we have been told, that is subject to the Father's authority. Dialogue on the other hand ties us to our "feelings" of the 'moment,' making us subject to sensuousness, that is subject to that which is "of the world."

When it comes to defining and establishing behavior, when communication is moved from discussion, where the Father establishes what is right and what is wrong behavior and has the final say to dialogue, where the child thinks and behaves according to his carnal nature and has the final say the earthly father's authority in the family and the Heavenly Father's authority in the heart of man is negated. It is a subtle 'change,' 'changing' communication from discussion to dialogue when it comes to behavior but it has major ramifications. It is what happened in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6) where what the Father said, discussion, with the Father having the final say was replaced with what the woman wanted, dialogue, with the woman having the final say. It is what 'change,' that is psychology, Marxism, globalism is all about. What they all have in common is stimulus-response, approaching pleasure (which includes the approval of men) and avoiding pain (which includes missing out on pleasure). According to Karl Marx when the earthly father's "Do what I say," "Because I said so" is removed from the mind of the child, the Heavenly Father's "It is written" is removed from the mind of the individual, resulting in individualism, under God being removed from society. Carl Rogers: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" The 'drive' and the 'purpose' of psychology, Marxism, and globalism is to replace doing the Father's will with the child doing his will instead. When it comes to behavior replacing discussion, what the Father says, where the Father has the final say with dialogue, how the child feels, where the child has the final say the deed, that is 'change' is accomplished, with children now doing what they want instead of doing what they are told. Karl Marx: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) Rejecting the Heavenly Father, with the Son of God, Jesus Christ doing His Heavenly Father's will, Karl Marx determined that God was 'created' when children did what they were told, doing their earthly father's will in defiance to their carnal nature, thereby establishing the Father and His authority over and therefore against "human nature." Karl Marx: "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) According to Karl Marx the fathers in the community create division and disharmony in the community as their children do right and not wrong according to what they have been told, insisting others do the same, judging, condemning, and casting out (firing or not hiring; refusing to build relationship with) anyone who does wrong, disobeys, sins, who act immoral—this being the characteristic of private business. For "worldly peace and socialist harmony" to become reality what children have in common, their lust for pleasure and dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, and hatred of the Father's authority for getting in the way must become the focus of life, making them readily adaptable to 'change,' responding in favor to those in the environment who are stimulating pleasure (who are being "positive"), rejecting and turning against those in the environment who are judging, condemning, casting them out for their immoral behavior (who are being "negative"). "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Inscribed on Karl Marx's tomb so it must be important. It is in 'change,' stimulus-response, not in doing the Father's will that Marxism, the New world order is based. When it comes to behavior when you replace discussion, what the Father says with dialogue, with how the child "feels" 'change,' that is negation of the Father's authority is being initiated and sustained.

According to those "of and for the world" since all are immoral what gives the boss the right to fire or not hire someone who is immoral. It is in the individual's dialoguing with his self that lust, immorality, sin, the imagination of the heart is 'justified.' It is in dialogue that Karl Marx established the moral standard of society, requiring the individual's communication with his self and with others to move progressively (increasingly) away from discussion, away from what the Father says to dialogue, to focusing upon what he and others are lusting after until critical mass or desperation sets in (from where dissatisfaction with the Father and His authority, moves to resentment toward Him and His authority, to eventually outright hatred toward Him and His authority, making the individual willing to die for what he is lusting after, that is "desperately wicked"), what Karl Marx called "Critical Criticism." Doing "Critical Criticism" in a group exponentially amplifies the reaction, dying for "the group" has greater purpose. That is why the 'change' process, with the "help" of the facilitator of 'change' is always done in a group. Kurt Lewin: "Change in methods of leadership [replacing the traditional teacher, where the teacher, using discussion has the final say with a facilitator of 'change,' where, through dialogue the student's have the final say] is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of a group." "Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development) Kurt Lewin: "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) Irvin Yalom: "There is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members." "To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance." (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) Cognitive dissonance is "the lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief." (Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology) Yalom continues: "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their loyalty to the Father's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity." Now back to Karl Marx and his defining of "Critical Criticism"—from where we get "Critical Race Theory": "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Theodor Adorno (a Marxist) wrote: "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 here may lie the individual's potential." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Georg 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." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) According to Hegel, Marx, and those "of and for the world" only by removing the authority of the Father from the mind of the child and from society can the child become innocent again, as he was before the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth came into his life telling him what he could and could not do. This was what the master facilitator of 'change' did with two "children" in a garden in Eden, convincing them they could do what they wanted without being held accountable. Herbart Marcuse (a Marxist): "... 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.'" (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) For those "of and for the world" to "eat from the tree of knowledge" establishes lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, stimulus-response as the ground from which to reason, not doing what the Father says.

Isaiah 55:8, 9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" John 5:30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 12:47-50 "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

The soul and the flesh. Discussion and dialogue. They are two different political systems. The soul is eternal, dealing with where we will spend eternity, either eternal life or eternal death. The flesh deals with the here-and-now, the "eternal present," and passes away. When we choose the flesh, dialogue, the "eternal present," stimulus-response as our political system (to establish right and wrong behavior) all the soul has to look forward to is eternal death. The soul KNOWS from being told, making it subject to the Father's authority, to doing the Father's will. The flesh knows by sense experience, making it subject to the world, to stimulus-response. When God created man He did something with him which he did with nothing else in the creation (which he spoke into existence, "Let there be . . .."), He "formed man" from "the dust of the ground," getting ahead of my self this is where dialogue, man doing his will resides, He then "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" making him a "living soul," where discussion, man doing God's will resides. Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." He then did something with man which He did with nothing else in the creation, He told him what was right and what was wrong behavior and the consequence for doing wrong, for disobedience (all the rest of the creation is subject to stimulus-response, including the flesh of man). Genesis 2:16, 17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Only man can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior. Only man can read or write a book. Nothing else in the creation can tell others or be told what is right and what is wrong behavior, or can read or write a book. All of the creation is based upon stimulus-response, including that part of man God "formed" "from the dust of the ground," the flesh, for all living organisms that means approaching pleasure and avoiding pain—except for that which God "breathed . . . the breath of life" into, he was to do what he was told. Since relationship is based upon dialogue, upon " I feel" and "I think," and nothing in the creation could dialogue with Adam, Adam had no one to have relationship with, he was all alone in the universe when it came to sharing his feelings and thoughts. Fellowship is different in that it is based upon discussion, upon what the Father says, with the Father having the final say. Since in dialogue we are god, choosing what we want to do and what we do not want to do based upon what we like and what we do not like, to dialogue with God would make Adam equal with God, the flesh equal with Spirit. By creating the woman God solved the dialogue problem, that is the issue of relationship. Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Adam and the woman could dialogue regarding all the trees God had told Adam they could eat the fruit of, choosing which fruit they liked and wanted to eat and which ones they did not like and did not want to eat (it is in dialogue we have the continuum or spectrum of love, like, indifferent, don't like, hate which is based upon our feelings of the 'moment'). But when the woman took dialogue, how she felt and what she thought into the realm of discussion, where they were told they were not to go, she became God over the garden, in essence declaring that the garden was hers, she could do what she wanted instead of having to do what she was told—in that act sensuousness, stimulus-response super-seeded the Father's authority, negated her having to do what she was told. "I can do what I want, when I want. You can't tell me what I can and can not do." negated "Thou shalt not." Dialogue negates discussion. Thinking for to one's self negates doing what you are told. Lust for pleasure negates the Father's authority. When it comes to behavior, 'Reasoning' from the flesh negates reasoning from the Word of God. Sight negates faith. (Romans 5:1 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Matthew 4:4 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Ephesians 2:8, 9 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:") When it comes to behavior dialogue negates faith, other than faith in yourself, mankind, and the world (Jeremiah 17:5, 7 "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Psalms 1:1, 2 "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." Jeremiah 6:10, 13-19 "Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it."). You can not make behavior subject to dialogue and do the will of God.

Genesis 3:1-6: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" is a neurolinguistic construct, an imbedded statement in a question, a tool used in hypnosis, bringing dialogue, what the woman was lusting after up to the surface of her thought, making it equal with discussion, with what the Father said. Thus bringing up "neither shall ye touch it," her self interest became her focus of life, simply requiring the master facilitator of 'change' to 'create' a safe place, zone, space where she did not have to fear being judged, condemned, being cast out for her thought of the 'moment,' "Ye shall not surely die" with her from then being able then to evaluate the situation for her self, from her carnal nature, recognizing the "forbidden" tree was just like the rest of the trees, except in her evaluation of it making her now God, deciding for her self what was right and what was wrong behavior. The 'moment' the woman used dialogue when it came to behavior, the master facilitator of 'change' knew he "owned" her. No need for her to repent since in dialogue she was God, who is never wrong, just needing to do things better next time if anything goes wrong. Adam, in order to continue relationship with her followed after with her, rejecting fellowship with God. When caught Adam and the woman blamed someone else. Adam: "It is not my fault, it is this woman's fault. It is also your fault for creating her, for creating an unhealthy environment for me to live in." The woman: "It is not my fault, it is the master facilitator of 'change's' fault for talking me into doing what I wanted to do." Genesis 3:12, 13 "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." Adam and the woman, instead of repenting, admitting that they were wrong became the first 'liberals,' blaming someone else and the situation for what they did wrong. The whole concept of Gnosticism is based upon the serpent, the master facilitator of 'change' liberating man from God so he can become at one with himself, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, resulting in God coming to know himself as man knowns himself collectively as God; this is the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, resulting in everyone in defiance to God saying "You can't tell us what we can or can not do. We can do what we want, when we want."

While man seeks to 'change' the environment so he can do what he wants (removing from the environment whatever or whoever gets in the way of pleasure, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous), God changes a man's heart that he might do right and not wrong according to what he has been told, despite the environment he happens to be in. 2 Corinthians 10:5 "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"

Therapy is based upon dialogue, where, when it comes to behavior the child or man has the final say, negating discussion, doing what the Father says, negating the Father's authority in the mind of the individual, negating the Father's authority (right-wrong thinking or "prejudice") in society, in "the group" in the process. The Constitution with its "Bill of Rights" did not get rid of the King. It kept the King. It made the father King over his family, property, and business engendering a guilty conscience in his children in the home, that is in the next generation of citizens when they did wrong, disobeyed, sinned, when they lusted after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world was stimulating instead of doing the Father's will, when they did what they wanted instead of doing what they were told. Even the Supreme Court recognized Christianity, with the Father in control, that is "Rule of Law." In Strauss Vs. Strauss., 1941 the Supreme Court concluded: "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 frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." In 1973, ROE v. WADE embraced Socialism, Marxism, globalism: "there has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." Karl Marx built his ideology off of Heraclitus who greatly influenced the Stoics. Heraclitus: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys."

Norman Brown (a Marxist) wrote, regarding the purpose of psychology: "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Herbert Marcuse (a Marxist) wrote, explaining Sigmund Freud's contempt for the Father's authority and his solution: "... 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." "'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 [in other words the husband and father no longer exercises his God given authority in the home, over his wife and children]."

Psychology, socialism, globalism comes between the father and his children, through dialogue negating their obedience to the father, doing what they want to do instead of what they are told. Even focusing upon the family, using dialogue in order to build relationship between the Father, the mother and the children negates the father's authority in the home. All teachers are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom. 'Liberating' the student's from their parent's authority and therefore society from God's authority is what "Bloom's Taxonomies" are all about. In the "taxonomies" we reed: "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents." ". . . 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs . . .." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evil which once opened can not be closed; once the Father's authority is no longer recognized by the students, lust will control their lives and rule over the world].'" "The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) In the first "Taxonomy" Bloom writes: "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." (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain) which is simply a paraphrase of Karl Marx: "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (as explained by Fredrich Engels) That is why Bloom could mention that the Weltanschauung or world view of the "Taxonomies" was that of two Marxists, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm. "Bloom's Taxonomies" negate the father's authority in the thoughts of the students, turning them against their parents authority when they get home, their intended purpose. The use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom goes on unabated because everybody likes doing what they want instead of doing what they are supposed to do, including parents. Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Ephesians 6:4 "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Proverbs 4:1 "Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding." Proverbs 15:32 "He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Jeremiah 6:16 "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." Once students are on the drug of pleasure or lust, that is addicted to the "affective domain" it is difficult if not impossible to get them off.

Karl Marx: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') When you realize that the majority of pleasure we experience is the result of a chemical called dopamine, a chemical our body naturally produces that is "emancipated" or "liberated" into a small gap (called a synaptic gap) between nerves—when we come into contact with something of pleasure in the environment. We are not aware of it being pleasurable until the nerve ending that is associated with pleasure, be it touch, taste, sight, sound, smell comes in contact with whatever or whoever in the environment stimulates pleasure, sending that information to the brain where dopamine is "emancipated" by a dendrite in the brain. Then our natural reaction is to locate whatever or whoever it is that is stimulating dopamine with the hope of gaining access to the object or person or people in order to control it, him or her, or them in order to experience more dopamine. All habitual drugs are associated with dopamine, some imitating it, other stimulating it, and others preventing its re-uptake (preventing it from being broken down to be reused again). It only lasts for a 'moment' and then is gone with us wanting more, resulting in us, being 'driven' to experience it again 'purposed' in controlling the object, the person, or the people (or imagining controlling it, him or her, or them) or the environment it, or they reside in. God created us with dopamine that we would enjoy his creation, not that we would worship it and the world that stimulates it instead of Him. As a drug addict, we by nature become intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed by dopamine if we are not restrained (detoxed). Remove the Father's authority and pleasure, lust, the "emancipation" of dopamine, the "affective domain" becomes the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose,' 'justifying' in the mind of those possessed by it the removal of the Father and His authority from the environment, along with anyone else who gets in the way, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous, doing so without having a guilty conscience (since the guilty conscience is engendered by the Father's authority). Kurt Lewin explained the source of the guilty conscience (what he called the "negative valence" and then how to negate its effect upon the individual. Kurt Lewin: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality) Without the Father's authority and the guilty conscience it engenders all we have is dopamine (and other chemicals our body naturally produce) as the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose.' If we live chasing after dopamine, that is the "affective domain" at the end of life we have nothing to show God except a corpse (1 John 2:18). All that man has to offer God at the end of his life is nothing. It gives true meaning to those who's agenda it is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space," so only dopamine can occupy your brain (your mind, your imagination), having to depend upon those who facilitate 'change,' drug pushers in order to get more of it. (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) 2 Peter 2:3 "And through covetousness [your lust for dopamine] shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." The 'purpose' of "Bloom's Taxonomies" is to turn the next generation of citizens into drug addicts, in order for those "of and for the world" to use them, as "human resource" for their own pleasure, If you entertain them they will come, and keep coming back for more, paying you well for the experience. Even the "church" has joined in the buying and selling of souls for its own gain, doing so in the "name of the Lord."

James 1:14, 15 "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

Karl Marx: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, that is of faith, of true love, that is of love of God, of true will-power, that is of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." "It is not sensuality which is presented . . ., but the attraction of what is forbidden." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) By generalizing, Karl Marx used Fruit trees as an example (in correlation to the trees in the garden in Eden), discovering as the woman did that all the trees were alike (doing what is called aufheben, where you pick up something to examine it, to see if it is safe or not, something you were told not to pick up—I have been warning people for years the candle they are about to light is a stick of dynamite but they are not listening), her desire super-seeded any warning regarding the one she was not to have relationship with, having been told. Draw you in, for example to work with others on a common cause, say to solve a crisis, telling you to set aside the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to work with them and if you do you are "own." Your lust for the approval of others and your fear of rejection by them will get you every time. Your silence is consent. You might think that you will share with them what you believe later on, after building relationship with them so they will listen but in their mind you have established relationship with them as being more important that what you believe. Revelation 12:11 "And they overcame him [the master facilitator of 'change,' the anti-Christ] by the blood of the Lamb [by what the Lord has done in obedience to the Father], and by the word of their testimony [by what the Lord is doing in your life]; and they loved not their lives unto the death [eternal life is more important to you than dopamine, which includes the praises of men, which only last for a 'moment' and has no value]."

If you do not end (stop) the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" (Marxist curriculum) in the classroom, the negation of the father's authority will go on unabated (so the "educator," as a facilitator of 'change' and the students can sin, that is lust with impunity, with each other's affirmation). Until you restore the Father's authority, the authoring of established commands, rules, facts, and truth and enforce them in the classroom you have not addressed the problem. In "old school" the teacher preached established commands and rules to be obeyed, taught established facts and truth to be learned and applied, and discussed with the students any questions they might have with the teacher having the final say, rewarding those students who obeyed and got things right, correcting and chastening those who got things wrong or disobeyed, and casting out those who challenged the teachers authority. This is the same pattered applied by God. When education introduced dialogue (the "affective domain," dopamine) as the curriculum, where the students have the final say, the father's authority in the home was challenged, defied, disregarded, attacked, not only destroying the home but also the nation. This is the same pattern which was applied in a garden in Eden, where the master facilitator of 'change' "helped" two "children" 'liberate' their self from the "Father's" authority so they could do what they wanted, when they wanted without someone telling them what they could and could not do, which describes our nation today. "Bloom's Taxonomies," as mentioned above are built upon the Weltanschauung of Erick Fromm, who wrote: "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is ... to give up 'God' ..." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) Benjamin Bloom, forty years after its publication admitted his first "taxonomy" "was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) He dedicated his first "taxonomy" to Ralph Tyler who's student Thomas Kuhn, working on his "'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods,'" where facts-based scientists are replaced with feelings-based scientist, quoting Max Planck wrote: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." whereupon "the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution) Despite the "taxonomies" being only an opinion any teacher questioning their use in the classroom will be attacked for being "irrational." Parent's will be treated the same way by their children who participate in classes using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum. That is their objective, making students who participate Marxists, that is haters of the Father's authority.

When the Father, that is discussion is the thesis, with the Father having the final say then the children, that is dialogue becomes the antithesis, preventing synthesis, the children united as one according to their lusts. But if you make children, dialogue, lust the thesis, then the Father, that is discussion becomes the antithesis resulting in the children uniting as one (coming to consensus) according to what they have in common, lust, creating synthesis. This is the formula for 'change.' When you start with the "affective domain," when it comes to behavior the outcome will always be the same, children turning against the Father and His authority. Ephesians 2:2,3 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 5:5-7 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Living for the 'moment,' for the "eternal present," programing you, your spouse, your children, your boss, your leaders, your minster to 'reason' from the "affective domain" makes you and them subject to being seduced, deceived, and manipulated. All anyone has to do then is through dialogue 'discover' what you are coveting (in the 'moment'), offer to "help" you attain it and they "own" you. Coming between you and what you covet they are able to use you as "natural resource" called "human resource," profiting (that is living) off of you. This is now being applied everywhere, called "services." You can not buy or sell without "profiting" (that is paying) them. Getting what you want, what you are lusting after (that which stimulates dopamine, which only lasts for a 'moment') they now "own" you, with you having to come back to them for more, thinking you are "free" when in fact you can do nothing without their approval, paying them for the service. Carl Rogers: "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "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." "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." 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." "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." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) This is what the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom has been all about. 'Liberating' children from parental restraint, thus "the people," including you from Godly restraint so you can be manipulated like Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats, and Pavlov's dog and used by those "of and for the world," facilitator's of 'change' for their own pleasure, casting you aside when you no longer bring them pleasure or someone else brings them more pleasure or you get in their way, doing to you what you did to the Father for getting in your way—rejecting God's love for you, eternity for the love of the world, for dopamine, which only last for the 'moment' and then passes away. John 3:16 When those in government get on the drug they will do all they can to keep themselves and those who support them in power.

2 Timothy 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Matthew 16:26 "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" The facilitators of 'change's' agenda is to seduce you into 'justifying' your carnal nature so he can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is so he can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating with your affirmation, without your judging, condemning, and cast him out. The facilitator of 'change,' perceiving his self as being the personification of "the people," who, like him lust after the carnal pleasures of the moment the world stimulates, hating restraint, sees it as his duty to 'justify' "the people's" natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to 'justify' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure. When you question the facilitator of 'change's' actions he will respond with "It is not just about you," really meaning "It is all about me, so I can lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, that is my lusts or get in my way 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since having 'justified' their lusts I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for the 'good' of 'the people,' that is for my 'good.'" The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to make behavior subject to dialogue, how you feel and what you think instead of discussion, what the Father says in order for him to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. By the facilitator of 'change' 'creating' an environment (a "positive," safe place-zone-space) which removes the Father's threat of judgment, condemnation, and being cast out for immoral behavior, you are now free to "be yourself." From then on the facilitator of 'change' "owns" you. It is all the serpent, the master facilitator of 'change' did with the woman in the garden in Eden, replacing "thou shalt surely die," what the Father says with "ye shalt not surely die," that is "We can talk about anything here without being judged, condemned, or cast out" and he "owned" her—with Adam, following after her. All he did was use "Bloom's Taxonomies" so the woman could define and establish what is right and what is wrong behavior from her carnal nature, without the Father's authority, what the Father says getting in the way. Destroy the father's authority in the home and you destroy the nation. Destroy the Father's authority in the mind of man and you destroy his soul. That is the facilitator of 'change's,' the "wolf in sheepskin's" agenda. Now you KNOW.

By the "Frankfurt School" coming to America in the early 30's, training up Marxists to influence government leaders they were able to overcome the influence of the Father's authority on the individual and the Nation. James Coleman's works influenced the Supreme Court on the issues of education, forcing Marxist indoctrination into the schools across the nation. James Coleman's professor, Paul Lazarsfeld was a member of the Frankfurt School. "Bloom's Taxonomies" indoctrinated the students across the nation and around the world with Marxism. Benjamin Bloom recognized Erick Fromm and Theodor Adorno as the "taxonomies" "weltanschauung." Both were members of the Frankfurt School. If you care to look, their influence and others who thought like them 'changed' the nation, that is negated the Father's authority in the home, 'changing' the Nation. Working from the Federal level down they took control of the Nation. They could only do that by negating the Father's authority in the home and in the individual.

Bloom wrote: "Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain was the publication of Jacob's Changing Values in College (1957)." (Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book 2 Affective Domain) The agenda was to replace traditional teachers with facilitator's of 'change' in college (as well in all institutions of education, at all levels), 'liberating' the next generation of citizens from the Father's authority in order for Marxist's to rule the nation and the world not having to fear being judged, condemned, or cast out for their immoral thought and immoral actions, called "theory and practice." Martin Luther warned us of what would happen if that was done: "I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt." (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207) Everyone loves dopamine, the "affective domain." Once addicted they can not give it up, following after, serving, supporting, protecting, defending, praising, worshiping, and even willingly dying for those who keep them on the drug. 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2024 (9/12/2024)

Overview Of The Dialectic Process.
(An older version and greater detail of the above.)

by

Dean Gotcher

Audios of the following: (Short intro to Intro) Intro to the Audios, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8.
Separate page and pdf for easier reading and printing of the following.

When it comes to behavior, dialogue, that is 'justifying' what you want to do negates discussion, that is what the Father has told you to do.

Short intro to the Intro of the website authorityresearch.com

"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 it comes to knowing right and wrong behavior, apart from the Word of God, that is apart from what the Father, and the Son say, that is apart from what you are told ("It is written") all you have is "sense experience," that is your opinion and the opinions of others, 'justifying' your and their self, that is 'justifying' your and their sin(s), that is 'justifying' your and their lusts ("self interests") before one another, which is dialectic 'reasoning,' that is the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, that is the 'reasoning' "of the world." Those "of (and for) the world" (of and for dialogue) seek to negate the father's/Father's authority, that is seek to negate their having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is seek to negate discussion where the father/Father has the final say, that is seek to negate their being held accountable for doing or being wrong, disobeying, sinning, replacing discussion with dialogue where they can think and act according to their carnal nature, that is where they can actualize their carnal desires of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, as well as question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack the father/Father and his/His authority without fearing being judged, condemned, cast out, silencing, censoring, and removing anyone who, adhering to the father's/Father's authority get in the way (of their lusting after pleasure), including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, and the righteous, doing so without having a guilty conscience (since the guilty conscience is engendered from the father's/Father's authority which they have negated). In dialogue you are god, doing what you please. In discussion God is God, with you having to do what he says. The unregenerate heart is based upon dialogue, lusting after pleasure, hating restraint. The regenerate heart on discussion, with God and His Word having the final say. When you base your conversation on dialogue instead of discussion, when it comes to behavior you are speaking the language of the world, 'justifying' your lusting after pleasure and your dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, that is toward the father/Father and his/His authority for getting in the way. This is what the dialectic process (dialogue) is all about.

What is missing in the world today is the father's/Father's authority (the father/Father telling those under his/His authority what is right and what is wrong behavior, preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is and obeyed/applied, and discussing any questions they might have with them, with the father/Father having the final say, and holding them accountable; which deals with the soul since the soul KNOWS by being told). All there is today is the children's/the people's self interests of the 'moment,' doing what they want (what they "feel" like doing, dialoguing with themselves and with others their carnal desires of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or object, people or person is stimulating; which deals with the flesh since the flesh knows by stimulus-response), void of Godly restraint—which is the effect of dialectic 'reasoning,' of self 'justification.' If we apply Fichte's formula (not Hegel's) of thesis, antithesis, synthesis to the establishing of right and wrong behavior, with the father/Father (being told) being the thesis, making the child (stimulus-response) the antithesis, there is no synthesis as the father's/Father's authority restrains the child from becoming at-one-with other children who's values conflict with those of the father's/Father's. But if we, when it comes to behavior make the child (a person's "feelings" and "thoughts"; the "affective domain") the thesis (which today is the case), thus making the father's/Father's authority (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth correlated to being "prejudiced") the antithesis, by negating the father's/Father's authority (called "the negation of negation") synthesis becomes actualized as the children become at-one-with one another on what they have in common, their lust for pleasure and their resentment toward restraint. Although this goes over most people's heads (it did not go over Karl Marx's) since there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, that is in "I feel" and "I think," that is in an opinion (it is only found in discussion, where the father/Father has the final say) communication (and therefore behavior) is today based upon dialogue, resulting in the father's/Father's authority now being limited if not excluded from the individuals thoughts as well as from society, and even from the "Church," men's opinions, that is men's "feelings" and "thoughts" now ruling the day, void of Godly restraint. When it comes to behavior, without the father's/Father's authority, accountability for one's thoughts and actions there is only the child's carnal nature, that is lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint in control of "the people's" thoughts, directly effecting ('justifying') their actions. This is the formula that now is in control of the minds of men, doing what they want, having no fear of God (living in the "eternal present" having no concern regarding where they will spend eternity after death), even in the "Church." What is wrong with eat, drink, and be merry "for tomorrow you might die" is you might die today. That changes everything, life (what you are thinking, what you are saying, and how you are acting right now) gets serious. (Luke 12)

Intro to the Audios

There were two plans in the garden in Eden (which continue today), plan A and plan B, that is God's plan and the master facilitator of 'change's' plan. God's plan is for you to do what you are told (which requires faith) while the facilitator of 'change's' plan is for you to do what you feel like doing (which is based upon sensuousness, that is stimulus-response). Yet there was a third plan, plan C a byproduct of plan B. While plan B is for you to disobey, disobedience is with a guilty conscience (with you still recognizing the Father's authority) retaining the father's/Father's authority in your thoughts plan C is different. It is disobey without having a guilty conscience (by 'justifying' your self you deny the Father's authority). The latter is dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e, using reasoning (which God gave you to reason from His Word) to 'justify' your self, that is to 'justify' your lust for pleasure, thus negating, in your mind there being a restrainer, that is accountability to God (a father/Father) for your carnal thoughts and actions, which is the spirit of antichrist—"He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22 The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is the praxis of antichrist. There is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is only your carnal desires of the 'moment' being 'justified.' "God is not in all his thoughts" "[T]here is no fear of God before his eyes." Psalms 10:4, 36:1.

These plans or paradigms directly correlate with communication. When it comes to knowing right and wrong behavior, when you use discussion (which retains the father's/Father's authority, that is the father/Father has the final say) you retain the father's/Father's authority in your thoughts ("What would my father/Father say") directly effecting your actions. When you use dialogue (the dialectic process, that is the language of "I feel" and "I think," that is "What can I get out of this situation and/or object, people, or person for my self") you are doing plan C. God only accepts His plan, doing what the Father says. "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 Plan B is you yielding to the temptations of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating yet having a guilty conscience for your thoughts and your actions (bringing you to repentance if you go back to discussion) while plan C is your listening to the master facilitator of 'change,' continuing to dialogue, that is to 'justify' your self, making your self god when it comes to knowing right and wrong behavior.. In discussion God is God, having the final say (with you walking by faith, trusting in the Lord). In dialogue you are god, having the final say (with you walking by sight, leaning to your own understanding). When it comes to the Word of God, that is to what God commands, whenever you use dialogue to define it you are breaking the first commandment, you are making your self god, that is you are making your self equal with and therefore greater than and therefore against God and His authority. "I will not give my glory unto another." Isaiah 48:11

When it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior the facilitator of 'change' rejects pure discussion, that is the father's/Father's authority, that is established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Since for him discussion is tied to belief, dialogue, which is tied to desires must always be present in establishing right and wrong behavior. Therefore he can only see a spectrim (a "paradigm shift," from pre- to post-paradigm) from dialogue confronting discussion to discussion "so called" being made completely subject to dialogue, making behavior (right and wrong) subject to men's opinions so he can sin, that is lust without being judged, condemned, and cast out, with everyone affirming, supporting, defending, praising, and worshiping him instead.

Bohm and Peat in their book Science, Order, and Creativity explain the difference between discussion and dialogue as a means of communication, where in discussion (when it comes to right and wrong behavior, that is when it comes to you having been told what you can and can not do) the father/Father has the final say, "Because I say so," "Do what I say or else," "It is written" etc., while in dialogue everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is there is no "top-down" father's/Father's authority system. "In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change." "A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "The spirit of dialogue, is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning."

Thus when a person lives in the language of discussion they do what they are told. For example Jesus stated: "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12:47-50 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 and in the wilderness He went to "It is written" as a response to the temptations, that is "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. You will notice that the Lord's description of the comforter, who is sent to the believer to help him in his walk, contains judgment for doing wrong. "If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." John 14:15-18 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 (This is why we study to show ourselves approved unto the Lord, the Holy Ghost bringing to our remembrance what we have read and heard from the Word of God.) "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." John 16:7-11

As long as a person remains in the language of discussion when it comes to behavior, that is to doing right and not wrong from being told he remains loyal to the father's/Father's authority system. While the earthly father can be wrong, the right-wrong way of thinking, that is the language of discussion remains in place. This is why the Heavenly Father, who is never wrong is the only Father for the believer, thus removing any confusion as to what is right and what is wrong behavior. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

In the language of discussion ("I KNOW") and dialogue, ("I feel" and "I think") both of which we all have, we can use dialogue ("I feel" and "I think" or "I like" and "I do not like") in what we have been told we can do (what trees we can eat the fruit of), that is we remain under the father's/Father's authority system but when we use dialogue in response to what we have been told we can not do we have usurped the father's/Father's authority, making ourselves the arbiter of right and wrong behavior (this applies to any situation or condition of restraint, where we have been told what we can not do). It is when we return to discussion with ourself we experience a guilty conscience for what we have thought, said, or done, either repenting or returning to dialogue with ourself and with others in an effort to 'justify' our carnal thoughts and carnal actions. "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts ["lusts"] which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it [out of fear of being judged, condemned, punished, and rejected]. To gain access [through getting him or her to dialogue, that is to share his or her "feelings," that is desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with others] is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

When the individual establishes what is right and what is wrong behavior through dialogue (where it is wrong to be continuously told you are wrong) he can do what he wants without having a guilty conscience, as long as he remains in dialogue with his self and with others (who will not judge, condemn, cast him out for what he is thinking, saying, or doing, that is who will not tell him he is "wrong," as dialogue can not function in an environment of continuously being told "you are wrong," as in a discussion, since in dialogue everything is an opinion). This is why children, politicians, friends, etc., who have participated in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process can not go into a true discussion with you when you question what they are saying or doing—with their insisting that you go into dialogue with them in order to have a "reasonable" (non-judgmental), "rational" conversation. Labeling you as being argumentative if you refuse to participate in the process of 'change'—if you refuse to abdicate the father's/Father's authority system. This is where we are today.

When men lean to their own understanding (when establishing right and wrong behavior) instead of trusting in the Lord, that is instead of doing the Father's will they are doing Genesis 3:1-6, that is doing what the master facilitator of 'change' wants them to do, that is 'justify' their self, that is 'justify' their lusts, establishing "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. Dialectic 'reasoning' (which is used by all philosophers, sociologists, psychologist, psychotherapists, facilitators of 'change,' etc., that is which is the wisdom of men) is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, that is the use of dialogue, that is of "I feel" and "I think," making men's opinions, along with their approval of one another, that is affirmation (the consensus process) the ground from which to establish right and wrong behavior—negating what the father/Father says, in the process negating men having a guilty conscience for doing their will instead of the father's/Father's. "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers) Contemporary education ("Bloom's Taxonomies") and society is based upon Genesis 3:1-6—used in order (as in "new" world order) for men in high places to enjoy the carnal pleasures (lusts) of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without having the father's/Father's authority (being judged, condemned, and cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating instead of doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth) and the guilty conscience it engenders getting in the way. All I have to do is 'create' a "positive" environment, that is a safe place/space/zone where your children, teachers, legislators, ministers, etc., can share their carnal desires, that is their self interest, that is their lusts without being judged, condemned, cast out, that is void of the father's/Father's authority, that is removing that which is "negative" to the flesh (thereby 'justifying' their lusts) and I "own" them, turning them against the father's/Father's authority for getting in their way. You can label it any name you want (there are many) they are all the same, that is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, negating the Father's authority in men's thoughts, directly effecting their actions.

Part 1

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

The natural (unregenerate) heart, making pleasure (dopamine emancipation) the purpose of life (instead of doing the father's/Father's will), becomes "desperately wicked" in its effort to protect its lust for pleasure (when it fears it being taken away; "I'll just die if you don't let me ....." "That's not fair." "I hate you."). It can not see its hatred of the father's/Father's authority (the Karl Marx in it) as being wicked ("desperately wicked") because its lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate.

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

This sums up man's effort to overthrow the father's/Father's authority system, from the garden in Eden until judgment day. It is what is going on today (called the dialectic process of 'change,' 'change' meaning stimulus-response, approaching and augmenting pleasure and avoiding and removing that which engenders pain, which includes the pain of missing out on pleasure, imagined or real). Instead of reasoning from what the father/Father says, from what the child/man is told, in dialectic 'reasoning,' 'reasoning' is from the sensation of the 'moment,' with pleasure being "good," missing out on pleasure being "bad" or "evil," 'justifying' the "conversion" of or silencing, censoring, and/or removal of those who do (and insist upon others doing) the father's/Father's will. Dialectic 'reasoning' is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 , that is of self 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, that is the father's/Father's authority, in the process negating Romans 7:14-25 , that is having a guilty conscience (a fear of being judged, condemned, cast out) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. When men reject/deny the father's/Father's authority, that is "justify their self, that is 'justify' their lusts before one another," dialectic 'reasoning,' that is Genesis 3:1-6 is what they are doing.

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

In dialogue ("I feel" and "I think"), opinion is treated as "fact," which makes commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to the current situation and/or object, people, or person present (imagined or real), that is subjective, engendering 'change,' 'rapid 'change' whereas in discussion ("I KNOW because ____ says so, that is I have been told," "It is written"), established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is the father's/Father's authority has the final say, that is is objective, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' at least 'rapid 'change.'' Using dialogue to establish right and wrong behavior makes anyone who tries to use discussion appear to be unreasonable, irrational, and argumentative (if they persist). That is the "power" of dialectic reasoning ('reasoning' through dialogue, that is through "feelings"), making anyone who insists upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is according to that which is "of the past" appear to be out of step with the times (and therefore irrelevant, thus being able to silence, censor, and remove them without a thought of what happens to them, that is the pain and suffering they are going through, and will continue to go through as a result of being silenced, censored, and cast out which includes violence or threat of violence against them). In dialogue you are god. In discussion God is God, you are not. Dialogue resides in the natural (carnal) heart, "I'll do what I want." Discussion resides in the regenerate heart, "Thy Word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalms 119:11 Genesis 3:1-6 (dialogue; "I feel" and "I think") was the woman's response to the temptation to sin (with Adam following). Matthew 4:1-11 (discussion; what the Father says, "It is written") was the Lord's response to the temptation to sin (calling all to follow Him, doing the same, that is doing the Father's will). "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50

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

The father/Father authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) and obeyed/applied and enforces them. The father/Father tells those under his/His authority what is right and what is wrong behavior and holds them accountable to what he/He has told them, engendering a guilty conscience (and a fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out) in them when they do wrong, disobey, sin, that is when they follow after lust instead of doing the father's/Father's will. The child's/man's natural inclination is to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating (which includes the affirmation, that is praises of other children/men) and to hate restraint.

Although the earthly father is born into sin (is guilty of lusting after pleasure instead of doing the Heavenly Father's will) the system of authority itself (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, being held accountable for doing wrong) is the same as the Heavenly Father who is holy, that is who knows no sin. In dialectic reasoning (using dialogue to establish right and wrong behavior, 'liberating' lust out from under the father's/Father's authority) it is the system itself (the father's/Father's authority system) that is under attack, with those "of (and for) the world" siding with the child's/man's, that is their carnal nature, establishing the child's/man's/their natural inclination to lust after pleasure over and therefore against doing the father's/Father's will, that is dopamine emancipation over and therefore against the father/Father and his/His authority, that is stimulus-response over and therefore against doing what they are told.

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

God did not negate the father's/Father's authority system (the Patriarchal paradigm). He simply established His authority over the earthly father's authority—no one or thing is to come between us and the Father, and His Son Jesus the Christ, who are one in agreement (engendering the "priesthood of all believers"—you can not fully understand the American Revolution and the original "Bill of Rights" [no one is to come between a father and his convictions, that is free speech and religion, property, and business, his family, that is his wife and his children, under God] without understanding this; the reason the original "Bill of Rights" are so vehemently hated by the left, that is by the 'liberals'). Those "of (and for) the world" seek to negate the father's/Father's authority system itself so they can lust in peace, that is without having a guilty conscience, with affirmation, that is without being judged, condemned, cast out, engendering "worldly peace and socialist harmony."

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11

The soul knows by being told. The flesh by "sense experience" (stimulus-response).

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

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16, 17

In a garden in Eden we find the "Father" (God) telling the "child" (Adam) what is right and what is wrong behavior (something he did with nothing else in the creation, which, being of nature, that is of the world is subject only to stimulus-response, that is approach pleasure and avoid pain—only man, made in the image of God can read and write a book, be told and tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior, with man knowing right from wrong by being told).

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? [this is a neurolinguistc construct (an imbedded statement in a question, sensitizing a person to their lusts, when it comes to right and wrong behavior, beginning the process of liberating a person's lust out from under their fear of judgment, that is out from under the father's/Father's authority)—which is one of the most powerful forms of hypnosis] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [she revealed her lust], lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die [removing the "negative," that is fear of judgment (which was not a lie regarding the here-and now, that is the tree itself did not kill her—or Adam—but a lie regarding the there-and then, with God removing her—and Adam—from having access to the "tree of life" for their disobedience, then, after death both coming to judgment, that is inheriting eternal life or eternal death)]: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise [evaluating (aufheben) from her senses, that is from her understanding she made her self god, that is the establisher of right and wrong behavior], she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:1-6 (emphasis added)

The "master facilitator of 'change'," that is the "master psychotherapist," by creating a safe place/zone/space, that is a "positive" environment where the woman could share her feeling and thoughts of the 'moment' regarding the "forbidden tree," without fear of being judged, condemned, cast out, seduced, deceived, and manipulated (beguiled) her into sharing her carnal feelings (to touch the "forbidden tree") and her carnal thoughts (there was nothing wrong with the tree, it was just like all the others trees, the only difference being she could decide for herself what was right and what was wrong behavior). "Justifying" her self, that is her lust, that is her self interest (stimulus-response) she ate the fruit thereof, with Adam (abdicating his office of authority) following.

When caught, like 'liberals,' refusing to confess they were wrong they both blamed someone else for their "bad" behavior, with Adam blaming the woman—"throwing her under the bus" (along with "the Father" for creating her, that is for creating an "unhealthy environment" for him to live in)—and the woman blaming the master facilitator of 'change'—"throwing him under the bus" for "helping" her 'justify' her lusts. The facilitator of 'change,' that is the psychotherapist, that is the Marxist, using the same method, that is through the use of dialogue is able to 'discover' what you covet, that is what you are lusting after, that is your self interest. He is then able to gain your trust, that is he has your best interest, that is your self interest, that is your lust(s) (what you covet) in mind. Having gained your trust he "owns" you, that is he is able to use you (as "human resource") to satisfy his lusts, that is his self interest with your affirmation—casting you aside when you no longer satisfy his lusts, that is his self interest or when you get in his way, doing to you what you did to the father/Father for getting in your way, that is in the way of your lust(s). It is the "game" you decided to play when you turned to him for direction (advice) instead of to the Father.

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." Psalms 1:1, 2

"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7

"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

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:26, 27

"Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it." Jeremiah 6:10, 13-19

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

Who you turn to for direction directly effects your thoughts and actions, to the father/Father, doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth or to those "of (and for) the world," lusting after pleasure, hating restraint (the restrainer).

"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

Genesis 3:1-6 is the first recorded event of dialectic reasoning (reasoning from "sensuous need," "sense perception," and "sense experience," that is the "lust of the flesh," the "lust of the eyes," and the "pride of life" aka "I can decide for myself what is right and what is wrong behavior, according to my carnal nature") being put into action (praxis). It is the same praxis being used today to 'create' a "new" world order, based upon "human nature," that is lust, rejecting the father's/Father's authority, that is Godly restraint.

Part 2.

"The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks)

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;" Colossians 3:9

The Greek word for "deeds" is praxis. Praxis is doing what you want, that is lusting after pleasure without having a guilty conscience., that is without having any sense of accountability (before God) for your carnal thoughts and carnal actions. "Praxis" is the imagination of the heart, unrestrained by the father's/Father's authority. The name for the National Test for teachers is "Praxis." Its title means exactly what it says, no righteousness found here, only that which is "of (and for) the world."

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

Facilitation of 'change,' that is psychotherapy, that is Marxism is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6. The role (duty) of the facilitator of 'change' et al is to move you (your spouse, your children, your teachers, . . . .), through dialogue (there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, have I said that already) away from the father's/Father's authority (system) so he (the facilitator of 'change' et al) can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without being judged, condemned, cast out, that is with your affirmation (chart). If the father says "I don't think" or "I don't feel like you should go out" he can not discipline the child for going out. It was only his opinion, the result of dialogue. In dialogue ("the dialectic philosophy") he has no authority.

"In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx's ideology, as explained by Friedrich Engels)

This ideology is found in a famous curriculum used by educators across the nation and around the world: "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 Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

Bloom's Weltanschauung,¹ that is world view, that is how a person perceives and responds to his self, others, the world, and authority was of two Marxists; "¹Cf. Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality, 1950," using dialogue (when it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior) to 'liberate' student's from their parent's authority. (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Fromm wrote (in the book Bloom referenced): "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society [lust] and of his own [lust] become identical." "... to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being ... who can feel at home in it [the world] if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature [his and other's carnal nature and the world that stimulates it]." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

Adorno wrote (in the book Bloom referenced): "Authoritarian submission [humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating one's "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "The 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) The "problem," according to Adorno is parental authority getting in the way of the facilitator of 'change's' (his) control of the children's/man's thoughts, directly effecting their actions. By the praxis of generalizing, labeling all parents as Fascists (or potential Fascists) the deed is done—in fact Fascism destroyed the father's authority in the home and God the Father's authority over man. By generalizing, details (facts and truth) are taken captive to (negated by) opinion (the feelings of the 'moment'), allowing whoever is generalizing control of the outcome. Whoever defines terms for you (or you allow to define terms for you) controls the outcome (your life).

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (Book 2: Affective Domain)

All "teachers" (as I was in 1971, from a "Christian" college) are certified and schools accredited (including private, parochial, "Christian," and home school) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies," that is Marxist curriculum (quoted above, with more quotations given below), used to 'liberate' children from their parent's authority and man from God's by replacing the father's/Father's authority (system or paradigm) with the students "affective domain," that is their lust for pleasure and resentment (hatred) toward restraint, that is replacing doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (doing the father's/Father's will, via generalization equated to being "Fascist") with stimulus-response—the idea being, create a "healthy" environment, void of the father's/Father's authority ("prejudice") and you can 'create' a "healthy" person, no longer judging, condemning, casting others out (dividing them from others) for their doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for their lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing what they are told. Prejudice against those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is prejudice against those lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating instead of doing the father's/Father's will results in their judging, condemning, casting those out who disobey the father/Father being 'justified,' since their way of thinking it based upon being told. In dialectic reasoning their way of thinking is replaced with prejudice against their insisting upon everyone humbling, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating their self, that is denying their lusts in order to do the father's/Father's will resulting in those hating the father's/Father's authority (system) judging, condemning, casting them out, that is removing them from the environment, that is from the world, that is killing them being justified, since their way of thinking it based upon stimulus-response.

All the facilitator of 'change' has to do (as the 'master facilitator of 'change' did with the woman in a garden in Eden) is get you, your spouse, and your children to share (dialogue) your and their opinion (feelings and thoughts) regarding right and wrong behavior and your authority as a father or parent (the father's/Father's authority system) is negated. There is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is only the participant's lusts, that is their self interest of the 'moment' being 'justified.' The same is true for your elected officials, your police, your educators, etc., even your "minister." This is what God has warned us about in His Word.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

"despotism ... predominates in the human heart." (George Washington, Farewell Address)

The American Revolution, unlike other revolutions, and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights that followed was based upon a King. Not a King (or a directorate, soviet, committee, etc.,) over a nation but rather the father in the home as King, that is private conviction (freedom of speech and religion), private property, private business, etc., being the right of the father, under God (unalienable rights). This limited the power of those in government, who, "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making," that is usurping the power (limits and measures) of the Constitution, that is the right of the citizens to establish law (according to their standards) would sell the liberties of the citizens in order (as in "new" world order) to satisfy their carnal desires (self interests) of the 'moment,' making and passing laws that would turn the citizens into their slaves ("human resource"). (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy For The Future: The Systems Approach to World Order) All I have to do is (through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process) "discover" your re-presentative's self interests, that is his lusts of the 'moment' and building relationship with him, offer to help him realize them and I "own" him, with him no longer re-presenting you but instead serving me, making him my slave as well as you as he passes law to take your God given rights away, gaining control over all you have, can say, and do so I can rule the world, using "the people" to pay for my fancy houses (estates), my fancy cars, my fancy boats, my fancy vacations, my fancy women without accountability ("governance")—figuratively speaking. (This is what President Eisenhower was talking about regarding the "military establishment," which has now become the global corporate establishment, including leaders of nations.) The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is the "building of relationship upon self interest," that is upon "What can I get out of this situation and/or object, people or person for my self?" which leads to "How can I convert, silence, censor, or remove those who judge, condemn, and threaten to cast me out? Doing whatever it takes to remove them in the name of 'the people.'" Where we find our self today as a Nation.

Part 3.

"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)

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called [that "seems to be" science, based upon opinion—there is no absolute in an opinion]: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21

As there is absolute in the laws of nature (which God has established and we discover) there is absolute in the Word of God (which God has established and has told us to obey). Making man (knowing right and wrong behavior) subject to the laws of nature, that is to stimulus-response makes man subject to the world only, which is the outcome of dialectic 'reasoning,' that is reasoning from our senses, that is from the flesh and the world that stimulates it (negating faith, that is being told, which deals with our soul).

"Lawfulness without law," where the law of the flesh ("sense experience") rules without the law of God (being told) getting in the way and "purposiveness without purpose," where the augmentation of pleasure is the 'purpose' of life, not doing the father's/Father's will. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

Without the Father, that is the Father's authority there is no law (law from above, that is from being told, there is only the law of the flesh, that is the law of stimulus-response, that is of "sense experience," that is "of the world"). Without the law there is no sin, that is being judged, condemned, cast out. Without the Son (obeying the law, that is doing what the Father says, in all things commanded even to death on the cross, covering our sins by his shed blood, imputing his righteousness to all who, repenting place their faith in him) there is no redemption, that is salvation. Without the Father raising the Son from the grave there is no reconciliation to the Father. In lust, in coveting, in dialogue there is no Father's authority, that is there is no established command, rule, fact, and truth, that is there is no sin, that is there is no redemption, that is there is no reconciliation, all there is is man (the child) 'justifying' his self, that is 'justifying' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure (that the world is stimulating) and hate restraint (the father's/Father's authority), that is all you have is stimulus-response, that is the 'justification' of lust, 'redeeming' man from the father's/Father's authority, 'reconciling' him to the world. In dialogue ("I feel" and "I think"), when it comes to right and wrong behavior all you have is the "prince of the power of the air," that is the master facilitator of 'change' and all who are following after (being seduced, deceived, and manipulated, as "human resource" by) him, lusting after pleasure (including the praises of men) and hating restraint (the father's/Father's authority) for getting in the way. In dialogue there is no Father, that is law. There is no Son, that is redemption. There is only you 'justifying' your self (your lusts) before men. In Christ Jesus alone is there redemption, that is salvation. In the Father alone is their reconciliation. All the rest is "of (and for) the world," with man dying in his sins, being cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who, following after him, establish self, that is lust (and the world that stimulates it) over and therefore against doing the Father's will. After having read over six hundred social-psychology books, which are foundational to our culture today, given over five thousand lectures from coast to coast, taught on the subject of dialectic reasoning in a University (all in the light of the Word of God), all I can say is, unless you are built upon the Son of God, Jesus Christ, doing the Father's will (walking in and pointing people to them) you have nothing of worth to say (no matter how important you might think you are or what you have to say is—it is all vain).

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12:47-50 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30 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 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:1 "So then faith cometh by hearing [being told], and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 "... do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10

"Protestantism [the priesthood of all believers, that is doing your best as unto the Lord, that is putting no one between you and the Lord, that is doing the Father's will] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung) Max Horkheimer was a Marxist, director of the Institute of Social Research a. k. a. "the Frankfurt School" for a time.

"Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations [opinions] of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds ... let us reject the word of man [the opinions of men]." (Martin Luther, Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer) What Luther found in the "Church" of his day, as he was seeking to be a "good" Catholic, was the use of dialogue to define the Word of God, making it subject to the opinions of men, making it subject to 'change,' that is no longer the Word of God—who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, that is throughout eternity.

"If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation [what the Father says], then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice) Jürgen Habermas was a Marxist, that is a member of the "Frankfurt School."

The 'change' process, that is Marxism. How it is done.

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

If I (through dialogue) gain access to what you covet, that is to what you are lusting after, that is your self interest and offer to "help" you attain (actualize) it I "own" you, that is I make you subject to my control. This is the hallmark of Marxism, that is the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process. Most Americans today (especially in high places) are Marxist in thought and do not know it or are unwilling to admit it—lusting after pleasure (which includes the praises of men), that is "building relationship upon self interest" instead of humbling, dying to, denying their self, that is their lusts, doing the father's/Father's will.

The dialectic process (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process) engenders the attitude "You can't tell me what I can and can't do. And if you do I'm going to get rid of you." (The "me," "I," and "I'm" can be replaced with "use," "we," and "we're." where "the group" or party says, "You can't tell us what we can and can't do. And if you do we're going to get rid of you.") It is in the dynamics of identifying with "the group" that the individual is 'changed,' replacing his being an individual in "a group," thinking and acting according to what the father/Father says, that is has told him, with "the group" now being in the individual, that is in his thoughts, having to suspend (set aside, that is negate) doing what the father/Father says in order to build relationship with others upon common self interests (lusts), directly effecting his actions. If I use the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process (the dialectic process) on your child(ren), your wife, your teacher(s), your neighbor(s), your doctor(s), your reporter(s), your sheriff, your town council, your legislator(s), your minister, etc., I "own" them, turning them against you and your authority as a father, negating (in their thoughts) any law that restrains them from taking control over ("owning") all they see (along with turning them against the authority of God the Father). For example, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in defiance to "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof," that is rejecting the Father's authority stated "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody," except to him (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), who, in his mind "owned" whatever he saw and behaved accordingly. (1 Corinthians 10:26; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) Georg Hegel, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself stated: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person [no "top-down" order] or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one," therefore your spouse, your children, your property, your business, and even your soul is not yours but are all subject to those who, lusting after pleasure and hating restraint reason dialectically, that is like the woman in the garden, "own" whatever they see.

Part 4.

"(T)he 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)

By moving the child's focus from being on the father/Father, that is on what the father/Father would say to "the group," that is to what all the children have in common (making the child and his carnal nature the basis of communication), the child's paradigm, that is his way of feeling, thinking, and acting toward his self, others, the world, and authority is 'changed.'

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

"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 Benne)

The following explains the difference between individualism and socialism, that is the father's/Father's authority (having to humble, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your self, that is deny your lusts in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is in order to do the father's/Father's will—refusing to compromise in order to "get along," that is refusing to built relationship, that is become at-one-with those who are doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is lusting) and the facilitation of 'change' ('justifying' your and others [including the facilitator of 'change's'] natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, that is that the current situation and/or object, people, or person is stimulating, thereby 'justifying' their dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred of restraint and anyone initiating and sustaining the father's/Father's authority system, either converting them or silencing, censoring, removing them if they continue to get in the way, that is refuse to participate and 'change'—refuse to compromise established commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to build relationship with those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is lusting, judging, condemning, casting them out instead). The father/Father demands no compromise regarding his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth. Relationship built upon self interest demands it. While in a traditional society the environment can contain both those who do and do not do the father's/Father's will those advocating stimulus-response (as all there is) must remove the father/Father and his/His authority (the father's/Father's authority system and the guilty conscience it engenders) from the environment in order for all to become as one, thinking and acting according to their carnal nature ('justifying' perverse behavior)—not judging, condemning, casting men out for their carnal (perverse) behavior, that is not being "prejudiced," except against the father's/Father's authority system and all who adhere (submit) to it.

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

I do not have to tell your child to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack your authority as a parent, all I have to do as a "teacher" (using "Bloom's Taxonomies" in my classroom) is 'justify" your child's lusts (his or her "affective domain"), "helping" your child "build relationship" with other children upon their common "self interests" and I "own" your child, turning your child against you and your authority as a parent.

"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 3:12

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

"Only when the immediate interests [the children's lusts, that is self interests] are integrated into a total view and related to the final goal of the process do they become revolutionary [overthrowing the father's/Father's authority in the child, in "the group," and in society]." "The whole system of Marxism stands and falls with the principle that revolution [negation of the father's/Father's authority in setting policy] is the product of a point of view in which the category of totality ["group think," what all children have in common, that is lust for pleasure and fear of losing it] is dominant." (Lukács) "Group think" begins with "What can I get out of this group for my self?" (lust for pleasure, which includes the approval of man) which then leads to "What will happen to me if the group rejects me?" (fear of man).

"Revolutionary violence [overthrow of the father/Father and his/His authority] reconciles the disunited parties [the children/"the people"] by abolishing the alienation of class antagonism [the father's/Father's authority over the children/"the people"] that set in with the repression of initial morality [lust]. … the revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life [hatred toward restraint, that is toward authority], which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers [the parents, the property owner, the business owner, etc., that is the father]. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate [hate and violence toward them], divide society into social classes [parents over children, owners over workers, God over man, etc.,], suppress justified interests [lusts], call forth the reactions of suppressed life [hate and violence], and finally experience their just fate in revolution [violence against and overthrow of their right of person (individuality, under God), right of conviction (speech and religion), property, and business]." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) Jürgen Habermas, a Marxist amongst Marxists has established the language of the World Court.

"The Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie [the traditional, "middle-class" family, requiring those under authority to honor authority] produces its own grave-diggers [children/students, dissatisfied with their parent's authority, 'justifying' their "self," that is their lusts before one another, killing their parents (at least not caring what happens to them)].'" (Lukács)

Karl Marx wrote: "For one class to stand for the whole of society, another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits. A particular social sphere must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right) Replacing the traditional leader with the facilitator of 'change' and the deed is accomplished.

"The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

With traditional leadership the individuals in a group are held personally accountable to commands, rules, facts, and truth that are established by the leader of "the group," only changing their position through persuasion while in a facilitated meeting the individual's paradigm, that is the way he feels, thinks, and acts toward self, others, the world, and authority is 'changed,' 'justifying' his lust for pleasure and dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, that is toward the restrainer (toward the traditional leader and all who follow after his way of thinking and acting, 'loyalty to "the group," that is toward his and its lust for pleasure and dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restrain now guiding this thoughts—instead of any command, rule, fact, or truth established by the father/Father—directly effecting his behavior).

"There is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members." "To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance." (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) Lust ("What can I get out of this situation and/or object, people, or person for my self?") is what binds the individual to "the group" (and to the facilitator of 'change'). Fear ("What will happen to me or what will they do to me if I get in their way or I do not go along?") is what keeps the individual subject to "the group" (and to the facilitator of 'change').

"Dissonance" or "cognitive dissonance" is "the lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief." (Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology) Yalom continues: "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their loyalty to the father's/Father's authority (system, way of thinking, or paradigm)] in the face of apparent group unanimity." The individual's desire (lust) for "the group's" approval, affirming his lust(s), that is the pressure or force of "the group" ('justifying' his lusts—see Force Field Analysis, Group Dynamics, and Unfreezing, Moving or Changing, Refreezing People, work done by Kurt Lewin) blocks out his desire for (blinds him to) the father's/Father's approval, who, instead of 'justifying' his lusts (as "the group" does or is doing), inhibits or block's him from doing (actualizing) what he is lusting after, that is prevents him from doing what he wants—judging, condemning, and threatening to cast him out for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or object, people, or person is stimulating (imagined or real), instead of humbling, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating his self, that is denying his lust(s) in order to do what he is told (by the father/Father), that is in order to do the father's/Father's will.

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:14-25

The law of God, that is of the soul is known by being told. The law of the world, that is of the flesh is known by "sense experience," that is by stimulus-response. Those "of (and for) the world," that is of stimulus-response, refusing to recognize eternal death (a consequence for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions) can only see the "eternal present," that is their lust of the 'moment' that the world (the current situation and/or object, people, or person) is stimulating, removing all who get in its (their) way.

"In this process [the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, that is dialectic process] the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity." (Rogers)

Part 5.

Belief (faith) is grounded in discussion, with the father/Father having the final say (engendering a guilty conscience along with a fear of judgment, condemnation, being cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting) while behavior (stimulus-response) is grounded in dialogue, in what a person feels and thinks in response to the world around him (imagined or real). In dialogue there is no father's/Father's authority, that is inheritance, posterity, history, tradition, unalienable rights, sovereignty, representation (representative government), limited government, local control, culture, heritage, absolutes (established commands, rules, facts, and truth), private convictions, private property, and private business, "limits and measures," being wrong, humbling, denying, dying to, disciplining, controlling, capitulating of "self," contrition, repentance, forgiveness, salvation, conversion—redemption and reconciliation—(for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning), fellowship, etc. They are all missing (negated) in and through dialogue. If I can get your "representative" into dialoguing his opinion to a consensus with me I have "emancipated" him from re-presenting you, I now "own" him. All the above are now missing in his making of law, that is in his establishing right and wrong behavior for the citizens. They are only found in discussion. Moving conversation from discussion, established commands, rules, facts, and truth to dialogue, feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' in response to the current situation and/or object, people, or person present (imagined or real) is what 'change' (the 'change' process) is all about—in order for the facilitator of 'change' to live in a world of 'change' without being held accountable to the father/Father for his thoughts (at least in this thoughts in the 'moment'), 'justifying' his carnal actions. While in a discussion a person can be wrong (regarding commands, rules, facts, and truth), the idea of right and wrong remains, in dialogue there is no wrong (except insisting upon right and wrong being the right way of thinking), there is only opinion, the persons thoughts of the 'moment' being expressed, which makes everything subject to 'change.' Fellowship is grounded in discussion. Relationship in dialogue, thus the "building of relationship upon self interest," through dialogue negating judgment, condemnation, being cast out for a person's carnal thoughts and carnal actions, negating "prejudice" based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth with prejudice now being toward anyone demanding all do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, getting in the way of what all people have in common, "the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," that is human nature, causing division.

"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity [from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, truth, changing their position only when persuaded with facts and truth that they are wrong, that is from faith to faith], though such a process is indeed possible [in other words, "We do not want to think about/focus on/accept that way of thinking"]. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness [from belief, that is faith and obedience (where lust is "repressed") to theory, that is opinion (where lust is 'liberated')], from rigid structure to flow [from "What does the father/Father want me to do?" to "What do I want to do?" and "What will 'the group' think?"], from stasis to process [from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth to self (lust) 'justification']." "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships [with those who are deviant, that is doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is lusting], which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others [those doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is lusting], guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing [his lust for pleasure (for lust) and his lust for "the group's" affirmation, 'justifying' his (and their) lusts—'justifying' his (and their) resentment toward anyone inhibiting or blocking his (and their) lust for pleasure, including his (and their) lust for approval from others—'justifying' his (and their) lust]– he has become an integrated process of changingness." (Rogers)

This is the essence of Marxism, where compromise (of any kind) is essential in order to initiate and sustain relationship with others. For the Marxist, individualism (under the father's/Father's authority) must be negated if man is to become at-one-with his fellow man, based upon what they all have in common, that is their carnal nature. According to Karl Marx:

"It is not individualism [the child, humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining, capitulating his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society [the child's desire for approval from others, requiring him to compromise in order to "get along," that is in order to "build relationship"] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality ["freedom" from the father's/Father's authority and "freedom" to "lust" after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, which the father's/Father's authority engenders] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

"The individual [the child/student] is emancipated [is liberated from the father's/Father's authority] in the social group [in the "group grade"]." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority] be assuaged." "Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." "Children have not acquired that sense of shame which, according to the Biblical story, expelled mankind from Paradise, and which, presumably, would be discarded if Paradise were regained [if pleasure (lust) became the agenda, that is the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life]." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination [on doing the father's/Father's will]." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious [in his urges and impulses of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world] unconvinced, and therefore neurotic [caught between his desire for parental approval and his lust for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, having a guilty conscience for thinking about or doing the latter]." "The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered ['liberated' from the guilty conscience, requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Man's sexual organs were made for a woman and a woman's for a man, with the "two becoming one," all for the purpose of pro-creation (the family with the parents in control). Making pleasure an end in itself moves both men and women beyond the marriage bed, with no limit in sight, with whoever and whatever engenders pleasure becoming an end in itself (debauchery prevails—see the issue on Divorce).

"Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people." (Mao Zedong)

When the focus is upon relationship, established commands, rules, facts, and truth must be set aside (suspended as upon a cross), negating the father's/Father's authority system, that is doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (no matter what the cost), negating judging, condemning, casting the person out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting in the process. The 'justification' of sin and the negation of anyone who judges, condemns, cast others out for sinning is the hallmark of Marxism, that is the use of dialogue ("I feel" and "I think") in establishing right and wrong behavior.

"Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism [dialogue] must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

In other words, "Not feeling at home" in a world of sinners, judging men (firing, demoting, not relating with, judging, condemning, casting men out) for sinning, "Critical Criticism" (dialogue; since in dialogue there is no father's/Father's authority therefore no guilty conscience, that is fear of being judged, condemned, cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting, that is for not doing the father's/Father's will), that is communication with self and with others, when it comes to behavior must be through dialogue ("Critical Criticism") which being "a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without" does not recognize the father's/Father's authority, thus 'justifying' the removal (negation) of the father's/Father's authority ("prejudice") from the environment so all can lust in peace (without having a guilty conscience) with affirmation (with everyone's approval, that is not judging, not condemning, not casting the deviant out)—in the classroom, in the workplace, in the community, in government, etc., including in the home (and even in the "church"). (More on the difference between discussion and dialogue explained farther down in the issue.) In brief any discussion which comes through dialogue is from the world, that is is from "sense experience" (lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint) and is not from the father/Father, that is is not from being told (which requires faith, at least at first until understood); when discussion comes via dialogue there is no limit or measure to what man can say or do, all is subject to the process of 'change.'—"In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about without regard for limit and measure." Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12; in dialogue all man ends up with is impulses and urges directing his thoughts, with no voice from above telling him right from wrong regarding behavior, that is how he should think and act. One is from vain speculation, that is opinion the other from being told, requiring faith. Reasoning from "sense experience" is antithetical to reasoning from what you have been told, making you subject to lust and the world that stimulates it, that is stimulus-response instead of doing the father's/Father's will—which Marxism is out to negate in order to 'justify' lust.

In his writing "The Holy Family" Karl Marx generalized regarding fruit trees, focusing upon what they all had in common, making that the basis of reasoning. Anyone with an orchard knows while there a common features with fruit trees it is knowing the details (how they differ from one another) you end up with a crop. By generalizing when it comes to man, only that which is of the world is recognized, using what God created in man (only in man), his ability to reason, to 'justify' his lust (in disobedience to God), that is what he has in common with all men, makes that which is of God moot in the eyes of man. "The big print giveth and the small print taketh away." While God commanded man to eat the fruit from all the trees in the garden, he commanded him not to eat the fruit of one (lest he die). Generalizing, that is making all trees the same via sight, the woman (as Karl Marx, with Adam following) negated the small print (the details)—as do all who use dialectic 'reasoning' (reasoning through dialogue, that is "I feel" and "I think") when it comes to knowing right and wrong behavior, making all subject to lust and the world that stimulates it (in defiance to God).

Karl Marx knew that by focusing upon sensuousness, all the world can be 'changed,' even the "believer." He wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the believer, the man of faith in God] also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, that is of faith, of true love, that is of love of God, of true will-power, that is of will in Christ [Karl Marx wrote this]. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

Karl Marx knew that by getting even the believer to focus upon sensuousness, even the believer could be 'changed.' "It is not sensuality which is presented ..., but mysteries, adventures, obstacles, fears, dangers, and especially the attraction of what is forbidden." (ibid.) emphasis added.

"... every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" James 1:14,15

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:18 ". . . every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 "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

"Without exception, [children] enter group therapy [the "group grade" classroom, the consensus meeting] with the history of a highly unsatisfactory experience in their first and most important group—their primary family [the traditional home with parents telling them what they can and can not do]." "What better way to help [the child] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment, hostility] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [the facilitator of 'change]? The [facilitator of 'change'] is the living personification of all parental images [takes the place of the parent]. Group [facilitators] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions [teach right from wrong from established commands, rules, facts, and truth], they urge the group [the children] to explore and to employ its own resources [to dialogue their "feelings," that is their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' in the "light" of the current situation, that is their desire for "the group" approval (affirmation)]. The group [children] must feel free to confront the [the facilitator of 'change'], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation [rebellion and anarchy]. He [the child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [brainwashing—washing respect for and fear of the father's/Father's authority from the child's brain (thoughts) ] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role [submitting to the father's/Father's authority, that is doing the father's/Father's will] he once occupied. … the patient [the child] changes the past by reconstituting it ['creating' a "new" world order from his "ought," that is a world "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or people are stimulating, that is a world void of the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience which the father's/Father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for "lusting" after pleasure in disobedience]." (Yalom)

The student/man is forced (under the pressure of the "group's" approval or rejection of him) to choose between either doing the father's/Father's will, that is being told (judging, condemning, casting out those who disobey the father/Father), thus facing rejection by "the group" or becoming at-one-with "the group," that is 'justifying' lust (what comes naturally to everyone in "the group," that is judging, condemning, casting out those who adhere to the father's/Father's authority system).

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

By replacing the traditional educator with a facilitator of 'change' the student's ("the people's") way of thinking (and therefore their behavior) is 'changed.' "Change in methods of leadership is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of a group." "Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development) As long as the father's/Father's authority system remains in place the process of 'change' can not be initiated or sustained. "The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition [their identity] within the whole [within "the group," through dialogue 'justifying' their lusts]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

By replacing (in the environment) what the father/Father says (demands) with the child's/man's "feelings" of the 'moment' (that the environment, that is that the situation, object, people, or person is stimulating) the child/man is 'changed.' "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 [one's lusts] 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)

What does the "group grade," the consensus meeting, the soviet (of the "former" soviet union), the directorate (of the French Revolution), the ministers alliance, "bipartisanship," etc., have in common: they are (were) all 1) a diverse group of people (which must incorporate the deviant), 2) dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process, there is only the participants lusts, that is their self interests of the 'moment' being 'justified' and supported), 3) over social issues (producing worldly peace, where everyone can lust without feeling guilty and socialist harmony, where everyone can lust without being judged, condemned, cast out), 4) in a facilitated meeting (since the process does not come naturally, that is needs someone to initiate and sustain it) 5) to a pre-determined outcome (that no decision be made without steps 1-4 being carried out—in order to negate the father's/Fathers authority in establishing rules, policies, and law, that is in establishing right and wrong behavior, that is negate having to humble, die to, control, discipline, capitulate one's self, that is deny one's lust in order [as in "old" world order] to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is in order to do the father's/Father's will) in order [as in "new" world order] for everyone to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world (that the current situation and/or object, people, or person) is stimulating, without the father's/Father's authority getting in the way (being in their thoughts, directly effecting their actions). "There is no type of past behavior too deviant for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established." (Yalom) People think the "Berlin Wall" came down because Communism was defeated when in fact it came down because Communism had succeeded, using the consensus process (group therapy) in order to negate the father's/Father's authority while establishing right and wrong behavior, directly effecting everyone's actions.

Part 6.

All I have to do in order to "own" your child, that is turn your child against you and your authority is place him or her in with a group of children not judging, condemning, casting anyone out (except those fighting against the group's participation), requiring everyone to be "positive," that is tolerate of ambiguity, 'justifying' sin and not "negative," judging, condemning, casting out those who sin and ask them how they "feel" and what they "think" when they are told what they can and can not do.

The dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus 'justifies' their self interest, along with their belongingness to "the group," which has now become more important to them than their parents, that is their parent's authority. In dialogue (when it comes to behavior) the child, deciding right and wrong behavior according to his or her carnal desires, that is lust of the 'moment' (setting aside, that is suspending as upon a cross any command, rule, fact, or truth that is getting in the way of the pleasure of the 'moment' and the approval of his or her peers, his or her concern being with the "here-and-now"—with "What can I get out of this situation and/or object, people, or person for my self) is God. In discussion he or she is not God (with doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth having the final say, his or her concern being with the "there-and-then"—with what he or she has been told in the past and the consequence of his or her thoughts and actions in the future).

"In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change." "A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "The spirit of dialogue, is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) The negation of the father's/Father's authority in the mind of the children (controlling their thoughts, thus their actions) is what contemporary education, with its emphasis upon the "affective domain" is all about (even in the private, parochial, "Christian," and home school). If you are more concerned about your child's social life then where he or she is going to spend eternity, you are a socialist. You can deny that (all day long) but you can not refute it. To be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is to make unrighteousness the "norm."

The guilty conscience is engendered from doing wrong and not right according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is not doing the father's/Father's will. The "super-ego" from stimulus-response., that is approach pleasure and avoid pain (which includes the missing out on pleasure). "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:'" (Brown) "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." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing) It is the guilty conscience that restrains the father's/Father's authority in society—the person refusing to compromise (set aside a. k. a. suspend) what he has been told (in order to initiate or sustain relationship with others who are doing wrong). "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society." (Book 2: Affective Domain) In other words it is society that engenders right and wrong behavior, 'justifying' compromise (setting aside a. k. a. suspending what you have been told) in order to initiate and sustain relationships. If society is to be rid of the father's/Father's authority that gets in the way of relationships the guilty conscience for doing wrong disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting has to be negated. Negate the fear of judgment, condemnation, being cast out when it comes to establishing behavior and the guilty conscience is negated, effectively negating the father's/Father's authority in the person thoughts, effecting his actions. "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality) This is what being "positive" (tolerating, that is 'justifying' lust) and not "negative" (judging, condemning, casting out the one who lusts) is all about.

Those "of (and for) the father's/Father's authority system" are "prejudiced" against using dialogue ("I feel" and "I think") when it comes to what the father/Father says (always including "Thou shalt surely die," that is accountability to the father/Father for their thoughts and actions in their conversation with their self and with others). Those "of (and for) the world" are "prejudiced" against using discussion ("I KNOW," that is established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is what the father/Father says) when it comes to the lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating (leaving out and denying "Thou shalt surely die," that is accountability to the father/Father for their thoughts and actions in their conversation with their self and with others).

The father/Father holds you accountable to obeying and applying his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth. The facilitator of 'change' 'liberates' you from the father's/Father's authority, thus 'liberating' you from his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth—in order for you (and him) to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience, no longer having a fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out for your (and his) immoral behavior. In the consensus process all policies, rules, and laws are void of the father's/Father's authority system. "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making [negating the father's/Father's authority while establishing policy and/or making law, that is while establishing right and wrong behavior (using dialogue instead of discussion—the true meaning of the word—when it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior accomplishes the deed aka Praxis] our objective center's upon transforming public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common [lust] interests and ultimately to world interests, transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus [getting rid of the father's/Father's authority, especially in establishing right and wrong behavior] 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) It is in "the group" you set aside (compromise) the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth (suspend the truth, as upon a cross) in order (as in "new" world order) to initiate and sustain relationship—based upon your and the other persons common self interest, that is upon your and their lusts of the 'moment' that you and they have in common.

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

In other words, father's demanding their children do what they say (as Kings demand the citizens do what they say) cause division between the children (the people) of the world, dividing them from one another upon what their father (the King) commands, inhibiting or blocking 'change.' Only by the children finding what they have in common, that is their lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint can they become one. It is only in lust that the world stimulates (and hatred toward restraint) that 'change' can be initiated and sustained.

"The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society [not from the father's/Father's authority] but from the nature of human society [from the child's carnal nature, that is lust]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

Our Highest Court once recognized the effect of the "Christian" faith upon this nation and the world. "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 [men's opinions or the Father's authority]. 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) In ROE V. WADE the court wrote: "there has always been strong support for the view [opinion] that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973) Stoicism is an offshoot of the work of Heraclitus who wrote: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." Karl Marx based his ideology off of the work of Heraclitus, as the Highest Court in America has done, where lust is now established over and therefore against the father's/Father's (the Constitution's) authority. "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state [the court]." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making" has accomplished the deed.

Without 'change' taking place in education, 'change' can not be initiated and sustained.

"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3)

"A change in the curriculum is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents ....." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." "... people involved who were loyal to the older pattern must be helped to transfer their allegiance to the new." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group." (Benne)

Martin Luther, of the Protestant Reformation wrote: "I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt." (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207)

"My advice has been that a young man avoid scholastic philosophy and theology like the very death of his soul." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.258) It was the ideology of Aristotle (and all philosophy), that by creating a "healthy" environment you can develop a "healthy" person, that Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation rejected. No man is righteous, righteousness can only be imputed to man by God, by man's faith in the Son, Jesus Christ and in the Father alone (by the work of the Holy Spirit).

Karl Marx's response to education in his day was: "Education as yet is unable and unwilling to bring all estates and distinctions into its circle. Only Christianity and morality are able to found universal kingdoms on earth." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

Part 7.

It was in the 50's that Karl Marx's process of 'change' took over the nation via the introduction of "Bloom's Taxonomies" into education (John Dewey had an eroding effect but this was a complete coup de grace). "Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain was the publication of Jacob's Changing Values in College (1957)." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book 2 Affective Domain)

The "teacher" using "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, basing education upon the "affective domain," that is upon the students self interest, that is upon their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and resent (hate) restraint takes on the role of a "facilitator of 'change.'" The facilitator of 'change,' perceiving his self as being the personification of "the people," who, like him lust after the carnal pleasures of the moment the world stimulates, hating restraint, sees it as his duty to 'justify' the students' natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to 'justify' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure. When you question the facilitator of 'change's' actions he (or she) will respond with "It is not just about you," really meaning "It is all about me, so I can lust after pleasure without being judged, condemned, cast out, without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, that is 'justify' my lusts or get in my way 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since having 'justifying' their lusts I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for my 'good.'" This is the true meaning of "sight based management."

The soul KNOWS by being told, the flesh knows by "sense experience." You persuade with facts. You manipulate with feelings. This is the difference between discussion and dialogue. In dialogue (which is subject to your feelings) you do what you are told because you have to (or else—fear of judgment, condemnation, being cast out and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting after pleasure keeps you under the parent's/God's control). In discussion (which is subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) you do what you are told because you want to (you want to do or be right and not wrong).

The facilitator of 'changes'' objective is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) This is antithetical to God and His Word. "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5-6

Right and wrong behavior is no longer known by being told, that is by the Word of God, that is by faith (which is objective) but known by "sense experience," that is by "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," that is by sight, that is by perception, that is by what "seems" to be (which is subjective), that is by "What can I get out of this situation and/or object, people, or person for my self?" which leads to "What will happen to me if they reject me and turn on me?" (engendering fear of man instead of God).

"Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

You can not leave the Father out without leaving the Son out (doing the Father's will)—who the Father sent to 'redeem' us by his shed blood on the cross. And you can not leave the Son out (doing the Father's will) without leaving the Father out—who raised the Son from the grave in order to 'reconcile' us to Himself.

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

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

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

Dialogue contains that which we like and desire to have (and do not like and want to avoid). Discussion that which is right (and wrong) according to external (established) commands, rules, facts, and truth that we have been taught (told). When we take dialogue into the area where we have been told not to go (think upon or do) lust is made manifest (along with hatred toward restraint, that is hatred toward missing out on pleasure). Establishing behavior upon dialogue 'liberates' the child/man from the father's/Father's authority, making them subject to lust and the world that stimulates it only (stimulus-response).

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

Our body naturally produces a chemical called dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is "emancipated" or "liberated" into a small gap called a synaptic gap between two nerve endings, the posterior of the first nerve "emancipating" it, the anterior of the second receiving it. Dopamine engenders the sensation of pleasure. All habitual drugs are tied to it (emancipating it, imitating it, preventing its re-uptake). The child is not in love with the toy. He is in love with the dopamine the toy stimulates in him. Man is not in love with the situation and/or the object, people, or person. He is in love with the pleasure (dopamine emancipation) the situation and/or object, people, or person is stimulating, that is "emancipating" (whether imagined or real). It is the sensation of pleasure along with the sensation of hate (toward whoever is inhibiting or blocking, that is preventing dopamine emancipation), that is that which the situation and/or object, people, or person is stimulating , that is only that which is "of (and for) the world" that Karl Marx was (and those of "behavior science," that is stimulus-response are) focused on.

"Sense experience must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Karl Marx simply secularized 1 John 2:16, redefining "the lust of the flesh" as "sensuous need," "the lust of the eyes" as "sense perception," and "the pride of life" as "sense experience," where only that which "is of the world," that is which "only . . . proceeds from Nature" is all there "is," that is is "actual." Psychotherapists think the same way.

"If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "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." "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." 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." "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." (Rogers)

It is therefore the father's/Father's authority system, that is that which engenders "prejudice" against dopamine emancipation, that is that which prevents the child/man from becoming his self, that is self actualized, that is only "of the world" that has to be negated in the child's/man's thought, directly effecting his actions (his reaction toward his self, other, the world, and authority) in order for the Marxist and psychotherapist to control them and therefore the world. Rejecting the father's/Father's authority all those "of (and for) the world" can recognize is stimulus-response, that is the child's/man's (their) natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, perceiving the earthly father's authority as engendering the Heavenly Father's authority.

"The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, that is annihilated, that is negated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

While the heavenly Father is holy and the earthly father is born into sin both have the same authority system, preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is (at first at least by faith) and applied, discussing with those under his/His authority any questions they might have regarding his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, providing he/He deems it necessary, has time, those under his/His authority are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his/His authority, 2) rewarding those who do right and obey, 3) correcting and/or chastening those who do wrong and/or disobey, that they might learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to the established commands, rules, facts, and truth they have been taught (told), that is in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, and 4) casting out (expels/grounds) those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack his/His authority, which restrains the father's/Father's authority system in the child's/man's thoughts, directing effecting his actions, resulting in the those under the father's/Father's authority KNOWING right from wrong from being told (especially when it comes to behavior). Traditional education, while it might inculcate bad or wrong information replicates this way of thinking and acting. Transitional education, where little instruction takes places is bad. While Transformational education, which rejects the father's/Father's authority is wicked. Rejecting the Father's authority, Karl Marx (and all who adhere to stimulus-response when it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior) determined that faith in God, that is the Heavenly Father was the result of children accepting and submitting to the father's authority in the home, thus requiring the negation of the earthly father's authority in order for man to become at-one-with his self and his fellow man, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature (what he has in common with all men) without restraint.

Lenin (of the Russian Revolution) put it this way: "The peasantry [the traditional family] constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie [the father's/Father's authority system]—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920)

The essence of Marxism is leaving out of your conversation (your communication) with your self and with others the father's/Father's authority, that is God's judgment upon, condemnation of, and casting out those who sin—that man might repent. For the facilitator of 'change' and the person who follows after him "God is not in all his thoughts." "[T]here is no fear of God before his eyes." Psalms 10:4, 36:1

"As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950)

Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm were members of the "Frankfurt School," officially the Institute of Social Research, while Kurt Lewin, who edited their newspaper was not. Kurt Lewin's work on Force Field Analysis, Group Dynamics, and Unfreezing, Moving or Changing, Refreezing People was imperative to its success.

Part 8.

Transformational Marxists ("The Frankfurt School" a. k. a. "The Institute of Social Research") merged Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. "Marxian theory [society] needs Freudian-type instinct theory [man's natural inclination "lust ..."] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, that is including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions ['liberation' of "self," that is lust from the father's/Father's authority] are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions [submission of "self" to the father's/Father's authority] stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Psychology is in line with Marx's ideology.

Sigmund Freud as did Karl Marx set out to negate of the father's/Father's authority. While Karl Marx began with society Sigmund Freud began with the individual. "... 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." "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the husband/father no longer exercises his authority in the home, over his wife/children]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)

Sigmund Freud's history of the prodigal son is not of the son coming to his senses, humbling his self, returning home, submitting his self to his father's authority, learning his inheritance was not his father's money but his father's love for him (Luke 15:11-24), but of the son joining with his "friends," returning home, killing the father, taking all that was his (the father's), using it to satisfy their carnal desires, that is their lusts, killing all the fathers in the land so all the children could be the same, that is like them, thereby affirming them, that is their "incest," 'justifying' and supporting their control over them.

"To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Brown)

"... 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.'" (Marcuse)

All that "is" "is of the world," that is is stimulus-response, which is passing away (is only of the 'moment,' that is the "eternal present"). Only what is of and from God, that is being told and obeying by faith is of eternal value. You can not have faith without being told. Likewise you can not have mercy without first being found guilty. 'Justifying' your self, that is your lusts, that is your self interest negates your salvation. [To] "'purge [man] of sin' with all the aids of the dialectics, therefore, is to rob him of true salvation, of his eternal destiny." (Rene Fulop-Miller, The Power and Secrets of the Jesuits, p.468.) "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" which is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him, 'justifying' their lusts, establishing "human nature," that is their carnal thoughts and carnal actions as being equal with, therefore greater than, and therefore against the father/Father and his/His authority. Revelation 10:15

You do have a choice, either choose to deny your self, that is die to your lust, pick up your cross, that is endure the rejection of others for denying (reproving, correcting, judging, condemning, rejecting) them for establishing their lusts and the lust of others over and therefore against doing the Father's will, and follow the Lord Jesus Christ, doing the Father's will, inheriting eternal life or choose to 'justify' your lusts and the lusts of others, dying in your sins, inheriting eternal death. If you use or participate in the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus—suspending the truth, that is Jesus Christ upon the cross in order to initiate and sustain relationship with others) in the classroom you choose to die in your sins, that is you choose to spend eternity in the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him instead of following after the Lord, doing the Father's will, inheriting eternal life.

Proverbs 3:5, 6 "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."

Marxists, socialists, psychotherapists, facilitators of 'change,' Communists-Fascists, that is Globalists can not gain control of "the people" as long as the earthly father's authority (being personally held accountable to doing right and not wrong according to the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is to what the father says) and the Heavenly Father's authority, above the earthly father's authority (being personally held accountable to doing right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is to what the Father says) remains in control of the individual's thoughts, directly effecting his actions (engendering individualism, under God). While the Heavenly Father is from above and the earthly father is below both require those under their authority to humble, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their self, that is to deny their lusts in order (as in "old" world order) to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is in order to do the father's/Father's will. In order (as in "new" world order) for Marxists, socialists, psychotherapists, facilitators of 'change,' Communists-Fascists, that is Globalists to initiate and sustain control over "the people" they must first negate the father's/Father's authority system (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, demanding others do the same—equated to "prejudice") in the environment where right and wrong behavior is being determined (defined and established), in the process negating the guilty conscience that the father's/Father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, that is the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is so they can "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the world, that is the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating with impunity, that is with "the peoples" ("the group's") affirmation, negating (removing, without having a guilty conscience) anyone who gets in their way (including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous). Perceiving their "self" as being the personification of "the people" (since "the people" "lust" and they "lust," "lust," that is "human nature" being the common denominator—making "lust," that is what all people have in common the basis for common-ism) anyone questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking them (hurting their "feelings," i.e. getting in the way of their "lusts") is perceived as questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking "the people," 'justifying' (in their mind) their need to negate them—silence, censor, 'label' them as being unfit ("mentally ill") and "terminate" them. When their actions are questioned they will respond with "It is not just about you," really meaning "It is all about me, so I can lust after pleasure and remove anyone who gets in my way without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, that is my lusts or get in my way 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since having 'justifying' their lusts I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for my 'good.'" (This is the true meaning of "sight based management.") It is in the dialectic (dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process), "group grade," facilitated, "Bloom's Taxonomy" classroom that Marxism, socialism, psychotherapy, Communism-Fascism, that is Globalism has been and continues to be propagated in this nation (and around the world)—negating the earthly father's authority in the home and the Heavenly Father's authority in the individuals thoughts, directly effecting his or her actions, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, that is the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating. Mao's "long march" across America began in earnest in the fifties and sixties with the introduction of "Bloom's Taxonomies" (Marxist curriculum) in the classroom. Their use continues to this day—unabated (not only in the public schools, but also the private, parochial, and even home schools today—putting the father's/Father's authority, that is established commands, rules, facts, and truth aside in order to "get along"). Any teacher questioning the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," that is the dialectic process, that is the facilitation of 'change,' that is Marxism in the classroom today will be looking for another job (in another profession, if they can find one that is not doing the process), after being silenced, censored ('labeled' as being unfit to teach), and "terminated" (negated). The same applies to anyone questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the process of 'change,' that is Marxism, socialism, psychotherapy, Communism-Fascism, that is Globalism, that is the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, that is the facilitated meeting, that is the 'justification' of "lust" ("self"), that is the "building of relationships upon self interest," establishing self interest, that is lust, that is "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority wherever they work, play, and/or worship.

"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

Leaving the father/Father, that is the father's/Father's authority, that is the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is the father's/Father's will out of your conversation with your self and with others—so you can do wrong disobey, sin, that is so you can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, that is that the current situation and/or people or person is stimulating without having a guilty conscience (removing anyone who gets in the way of pleasure, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous)—is the hallmark of Marxism, that is the so called "new world order," with the facilitator of 'change,' who 'justifies' lust and the world that stimulates it, that is the flesh (which is passing away) in control (of "the people's" mind, that is what information—"positive," "appropriate" information— they can think on and say, effecting their actions and the actions of others) instead of the father/Father, that is doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth which (under the Father's authority) deals with the soul (which is eternal). Academics, which deals with the creation (which God created) and behavior (which God has established the standards for) is now Marxist, void of the father's/Father's authority (accountability for ones thoughts and actions according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth), with pleasure, that is lust, that is the "eternal present" being the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose,' requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority in order to "actualize" it.

Continued . . .

Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2024