Replacing Discussion With Dialogue

The following covers the issue of contemporary education. It is intended for parent's, students, teachers, the general public, those in government, and even the "Church." It explains why and how what is happening in the workplace, in government, and even in the "Church" is taking place. It is academic, meaning it has many quotations by those who developed it along with scripture to expose their agenda. Sharing the following in liberal Universities as a guest speaker I always heard from the professors, in front of their students "We can not refute a word you said." It may require some intense thinking but I encourage you to read it all the way through as much important information is added in the middle and at the end (if you get bogged down move ahead and catch what you skipped over later, it will be easier to understand then). I use a computer generated voice so I apologize up front for mispronunciation of words, speeding up, slowing down, and pauses made by the speaker. Also the speaker does not recognized brackets, that is comments added to quotations. You will have to read the transcript for the exact quotation as information is added to make a few quotations easier to understand.

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."

Replacing Discussion With Dialogue.
(When it comes to behavior.)
(Audios Part 1, Part 2 1 hr. + each)

Dean Gotcher

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."

When it comes to knowing right and wrong behavior discussion, when what the Father says, with the father having the final say is replaced with dialogue, with how we feel and what we think in the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, with us having the final say "Pandora's box," a box full of evil is opened and, once opened it is difficult if not impossible to be closed again. While God gave us dialogue that we would share with one another what we like and do not like in the creation, when we use it to establish right and wrong behavior we establish our lust for pleasure and resentment or hatred toward restraint over and therefore against the Father's authority, that is doing God's will. Dialogue is tied to the heart of the child, lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, hating restraint. Dialogue, as is the heart is void of the Father's authority. Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" The heart, thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will can not see itself as being "wicked," that is "desperately wicked" striking out against anyone who gets in the way of lust because its lust for pleasure is standing in the way 'justifying' the hate. 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." Psalms 36:1-4 "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 10:3, 4 "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." 2 Timothy 3:2-5 "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 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." 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." As David made it clear in Psalms 119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." In other words, "Discussion, what you say God, with you having the final say have I hid in my dialogue, what I want to do, that I might not do what I want and sin against you."

John 5:30 Jesus said: "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." 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 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Luke 9:23-26 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."

If you are still dialoguing with yourself when you have been told what you are to do or not do, you have not accepted what you have been told. Karl Marx understood the heart of man, his use of dialogue to 'justify' his self, to 'justify' his lusts, hating restraint, that is being told what is right and what is wrong behavior, having to do the Father's will. 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) Karl Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right explained what he meant by "criticism?: "Criticism is now simply a means. Indignation is its essential pathos, denunciation its principle task. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis." The Greek word for deed in Colossians 3:9, "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds" is praxis. That praxis being man, having 'justified' his self, his lusts sinning with no sense of accountability. As the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci explained it: "The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) In dialogue, praxis becomes reality since there is no fear of God, no sense of accountability for one's thoughts and one's actions in dialogue. In praxis you do not have to attack the Father, thus giving Him recognition, all you have to do is leave what He says out of your communication with your self and others and He becomes irrelevant, something to be removed from the environment when He shows up and gets in the way. That is why you are asked to be "positive" and not "negative" in meetings, asked to leave discussion, that is what the Father says, the Father's authority out of the conversation (other than to criticize Him, call Critical Theory, Critical Criticism, Critical Race Theory, Critical Thinking, etc.,). Richard Paul, in his Critical Thinking Handbook wrote: "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts." In dialectic reasoning since everything is perceived as being an opinion, the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth are only a concept, a notion, not to be accepted as is, as absolute. I am not trying to overwhelm you with quotations but it is one's like the following that reveal the purpose for psychology with its use of dialogue when it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior. The agenda is to circumvent the Father and His commands, rules, facts, and truth, treating Him and them as irrelevant, as getting in the way of "human nature," preventing man from becoming himself, at-one-with himself and the world. The Marxist Norman O. Brown in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History, explaining the purpose of psychology with its use of dialogue wrote: "By dialectic, I mean an activity of consciousness, struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." All Brown is saying is "I am trying to figure out how I can get around what my parents just told me to do." That is all dialectic 'reasoning' is. When discussion is replaced with dialogue, when it comes to establishing behavior that is what is going on. Instead of reasoning from what you have been told dialectic 'reasoning' is trying to figure out how to get around what you have been told, Dialectic reasoning is used to get around any law of restraint, what the parent says, the Constitution, "Rule of Law," the Word of God so the person can do what he wants instead of having to do what he has been told. No one can swear to uphold any contract or covenant who 'Reasons' dialectically. He might swear it but he can not do it. As Karl Marx explained, it is "intolerant of any influence from without." Explaining the merging of psychology and Marxism, focusing upon the ideology of Sigmund Freud the Marxist Herbert Marcuse, in his book Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud (from where we get "If it feels good, just do it") wrote: "... 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." 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 (devouring the fathers) 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. Irvin Yalom explained in his book Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy: "Freud noted that . . . patricide and incest … are part of man's deepest nature." It that is not clear enough for you this might be. Norman Brown: "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" Herbert Marcuse: "... 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.'"

You discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth, what you have been told, accepting them or not accepting them as is. You dialogue what you like and what you do not like, making what you are thinking and talking about subject to your feelings, subject to 'change.' In discussion truth is objective, not subject to you feelings. In dialogue truth is subjective, not subject to being told. "Trusting in the Lord with all your heart" is discussion. "Leaning to unto your own understanding" is dialogue. That which "of the Father" is discussion. "The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," that which is "of the world" is dialogue.

When God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, he did something with him He did with nothing else in the creation, He, a "living God" breathed the breath of life into man, making him a "living soul." He then did something else with him He did with nothing else in the creation. He told him what he could and could not do. All of creation, including the flesh of man is subject only to stimulus-response, with living organisms that includes impulse, urges, and instinct, the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain. Only man can read and write a book, can be told or tell someone else what to do and what not to do. No animal can read or write a book, can be told or tell others what to do and what not to do. Man's ability to reason comes from God, with God telling man what he can and can not do, with God having the final say. Yet Adam could also reason from his flesh, how he felt. Herein lay a problem. While he could have discussion with God, with God having the final say since in discussion God is God, he could not dialogue with God, making himself equal with God, since in dialogue he is god. Bring all the animals to Adam could not solve the problem, even God recognized it. You can only dialogue with your self so long before you go crazy. There was nothing in the creation Adam could dialogue with. 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." By creating the woman Adam had someone to dialogue with, "I like the fruit of this tree but not that one so much. What do you think?" When you eat out at a restaurant for example, you tend to pick the foods you like and avoid the ones you do not like, dialoguing with yourself and with others "I like this (fill in the blank) but I do not like that (fill in the blank). But when you have been told a food you like is bad for your health your language can change from dialogue to discussion. When you dialogue with yourself you will eat the food you like but if you discuss with yourself you most likely will not, if you care about your health. In discussion, God is God, having the final say. In dialogue you are god, having the final say. It was when the woman took dialogue, "I feel" and "I think" into the realm of "can not," "must not," "Thou shalt not" she became god over the garden, deciding for herself what was right and what was wrong behavior, negating the authority of God. Adam abdicated his authority under God for relationship with the woman, following after the woman instead of obeying God, making dialogue, doing his will and her will more important than discussion, doing God's.

Bohm and Peat in Science, Order, and Creativity explain the difference between discussion and dialogue. Regarding discussion they wrote: "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." Regarding dialogue they wrote: "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." In a discussion the child has to do what he is told, making him subject to the Father's authority. In dialogue, at least in his mind the child can do what he wants without restraint, making him equal with all the children of the world, lusting after pleasure and hating restraint. In discussion the child KNOWS from being told. In dialogue he knows by experiencing it for himself. This is the difference between traditional education, which uses discussion when there are any questions, with the parent having the final say and contemporary education, which uses dialogue when there are any questions, with the children having the final say. The objective of contemporary education is as the Marxist Wilfred Bion explained in his book A Memoir of the Future to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." In dialogue, without the restraint of discussion the child can say and do what he wants, he has the final say.

Discussion makes us subject to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, toward what we have been told while dialogue makes commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to our feelings, making them subject to our carnal nature, to our lust for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating and our dissatisfaction, resentment, or hatred toward restraint, toward the Father's authority, toward being told what is right and what is wrong behavior, making them subject to 'change.' Have you heard the word 'change' recently. This is what 'change' is all about, making everything subject to stimulus-response instead of being told, subject to the flesh instead of God. Discussion and dialogue, both of which we have are totally different political systems. Which one you turn to when it comes to behavior determines your paradigm, how you feel, think, and act toward your self, toward others, toward the world, and toward authority. There is a consequence to which one you turn when it comes to determining right and wrong behavior. Our framing Father's knew the condition of man's heart. George Washington in his Farewell Address stated: "despotism . . . predominates in the human heart." Without the restraint, without the Father life is only "of and for self and the world that stimulates it," "What can I get out of this situation, this object, these people, or this person for my self—to satisfy my lusts?"

It is the Father who authors commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be learned and applied and enforces them engendering a guilty conscience in those under His authority when they do wrong, disobey, sin, when they lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates do what they want instead of what the Father says. By simply removing the enforcement, the fear of being judged, condemned, or cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, that is the guilty conscience is removed from the mind of the individual. When you are told "You can share your feelings and thoughts here without being judged, condemned, or cast out," or "Ye shalt not surely die" when it comes to behavior the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates is negated, You can not see it since you are getting what you want, what you are lusting after. In dialogue, the "super-ego," the moral standards of society, which requires compromise replaces the guilty conscience, which demands no compromise. By simply replacing discussion, which 'justifies' the Father's authority with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, which 'justifies' the child's carnal nature civil society is negated requiring a police state in order to keep order. Why would anyone want such an outcome? In doing so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is they can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without being judged, condemned, and cast out, removing anyone from the environment who gets in the way of their lusts, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, and the righteous without having a guilty conscience, with "the people's" affirmation. It is a subtle formula, called the dialectic process with devastating results. It is the formula which was used by the master facilitator of 'change,' the master psychotherapist in a garden in Eden. Everyone is willing to participate because they can do or get what they want, what they are lusting after instead of having to do what they are told, having to miss out, not knowing in rejecting the Father's authority they are losing all their God given rights. Where are the fathers in the home today? They for the most part are missing, thinking and acting like children of disobedience, doing what they want instead of doing what they are told, lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating doing what they want instead of doing what the Heavenly Father says. Enamored with their dialogue, with their "I feel" and "I think" when it comes to behavior, 'justifying' their lust for pleasure they refuse to have a discussion with God, with God having the final say. When dialogue is used to establish right and wrong behavior it negates not only the earthly father's authority in the mind of the person it the Heavenly Father's authority as well, both needing discussion in order to be heard and obeyed.

The Marxist Kenneth Benne in his book Human Relations in Curriculum Change wrote: "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." In dialogue a person's "private convictions," that is his refusing to compromise his principals or suspend his belief is a vice, since his refusing to dialogue gets in the way of using dialogue, that is accepting men's opinions as the means to establishing right and wrong behavior, making right and wrong behavior ever subject to 'change' for the sake of initiating and sustaining relationship. It is what is taking place in the contemporary classroom with teachers using what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies," as their curriculum, their political system what Benjamin Bloom stating in the first "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain is Marxism ideology, paraphrasing Marxist ideology, as explained by Friedrich Engels. "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Benjamin Bloom: "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,"

An overlook of what is to follow in this issue, explaining the difference between discussion and dialogue: Discussion requires faith, being told what is right and what is wrong behavior while dialogue requires sight, sense experience, how you feel and what you think. Hebrews 11:6 "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." Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." How those "of and for the world," facilitators of 'change,' psychotherapists look at life is life is only based upon the flesh and the world that stimulates it, upon stimulus-response, with living organisms that includes impulse, urges, and instinct. 'Reason' is therefore to be used to 'justify' stimulus-response, "human nature," which is grounded upon the approaching of pleasure and resenting of restraint. Anything that is not of "human nature," not of stimulus-response, not of the world is spirit, preventing man from becoming himself, only of the world. Rejecting faith in God they therefore determine God is 'created' when children submit themselves to their earthly father's authority, with the father telling them what they can and can not do that gets in the way of stimulus-response, that gets in the way of what they want to do. The father's authority, to them is spirit, which requires faith that gets in the way of stimulus-response, impulse, urges, and instinct, preventing the child from becoming himself, self-actualized, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature. In their mind 'reasoning' is therefore to used to overcome spirit, faith, and the Father's authority, since it is being told what is right and what is wrong behavior and having to obey that gets in the way of "human nature." Lust is therefore any impulse or urge that is not subject to spirit, to faith, to what the Father says. Lust counters what you have been told you can not do that gets in the way of what you want to do. Lust is therefore a part of "human nature." Therefore in their mind there is no lust and therefore no sin for disobeying the father since their is no father's authority to disobey. Until the child has been told what he can and can not do that gets in the way of his carnal nature the child, in their mind is normal. 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) Karl Marx based his ideology, not only off of the philosophy of Georg Hegel, which he criticized, but also off of Heraclitus. Heraclitus: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." Karl Marx therefore established 'justice' not on what the Father says but upon the carnal nature of the child: "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." (Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Isaiah 3: 4, 5, 12 "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Those "of and for the world" come to the conclusion, anyone judging, condemning, casting a person out (not hiring them or firing them if they were hired, chastening or grounding the child) for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating instead of doing what they are told is an enemy of "human nature" and therefore needs to be removed from the environment in order for them to be at peace with themselves and to be in harmony with the world, which includes the rest of mankind. There agenda is "worldly peace and socialist harmony." This requires, in their mind that all children be 'liberated' from the father's authority in the home and in education, 'liberating' them from being told what is right and what is wrong behavior, having to do that which gets in the way of "human nature," that gets in the way of lust.

The issue for those "of and for the world," facilitator's of 'change,' psychotherapist's is where does spirit, that is the heavenly Father's authority, that is faith in God come from. To them it comes from children obeying their earthly father when what he says gets in the way of their carnal 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) They then do not attack faith in God directly, telling the child how to think (that is left up to his peers), but 'justifying' the child's carnal nature, his propensity to lust, to sin turns the child against his earthly father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting after pleasure instead of doing the father's will, negating faith in God in the process. 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) Vladimir Lenin, the instigator of the Russian Revolution and first dictator over Communist Russia in his famous speech in 1920 stated: "The peasantry [that is the traditional family] constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie [that is the 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) The Marxist Erick Fromm, a member of the "Frankfurt School," a group of Marxist who came to America from Frankfurt Germany (thus the name) fleeing Fascist Germany in the early thirties, in his book Escape from Freedom 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." The Marxist Theodor Adorno, also a member of the "Frankfurt School" in his book The Authoritarian Personality wrote ". . . a tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." "Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. Eradication means re-education." Karl Marx: in his Third Thesis on Feuerbach wrote: "Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." "Bloom's Taxonomies" by which all teachers are certified and schools accredited today, as noted by Benjamin Bloom in his second "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain are based upon the "Weltanschauung" or world view, that is political system of two Marxists, both quoted above, Erich Fromm and Theodor Adorno. Bloom noted as a result of teachers using his "taxonomies," Marxism as their curriculum in the classroom: "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." More on these "taxonomies" later on.

You notice the trend of parent's letting their children do whatever they want, their job being to protect their children from harming themselves as they do what they want. 'Reasoning' then is used to serve and protect the flesh and the world that stimulates it, 'liberating' it from spirit, from the Father's authority, from being told what the child can and can not do. This is the 'liberals' mindset. Truth then becomes subjective, that is subject only to the world. To the Marxist truth is subject to feelings, to the "affective domain," making feelings a fact to be applied in every situation, judging whether the person is a friend of "human nature," of the world or an enemy. The carnal nature of the child and the world that stimulates it is a friend. The Father's authority that gets in the way of the child's carnal nature is the enemy.

Dialogue when used to define and establish behavior blinds a person to the end result of his carnal thoughts and carnal actions. 1 John 2:18 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." James 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." 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?" 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."

Any time you are told to be "positive and not negative" in a meeting you are being told to leave the Father's authority, that is spirit, that is faith in God out of the room, out of your communication with yourself and others. This directly correlates with how we communicate with our self and with others. Dialogue, "I feel" and "I think" sides with the flesh and the world that stimulates it. Discussion, on the other hand sides with the Father, doing what you are told, with the father having the final say. Theodor Adorno: "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "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." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." The error in Adorno's 'logic' is that all forms of socialism must negate the father's authority in the home and the Father's authority in the mind of men in order for the socialist to rule over "the people." By generalizing the patriarchal paradigm, which includes God himself is falsely equated to being "Fascist," cutting of any discussion with the father, since his authority is no longer recognized as being acceptable when it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior. This makes the child's carnal nature the author of what is right and what is wrong behavior, making discussion subject to dialogue (what is called "the oppositions of science falsely so called" in the Holy Scriptures), making reasoning subject to human nature, making "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,? "only that which is of the world" all there is in life. Robert Owen's son explaining his father's socialist project in America noted all his father created was a culture of lazy, incompetent, and vicious people. "All cooperative schemes which provide equal remuneration to the skilled and industrious and the ignorant and idle must work their own downfall. For by this unjust plan they must of necessity eliminate the valuable members and retain only the improvident, unskilled, and vicious."

By making "human relationship" the focus of life, dialogue, the child's carnal nature replaces discussion, negating the Father's authority when it comes to defining and establishing what is right and what is wrong behavior. Focusing on the family, forcing the father to dialogue with the family in establishing right and wrong behavior, in building "relationship" negates the father's authority in the family. Right behavior is thereafter of the child's carnal nature. Wrong behavior is doing the Father's will, doing what you are told, doing what gets in the way of the child's carnal nature, that gets in the way of "human nature." "Human rights," "the group" or "the people" is antithetical to your unalienable rights, individualism, under God. In defiance to faith in God, to the Father's authority, doing what you are told Karl Marx wrote: "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) It is in society compromise of established commands, rules, facts, and truth is required, called the "super-ego," overcoming adhering to what the Father says, faith in God which engenders the "guilty conscience" which causes division amongst "the people." Mao Zedong wrote: "Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people."

In contrast discussion is right-wrong thinking, making all subject to doing what the Father says, reasoning therefore is made subject to obeying established commands, rules, facts, and truth, doing what you are told while dialogue is along a spectrum from erotic love to outright hate. According to those "of and for the world," rejecting absolutes, which method of communication a person uses with himself and with others determines his mental and social health, where along the spectrum of 'change' he resides. The stronger his commitment toward discussion, when it comes to behavior the more conservative he is, the less "healthy" he is. The stronger his communication is toward dialogue the more liberal he is, the more "healthy" he is. To the Marxist, which means of reasoning he uses when it comes to issues of life, to behavior determines his mental and social health. This then determines his position in society., whether he should be in a position of influence or not. This is how the "group grade" is determined in the classroom. It is how everyone is graded in all walks of life. Right behavior being only "of and for the world," of dialogue when it comes to behavior. Wrong behavior being doing the Father's will no matter what the cost. It is why Christ Jesus was put on the cross, Caesar being more important then the Word of God, dialogue, man's carnal nature being more important than discussion, doing what the Father says. While the earthly father can be wrong it is the right-wrong thinking that is under attack here. Dialectic reasoning is antithetical to the Word of God. It is the reasoning now being used in all walks of life. The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is the spirit of antichrist being put into praxis in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church," negating the father's authority in the home. The plan being therefore to negate man's faith in the Heavenly Father above, "the group," "human relationship" being more important than doing His will, negating man's ability to stand alone when "the group" is wrong.

Our framing father's did not get rid of the King. They made the father in the home King over his family, his property, and his business, ruling over them according to his convictions, creating citizens with a guilty conscience when they did wrong, disobeyed, sinned. Marxist's, who defend sin, as well be explained below have worked from the Federal Government down using the classroom to 'justify' the children's carnal nature, overcoming the father's authority in the family in order for them to "own" the children, being able then to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates with their affirmation, thereby no longer 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 stimulates they are able to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust without having a guilty conscience.

By simply replacing discussion with dialogue when it comes to behavior accomplishes the deed, the Praxis. It is where we are now as a nation with everyone, including in the "Church" doing what they want (even in the name of the Lord) instead of, dying to their self doing what the Father says. The plan is ingenious, when it comes to behavior by simply replacing discussion, where the Father has the final say with dialogue where you have the final say you will dump the Father in a moment's notice in order to get what you want in the here-and-now. In that way you do not have to attack the Father. He simply becomes irrelevant since there is no Father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process. In dialogue, in an opinion, and in the consensus process there is only your hearts desire, your lust for pleasure and dissatisfaction, resentment, or hatred toward restraint being 'justified.' Who can resist? Especially when "everyone" is doing it. 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." Without the Father there is no law. Without the law there is no sin. Without sin there is no need of a savior. Without a need of a savior there is no need of Jesus. Without Jesus you can do what you want without having a guilty conscience, dying in your sins. That is the plan.

When it comes to behavior when you replace discussion with dialogue dying in your sins is the outcome. Discussion will not save you but without it you can not be saved. Most people can not hear and receive this (I find myself speaking into a barrel not hearing my voice come back) because they are in so much love with their dialogue, with their lusts they are blind to where it is taking them. 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." Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." 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." 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."

Discussion is of the Father, being told, "I KNOW because I have been told," Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." with the Father having the final say (an either-or, either you obey or you do not). Dialogue on the other hand is of the world, "I feel" and "I think," that is which type of bread the child likes to eat and which type he does not, with the child having the final say (along a spectrum from erotic love to outright hate). Discussion is of the soul. Dialogue is of the flesh. Discussion requires you to do what you are told, to "trust in the Lord with all your heart." In dialogue, "leaning to your own understanding" you 'justify' what you have done (or have not done), are doing (or are not doing), or intend on doing (or intend on not doing). The world renowned psychotherapist Carl Rogers, in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy explained the significance of psychotherapy, where dialogue, "leaning to your own understanding" replaces discussion, "trusting in the Lord, doing what the Father says," resulting in communication being moved from "It is written," or "God says" to "I feel" and "I think," negating the Father's authority, faith in God in the process. 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?'" Carl Rogers then wrote: "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." Dialogue is subject to the "affective domain," to dopamine and other chemicals our body naturally produces that are associated with pleasure, to "What about me?" or "What can I get out of this situation, this object, these people, or this person for my self?" which not only effects the individual but all of society. Man lusts not only after the pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates but also after the approval of others, called affirmation. In dialogue he is not concerned about where he will spend eternity since the pleasures of the 'moment,' the "here-and-now," the "eternal present' blinds him to the "there-and-then," the consequence of his carnal thoughts and carnal actions, which will be carried out in the future. What the Father says, warning him about the consequence of this carnal thoughts and carnal actions he can not see, seeing only that which brings him pleasure "in the now." As Benjamin S. Bloom, in his book Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain explained it, Benjamin Bloom: "The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." Move education from the Father's authority, from discussion, from what the Father says, with the Father having the final say to the child's carnal nature, to dialogue, to the child's "affective" domain and you 'change,' that is you destroy the nation. When he "grows up" and goes into government he will run the nation into debt, ruin the nation without having any concern, getting what he wants in the here-and-now.

Bloom then explained what the "affective domain," that which he wanted 'liberated' from the Father's authority is. Benjamin Bloom: "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.'" "Pandora's Box" is a mythological story of a box full of evil, which once opened can not be closed. It is "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," the heart of the child void of parental or Godly restraint, lusting after pleasure, hating restraint, striking out against anyone who gets in his lusts way. James 4:1-3 "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."

Traditional education is based upon the Father's authority system (called the Patriarchal paradigm), where the teacher, as a Father authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be obeyed or applied and enforces them. Contemporary education is based upon the child's carnal nature, where the teacher, as a facilitator of 'change' creates an environment where the students can unite with one another, that is build relationship with one another based upon what they have in common, their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and resent or hate restraint (called the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change'). Traditional education and contemporary education, that is the Father's authority and the child's carnal nature are antithetical to one another. You can only have one or the other at one time. Trying to merge the two only causes confusion, referred to as the Matriarchal paradigm, since in structure of thought and behavior, the wife wanting to obey the husband yet the mother wanting to have relationship with the children, Laissez-faire is the outcome, with the child's carnal nature winning the day, "I can do what I want and you do not have to listen to me complain." In greater detail, just for the record in traditional education the teacher preaches commands and rules to be obeyed, teaches facts and truth to be learned and applied, and discusses with the students any questions they might have at the teacher's discretion, providing he or she deems it necessary, has time, the students are able to understand, or are not questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking authority, rewards and encourages the students who do right and obey, corrects the student who does wrong, chastens the student who disobeys, and casts out (that is grounds or expels) the student who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, or attacks the teacher's authority, thus initiating or sustaining the Father's authority in the students way of thinking and acting. In contemporary education on the other hand the teacher, as a facilitator of 'change' 'creates' a safe place-space- zone, a "be positive not negative," open-ended, non-directive environment where the students, as a group, which must be inclusive, that is be "tolerant of ambiguity," that is include the deviant and-or immoral student, dialogue their opinions to a consensus (to a feeling of oneness) over personal-social issues without fear of being judged, condemned, or cast out, 'liberating' themselves from the Father's authority so they can lust after pleasure and hate restraint without having a guilty conscience, with one another's affirmation. In this way, the student's lust for pleasure, that is "human nature" becomes more important than having to do what the Father says, resulting in fear of God, being held accountable for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions no longer is present in their thoughts, directly effecting their actions, resulting in their no longer judging, condemning, and casting the immoral or deviant person out, now judging, condemning, and casting the person who judges, condemns, and casts the immoral or deviant person out instead, making deviancy and immorality, that is sin the "norm." In traditional education or discussion lust for dopamine is restrained, the child is detoxed of the drug of pleasure. In contemporary education or dialogue lust for dopamine is 'justified,' the child is detoxed of parental and Godly restraint.

Dopamine, one of the chemicals our body naturally produces is 'emancipated' or 'liberated' (those are the words used) into a small space between nerves, called a synaptic gap, conveying information to the brain (and in the brain) that the body has come into contact with something in the environment that is pleasurable. We are not only hard wired but also chemically based to know what is pleasurable in the environment. Our carnal nature is to approach pleasure and avoid pain, which can be the mental pain of missing out on pleasure. Coming into contact with some situation, object, people, or person in the environment can stimulate dopamine, looking and thinking upon it can stimulate dopamine, the approval or affirmation of others can stimulate dopamine, and having control of what stimulates dopamine can stimulate dopamine as well. When told we can not have or do what stimulates dopamine and wanting to do or have it anyway is known as lust. This is what 1 John 2:16 is defining. All habitual drugs are tied to dopamine, stimulating its 'emancipation,' imitating it, or preventing its re-uptake (preventing it from being recycled so it stays in the synaptic gap longer). When told we can not have or do what stimulates dopamine forces us to choose between either doing what the Father says or doing what we want. Discussion sides with the Father. doing what we are told, missing out on having or doing what stimulates dopamine. Dialogue on the other hand sides with dopamine, doing or having what we want, that is what we are lusting after. God gave us dopamine, and dialogue that we would enjoy His creation and the food we eat, not that we would worship it instead of Him. The child is not in love with the toy. He is in love with the dopamine the toy stimulates in him (imagined or real). 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."

When it comes to behavior when you replace discussion, "I KNOW" with dialogue, "I feel" and "I think," that is replace the Father's authority, the child having to humble and deny his self in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, having to do what he is told with the child's carnal nature, with the child's feelings, his "affective domain" which includes lust, the child's carnal nature, that is lust controls his thoughts, directly effecting his actions. 'Liberated' from parental authority, from having to do what he is told he can then do wrong, disobey, sin, that is he can lust after pleasure and strike out against restraint, removing anything that gets in the way of pleasure without having a guilty conscience since in dialogue there is no wrong to be guilty of, wrong being that which inhibits or blocks dialogue, that gets in the way of the "affective domain," that gets in the way of lust. He literally is on a drug. No longer detoxed by the father's restraint he is now "owned" by anyone offering him more. When it comes to behavior discussion ("I KNOW") and dialogue ("I feel" and "I think") are two different political systems. They can not occupy the same space at the same time. Which one you turn to when it comes to behavior determines your paradigm, how you feel, think, and act toward your self, toward others, toward the world, and toward authority.

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 dad (the "earthly father") is not perfect, he may be (or may have been) a down right tyrant (or Missing In Action or AWOL)—as a child lusting after pleasure without restraint—his office of authority is perfect, having been given to him by God (the "Heavenly Father") who is perfect, in which to do His will. When it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior it is important that he discuss with his children any command, rule, fact, or truth they question, providing he deems it necessary, has time, they are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his authority. Without the discussion, the earthly father explaining where those under his authority went wrong, admitting he was wrong (when he was wrong), as well as allowing them space in which to dialogue with him about wrath can develop in the child (the pathway to Marxism). Kenneth Benne pointed out: "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." The charlatan can not run off with the farmer's daughter until through dialogue he finds out what she is unhappy with her father about. Offering to give her a "better life" he is able to "own" her, then when she no longer brings him pleasure, he finds someone else who brings him more pleasure, or she gets in his way he easily casts her aside, his love all along being for pleasure instead of for her. The same is true for the predator, the pimp, and the pedophile. The facilitator of 'change,' the psychotherapist, making life subject to stimulus-response makes these his profession (if not in action at least in thought), making life subject to his lust for pleasure and the augmentation of it its 'purpose,' instead of doing what the Heavenly Father says. All who come before him are seduced, deceived, and manipulated like one of Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats, Pavlov's dog in order for him, while he "helps" them to satisfy his lusts. Dialogue, when it comes to behavior reveals his agenda. God flooded the world not only because man did evil things but because he thought them as well. Genesis 6:5 and Genesis 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;" He tells us to 2 Timothy 2:22 "Flee also youthful lusts:" In psychology you "embrace" them. Luke 17:26, 27 "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." The "old" marriage vow was "for better or for worse, until death do us part." It now includes, having replaced discussion with dialogue "or until someone better comes along."

In discussion parents have the final say, while in dialogue children have the final say. When it comes to behavior when you replace discussion with dialogue you turn children against parental authority. The same is true for faith in God. In discussion God has the final say. In dialogue man has the final say. When it comes to faith when you replace discussion with dialogue you turn man against God's authority, you destroy faith. It is called dialectic reasoning.

It is what happened in the garden in Eden where the master facilitator of 'change,' the master psychotherapist manipulated the woman into using dialogue to establish behavior, using "I feel," and "I think," as in "I feel like touching the 'forbidden tree,'" satisfying "the lust of the flesh," and "I do not think there is anything wrong with it. It is just like all the rest of the trees," satisfying "the lust of the eyes," and then realizing it was able to make her wise, where she could think for herself instead of having to be told, satisfying "the pride of life," instead of "I must do what God the Father wants me to do?" making how she felt and what she thought her means to determine right and wrong behavior, with lust for pleasure being right and restraint being wrong, resulting in her doing her will instead of the Father's, with Adam following after her instead of obeying God. In the temptations in the wilderness the Lord Jesus Christ never went to dialogue but remained in discussion instead declaring "It is written" in response to all three attempts by the master facilitator of 'change,' the master psychotherapist to draw Him into dialogue, as he was able to draw the woman into in the garden in Eden.

All therapy is based upon dialogue, 'liberating' all who participate from their parent's and God's authority. There is no other agenda (despite what might be said). There is no other outcome. You can only do one or the other when it comes to behavior, with discussion retaining the parent's and God's authority, dialogue negating it. When you start with discussion (when it comes to behavior) God is God, negating dialogue, you being god. But if you start with dialogue, where you are god, God, that is discussion, having to do what you are told has to get out of the way so you can be god with all the god's of the world (called Gnosticism). This is the formula of Marxism, Socialism, Globalism, which can not become actualized while God the Father, having been rejected by the Marxist's, Socialist's, Globalist's, that is while the earthly father has authority over his family, property, and business, insisting upon discussion, where he has the final say instead of dialogue, where the children have the final say, where then the Marxist, Socialist, Globalist, the facilitator of 'change,' the psychotherapist, known as the "deep state," the "shadow government," etc., can "own" the children, using them as "human resource" to actualize their own lusts, never held accountable to what happens to "the people."

Since now there is access to all your likes and dislikes, every cash transaction you go through, that is not direct cash transfer between you and the customer, is subject to the "Deep State," who President Eisenhower referred to as "the military establishment." This includes all Federal and State grants which are structured on a Federal Grant called BSTEP, Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program (December 31, 1969) which reads: "During the period of innovation [that is where 'change' is taking place, where you are getting what you want without "risk"], an environment is invisible. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it. It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment." In other words by replacing discussion, "rule of law," what you have been told that prevents you from having and doing what you want, with dialogue, getting what you want that you have not been able to have or do in the past, now having it without fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out you will not know what you have lost until after it is too late, having submitted yourself and everyone else to new form of government (replacing discussion with dialogue) having given up what you can never get back again, your liberty from control of lust. One third of that grant shows how to track people, another third on how to develop psychological portfolios on them and the last third on feasibility studies, that is where the world will be by 2100, 2000 (in 1969 stating no one with be out of contact with their workplace any time any where in the world - pre cellphone time) and the first year being a year a book was named after, 1984—the book describing what the grant was all about). All must willingly participate in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, the praxis of Marxism in order to be a recognized member. The process is not successful until no one can escape.

A man I knew would always say "You send your newly elected school board off to a conference or convention and they come back with a lobotomy. You can no longer talk to them." It does not matter the profession. It applies to anyone participating in the process. Everyone who participates in the consensus process has to replace discussion with dialogue when it comes to behavior, making it impossible for the average citizen to have an honest discussion with them on the issues. There is no representation in dialogue except the process itself. This is why local union members, being family (discussion) based have a difficult time understanding why those who climb the ladder become non-family (dialogue) based in their thinking. One thing Karl Marx wrote about in The Holy Family was the use of generalization (that is become dialogue based in their communication) in order to circumvent discussion, that is to evade details which stand in the way of socialism, which cause division, being able thereby to hide the real agenda from the publics understanding, that is the negation of the father's authority in establishing right and wrong behavior. Anyone trying to dig into the generalization is perceived as being argumentative, the "enemy." Ministers, calling themselves facilitator's of 'change,' using the dialectic process in the "Church" use this method of generalizing as well, silencing any "dissension." This bypasses anti-trust laws in that any one who participates in the process has instant identity with someone else who has had the same experience, both uniting as one no matter the issue in overcoming anyone who stands in the way of the process itself.

So, what is Marxism? Marxism is simply the rejection of the earthly father's authority when it comes to defining and establishing behavior in order (as in "new" world" order) for the child to become himself, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, that is that the current situation, object, people, person is stimulating (imagined or real) without having any fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out, thus being able to do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, hating restraint, that is hating the father and his authority, questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking him and and his authority for getting in his way—since the earthly father insists the child do right and not wrong according to his established command, rules, facts, and truth, chastening him when he disobeys, preventing him from becoming himself, preventing him from thinking and acting according to his carnal nature. Having rejected the Heavenly Father and His authority outright the Marxist perceives the Heavenly Father and His authority as being the result of a child honoring and obeying his earthly father, establishing his father's authority over and therefore against his carnal nature. Therefore the only way for the Marxist to 'liberate' man and society from belief in God is to remove the earthly father's authority from the face of the earth, starting with the King. Both Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud had this in common, the removal of the father's authority from the mind of the child, in order for the child to think and act according to his carnal nature. While Karl Marx started with society. Sigmund Freud started with the individual. Martin Jay, in his book The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950 wrote: "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" Abraham Maslow, in his journals wrote: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions 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) In other words, 'create' a "healthy" environment for the child and you create a "healthy" person. Create an "unhealthy" environment for the child and you 'create' an "unhealthy" person, all based upon the praxis of stimulus-response, making reasoning and behavior (theory and practice) only subject to that which is of the world. When it comes to defining and establishing behavior by simply replacing discussion, where the earthly Father and the Heavenly Father have the final say, with dialogue, where the child has the final say the father's authority is negated since there is no father's authority in dialogue, there is only the child 'justifying' his carnal nature, 'justifying' his lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, 'justifying' his hatred toward authority, called dialectic 'reasoning.' Marxism is simply thinking and acting without Godly restraint, doing what you want without having any recognition of God therefore having no fear of God, hating anyone who tells you how you are to think and acts. Dialogue is the heart of man, that is Marxism ruling over the world without Godly restraint.

The objective of those who are "of and for the world," facilitators of 'change,' psychotherapists is to prevent parent's from controlling the thoughts of the child. That is to prevent discussion from controlling dialogue. That is to prevent established commands, rules, facts, and truth getting in the way of the child's natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint. While we, being both flesh and soul have both discussion and dialogue we can only use one at a time, making one subject to the other. The soul KNOWS by being told. The flesh by feelings or "sense experience." Making discussion subject to dialogue, that is facts subject to feelings makes the soul subject to the flesh, 'justifying' in the mind of the child his not having to listen to the Father, resulting in him doing his will instead of the Father's. Those "of and for the world," facilitators of 'change,' psychotherapists remove the Father and His authority from the environment in order for everyone (including themselves) to do what they want without fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out. The facilitator of 'change,' the psychotherapist 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 child'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 my 'good.'"

Discussion is "What is the right thing to do?" while dialogue is "What can I get out of this situation, object, people, or person for my self?" Making facts and truth subject to his feelings, to lust, to self interest 'justifies' in the mind of the child his removal of any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in his way, making commands, rules, facts, and truth forever subject to 'change.' This is a condition referred to in the scriptures as "science falsely so called," "the antithesis of so-named gnosis; και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεω," as true science or the laws of nature are established once and for all and are not subject to 'change' (antithesis), that is are not subject to the person's feelings or opinion of the 'moment,' making them ever subject to 'change,' to men's opinions. Ask any pilot who has survived a plane crash, he will agree, the laws of nature are not subject to 'change,' are not subject to his opinion, are not subject to his feelings. Those who died in the crash just prove the point. This is important to KNOW because we love dialogue, our ability to 'justify' of our self, our lusts, blinding us to the fact we will be judged, condemned, and cast out, that is we will be held accountable for our carnal thoughts and carnal actions in disobedience to the Father.

In praxis you do not have to attack the Father, thus giving Him recognition, all you have to do is leave what He says out and He becomes irrelevant, something to be removed from the environment when He shows up and gets in the way. That is why you are asked to be "positive" and not "negative" in meetings, asked to leave discussion, that is the Father's authority out of the conversation (other than to criticize it, call Critical Theory, Critical Criticism, Critical Race Theory, Critical Thinking, etc.,). Richard Paul, in his Critical Thinking Handbook wrote: "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts." In his book Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs To Survive In A Rapidly Changing World he wrote: "We must come to define ourselves as people who reason their way into, and can be reasoned out of beliefs." In other words belief is not subject to persuasion, to KNOWING by being told but to sense experience. The name for the national test for teachers is Praxis where your critical skills are put to test void or absent of what parent, teacher, or God says.

In discussion God is God, truth is objective, external to our carnal feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' that the world or current situation, object, people or person is stimulating (imagined or real). In discussion black is black, white is white, right is right, and wrong is wrong. Discussion is an either-or, either you are right or you are wrong (often referred to as "old school"). In discussion there is no "I feel" and "I think," that is opinion involved ("I think" nullifies "I know"). In discussion even if the person, lets say the parent is wrong the right-wrong way of thinking is still in place. Deductive reasoning is associated with discussion since reasoning is from established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Inductive reasoning is associated with dialogue since reasoning is from a persons own "sense experience."

In dialogue the child is God, truth is subjective, subject to the child's feelings of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, making the child subject to his perception, to what "seems to be," making him subject to anyone manipulating the environment. Carl Rogers: "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." With perception, what "seems to be" the child can be seduced, deceived, and manipulated by those "of and for the world," facilitator's of 'change,' psychotherapist's. "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation nor that authority of the church in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) "Enlightenment," dialogue when it comes to behavior is darkness to the soul. Luke 11:35 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Ephesians 6: 12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

n dialogue, when it comes to behavior you not only reject the Father and His authority you reject any means of salvation for your disobedience. You reject the Son. 1 John 2:22 "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." You might mention the Son, but without doing the Father's will, why the Son came he does not KNOW you. Matthew 7:21-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

In dialogue there is no "can not," "must not," "thou shalt not," that is "wrong," there are no absolutes. In dialogue everyone is entitled to their opinion, making everything subject to 'change.' In dialogue feelings, along a spectrum from erotic love to outright hate controls the person's thought, with pleasure being right and anyone getting in the way of pleasure, that is inhibiting, blocking, or preventing pleasure being wrong. Inductive reasoning is associated with dialogue since reasoning is subject to a persons "sense perception," his feelings.

When we have been told what we can do we can dialogue, understanding there are limits and measures where discussion comes in and restraints. You can do this but you can not do that. You can eat the fruit of all these trees but you can not eat the fruit of that one. The big print giveth and the small print taketh way. Dialogue does not recognize the small print that "taketh away," thinking whatever it sees it owns. Dialogue does not recognize being told what we can not do. when it stands in the way of what we want. Dialogue ties us to stimulus-response, to the world only. By nature we approach pleasure and avoid pain, eating the food we like and not eating the food we do not like. That is we dialogue with our self and with others what we like and what we do not like. When we have been told a specific food that we like is harmful to us when we go to dialogue we will eat it but when we turn to discussion we will not. Which one we turn to determines the outcome. The use of discussion or dialogue when it comes to behavior determines our political system or paradigm. You can not have faith in God when you use dialogue. Thus 1Timothy 6:20, 21 which I alluded to before. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." In dialogue you can only 'justify' your self, your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. Romans 7:18 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:" I am spending so much time on the difference between discussion and dialogue because without someone (the Word of God) telling us we can not see the difference, with dialogue, what we want being "good" in our eyes blinding us to the difference, having to do what we are told, thus missing out on what we want being "good." Only God is good. James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

Discussion is based upon the Father's authority, where the Father authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be obeyed or applied. The Father authors how we are to behave and enforces what he says, engendering righteousness. 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."

Dialogue is based upon the child's carnal nature, with the child doing (or at least thinking about doing) what he wants, engendering unrighteousness if he is doing or going to do what he has been told he is not to do. Dialogue is not subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Dialogue is not subject to law that is external to the flesh and the world that stimulates it. Dialogue is not subject to being told. Dialogue is only subject to stimulus-response. It is not subject to the law of God. Romans 7:14-25 "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."

God's law is perfect, revealing to us that we are not. Due to our flesh, our natural inclination to lust after pleasure we are subject to the law of sin. While Christ Jesus redeems us from the curse of the law, since we can not fulfill it, fulfilling it for us, imputing His righteousness to us by our faith in Him, He did not negate the law, it still remains in force holding all accountable for their sins. Ephesians 2:8, 9 "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." Romans 5:12 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" As we have faith in the teacher who first told us two plus two equals four and can not equal any other number so we must have faith in God to hear, accept, and do what He says.

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."

György Lukács, founder of the "Frankfurt School," officially known as the Institute of Social Research, in defense of sin wrote: "... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (György Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Those "of and for the world," facilitators of 'change,' psychotherapists seek to negate discussion, that is faith, that is the Father's authority, that is law when it comes to behavior so they can sin with impunity. The idea being no Father - no law, no law - no sin, no sin - no judgment, no judgment - no condemnation, no condemnation - no being cast out, therefore there is no guilty conscience, no contrition, no need of repentance, no need of a savior for sinning. This is the pathway of Marxism. But it has to start with dialogue, with lust, with the child's carnal nature, with the facilitator of 'change,' the psychotherapist 'creating' a safe place-space-zone, a "Ye shalt not surely die" environment where the child can dialogue or share what he is lusting after without fear of being judged, condemned, cast out, an environment that is "positive" and not "negative" when it comes to behavior. The child therefore can only become himself, with the "help" of the facilitator of 'change,' the psychotherapist once he is 'liberated' from the Father's authority, becoming what he was before the Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth came into his life, only "of and for the world." Rejecting the Heavenly Father's authority outright the Marxist believes the child 'creates' the Heavenly Father's authority when he submits to his earthly father's authority. Thus the Marxist's, the facilitator of 'change's,' the psychotherapist's agenda (all being the same) is to remove the earthly father's authority from the environment, from the "group," from the face of the earth. With Karl Marx it meant removing the Father's authority from society. With Freud it meant removing the Father's authority from the mind of the individual. Without Freud Marxism is only "dialectical materialism" where Karl Marx is only taught, leaving the guilty conscience in tack. With Freud it becomes "historical materialism," where Karl Marx is experienced, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting, for removing (killing) anyone who gets in the way, at least looking the other way, being silent as it is being done.

Marxism, as does psychology makes behavior subject to dialogue, to the child's carnal nature, to how the child feels and what he thinks, as was first put into praxis in the garden in Eden. 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? [this is a neurolinguistic 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 authority, bringing dialogue forward out from under the restraint of discussion)—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) what happened when they disobeyed was the soul was darkened, covered by sin, by lust; Ephesians 4:18 "Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:"]:" Genesis 3:5, 6 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (which dialogue does, everyone is a god in dialogue), knowing good and evil [according to their carnal nature]. 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, her self interest, her carnal nature 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."

When confronted by God Adam admitted that he was naked with God asking him "Who told you?" then both he and the woman refusing to confess they were wrong and repent, refused to submit to discussion where God has the final say instead becoming the first 'liberals' tried to 'justify' themselves, by blaming the situation or another person, with Adam throwing the woman "under the bus," "It was all her fault, She gave me what you told me not to eat and besides it all your fault for creating her. Look what you did. Look at what I had to work with. Could you not have done better?" and the woman "throwing the serpent under the bus," "It is not my fault. It is his fault. He talked me into doing what I wanted to do."

Martin Jay, in his book The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950 wrote: "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" Abraham Maslow, in his journals wrote: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions 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) In other words, 'create' a "healthy" environment for the child and you create a "healthy" person. Create an "unhealthy" environment for the child and you 'create' an "unhealthy" person, all based upon the praxis of stimulus-response, making reasoning and behavior (theory and practice) only subject to that which is of the world. As will be explained farther down in the reading the Protestant Reformation rejected this ideology, proclaiming instead that only God can 'create' a right heart in man.

Karl Marx in Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' made pleasure the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose.' "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." Sounds rather harmless does it not. To make it reality requires the removal of the Father's authority, discussion, being told what is right and what is wrong behavior from the environment, that is from the mind of the child and from society so the Marxist can sin with impunity, without being judged, condemned, cast out for his immoral thoughts and immoral actions, for his praxis of unrighteousness. As Karl Marx stated in his paper The Holy Family, explaining "Critical Criticism" where dialogue or lust for pleasure is pushed to its extreme (to the point of outright hatred) against parental authority, against restraint (one author expressing it as pushing all the marbles to one side of the brain), where hate is ready to be put into action.

György Lukács wrote: "Only when the immediate interests [lusts, i.e., 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 individual, 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, i.e., lust for pleasure and fear of losing it] is dominant." In other words: "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). The Marxist Jürgen Habermas, a member of the "Frankfurt School" in Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory wrote: "Revolutionary violence [overthrow of the Father and His authority] reconciles the disunited parties [the children] by abolishing the alienation of class antagonism [the Father's authority over the children] 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 and his authority]. 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]." György Lukács wrote: "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, dissatisfied with their parent's authority, 'justifying' their "self," their lusts before one another, killing their parents (at least not caring what happens to them)].'"

A room full of dialogue, when it comes to behavior will turn and rend, that is martyr anyone coming into it insisting upon discussion. You have to "suspend" the Lord on the cross when you make dialogue your means to defining and establishing behavior or end up there yourself if you refuse.

What is missing in dialogue: Since there is no Father's authority dialogue, there therefore no inheritance, no posterity, no history, no tradition, no unalienable rights, no sovereignty, no representative government, no limited government, no local control, no culture, no heritage, no absolutes or established commands, rules, facts, and truth, no private convictions, no private property, no private business, no "limits and measures," no being wrong, no having to humble, deny, die to, discipline, control, capitulate your "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, therefore there is no contrition, no repentance, no forgiveness, no salvation, no conversion, no redemption, and no reconciliation necessary for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, fellowship is replaced with relationship, position is replaced with feelings, etc. They are all missing (negated) in and through dialogue. Your lust for the pleasure of the 'moment' blinds you to all you are giving up. 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?"

All educators are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' their replacing of discussion, what the Father says with the use of dialogue, how the children feel and what they think when it comes to behavior, their use of the serpent's formula, Marxist curriculum in the classroom, called "Bloom's Taxonomies," establishing behavior upon the children's carnal nature instead of upon what the Father says, damning the soul of the child, causing "conflict and tension" in the home, destroying the nation. In his second "taxonomy" Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain Benjamin Bloom wrote: "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." He stated: "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values . . . which are not shaped by the parents." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "… ordering and relating the different kinds of affective behavior." "… we need to provide the range of emotion from neutrality through mild to strong emotion, probably of a positive, but possibly also of a negative, kind." "… organized into value systems and philosophies of life …" "'. . . 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.'" (Benjamin S. Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) "Pandora's Box" is a mythological story of a box full of evil, which once opened can not be closed. It is the heart of the child without parental or Godly restraint, lusting after pleasure hating restraint. The "taxonomies" were the response to Jacobs book regarding the college learning environment. Benjamin Bloom: "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)." (Book 2: Affective Domain) This was in response to the Protestant Reformation, where dialogue, stimulus-response, which makes reasoning subject to man's nature, which is stimulated by the world, was rejected as a platform from which to define and establish behavior. Martin Luther was referring to 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," when he wrote: "Here it is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard. Who does not see how the universities read the Bible? . . . it has been so bothersome to read and respond to this filth." "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations 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." "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. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p. 259, p.217; Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207) This is why the Marxist Max Horkheimer, for a time director of the "Frankfurt School" stated: "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Reasoning and Self Preservation) Protestantism or individualism, under God (known as the "priesthood of all believers") creating a nation established upon "rule of law," stands in the way of socialism, Marxism, globalism.

All contemporary bibles are the result of dialogue. The have a different source than the KJV, Geneva, Tyndale bibles. The KJV, Geneva, Tyndale were translated from what are known as the Textus Receptus, the "received text." It was the result of men using discussion as their means making sure the words that Isaiah or the Apostle Paul wrote down were the same Hebrew and Greek words they were reading today, retaining the original text to translate from. The Catholic Church bibles were the result of dialogue, where copyists contemporized or changed words and meanings, making the Word of God subject to the opinions of men, the "church" then needing interpreters to decipher the meaning of the text for for the day. In the late 19th century two Catholics presenting themselves as protestants introduced three heretical, dialogue based, Catholic texts to the committee overseeing the Textus Receptus making the Greek and Hebrew now subject to dialogue, to men's opinions. The Metzger, Allen, Nestly Greek texts all ministers learn from in seminary today are the result of the corruption of the Word of God. Anyone questioning them will be wrent apart, making dialogue, the opinions of men now the language of the "Church."

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas in his book Theory and Practice noted what would happen to the Marxist if Christ and obedience to the Heavenly Father became the focus of attention in the public arena: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." The scriptures confirm his observation. 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." It was in the use of generalization, that is in pressuring people to be "tolerant of ambiguity," tolerant of deviancy, tolerant of sin for the sake of relationship that the Marxist knew they could overcome faith in the Father. Drawing those loyal to the fathers authority into an environment which contained their private temptations made it easier for them to put their lusts into praxis as they set aside their differences, the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth that got in the way of their lusts in order to "get along" with others. Karl Marx in The Holy Family first defining a Christian then explained how to beguile him into abandoning his faith in order to initiate and sustain relationship with others who had the same carnal desires as he, using fruit trees as his example, the same issue as took place in the garden in Eden. 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." Remember this is Karl Marx writing this, continuing. "Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." Then he explained what he meant by the "Christian also recognizing sensuality." "It is not sensuality which is presented . . ., but the attraction of what is forbidden." When it comes to behavior dialogue, ambiguity, generalization, lust, and temptation, "the attraction of what is forbidden" go hand in hand. It is discussion, what the Father says that gets in the way of lust, in the way of "human nature," in the way of ambiguity.

Few people today know that the Constitution with its "Bill of Rights" did not get rid of the King, as all socialist governments must do. It limited the power of those in government in order for the father of the home to be king, ruling over his family, his property, and his business according to his convictions. Refusing to go into dialogue when it comes to behavior but insisting upon discussion instead he retains his God given authority. Having the final say he engenders a guilty conscience in the next generation of citizens when they do wrong, disobey, sin, thus initiating and sustaining a civil society. It is the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting after pleasure instead of doing what you are told that carries the Father's authority into society. Norman Brown gives us a definition of the guilty conscience from a Marxist's perspective. He wrote: "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:'" Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, founder of the COPS program, in his book The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing defined the development the guilty conscience and its effect upon society. He wrote: "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." Trojanowicz then explained how to bring the police and the community together with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, negating local control, that is the father's authority system and the guilty conscience replacing it with the "police state" and the "super-ego," doing so with the use of 'crime' to bring "the people" together.

Since the guilty conscience is engendered by the Father's authority, retaining the Father's authority in society the objective for the Marxist was to remove the guilty conscience in the individual replacing it with the "super-ego," which requires compromise in order to "get along." Kurt Lewin explained how that is done, first defining how the guilty conscience is engendered and then how to negate it's effect upon the individual and therefore society. The "negative valence" is his definition of the guilty conscience. "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." Since local control reinforces the Father's authority it was the Marxist agenda to use the Federal Government's involvement in education to negate it's effect in society, passing laws that forced local schools to focus upon feelings instead of upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, equated to being prejudiced (Fascist).

This change in paradigm from discussion, where the Father has the final say to dialogue where the child has the final say is made clear by the Supreme Courts change in understanding of right and wrong. Our highest court in Strauss Vs. Strauss, 1941 wrote: "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well-known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." By 1971, our highest court, rejecting and therefore in defiance to the Christian faith turned to stoicism instead. In ROE v. WADE rejecting true science where life begins at conception it made the beginning of life subject to the opinion of the person: "there has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." There is history behind this 'change' in paradigm. Karl Marx, rejecting the Father's authority system (discussion) built his ideology off of Heraclitus who laid the groundwork for stoicism. Heraclitus: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." 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." (Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') The classroom was used to accomplish the deed. In Book 2: Affective Domain Benjamin Bloom wrote: "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society. Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development." Our Supreme Court, 1974 took education out from under parental control, placing it under the Federal government's control with the "Equality of Opportunity" decision, which was prepared by James Colman, who's professor was Paul Lazarsfeld, a Marxist, a member of the Frankfurt School. By replacing discussion, where the parent has the final say in education with dialogue, where the child has the final say the nation was 'changed.' James Coleman: "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The 'natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." "Equality of Opportunity [Coleman means, freedom to lust without being judged, condemned, or cast out, continuing] becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." "Strengthening the family to draw the adolescent back into it faces serious problems, as well as some questions about its desirability." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) By departments, such as the department of education, created by the President coming between the parents and their children, parental authority was undermined in education making it possible for Marxists to train up Marxist students in the classroom at the citizens expense. George Washington warned us: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." (George Washington, Farewell Address) In 1954 in Brown V. Board of Education the Supreme Court made "separate but equal" illegal, with their use of generalization regarding the 14th Amendment, "even for good" making education subject to Federal control, wresting it out of the hands of the parents. All families of all colors now faced the rejection of the father's authority in the home, the black family not excluded, with Marxism now in control of the classroom. A liberal, Marxist judge can fight Communism because traditional Communists used discussion, where Karl Marx has the final say, whereas transformational Marxists focused upon dialogue, where Marxism is experienced instead of inculcated as is done in traditional education. A judge who uses discussion regarding the Constitution does not 'change' it but makes his decision based upon his loyalty to it and the framers intent, while a judge who reasons via dialogue is not loyal to the intent of the framers, redefining the Constitution to achieve his socialist agenda, using his position to make law subject to Marxist ideology where law is subject to man's carnal nature instead of subject to authority restraining it.

Forty years after the publication of the first taxonomy Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain Benjamin Bloom confessed: "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) This is why today two plus two can be any number you want to make it and the XX chromosome can be a boy and the XY chromosome can be a girl. Bloom wrote in the second "taxonomies," "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences. It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals. . . . observable and describable therefore classifiable." True science is observable and repeatable which is true science, "observable and describable therefore classifiable" makes the so called "taxonomy" so called science. Bloom even admitted in the forty year evaluation his use of the word "taxonomy" made his agenda to advance Marxism through the classroom acceptable, as academic. Simply by replacing discussion, true science with dialogue, man's opinion or theory treated as science, he was able to deceive all who lent him ear. Karl Marx made man's carnal nature all there was, hiding "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," "all that is of the world" in his definition of 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 1-3), leaving out the fact his theory was not repeatable, as true science requires. "Behavioral science" is Marxist, treating men's opinion as a fact, labeling and destroying any who might question its use.

Despite the "taxonomies" being "unproved and unprovable" any teacher refusing to use them in the classroom, restoring the Father's authority instead will lose their job. Any school refusing to use them, restoring the Father's authority in the classroom will lose their Federal funding. The seedbed of Marxism resides not only in the colleges and Universities but also in the local schools, including "Christian" schools and home schooling material and co-ops, with teachers and publishers of educational material using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum, that is using Marxism as their political system in education. Question and-or challenge their use in education and you will be censored by the community, including by the "Church," just like teachers who question and-or challenge them are being censored in the schools and students who question and-or challenge them are being censored in the classroom. Lusts, that is self interests being 'justified,' 'justifies' getting rid of anyone who gets in the way.

Do you worry about us becoming a Communist nation, I should say a Marxist nation. We are a Marxist nation and no one fired a shot. Oh wait, there were people shot. Student's, teachers, and staff have been shot as the the result of using "Bloom's Taxonomies," Marxist curriculum in the classroom. I bet you did not know that. Why would the Marxist Media and Marxist schools tell you that. When you tell students they can behave according to their feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating what do you expect. Whether in education or politics whenever the evil praxis of dialectic reasoning makes itself known those who champion its use will not condemn the abuse it perpetrates upon the home or the nation.

Carl Rogers: "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that . . . man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes. The whole problem of therapy . . . is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner." How do you hold incest, murder, and other crimes "in check in a wholesome and constructive manner?" The Marxist agenda is the removal of neurosis from society, the conflict man has between doing what he wants and doing what the Father says, wanting to do both, known as "belief-action dichotomy," thus doing what he wants instead of doing what he was told having a guilty conscience as the result. The Marxist Normal Brown wrote: "Freud saw that in the id there is no negation [no parental authority, that is no Godly restraint, no "can not," "must not," "Thou shalt not"], only affirmation and eternity [what is called the "eternal present," only the child's natural inclination to "lust after pleasure and hate restraint"]." "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 [that is if "lusting" becomes the agenda, the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life]." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "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 unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "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." The solution to neurosis for the Marxist is the removal of the Father's authority from society, from the classroom, from the workplace, from government, from the home, and even from the "church." The Marxist Norman O. Brown explained the use of therapy or psychology in the classroom as being the solution, using the same method used by the master facilitator of 'change,' the master psychotherapist in the garden in Eden.

The method used by the serpent in the garden in Eden is the same method being used in the classroom today, teachers using "Bloom's Taxonomies," Marxist curriculum, 'liberating' children from the Father's authority so they can sin without having a guilty conscience, so they can sin with impunity. That is the "taxonomies" only purpose and intended outcome.

Marxists, rejecting the Heavenly Father's authority, perceiving the earthly father's authority as being the cause of religion, make it their duty to remove the earthly father's authority from the mind of the children and the citizens so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without being judged, condemned, and cast out, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates with "the group's," that is "the people's" affirmation, removing anyone who gets in the way, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, and the righteous without having a guilty conscience, in the name of "the people." The youth, the citizens, our government, and even the church today have made man's feelings the basis for defining and establishing behavior, not doing the Father's will.. In 1921 Will C. Woods, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California asked the question: "Has authority been banished in these later days? Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of pupil soviets?" The "group grade" being used in the classroom today is a soviet. The soviet is "a diverse group of people, in this case students (which must include the deviant and immoral), dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (there is no father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process, there is only, when it comes to behavior the person's lust for pleasure being 'justified'), over personal-social issues (a public-private partnership makes private always subject to the public), to a predetermined outcome, that outcome being no rule, policy, or law can be made without the use of the Consensus process, thereby preventing the father's authority, that is God from having any input in the outcome. Ervin Laszlo, who developed, organized, and promoted the "climate change" agenda wrote "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making 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 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) The use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," the "group grade" in education is a soviet, that is the consensus process being put into praxis in the classroom, preparing the next generation of citizens to think and act as Marxists, doing what they want in the workplace, in government, and even in the "Church" without having any fear of God, of accountability. The Marxist Jürgen Habermas, a member of the "Frankfurt School," explained the use of dialogue in a group when it comes to behavior: "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) The Father does not tolerate compromise. Our relationship with others does. In the parables of the soils the rocks are your friends (Matthew 13:3-9). You can go no deeper into the Word of God than your relationship with your friends will allow you.

Kurt Lewin, although not an official member of the Frankfurt School edited their paper Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, along with Wilhelm Reich. The Frankfurt's School's form of Marxism, merging Marxism and psychology would not have worked without Kurt Lewin's research on "group dynamics," along with his work on "force field analysis," and how to "unfreeze, move, and refreeze" the group onto a new level of thought and action. It is the power of "the group," that is our desire for the approval of others, affirming out lusts that the 'change' process, the dialectic process depends. As long as the child remains loyal to the Father's authority Marxism is prevented from becoming reality in the child's life. György Lukács wrote: "The dialectical method was overthrown . . .; the parts [in other words the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [that is within "the group"]. . .." It was understood by the Marxists, until discussion, where the teacher, as a father figure up front in the classroom imparts facts and truth to students to be memorized and applied, resulting in the students remaining their identity as individuals in a group, loyal to their father's authority was replaced with dialogue, where the facilitator of 'change,' the psychotherapist is able to form groups in the classroom, where the students, then able to put dialogue, their common feeling and thoughts void of the father's or teacher's authority into praxis, thus experiencing Marxism could they become Marxists. Kurt Lewin, in his article Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics wrote: "The group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions" Kenneth Benne wrote: "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." It is the child's desire for approval from others that the dynamics of "the group" comes into play, which identifies with and 'justifies' his carnal desires instead of individualism, under the Father which inhibits of blocks him from doing and having what he wants. Irvin D. Yalom, in The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy wrote "... few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance. Long cherished . . . beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority." "There is no type of past behavior too deviant for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established." "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) Cognitive dissonance, as explained by Ernest R. Hilgard in Introduction to Psychology is "the lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief." Belief is subject to one position, with the person no matter the current situation, object, people, or person present refusing to compromise his position. Behavior is on the other hand subject to change, according to the current situation, object, people, or person present. Thus the desire for "the groups" approval, which requires compromise, the tolerating of deviant behavior becomes more import to the child, with the child being able to do or have what he wants than the child's belief, which restrains him from doing, saying, and having what he wants, having to do what the Father says instead. As noted above: at the Lord's trial, Caesar become more important to those determining right and wrong behavior than the Word of God, that is dialogue, how they felt and what they thought in the 'moment' became more important than discussion, than what the Heavenly Father said, their father, as Jesus pointed out being the devil. John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." Norman O. Brown wrote: "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." "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." John Dewey in Experience and Education wrote: "It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." In Democracy and Education John Dewey wrote: "A democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority." "God is the source of corruption in individuals."

Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover's book A Sociology of Education explained the effect leadership style has upon the group and the child—take note: "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." Replacing leadership which demands discussion with leadership that demands dialogue 'changes' the child's paradigm, 'changes' his way of feeling, thinking, and acting toward himself, toward others, toward the world, and toward authority. Regarding the effect different methods of leadership have upon people Kurt Lewin wrote: "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, and Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development) Kenneth Benne explaining how curriculum directly effects how a person feels, thinks, and acts toward himself, toward others, toward the world, and toward authority wrote, "A change in the curriculum [that is a change in political system from discussion to dialogue when it comes to behavior] 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." "For actual changes in 'content' and 'method' we must change the people who manage the school program. To change the curriculum of the school means bringing about changes in people—in their desires, beliefs and attitudes, in their knowledge and skill . . . curriculum change should be seen as a type of social change, change in people. Curriculum change means a change in the established ways of life, a change in the social standards. It means a restructuring on knowledge, attitudes, and skills in a new pattern of human relations. Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) The Marxist Ronald Havelock in A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education wrote: A "change agent... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations [that is resisters of 'change']." The change that is taking place today is not from one position to another, by persuasion but the person rapidly responding to the environment he finds himself in, with affirmation toward the person or people 'justifying' his lusts (his lust for pleasure and lust for the approval of man, that is "the pride of life"), having contempt and-or hatred toward the person of people who are getting in lusts way.

Proverbs 16:5 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. 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." Hosea 4:6 ". . . seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Psalms 81:12 "So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels." Proverbs 1:26-30 "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof."

When you replace discussion with dialogue, replace what the Father says with how you feel when it comes to behavior you reject the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore your salvation, having 'justified' yourself, your lusts. "The devil is in the details" is a phrase we hear once in a while. It simply means the devil is hiding and it takes effort to find him. In discussion he is readily detectable as being an exception to the rule, disguising himself as being right but the truth revealing him as being wrong. The child when told by his parents he can not go out and play with his new friends usually responds with "Why?" in an effort to draw them into dialogue where he then can go out, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But by his parents insisting upon discussion he is forced to give details about who it is he is going to go out and "mess around" with, the details, that is the rest of the story getting in the way of what he wanted to do. The same being true for any student in the "group grade" classroom being asked by their parent what they studied that day, with avoidance following. In meetings where you are told you have only three minutes to get your message across you are forced to generalize, dialogue winning the day while "Robert's Rules of Order" when properly done require discussion where all the details are given, pro and con. The woman in the garden in Eden went from discussion, what she could and could not do to dialogue, to what she wanted to do, excluding the word "not," the issue of obedience thereafter generalizing that there was nothing wrong with the "forbidden" tree since it was just like all the rest of the trees and therefore good to eat from, leaving out the rest of the story that she was "not" to eat from it, again the issue being obedience, which discussion requires. The use of "human being" or "human behavior" for example contains lust and the pride of life which do not appear on the radar unless discussion comes into play, thus their use everywhere you go today. A little generalization covers up (hides) a multitude of sins. Dialogue, what you want to do negates discussion, what you are told you are not to do. In other words, God, parent, the Constitution, exc. anything or anyone who gets in the way of what you want to do is left out, no longer to be considered, are irrelevant in dialogue, since in dialogue you are god, deciding for your self what is right and what is wrong behavior, according to you lusts. "Building relationship upon self interest, upon lust" is the hallmark of Marxism. You can not see it until it is to late when you live in a world of dialogue, where you can have your way, having rejected discussion, what God, the parent, the law, etc., says. The use of generalized terms, like "not a team player," lower order thinker, prejudiced, intolerant of ambiguity (meaning intolerant of deviancy), etc., are used to silence anyone who, demanding discussion in an environment of dialogue resists and fights against the process—once labeled is labeled for life.

2 Peter 2:3 "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." This is why those "of and for the world," facilitator's of 'change,' psychotherapists insist upon dialogue. In that way they control the environment, controlling you, thus using you to fulfill their lusts (casting you aside when you no longer serve their purpose or you get in their way). Carl Rogers explained it this way: Rogers wrote: "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." Why would drug pushers, those who are "of and for the world," facilitator's of 'change,' psychotherapist's, pushing lust ever want you off the drug. There would be no money for them then. They would have to find and honest job and work by the sweat of their brow.

Making the father the source of religion, those "of and for the world," facilitators of 'change,' psychotherapists create an environment where the father's authority is no longer of importance in the child's mind, in fact getting in the way of him becoming himself, 'liberating' him from the Father's authority by finding his identity in what he has in common with "the group," his lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint. The more he moves to dialogue when it comes to behavior and the more he senses the father, through insisting upon discussion taking away what he is lusting after the greater the hate, moving him progressively from dissatisfaction, to resentment, to outright hate. As the Marxist Warren Bennis explained it in his book The Temporary Society wrote: "Any non-family-based collectivity [that is "group psychotherapist," facilitator of 'change'] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship." "In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." "… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." Back to Adorno: "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." Not until these "'secret' thoughts" are revealed through the use of dialogue can the child begin traveling down the pathway of 'liberation' from the Father's authority.

Brainwashing is simply, when it comes to behavior replacing discussion with dialogue, replacing what the Father says, with the Father having the final say (which the Marxist equates to Nationalism) with what you are lusting after in the 'moment,' with you having the final say, being reinforced with the affirmation of "the groups." Brainwashing is "washing" the Father's authority (Nationalism, individualism, under God) from the brain of a child so he can do what he wants without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so he can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, with everyone's affirmation. That is what the facilitator of 'change' is all about. Karl Marx in his Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach (which is inscribed on his tomb) wrote: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." In other words it is the father's authority system, that is the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth (which differ from father to father in the world, as nations differ from nations in the world) that divides the people. It is in the child's propensity to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, to respond ('change' in accordance) to the situation and-or object, people, or person present in the 'moment' (imagined or real) that is the objective of life. Without the "help" of the facilitator of 'change' the children remain subject to the Father's authority system.

Irvin D. Yalom, in his book The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy wrote: "Without exception, [children] enter group therapy [the "group grade" classroom] 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]. [The child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [that is brainwashing] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role [submitting to the father's authority, that is doing the father's will] he once occupied. . . . the patient [the child] changes the past by recreating it ['creating' a "new" world order from his "ought," that is a world which "lusts," that is a world void of the father's authority and the guilty conscience which the father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for "lusting . . ."]."

The Marxist Kurt Lewin, the father of Unfreezing, Moving or Changing, Refreezing People, Force Field Analysis, and Group Dynamics wrote "A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing group life on the new level." Edger Schein and Warren Bennis explained what "unfreezing" is. "In brief, unfreezing is the breaking down of the morels, customs and traditions of an individual – the old ways of doing things – so that he is ready to accept new alternatives." (Edger Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach)

Warren Bennis in his book Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, explained how the Communist "brainwashed" our soldiers. Edward Hunter in his book Brainwashing only described the symptoms, not revealing the process, thus not allowing the reader to evaluate what was actually going on in the classroom through the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies." Bennis gives us the details, that is the procedure. "The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of 'unfreezing,' in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of 'readiness' to be influence; and (2) a process of 'change,' in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of 'the people's standpoint' and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure."
"Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to 'help' their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance. Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image."
". . . Once this process of self-re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others." (Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, ed. Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele)

Benjamin Bloom in his book second "taxonomy," Book 2: Affective Domain wrote: "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed. . . . many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." "The effectiveness of this new set of environmental conditions is probably related to the extent to which the students are 'isolated' from the home during this period of time." ". . . objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

The facilitator of 'change,' the psychotherapist does not have to tell the child to hate the Father's authority. It will naturally appear, that is manifest itself as he 'justifies' the child's lust for pleasure. The environment of stimulus-response, knowing right from wrong based upon lust being right negates the child's ability to KNOW right from wrong by being told. The "educator," the facilitator of 'change,' the psychotherapist does not have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority when they get home from school, if they were not doing that already (telling them would be "old school," maintaining the "old" world order of being told even if it was done for the 'purpose' of 'change,' for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order), all they have to do is use a curriculum in the classroom that "encourages," that is pressures the students to participate in the process of 'change,' into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, 'justifying' their carnal nature, establishing "lust" over and therefore against their parent's authority. Being told to be "positive" (supportive of the other students carnal nature) and not "negative" (judging them by their parent's standards) pressures students to 'justify' their and the other students love of pleasure and hate of restraint, doing so in order to be approved, that is affirmed by "the group," resulting in "the group" labeling those students who, holding onto their parent's standards, refusing to participate in the process of 'change' or fighting against it as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, maladjusted, unadaptable to 'change,' resisters of 'change,' not "team players," lower order thinkers, in denial, phobic, prejudiced, judgmental, racist, fascist, dictators, anti-social, etc., "hurting" people's "feelings" resulting in "the group" rejecting them—the student's natural desire for approval and fear of rejection forces him to participate. The same outcome applies to all adults, in any profession who participate in the process. Once you are 'labeled,' you are 'labeled' for life. In the soviet union, once you were 'labeled' "psychological," no matter how important you were in the past, your life was over, your career was done. Once people become subject to dialogue, "What can I get out of this for me?" as a way of thinking when it comes to behavior, generalization blinds them to their wicked thoughts and wicked actions. With "human nature," lust being more important to them than doing the Father's will, arrogance and complacency, "I'm OK. Your OK," "If it feels good, do it" now controls their thoughts, justifying their condemning anyone who, through discussion attempts to point their sins out, labeling them as being divisive, prejudiced, hateful, intolerant, judgmental, irrational, unreasonable, etc., preventing them from being heard by "the people." Discussion requires thinking. Dialogue, which makes thinking subject to feelings cuts off thinking, preventing man from KNOWING the truth.

There is a direct correlation with the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, brainwashing, and the promotion of Marxism, the rejection of the Heavenly Father's authority in America and around the world. While the contemporary "Church" might mention the Heavenly Father, its use of dialogue when it comes to the Word of God exposes its real agenda, making the congregation subject to the leaders of "the group," facilitator's of 'change,' psychotherapist's instead of subject to God. With it's members no longer being able to stand alone with the Word of God, having instead to follow the leader and "the group," who justify their lusts, they readily quoting scripture out of context in order to avoid detection. For example quoting Hebrews 10:25 "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is;" not quoting the rest of the verses. Hebrews 10:26, 27 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." which expose it for its replacing of discussion, what the Father says with dialogue, man's opinion, 'justifying' his sins. When educators, facilitators of 'change,' psychotherapists replace discussion with dialogue, righteousness with sensuousness when it comes to behavior, when they replace children being told how they are to behave with them instead deciding for themselves, they damn the souls of the children, destroy the home, and curse the nation.

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."

It is the difference between dialogue, "What can I get out of this for me?" and discussion, "Lord, what do you want me to do?" Without the discussion there can be no salvation because in dialogue, you 'justifying' yourself there is no repentance. The soul KNOW by being told. The flesh by sense experience. If you are still dialoguing with yourself after hearing the Word of God, being told you have rejected the Word of God, what God is telling you to do. Acts 8:22 "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Revelation 3:19 "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." Revelation 2:16 "Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth." Acts 3:19 "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;" 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."

Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2024 (12/28/2024)