authorityresearch.com

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6
"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

The Institution for Authority Research

About, Issues, Articles, Links, Booklet, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Radio, Sources, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!, P.S., Donate.
deangotcher@gmail.com.
(
Note regarding the censorship of this website by McAfee.)
Bracketed information in quotations and verses is information added by me.

Diaprax:
(Facebook mentality)

by
Dean Gotcher

Introduction of Part 1
(Part 2, Part 3)

 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

The "old" world order is associated with the Father's authority, with children obeying the father, i.e., doing the father's will. The "new" world order is associated with the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., "human nature." The "new" world order is based upon the carnal nature of the flesh negating the "old" world order of the father's authority, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's dictums of "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of the flesh without the law of God, and "purposiveness without purpose," i.e., "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience for sinning. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) This explains the behavior of 'liberals,' acting as spoiled, unthankful, hateful children when confronted with or restrained by 'conservative' principles, i.e., the father's authority. It is in the carnal nature of fallen man to love the pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and hate restraint, i.e., the father's authority.

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:16

The "old" world order is in similitude to God telling Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "lest ye die," i.e., "lest ye" lose your inheritance, which is the tree of life (as a father telling his children, "Do what I say." "Because I said so," or else you will not be in my will). The "new" world order is in similitude to the Serpent, as a facilitator of 'change,' telling the woman that she would not die, "beguiling" her, i.e., seducing, deceiving, and manipulating her into believing that she could do what she wanted to do, when she wanted to do it, when it "seemeth right unto" her, i.e., seems to be "reasonable," i.e., "rational," i.e., "practical" to her in the 'moment,' i.e., that she could do wrong, disobey, sinned against God, i.e. disobey the Father and not be held accountable, thereby in her (and Adam's) praxis of disobedience, i.e., doing her will instead of God's,  i.e., choosing sensuous knowledge, i.e., "sense experience" ("the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," which the world stimulates) over and therefore against the Word of God (faith which leads to obedience), i.e., abdicating her inheritance of eternal life (which is a gift from God for obedience) for the pleasures of the 'moment' (which is "of the world" only, which is temporary, i.e., which is passing away), resulting in her, along with Adam (who joined her in disobedience, then acting as "liberal's" blaming someone or something else for their sins, refusing to repent) being cast out of the garden, resulting in man, in defiance to God, i.e., rejecting the Father's authority, doing their will, as children of disobedience, dying in their sins, missing out on eternal life, having to endure eternal death instead. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2:15

Diaprax, i.e., the dialectic process ("self" 'justification') being put into praxis (practice or social action), is the manifestation of  the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of the things of the world, refusing to humble, deny, die to his "self" in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, hating the father/Father for chastening him when he does wrong, disobeys, sins, turning against the Father instead (who, loving his/His children chastens them that they might learn to do right, obey, not sin, and live, i.e., so they might receive an inheritance from Him).

 "Ye are they which justify yourselves [your "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life"] before men;" Luke 16:15

   Diaprax is man 'justifying' his "self," i.e., his "love of the world," i.e., his "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life" through the praxis (social or group action) of dialoguing his opinion, i.e., his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' with others (in a "group psychotherapy," i.e., facilitated meeting), in order (as in "new" world order, which is based upon the child's carnal nature) to come to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness" with his "self," others, and the world, putting dialectic or dialogic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., his "lusts," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates, including his desire for the approval of men, i.e., affirmation, and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., his dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority (the "old" world order, which is based upon the father's/Father's authority, with children doing the father's/Father's will) into social action (praxis), 'liberating' his "self," i.e., the child's carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., washing his brain of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in his relationship with others and the world, thereby negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that he along with his newly found "friends" of the world ('discovered' through dialogue), as children of disobedience (in consensus, i.e., void of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., void of parental/Godly restraint, i.e., void of having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that he along with his newly found "friends" of the world ('discovered' through dialogue), as children of disobedience (in consensus, i.e., void of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., void of parental/Godly restraint, i.e., void of a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) can do unconscionable things with no sense of guilt, i.e., with no sense of accountability. "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36

"Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e. who establishes "self," i.e., "human nature" as being equal with, therefore above, therefore against God, i.e., the Father's authority, thus negating the Father's authority in his thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

Diaprax is man's praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., of man 'justifying' his "self" before others, being affirmed by and affirming them, negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others and the world, thereby negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., negating the need for contrition, repentance, and forgiveness, i.e., redemption and reconciliation, having a "fit" instead, when the father/Father gets in his way. Diaprax, i.e., putting "self " 'justification' into social action, negating the father's/Father's authority, and thereby the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process is what Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud had in mind. God has warned us of diaprax, i.e., of the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of the praxis of "self" 'justification,' i.e., of the praxis of the so called "new" world order where children of disobedience ruledialoguing their opinions to a consensus in facilitated, "group psychotherapy" meetings, establish their "self," i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., living for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' rejecting the Father's authority, rejecting eternal life, choosing eternal death instead.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

   We live in a world that emphasizes being "positive," with "positive" being "good," i.e., a world that believes that we are "good" or can become "good" by doing "good works," i.e., that "goodness," i.e., "good works" or the potential for "goodness," i.e., "good works" lies within each one of us, observable and definable and therefore affirmable by one another—that by making others "feel 'good,'" i.e., "positive" we become "good," i.e., "positive" in their eyes, thus, making our "self" "feel 'good,'' becoming "good," i.e., "positive" in our eyes and by others making us "feel good," i.e., "positive," they become "good," i.e., "positive" in our eyes, thus making them "feel good," i.e., "positive" in their eyes, thus affirming the "goodness" or the potential for "goodness" in mankind through doing "good works," i.e., being "positive," making "feelings," i.e., sensuousness ("all that is in the world"), i.e., our "sensuous needs" ("the lust of the flesh") and our "sense perception" ("the lust of the eyes") and our "sense experience" ("the pride of life"), i.e., all that we have that is "of and for self," i.e., all that is "of the world" the basis from which to determine what is "good" and what is "evil," what is "right" and what is "wrong." This automatically makes anyone, i.e., "the Father" who gets in the way of, i.e., inhibits or blocks, i.e., judges and condemns "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., who prevents man from, i.e., who judges and condemns man for making his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., his "sense experiences," i.e., that which is "of the world" only, the bases from which to determine what is right and what is wrong, i.e., what is good and what is evil "negative," i.e., evil, i.e., wrong Himself. By focusing upon the "positive," i.e., 'justifying' that which makes man "feel good," the "negative," i.e., the Father's authority which judges and condemns man's carnal thoughts and actions is automatically "negated" in the person's thoughts and actions. The idea being, without the Father and his authority (that which is "negative"), "lust" is no longer "lust" but only "human nature," i.e., man being or becoming himself as he is, i.e., "normal," i.e., "positive," i.e., at one with his carnal nature and the world that stimulates it. This is a Marxist construct, making "feelings" (being "positive""feeling good" about our "self"—and not "negative"—"feeling bad" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning according to commands, rules, facts, and truth preached, taught, and enforced by authority that get in the way of, i.e., inhibit or block us from "feeling good" about our "self" in the 'moment') the focus of life. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) It is this concept of the "goodness" of the child's carnal nature (being "positive") and the "evilness" of the father's/Father's authority (being "negative") that makes Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud (as well as all who preceded them and all who follow after them, i.e., all philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, environmentalists, globalists, etc., i.e., "group psychotherapists") the same, i.e., "children of disobedience," i.e., facilitators of 'change.'
   The hallmark of being deceived is that you liked, i.e., "felt good" about the person who was deceiving you (who sided with you on your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with authority), i.e., who you were convinced had your "self interest," i.e., "best interest" in mind, despite others or something within you possibly warning you, not knowing or refusing to accept the fact that you were being deceived, i.e., were being "beguiled" by him for his own pleasure and/or gain. Because he not only allowed you but encouraged you to 'justify' your "self," i.e., 'justify' your carnal desires of the 'moment,' which included relationship with him, which made you "feel so good," and 'justify' your defiance to authority, which was warning you about and/or trying to keep you away from him he was able to seduce, deceive, and manipulate you as "natural resource," using you until you offered him no more pleasure or gain, casting you off as a broken toy, having no use for you, having take all your money, inheritance, time, and pride. This is the 'liberal's' mind, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating people, befriending them, i.e., "building relationship" with them so they can use them for their own pleasure and gain, then discarding them when they serve no useful purpose or get in the way. Discernment, if you have it, does not necessarily tell you what is wrong, it just tells you "something is wrong." It is up to you to find out what it is and do something about it.
   Being "positive" is the praxis (social action) of not judging or condemning man's carnal nature, i.e., not making a person "feel bad," i.e., "feel guilty" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, 'justifying' the person's carnal thoughts and actions (which are "of the world" only) as being "human," i.e., as being like everyone else, i.e., as being "normal," affirming him, i.e., affirming his carnal thoughts and carnal actions ("theory and practice"). "Science," as in "behavioral science," can only evaluate and judge a person according to his "positive" or "negative" reaction to the things of the world, i.e., his love of ("lusting" after) or rejection of (judgment against) the carnal things of the world, with him either 'justifying' his "self" —'justifying' his carnal nature, i.e., being "positive," i.e., being normal, going against (resenting or hating) the Father and His authority, i.e., rejecting, i.e., refusing to recognize, respect, and honour the Father, refusing to submit to His authority, i.e., negating that which is "negative" (to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., the laws which condemn all men as sinners), thereby negating the need for the work of the Son, i.e., 'redemption' from damnation (i.e., from the wrath of the Father against "the children of disobedience") through faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit, i.e., conviction leading to contrition and repentance, leading to 'reconciliation' with the Father, doing the Father's will, inheriting eternal life—or humbling, denying, dying to his "self"—going against "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, becoming "hostile" to "human nature," demanding that others think and act the same way, i.e., become "negative," i.e., "prejudiced" and "judgmental" as well (from the perspective of those who are of and for all that is of the world only, i.e., historical materialists who base history only upon your life experience, i.e., your "sense experience," eradicating all history that is negative to it, i.e., that inhibits or blocks it, i.e., that judges and condemns it).
   According to "positivism" (I am not using that word as used in philosophical circles, only using it to describe those who are "encouraging," i.e., demanding everyone to be "positive," i.e., "of and for self" and not "negative," subject to the Father's, i.e., God's authority), what makes the person "good" is not that the physical and/or academic work he (or she) is doing or has done is necessarily done right—in other words, the work he has done or is doing can be done wrong, or as Georg Hegel stated it done "badly" (see affirmable link above)—it is that his emotions, i.e., his "feelings" while doing the work are "good," that he is "positive," i.e., tolerant of others carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., deviancy (as well as of his own—in fact when you are dialoguing with your "self," 'justifying' or attempting to 'justify' your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' which go against authority you are practicing deviancy in thought, i.e., 'justifying' it), i.e., not judging or condemning others (or his "self") for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., not judging or condemning others (or his "self") for not thinking and acting according to the commands, rules, facts, and truth established by authority, i.e., not making others (or his "self") "feel" guilty, bad, or sinful for doing that which others (or he) can not do or has not done or does not want to do, making his "self" and others "feel good," i.e., "positive" instead, social in nature, i.e., affirmed. In recognizing his "self," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (and his resentment toward restraint) in others, he, along with them become "good" in his eyes since "self" always see itself as being "good." "Self" is always "positive," i.e., "self" always affirms (is interested in) the persons "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates. When you discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth with your "self" in order to do a job right and not wrong, you maintain authority over your "self." When you dialogue your feelings, i.e., your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with your "self," "self" takes authority, i.e., control over you. Discussion, i.e., maintaining authority is "negative" to dialogue, i.e., 'liberating' your "self" from it.
   Thus in a group or social setting "positive," i.e., "good works" means "building relationship" through dialogue, based upon the "self interests" (which are "positive") which workers have in common (common-ism), working together as one, i.e., in consensus as they work on a project, i.e., working with a "feeling" of "oneness," affirming each others "goodness," affirming their carnal nature, affirming their "self" whether the work is done right or not (physically and/or academically). "Right" from then on is based upon being "positive," i.e., "feeling good," i.e., affirming one another, i.e., affirming "human nature," i.e., affirming the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his natural resentment or hatred toward restraint over and therefore against any command, rule, fact, or truth that goes against "human nature," i.e., that judges and condemns "human nature," i.e., that has to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed, i.e., that gets in the way of "feeling good," i.e., that hurts someone's or everyone's "feelings," i.e., that is "negative," i.e., that divides people between those who are doing things right and those who are not, i.e., that prevent, i.e., inhibit or block man from uniting upon that which they have in common—"the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... all that is in the world." Instead of "feeling good," because the job was done right and not wrong (because the person obeyed commands and rules and attended to facts and truth), "feeling good" itself, i.e., being "positive" while doing the job i.e., affirming and being affirmed by others becomes the focus of the day—"the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... all that is in the world," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., that which is common with all humans, i.e., our natural love of pleasure (that which is "positive") and our natural hate of the father's/Father's authority when it gets in the way of pleasure , i.e., hate of restraint (that which is "negative") becomes the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "negativity" in the process (referred to in philosophical circles as the "negation of negation," which was Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda).
   The child's hate of restraint is not perceived by the child as being hateful. His effort to remove the barrier to pleasure, i.e., attack authority is only natural, i.e., "normal." Therefore, according to (and through the use of) dialectic or dialogic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' (where the child is talking to his "self," i.e., dialoguing with his "self" about his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' the world is stimulating and his dissatisfaction with, i.e., his hate the father and his authority, i.e., his hate of restraint) it is the child's duty to save his "self" (from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from having to humble, deny, die to his "self" in order, as in "old" world order, to do the father's/Father's will). This is the sum total of philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., i.e., "group psychotherapy": the child thinking (dialoguing with his "self") about how the world "is" in the 'moment,' still subject to the father's/Father's authority where the child can not do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, how it "ought" to be, where he can do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, and how it "can" be, with all children free to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, in consensus making what they want to do, when the want to do it a social project, negating the father's/Father's authority from their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world.
   As the saying goes: "Capitalism rewards good work (good academic-physical work, i.e., doing the job right according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth), socialism bad." Under capitalism (which can save no one, only giving the individual a "top-down," "right-wrong," "Mine. Not yours." i.e., Patriarchal way of thinking and acting) a person, having learned to discipline and control his "self" can do a job without the need of affirmation, being able to focus upon doing the job right and not wrong as an end in its self. On the other hand, under socialism, the person, cognizant of (subject to) "group approval," is unable to work without affirmation—being able to therefore blame someone else for not working with him, for getting in his way, or for leading him astray (for not supporting him as he worked for "the people," i.e., for the "common good," i.e., for his "self") or blame the situation ("unforeseen circumstances") if the job is not done right (not knowing or accepting the commands, rules, facts, and truth that would have required him to be "negative," i.e., to set aside his "feelings," i.e., to humble, deny, die to his "self" in order to learn and obey them, that would have gotten the job done right in the first place, having chosen affirmation by those who are antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., who reject accepting by faith and obeying established commands, rules, facts that inhibit or block them from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, i.e., which are "of the world" only). While the capitalist, respecting sovereignty, i.e., private property and business, leaves the laborer free to use his paycheck as he needs or pleases, i.e., does not take the labor's money back after he has paid him, the socialist, not respecting sovereignty, i.e., private property and business, taxes the labor's paycheck, property, and business in order to support himself (and those who do not or will not work), whether the laborer wants to support him (and them) or not. Socialist's can not survive without taking someone else's money, claiming they are doing it "for the people," when, in truth it is really for themselves, making sure no one can escape their belief that everything they see they own, i.e., that everyone owes dues to them, in the name of "the people."
   In this way of thinking, i.e., socialism, with its Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' rejecting the "top-down," "right-wrong," "Mine. Not yours." i.e., the Patriarchal paradigm of the father's/Father's authority (which is "negative" to "the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... all that is in the world," i.e., "human nature") way of thinking and acting, rejecting the individual under God, i.e., subject to God's authority, humbling, denying, dying to his "self" in order to do the Father's will, as the child is under the father's authority, i.e., subject to the father's authority, humbling, denying, dying to his "self" in order to do the father's will, see no value or worth in the person doing right and not wrong according to commands and truth established by God (with God's grace 'redeeming' him, i.e., God's Son imputing his righteousness, i.e., "goodness" upon him through faith—including the laws of nature, i.e., the rules and facts of physical nature which are established by God—with the person attending to them "doing his best as unto the Lord"). The "rock" upon which the congregation of the Lord's is built is not Peter, who is a "pebble," but upon Jesus and his statements "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." in response to Peter's, or rather His Father's declaration through Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." with the Father, i.e., God's authority being the emphasis in both statements by Jesus, i.e., the Son of God, who was obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded. Matthew 16:16-18 It is clear from the Word of God, the importance of God, i.e., the Father's authority. "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 In all of life, it is either the child's carnal nature, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... all that is in the world," i.e., "human nature," with "the children of disobedience" in control (ruling), which is "positive" (to the child's carnal nature) or the father's/Father's authority, with the children doing the father's/Father's will, which is "negative" (to the child's carnal nature). "Positive" and "negative" therefore emanate from the child's carnal nature, i.e., from his (or her) desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (which is "positive") and his (or her) resentment (or hatred) toward restraint, i.e., missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (which is "negative").
   If you do not humble, deny, die to your "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will you can not handle the rejection, i.e., the dis-affirmation from others—'justifying' your and their natural lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life, the hallmark of the "new" world order. If you want to be "positive," i.e., be affirmed by the world, you have to get rid of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., stop being "negative." It should be noted that words like inheritance, posterity, private property, private business, private convictions, sovereignty, and such emanate from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the "negative." They are missing in, i.e., can not emanate from the child's carnal nature, i.e., from being "positive." You abdicate all your unalienable rights the moment' you set aside being "negative," i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to be "positive," seeking to be affirm by those who are of (and for) your carnal nature only, i.e., of and for "human nature," i.e., of and for "all that is of the world," i.e., "of and for self." But, you might ask your "self," "How can I turn them down when they have my 'best interest' in mind, when they are 'helping' me to have and enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' I desire, which the world stimulates, without "feeling bad" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in order to have and enjoy them?" If you do not humble, deny, die to your "self," accept being rejected (dis-affirmed) by them, and following after the Lord, do His Father's will, i.e., if you are still talking to your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your "self" you can not.
   In the world of "positive," i.e., common-ism, the individual has value or worth only as he benefits society, i.e., makes others "feel good," i.e., becomes "good" (in their eyes), thus making his "self" "feel good," i.e., becoming "good" in his eyes—with everyone affirming and being affirmed by each other, engendering common-ism based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., upon "human nature" only. Capitalism begins in the home (with the children learning to obey the father). For socialism (common-ism aka globalism) to work someone has to come between the father and his children, 'liberating' them from his authority, i.e., negating his "top-down," "right-wrong," "Mine. Not yours." i.e., patriarchal way of thinking and acting in the their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world., so they can be or become "positive," i.e., so they can be or become "of and for self" and the world only, i.e., so they can be or become "good."
  
With "feeling good" being "good" or "positive," anything or anyone inflicting pain, including the pain of missing out on that which "feels good," i.e., "pleasure," including the "pleasure" or "feeling good" which comes with being approved, i.e., affirmed by others, or the pain of being made to "feel bad" for "doing wrong, disobeying, sinning," including the pain which comes with being rejected, i.e., dis-affirmed by others, becomes "negative," i.e., "evil" or "bad." In this sense, according to Georg Hegel, i.e., according to dialectic 'reasoning' all adults are children by nature, "lusting" after, i.e., loving the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,'' hating restraint, i.e., hating the father's/Father's authority—hating missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which they desire because of having to submit, i.e., humble, deny, die to their "self" in order to "do right and not wrong," i.e., in order to think and act according to someone else's standards, i.e., having to do what someone else says or tells them to do (not giving them the "freedom" or "right" to evaluate, i.e., aufheben and decide for their "self," i.e., "Reason" for their "self," what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil according to their natural "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their natural hate of restraint, i.e., "What can I get out of this situation for me").
   All of man's "Reasoning" (philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., even theology, when based upon men's opinions, i.e., "group psychotherapy") is altogether "of and for self," i.e., vanity—like a hole in space you pour time into until you run out of time, having nothing of eternal value or worth to show for it in the end. "Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity." "The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity." Psalms 39:5; 94:11 "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity." "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 1:2; 11:9, 10; 12:13, 14 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 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? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:24-27
   According to dialectic 'reasoning,' while the objects of pleasure might differ ('change') over time and between people, i.e., while our "interest" ("lust") for specific object increase and decrease, i.e., come and go, our carnal nature of loving pleasure (dopamine emancipation) itself (that which is "positive"), which objects stimulate, and our carnal nature of hating restraint (that which is "negative"), i.e., our natural inclination of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain makes us all the same, i.e., of nature only (the only foundation from which to build consensus). It is not that God is against pleasure or takes pleasure in pain. It is that when pleasure becomes more important than doing His will (like a child loving a toy over and therefore against the parent who gave it to him, refusing to put it up when told to, striking out against the parent instead—with the parent then having to discipline the child, teaching him right from wrong thought and behavior—or playing with something he is told he is not to play with, trying not to get caught—even thinking about doing it) it becomes "lust," i.e., "of and for self" only, turning us against Him—with us, as a child, i.e., loving (subject to) our carnal desires of the 'moment,' hating restraint, i.e., hating having to endure the pain of missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' we desire in order to do "right" and "not wrong" according to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth which go against our carnal nature of "lusting" after the carnal pleasures we desire of the 'moment' and hating restraint (missing out on pleasure). Only when we humble, deny, die to our "self," i.e., our carnal "interests" in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will is hate of restraint negated ("Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:11), otherwise, continuing to dialogue (with our "self," 'justify' our "self") regarding our desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (in indifference or defiance to authority), hate of restraint (and hate of the restrainer) is kept alive—if the child is still dialoguing with his "self" about his carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., 'justifying' his "self" after the chastening, the chastening did not take hold, i.e., he has not learned to control or discipline his "self." Likewise, if you are still talking to your "self" (complaining or anxious) about your problems which you gave to the Lord, you did not give them to the Lord.
   It is here, in the child's dialogue with his "self," 'justifying' his "self," i.e., continuing to focus upon his "interests" in indifference to or defiance to authority that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority resides. It is why "liberals" behave the way they do (as "sulking" children) when they do not get their way. You can see it, i.e., their disrespect and defiance, i.e., hatred toward authority everywhere you look today, behaving as "children of disobedience," wanting you to join with them, in consensus 'justifying' (affirming) their deceitful and wicked, i.e., "self"-ish ways. The difference being, when you are under authority, what you have has been entrusted to you to be a steward over, while those of dialectic 'reasoning' think, since it brings pleasure to them they should have it as well (instead), not understanding the responsibilities which come with stewardship, i.e., accountability, which can only come from submission to authority, which they are not able to be (as good stewards) since they have set their "self," i.e., their carnal "interests" above and therefore against authority (restraint, i.e., limits and measures inhibiting or blocking them from "enjoying" or "actualizing" their carnal desires, i.e., "self interests" of the 'moment'). While they accuse and attack others who, believing in commands, rules, facts, and truth, break them, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin, they find no fault in their "self," i.e., 'justify' their "self" when they do wrong, disobey, sin since they do not hold themselves accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth which go against their carnal nature, finding fault in the situation or in others instead (as Adam and the women did in the garden in Eden).
   According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the hating of restraint (hating the "negative," i.e., your natural hatred toward being reproved, corrected, rebuked, i.e., chastened for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning), i.e., without the very act of restraint itself creating the world of "ought to be," i.e., you dialoguing with your "self" (and with others) about a world that is "positive," i.e., a world that makes you "feel good," i.e., a world in harmony with your "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment,' where "lust" is not "lust" but just you and others being "normal," thinking and acting in a way that is natural, i.e., in accordance with "human nature," "Reasoning" (dialoguing with your "self," and, provided the right conditions, dialoguing, i.e., justifying' your "self" with others to a consensus'discovering' common ground, i.e., common-ism) could not come into being. It is therefore only in your dialoging with your "self" (and then with others) your desires of the 'moment,' requiring the negation of restraint, i.e., 'liberation' from the not in the world that "is," i.e., 'liberation' from "two plus two is four and can not be any other number," i.e., 'liberation' from the "negative," i.e., 'liberation' from the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed as given that the world of "ought to be," i.e., the world of the "positive," i.e., a world 'listening' to (subject to) and seeking harmony with your "feelings" of the 'moment' can become a reality (with reality residing in your imagination, i.e., in your "feelings," i.e., your desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., your thoughts of the 'moment' instead of in the "past," external to the "eternal present"), engendering 'change,' making anyone who initiates or sustains 'change,' i.e., who negates the "negative," i.e., who negates the "can not's," "must not's," "Thou shalt not's," "It is written's," "Because I said so's" (of the "past" restraining the present) "good."
  
As crazy as it might sound, though true, the objective is to, through dialogue, negate the preaching and teaching of the "not," i.e., the "negative" of the "old" world order that "is" in order to create a "new" world order of "oughtiness," i.e., a world which by affirming the "positive," i.e., the child's carnal nature, negates the "negative," i.e., the father's/Father's authority. Dialogue, i.e., starting with the child's "feelings," i.e., his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., his "ought," like a filter removes preaching and teaching, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth from the outcome. Politically speaking, local control, where each citizen is treated as an individual under the father's/Father's authority, where government recognizes, respects, and honors the father's/Father's authority of "Mine. Not yours," i.e., private convictions, property, and business is negated in the consensus meeting, where that which all citizens have in common, i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature" is in control, making all citizens the same, with all they have being subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the facilitator of the consensus meeting, using the citizens as "natural resource" for his pleasure and gain, doing so in the name of "the people." "All power to the people" really means all power to the facilitator of 'change.' According to all training manuals, the consensus process would not work (happen) without him. By the facilitator of 'change' seducing "the people" into dialogue, "encouraging" them to be "positive" and not "negative" while they work to solve the crisis or personal-social issue at hand (thereby 'discovering' "the people's" common "self interest"), he is able to deceive them into believing that he has their "self interest" in mind, when it is his "self interest" he has in mind instead, being able then to manipulate them, i.e., unite them as one, in consensus, using them as "natural resource" for his own pleasure and gain, resulting in their worshiping and praising him for his "good works," taking care of him as he "takes care of them."
   As people—thinking and acting according to their carnal nature—seek the "positive" over and therefore against the "negative"—having to miss out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire because they have to do what someone else demands—they 'discover' their common identity in one another, affirming each other's carnal nature, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., that which is of the world only. While you approve of (or disapprove of) the child's behavior according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth you can only affirm the child's flesh—with your and his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and your and his hate of restraint being the same. It is here that affirmation (finding common identity, i.e., consensus with one another, through dialogue, i.e., setting aside, i.e., suspending the truth, as on a cross, in order to "get along," i.e., "build relationship") unites all as one, making the individual subject to society, i.e., to "the group," i.e., to the many instead of to the father/Father, i.e., to the one (Hebrews 12:5-11). Instead of persuading and being persuaded through the preaching, teaching, and discussion of commands, rules, facts, and truth, through dialectic 'reasoning,' through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (i.e., through thinking through others "feelings" of the 'moment') they become subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of "group psychotherapists" (Genesis 3:1-6), in facilitated meetings learning how to do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience—therefore, no longer needing a savior (Romans 7:14-25), i.e. having found their identity in one another, 'justifying' their "self" before men. "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "How can it be wrong when it feels so 'good,' i.e., seems 'right.'" "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 Apart from the God (the Father) revealing himself through His Word, all we have is our "self," and its love ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the world—"and the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:17 Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self" 'justification' have only this world and its pleasures of the 'moment,' which are constantly 'changing,' i.e., passing away, leaving them hollow, "lusting" after more, never satisfied. As the gospel song "Only Jesus can satisfy your soul" by Lanny Wolfe goes, "The world will try to satisfy that longing in your soul, you may search the wide world over but you'll be just as before. You'll never find true satisfaction until you've found the Lord, for only Jesus can satisfy your soul.... If you could have the fame and fortune all the wealth you could obtain, yet you have not Christ within, your living here would be in vain; there'll come a time when death shall call you, riches can not help you then, So come to Jesus for only He can satisfy, satisfy your soul.... Only Jesus can satisfy your soul, and only He can change your heart and make you whole; He'll give you peace you never knew, Sweet love and joy and Heaven too, for only Jesus can satisfy your soul."
   With others affirming the child's "good works," i.e., "works" which make them "'feel' good," making the child "feel good," they are not only affirming the child's carnal nature they are affirming their carnal nature as well, thus making "feeling good," i.e., the love of pleasure, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., being "positive," i.e., affirmation the standard for "good." This makes everyone "negative" who preaches and teaches that only God, i.e., the Father and His son, Jesus Christ is good, i.e., that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," i.e., that all are deceitful and wicked by nature (deceived in believing that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing God, the Father's will and wicked in resenting/hating the Father's authority, i.e., restraints) and are therefore condemned, needing a savior to 'redeem' them from damnation so they can be 'reconciled' to the Father (that any good work they do is the result of the work of the Lord in them, thereby not being able to boast in and of their "self," i.e., esteem their "self," i.e., the child's carnal nature over, and therefore against the father/Father and his/His authority). Therefore, in a world "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment, loving the "positive," anyone preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as "is," by faith, and obeyed as give, making people "feel bad" or "guilty" for doing wrong, disobeying, or sinning, especially in a consensus meeting, is identified and labeled as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, a lower order thinker, maladjusted, not a "team player," a "resister of 'change'," in denial, phobic, neurotic, etc., needed to be either converted (i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, fighting against it instead), silenced (not "pushing" their belief on anyone, i.e., keeping it to themselves in order to get along), or removed for the "good" of "the people."
  
Being "negative," i.e., making people "feel bad" or "guilty" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in today's world automatically makes you "irrational," i.e., "unreasonable" and therefore "irrelevant." We find ourselves taken captive to a Marxist, social(list) society striving for consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness" based upon everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment'), 'justifying,' i.e., affirming "human nature," i.e., the child's/man's carnal nature as being "good" or becoming "good," i.e., 'liberated' from the "negative," i.e., 'liberated' from having to have faith in and obey God the Father, and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, i.e., 'liberated' from preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth which "judge" and "condemn" man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," making him "feel" bad—needing to repent, turn from his wicked ways, and do God, i.e. the Father's will. The children of disobedience, not knowing the Father's love, joy, and peace, can only, from their own carnal perspective, perceive the Father as being hateful, i.e., "negative." When you start with the "positive," i.e., exonerate the child's carnal nature, the only outcome you can arrive at is the negation of the "negative," i.e., the negation of the Father's restraint (authority), so that all can be of and for the world only, doing wrong, disobeying, sinning without having a guilty conscience, i.e., with impunity (in their minds), dying in their sins. By focusing upon the "building of relationship" with others in order to share the gospel with them, the die (lie) is cast—the carnal nature of the child, being "positive," has become the pathway to becoming "good," i.e., to being affirmed by men—man can only affirm the flesh. The gospel condemns this way of thinking. Anyone trying to convince you that this is how the gospel is shared is trying to get you to drink bilge water—trying to get you to drink from the same tap they are drinking from. As the Apostle Paul wrote: "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10
   Dialectic 'reasoning' (human-ist reasoning, i.e., dialoguing with other's what you are dialoguing with your "self" about, i.e., your carnal desires, or Facebook mentality), i.e., "Make me 'feel good' and I will listen to you," i.e., keep everything in an opinion (non-judgmental) format and "I will friend you," i.e., "I will affirm you," "Make me 'feel bad' and I will not listen to you," i.e., preach to me that your position is "right" and that mine is "wrong," i.e., "judge" and "condemn" my thoughts and actions as being "wrong" and "I will un-Friend you," i.e., "I will dis-affirm (reject) you," i.e., 'reasoning' from the carnal nature of the child, i.e., 'justifying' i.e., esteeming "self," makes the child's carnal nature, i.e., his love of pleasure, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" the standard for "good." Therefore, according to those intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed with, i.e., blinded by dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' anyone reasoning from God, the Fathers' commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., from the Word, "doing right and not wrong" according to the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, requiring His Son and those following Him to deny, humble, die to "self" in order to do the Father's will is perceived as being "negative," i.e., as being evil—correlating the same system, paradigm, or way of thinking and acting with the child having faith in and obeying his earthly father, not only accepting and doing his father's will, but requiring others to accept and do his father's will as well, as being "negative," i.e., as being evil as well. This is what Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud had in common, which is being put into praxis today (everywhere you turn).
   In this way of thinking, through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., the consensus process, i.e., basing "good" upon the child's carnal nature, man is able to turn good, i.e., God and His Word, into evil and evil, i.e., man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" into "good." Dialectic 'reasoning' thus 'justifies' the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'' and his dissatisfaction with restraint (Genesis 3:1-6), i.e., "human nature," i.e., "self" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), 'liberating' the child not only from having to do the father's/Father's will, but from having a guilty conscience ("'feeling' bad") for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as well, negating his need to 'repent' (Romans 7:14-25). While the earthly father is not perfect, he could have been or can be a down right tyrant, using the office God gave him for his own pleasures and gain, the office itself is perfect, under God. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' basing reality upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., the approaching (love) of pleasure and the avoiding (hate) of pain, i.e., "self," can only see the 'liberation' of the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" from the father's authority, i.e., the negation of the office itself as being "good," i.e., "positive."
   Any meeting requiring all to be "positive" and not "negative," i.e., insisting upon the dialoguing of opinions in order to arrive at a consensus, is a meeting 'purposed' in making policy void of and hostile to the father's/Father's authority. The leader of the meeting, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapist'," by 'justifying' the child's carnal nature ("positive") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority ("negative"), is 'justifying' his (or her) carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority as well, 'liberating' his "self" from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—as those under his influence accept and participate in (affirm) his leadership, initiating and sustaining the consensus environment which requires all to be "positive" ("of the world" only) and not "negative" (submitting to the father's/Father's authority). The facilitator of 'change' (in his mind), i.e., with the group's (your) affirmation, 'justified' in 'liberating' everyone else from the Father's, i.e., God's authority so he, along with everyone else, can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., without having a guilty conscience. His only challenge (objective) is to get you to join with the group, affirming his and their praxis of unrighteousness and abomination, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., "all that is in the world," negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilt conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. As you will see, being "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus in a "group psychotherapy," facilitated meeting accomplishes the deed, i.e., the praxis, 'liberating' all participants (the individual and society) from the father's/Father's authority. Beware: your silence in a consensus meeting, in order not to be rejected, i.e., i.e., "unfriended," i.e., dis-affirmed is perceived as consenting, i.e. affirming the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' and all following him, voiding the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in the process, making the child's carnal nature the foundation from which to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil—the child's carnal nature from then on (with your affirmation) becomes "good" or "right" and the father's/Father's authority becomes "wrong" or "evil," making anyone holding onto the father's/Father's authority not only "irrational" but "irrelevant" as well.
   The child's carnal nature (the "new" world order) and the father's/Father's authority (the "old" world order) are antithetical to one another. "Reasoning" from the child's carnal nature, i.e., from his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., from his "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., reasoning from "human nature," questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father's/Father's authority is antithetical to reasoning from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., reasoning from the Word of God (weighing the Word with the Word, refusing to make it subject to men's opinions), requiring faith, leads to obedience. Establishing reasoning upon one, either the father's/Father's authority or the child's carnal nature, automatically negates the other. Preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) and obeyed, i.e., the fathers'/Father's authority is antithetical to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus in a facilitated meeting, 'justifying' the child's carnal nature. One automatically negates the other. To mingle the two only 'justifies' the latter. "For the preaching of the cross [preaching Jesus Christ, i.e., the only begotten Son of God, in obedience to His Heavenly Father, i.e., doing His Heavenly Father's will in all things commanded, i.e., denying His "self," enduring the rejection of men, i.e., picking up the cross—covering our sins by His shed blood on the cross, imputing His righteousness unto us through our faith in Him] is to them that perish [who 'justify' their "self" before men, affirming their carnal nature, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"] foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God [who calls us to deny our "self," pick up our cross, i.e., endure the rejection of men, i.e., reject affirmation ("self esteem" which comes through "group esteem") daily, and following Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, doing His Heavenly Father's will as well); "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "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." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:19, 30; 12:47-50; "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50; "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9
   According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' since the Father's authority is derived from the children honoring the father's authority, i.e., obeying the father's commands and rules as given and accepting his facts, and truth as is, by faith, by 'liberating' the children from the father's authority (through dialogue), they are able to (through dialogue) to 'liberate' their "self" from the Father's authority as well, the very praxis of dialogue accomplishes the deed, i.e., the negation of the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' has only one 'drive,' i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" and only one 'purpose,' i.e., 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that the child (along with the facilitator of 'change') can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., be "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only instead. Bring it, i.e., being "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., tolerance of ambiguity (deviancy) into the home, education, the neighborhood, government, and even into the "church" and it will do the same thing, 'liberate' you and your family, spouse, educators, neighbors, leaders, and minister from the Father's authority so that you and they can be "positive," i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, with "no fear of God before [your and their] eyes."
  Placing a child in a consensus environment reveals where along the process of 'change' he resides in the 'moment,' whether he is 1) 'loyal' to the father's/Father's authority, seeking to do the father's/Father's will (preaching and teaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, judging others, after judging his "self," for their evil or wicked ways, i.e., for their carnal thoughts and actions), 2) wanting "the groups" approval while still wanting the father's/Father's approval , i.e., caught in between doing his will (becoming a part of "the group") and doing the father's/Father's will (holding to doing right and not wrong, according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth), remaining silent or non-committal in order not to have to make a choice against one or the other, or 3) 'loyal' to the consensus process (and the facilitator of 'change'), having dialogued with and been affirmed by (and affirmed) "the group," 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, working to 'liberate' all he can from the father's/Father's authority as well, so that he, along with them, can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. This is what the "group grade" classroom (the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom) is all about, preparing the children to go home with the "right" way of thinking and acting, i.e., 'purposed' in negating the father's/Father's authority in the home, when they get home. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Placing the child in a traditional environment of right and wrong reveals where along the process of 'change' he resides in the 'moment' as well, with him 1) accepting and obeying the father's/Father's authority (repenting when he does wrong, disobeys, sins, humbling, denying, dying to his "self," seeking to do the father's/Father's will), 2) doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, yet still having a guilty conscience, i.e., fearful of getting caught, i.e., still dialoguing with, i.e., 'justifying' his "self," or 3) 'justifying' his "self" with others, questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father's/Father's authority, without have a guilty conscience, trying to bring others (including those in the family) into his way of thinking and acting, i.e., 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority as well.

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain ["of and for self"] in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." "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;" "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21, 22, 28, 32

   Diaprax, i.e., the so called "new" world order, where man 'justifies' his "self" before men is antithetical to the "old" world order, where man can only be justified by the work of Christ—doing His Heavenly Father's will—with those of faith in Him doing His Heavenly Father's will as well. Even the "church," turning to dialectic 'reasoning' to grow it's "self," has turned against "the way." "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 Dialectic 'reasoning' negates faith. It is impossible to please God without it, i.e., faith. It is impossible to please God with it, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification.' By making the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" the foundation of reasoning, God's judgment upon man for man's carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for his sins, i.e., damnation can only be perceived by man as being hateful. Those who reason dialectically, 'justifying' their "self," hate Godly restraint. Just look at our culture today and you can see the affect dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., 'justifying' the carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the child has upon our spouse, our children, our neighbors, the media, our leaders, our nation, and the "church."
   Diaprax (dialogue in praxis) is the so called "scientific formula," of Georg Hegel (Luke 16:15), i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, being put into praxis, even in the "church." It is the Heresiarchal Paradigm (a paradigm is a way of feeling, thinking, acting, relating with "self," others, and the world, as well as responding to authority) of the "new" world order (as "new" as Genesis 3:1-6), establishing the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process (Romans 7:14-25). Diaprax is "of and for self," i.e., is you sharing with others what you are talking to your "self" about, i.e., is you dialoguing with others your and their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., your and their love of pleasure and hate of restraint/the restrainer, 'justifying' "self," i.e., "feelings," i.e., "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapy" arriving at a consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness" with one another), affirming each other's "self," i.e., affirming each others love of pleasure and hate of restraint/the restrainer, i.e., affirming the child's carnal nature ("human nature"), uniting with (becoming at-one-with) one another in thought and action (with everyone having everyone else's "feelings" in mind, in truth their own "feelings," i.e., fear of rejection by "the group," i.e., "the people" in mind—fearful of being treated as they treated the "negative" in the consensus meeting itself—resulting in their carnal feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint/the restrainer—which they have in common with "the group," i.e., with "the people"—now representing "the group's," i.e., "the people's" feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e., "the group's," i.e., "the people's" love of pleasure and hate of restraint/the restrainer), bypassing or circumventing whoever is preventing them from having or "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, i.e., negating (disregarding, i.e., perceiving as irrational and therefore responding to as irrelevant) whoever is requiring them to humble, deny, control, discipline their "self" in order to do their will, negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobey, sinning ("private convictions") in the process. Loyalty to the father/Father and his/His authority, which restrains their carnal nature is now 'shifted' to 'loyalty' to "the group," which affirms their carnal nature—"'justifying' themselves before men."
   Diaprax is your opinion, i.e., your "feelings," i.e., your "sensuous needs" of the 'moment' and your "sense perception" of the situation, i.e., that which is "of nature only" (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3), i.e., your "lust of the flesh" and your "lust of the eyes," i.e., that which is "of the world only" being dialogued to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness" with others), i.e., being affirmed, i.e., being 'justified' in a "group psychotherapy," facilitated meeting (it would not work, i.e., come to fruition without the facilitator)where "the group," i.e., society (Karl Marx) and the individual, i.e., psychology (Sigmund Freud) are merged (made one) through dialogue—with everyone affirming "self," i.e., 'justifying' their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, , i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," establishing "self," i.e., the love of pleasure (which now includes "group affirmation," which is intoxicating, addictive, and possessive) over and therefore against restraint/the restrainer, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, putting dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' (dialogue), i.e., desire and dissatisfaction into social action (praxis), negating restraint/the restrainer, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—negating that which/who is preventing you and others, i.e., "the people" from being "of self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only—thereby 'creating' a "new" world order "of and for self" only, i.e., a world 'liberated' from restraint/the restrainer, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that all can be "normal," i.e., "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only (do wrong, disobey, sin) with no sense of guilt. If you understand this, you understand the "new" world order, i.e., the affect it is having on you, your spouse, your children, your relatives, your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers, your educators, your legislators, etc., as well as your minister. Diaprax is the process of ''change,' i.e., heresy being put into individual-social action, negating the father's/Father's authority (there is no father's/Father's authority in an opinion, dialogue, or consensus, i.e., in "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité"—the father's/Father's authority is washed from the brain in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus or affirmation process—soviet system) so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be "human" (a humanist, a socialist, a globalist, a Marxist, a common-ist in thought and action), i.e., "of and for self" only, without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so that all, 'justified,' i.e., affirmed by "the group," can do unconscionable things (in the name of/for the sake of "the people") without having a sense of guilt. (See diaprax and affirmation charts in Links.) It is not that the socialist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' really cares about "the people," he just uses "the people" card so that "the people," esteeming their "self," crucifying any who get in their (his) way, and following him—thinking he cares about them—will take care of him, i.e., will serve, protect, and praise him. The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is a worship service, with "the people," at the alter of "self," worshiping the facilitator of 'change.' While the dictator puts his "self" in God's place, using the office for his own carnal pleasures, the facilitator of 'change' puts his "self" in Satan's place, using the office to initiate and sustain the praxis of unrighteousness, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification (before men), seducing, deceiving, and manipulating those under this influence (as natural resource) for his own pleasure and gain.
   You can not have 'change,' i.e., the "new" world order, i.e., Globalism without it—the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, putting consensus (the soviet system) into praxis, negating restraint/the restrainer, i.e., the "old" world order, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will. It is the religion that all must now bow down to, embrace, and serve if they are to be a part of the "new" world order, i.e., if thy are to be affirmed. As on Facebook, if you hurt someone's "feelings" you become "un-liked" or "un-friended," i.e., irrational ("unreasonable") and therefore irrelevant, excluded, negated, i.e., diapraxed—"Make me 'feel good,' i.e., 'justify' my carnal desires (thoughts) and behavior of the 'moment' and I will 'friend,' i.e., add (affirm) you." "Hurt my 'feelings', i.e., judge me for my carnal desires (thoughts) and behavior of the 'moment' and I will 'unfriend,' i.e., delete (negate) you." This is what Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud had in mind—"building relationships upon 'self' interest," i.e., 'creating' a "new" world order based upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "of and for self only," negating the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, control, discipline "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., having to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (Hebrews 12:5-11), engendering a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25). Diaprax, i.e., the "new" world order, i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., 'justifying' (esteeming) "self" is antithetical (hostile) to the "old" world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, negating the "old" world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children when put into praxis. It is what the media, the education establishment (via its use of "Bloom's Taxonomies"), entertainment industry, etc., are doing to you, your children, spouse, and friends, wanting all to join (affirm) them in their Godless, i.e., love of their carnal desires of the moment,' hate of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., restraining ways. If you make pleasure the standard for "good," you have to hate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., restraint, making it the standard for "evil," making the 'purpose' of life the 'liberation' of the Karl Marx in you, as well as in all the children of the world.

   "The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
"Ye are they which justify yourselves [your heart's desires] before men; but God knoweth your hearts [which are deceitful, thinking pleasure is the standard for "good," instead of doing God the Father's will, and wicked, hating anyone who inhibits or blocks pleasure, preventing them from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire]: for that which is highly esteemed among men ["all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 [1 John 2:16]
   "Let no man deceive you with vain words ["self" 'justifying' words, i.e., words which you want to hear, i.e., words which make you "feel" "good," 'justifying' your "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including the affirmation of men, and your resentment/hatred toward restraint/the restrainer]: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Ephesians 5:5-7
   "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5
   "Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e. who establishes "self," i.e., "human nature" above and therefore against God, i.e., the Father's authority, thus negating the Father's authority in his thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
   Although a man might have, in this life, "no fear of God before his eyes," he will "give account of himself to God" on the day of judgment. Psalms 36:1; Romans 14:12 On that day his opinion, i.e., "I can do what I want to do, when I want to do it because it is natural (common) to all men, women, and children and therefore my 'right,'" will not count.

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

   Through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, in "group psychotherapy," facilitated meetings, children (including those in adult bodies)—'justifying' (affirming) their "self," i.e., their carnal nature before one another (actually not just 'justifying' their "self," but 'justifying' their 'justifying' their "self," i.e., 'justifying' the praxis, i.e., that way of thinking itself, i.e., 'choosing' the sensation (sensuousness) of pleasure over and therefore against doing what is right and not wrong according to the fathers'/Father's will)—are being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, so that they (no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning), along with, i.e., following in the footsteps of the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "psychotherapist," can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. The praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., of "self" 'justification' negates Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. the father's/Father's authority, negates Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the "guilty conscience " in children for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, resulting in their questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking authority, i.e., rejecting the father's/Father's authority instead of honoring it. This is the hallmark of Marxism—with policies and laws being made and put into praxis through the consensus process, i.e., the soviet system.
   Marxist's, i.e., facilitator's of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapist's, i.e., "children of disobedience" have become so entrenching in education, in business, in government, in the media, in the entertainment industry, etc., and even in the "church" today, to speak negative of them (expose them) automatically makes you an ausländer, i.e., an outcast (negative, divisive, hateful, intolerant, a "lower order thinker," maladjusted, controversial, a "resister to change," not a "team player," "phobic," etc., i.e., the list goes on and gets really nasty and hateful), i.e., "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant." Most people, not knowing what Marxism is, support Marxism without even knowing it. Not knowing what Marxism is you might be a Marxist yourself, like a drug addict, hating (striking out against, mocking, berating, attacking) anyone exposing and/or interfering with your Marxist ways, in denial, refusing to seek after and know the truth. Are you a Marxist?

   The following (as explained in condensed form above) will answer the question, "What is happening to me (my children, my spouse, my friends, and the world around me, including the "church")?"—if you can handle it. If you are not upset, i.e., if you do not really want to know the truth, you will not last long in reading (or even attempt to read) the following. It will require you to think. If you are thinking through your "feelings," wanting to "feel good" about your "self" (of Facebook, i.e., "like" mentality) you will not last. Instead of setting aside the truth in order (as in "new" world order) to "feel good" about your "self," it will require you to humble, deny, die to your "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to come to the knowledge of the truth. While everyone is dealing with the symptoms of the problem, the following addresses the problem itself. Until you address the problem (your heart), there is no real solution, only continuous 'change'—like a dog chasing its tail, "feeling good" while doing it (thinking through its "feelings" of the 'moment'), experiencing rapid 'change,' going nowhere.

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 While children, by nature love the pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, and by nature hate missing out on pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, thus by nature hating not only restraint but the restrainer, i.e., the Father and His authority as well, the Father instead loves His children, hating only their bad behavior, chastening them, when they do wrong, disobey, sin in order to encourage them to do right, obey, not sin (seek Him for the solution), only pouring His wrath out upon the children who, loving the pleasures which the world stimulates over and therefore against Him, defy Him, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (in their minds) and attack His authority—"the children of disobedience."

"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values [Marxism], the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes [what is called a "paradigm 'change'" or 'shift,' i.e., 'shifting' his 'loyalty' from the one, i.e., the Father, to his "self," and then, with the help of the facilitator of 'change,' to "the group," i.e., to society—from a Patriarchal Paradigm of stability (establishment), through a Matriarchal Paradigm of "feelings," to the Heresiarchal Paradigm of continuous 'change,' i.e., "self" 'justification'] and he must be involved in an environment which in may 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 [the father's/Father's authority] is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Place the child in an environment where he is 1) seeking approval, yet required to be 2) tolerant of deviance and his reaction will determine where along the spectrum of 'change' he is at the present 'moment,' whether his 'loyalty' is to parental authority, judging the deviant (as he judges his "self," from his parent's standards), or his 'loyalty' is to his "self" only, remaining silent, caught between wanting parental approval and group affirmation (fearing rejection), or, dialoging with the deviant, his 'loyal' is to the "new" world order, rejecting parental authority. Once he has worshiped at the alter of deviancy, like a drug addict, he will "tear the kitchen apart" (have a tantrum) if or when his parents get in his way.

   Separate the children from their parents. Encourage them to dialogue their opinions, i.e., their "Why's?" (in response to their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's commands and rules, as in "Why can't I go out?" i.e., trying to get their parents into dialogue, which their parent cut off with their "Because I said so's."—in other words "Do what I say or else.") and you 'liberate' the children from their parent's commands and rules, turning them against their parent's authority, negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, resulting in them questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking their parents (their parent's authority) when they get home, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. In the "group grade," consensus, "relationship building," facilitated classroom the children learn that everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment' must determine right from wrong (instead of their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) if they are to become "normal," i.e., affirmed by "the group," i.e., of and for the world only.

"[We] must develop persons [students] who see non-influencability of private convictions [those student's holding on to their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority] in joint deliberations [in the facilitated, consensus, "group grade" "relationship building" classroom] as a vice rather than a virtue [as being "negative," i.e., "the problem" instead of "positive," i.e., contributing to the solution]." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"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." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) The error in this 'logic' is that Fascism is based upon the father's/Father's authority when in truth in order to create any form of socialism, whether National (Fascism) or Global (Communism), or anything in between, you must first negate the father's/Father's authority—the paranoia of globalist's is their fear that the traditional family might turning to National government, i.e., that parent's might abdicate their authority to government in order to stop the globalist's advancement, thus forming Fascism, when in truth the children, through socialists programs in education have already been 'liberated' from their parent's' authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, establishing their 'loyalty' to "the group," in this case National instead of Global, serving "the people" without having a guilty conscience while doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., while doing unconscionable things, which is the byproduct of all forms of socialism, which are a byproduct of man's heart.

   The Marxist's' agenda is to "develop persons," i.e., train children (and adults) to perceive and respond to those holding onto their belief or position (absolutes), i.e., those who refuse to compromise or set aside their faith in the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, preaching and teaching them in policy making or problem solving situations, expecting others to accept them as well, thus initiating and sustaining the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right not wrong, i.e., do what I say or else," "Mine. Not yours" authority system, i.e., propagating the traditional family structure—which demands that children submit to and obey their parents, i.e., recognize, honour, and obey authority, i.e., control, discipline, humble, deny, die to their "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, thus engendering a guilty conscience in themselves (and in others) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—as being "the problem," with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., the consensus meeting (being "positive" and not "negative") being used in the classroom, workplace, government, church, etc., i.e., in any policy or behavior establishing environment dealing with a crisis or personal-social issues of the 'moment,' as being necessary in order (as in "new" world order) to expose, neutralize, and then negate "the problem." The preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith—which initiates and sustains the father's/Father's authority, thus initiating and sustaining the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father—is antithetical to (restrains, inhibits, or blocks) the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus—which, affirming the child's carnal nature, 'liberates' the child from the father's/Father's authority, thus initiating and sustaining the 'super-ego' (which is based upon the child's "feelings," i.e. the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'), which negates the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father, so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. And visa versa, the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus—which, affirming the child's carnal nature, 'liberates' the child from the father's/Father's authority, thus initiating and sustaining the 'super-ego' (which is based upon the child's "feelings," i.e. the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'), which negates the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father, so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity is antithetical to (negates) the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, which initiates and sustains the father's/Father's authority, thus engendering the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father.
   Using one method in the classroom, workplace, government, church, etc., automatically negates the other. Either the father/Father rules or "the children of disobedience." To mingle the two only deceives those participating into believing that they are in the former, under the father's/Father's authority, when in truth they are in the latter, under the influence and control of Marxism. Marxism is based upon the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., upon your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including the affirmation of others, and your resentment toward restraint, i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., that which is "of the world only." As Karl Marx explained it: "Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His will], the former [the earthly father's authority system] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the personal thoughts and social actions (behavior) of the children]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices [the children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus in the "group grade," "relationship building," "team building," facilitated classroom, basing right and wrong upon their "feelings," i.e., their natural desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (instead of obeying commands and rules being preached, as given and accepting facts and truth being taught, by faith, i.e., recognizing, respecting, honoring, and obeying authority)] are producing between parents and children [when the children get home, now questioning, challenging, disregarding their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., defying and attacking their parents, i.e., their parent's authority]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2: Affective Domain) Dad and Mom are not perfect. Some can be down right tyrants. Yet their office, given to the by God, is. Those intoxicated, addicted, and possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' instead of addressing the parent's bad behavior (who, acting like children, are using the office God gave them for their own carnal pleasures instead of doing the Father's will), seek to destroy the office itself, thus not only 'liberating' the children (and themselves) from parental/Godly restraint, but the parent's as well, the parent's now tolerating or supporting laws which are antithetical to the Father's authority, i.e., Godly restraint.

   In other words: inductive 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from the child's "feelings," i.e., from the child's "sense experiences" i.e., from the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., from the child's "self interest"—made possible by allowing all children freedom to dialogue their opinions (without being 'judged,' put down, or condemned) with the intent (with the "help" of a facilitator) of arriving at a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of oneness—must replace deductive reasoning, i.e., the child reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, or truth (which restrain the child's and/or other children's "feelings," desires, and "self interests" of the 'moment') being preached or taught by the leader or any participant(s) in the meeting, requiring the child to recognize, accept, and/or submit to an authority figure. Therefore, while resolving any crisis or dealing with any personal-social issues, only that information (which is based upon "feelings," i.e., the "self interests," i.e., the "sense experiences," i.e., the desires and dissatisfactions which all children can readily identify with and unite upon) which is "appropriate," i.e., "positive" information, i.e., which is conducive to "building relationship upon self interest" is encouraged and supported (being introduced through "suggestion" by the facilitator of 'change' or some "expert" or contributor in order to get things started or to keep things rolling, if and when necessary), with any information requiring the humbling and denying of "self" in order to do "right and not wrong" according to some authority figure, preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking the "building of relationship upon self interest" becoming "inappropriate," i.e., "negative" information, and therefore discouraged or unsupported by the leader (the facilitator of 'change') and therefore rejected by "the group." In this way of thinking (dialectic 'reasoning'), through the use of the consensus process, any child continuing to preach and teach "their" (their father's/Father's) commands, rules, facts, truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed (in order, as in "old" world order, to resolve a crisis) is perceived by all participants as being "irrational" ("unreasonable," "negative"), their information from then on becoming "irrelevant" ("inappropriate"), i.e., not worth thinking about by "the group," i.e., by "the people." Thinking through their "feelings" of the 'moment,' all participants become incapable of handling information which transcends their "feelings" of the 'moment,' making them blind to any information which is antithetical to the sensations of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them, satisfying Karl Marx's belief that "sense experience" is the only pathway to knowing truth (Gnosis). If you have ever witnessed or participated in a consensus meeting, you have witnessed or participated in the imprinting of Marxism into the American "psyche." Of course Marxists, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists" would disagree—wanting you to be ignorant or remain naive about their agenda to seduced, deceive, and manipulate you in order (as in "new" world order) to use you as natural resource, i.e., as "human resource" for their own pleasure and gain, claiming all the while that what they are doing is for the "common good" (common-ism aka Communism), i.e., for the "good" of "the people" (when in truth it is all about them, i.e., what they want to get out of you, with you supporting them with your time, money, and praise, affirming them and their deceitful and wicked ways)
   Marxism is alive and well in America today—in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church." It is marching in the streets and sitting in government chambers, making laws forcing you to support it's "self"-ish way, as "adults"—acting as sulking spoiled children in defiance to their parent's authority—demand their way—having a tantrum if they can not have what they want, when they want it—blaming anyone not supporting them, for getting in their way. For example, the difference between honest giving and Marxist (deceitfully, i.e., dishonest) "giving" is that in the former you give out of your own pocket, according to your free will, while in the latter you (and/or your comrades) live off of (get paid from) the tax dollars government forces others to give, getting pleasure (including praise) giving their money (in the form of goods, loans, grants, or cash) to the needy of the day, guided by government regulations (the consensus process) making sure there are no religious (Christian) connotations in the "gift," thus promoting a Godless state (with giving or donating to an institution or organization which, through opinions being dialogued to a consensus, prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks your "private convictions" from being advanced in the gift, having the same effect as in the public realm, i.e., "filtering" out "private convictions" in the outcome, making "building relationship upon self interest," i.e., common-ism the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the institution or organization). Without parental/Godly restraint, i.e., "private convictions," the Siren song "I Want to Hold Your Hand" leads to "The House of the Rising Sun." To initiate and sustain 'change,' i.e., the child's carnal nature, stability, i.e., the father's/Father's authority must be negated, allowing "children of disobedience" to "feel good" about their "self" as they do wrong, disobey, sin—as pimps and pedophiles seduce, deceive, and manipulate their victims, using them as natural resource, gaining pleasure (living) off of their person, money, and time.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

   Hebrews 12:5-11 and Genesis 3:1-6 are two political systems which are antithetical to one another. One encourages (demands) that you correct your children's behavior when they misbehave, say in a restaurant, the other intrudes (on the side of your children's misbehavior) when you do so, infringing your right of "private convictions," property, and business, thinking it owns (has ownership) of all that it touches, tastes, sees, smells, and hears, including your children, spouse, property, business, and even you. When you abdicate Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority to Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., to "self interest," i.e., to the child's carnal nature, you initiate and sustain Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. When you submit to Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, humbling and denying your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, you prevent, i.e., inhibit or block Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal nature. For example, those of Genesis 3:1-6 have a solution to hearing a child cry (being or having to be corrected). It is to kill the child before it has a chance to cry, i.e., before it has a chance to become an "inconvenience," i.e., an irritant. How this has come to pass (with your participation in tax dollars, donations, and "voluntarism") is explained in the following pages.
   Even the "church" has joined in, suspending, as on a cross, the truth of the gospel, i.e., the Word of God, i.e., the Father's and His Son's, Jesus Christ's commands, rules, facts, and truth, including judgment and damnation, so as not to offend others, in order to work with (partnership with) the government, i.e., the "community," initiating and sustaining social(ist) 'change.' "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ [doing the Father's will]. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33

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

   Marxism is closer to you than you might think, might want to know, or might be willing to admit. Karl Marx is in your heart. Marxism has become the way of doing "business" because Marxism lies in the heart of "the people," i.e., in the heart of the child. The heart is "deceitful" in that it establishes "pleasure," i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the child's "lusting" after and "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's "self interest" (Genesis 3:1-6) as the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will (Hebrews 12:5-11)—which engenders a guilty conscience in the child when doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25)—and "wicked" in that it resents restraint, i.e., hates the father's/Father's authority when it gets in the way of pleasure, willing to annihilate it in the 'moment.' Marxism would not exist if it were not so. In Marxism, the so called 'shift' in the child's thinking and behavior (the child's paradigm, i.e., the way he thinks and acts in relation to his own "self," the world around him, and authority) is from the father's/Father's authority, to "self," to "society." "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

"The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality." "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "Social action [desire for affirmation from others] no less than physical action [desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'] is steered by perception [what can I get out of this environment, i.e., this situation for "me"—"self interest"]." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

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

"Sense experience [sensuousness, i.e. the child's "feelings" of the 'moment" being stimulated by the world around him, responding to it according to his own carnal nature] must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception ["lust of the eyes"] and sensuous need ["lust of the flesh"], that is, only when it proceeds from Nature [from "all that is in the world"]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) "Science," when applied to morals and ethics, as in "behavior science," guarantees that only those things which are of the child's carnal nature—the child's "feelings" of the 'moment" in response to the world around him, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his resentment of (hatred toward) restraint—become the "norm," making any child holding onto the father's/Father's authority irrational and therefore irrelevant, i.e., the enemy of the state.

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 Science, when applied to the child's nature is not true science since true science looks for the laws of nature which are observable and repeatable (constant), while the nature of the child is lawlessness, i.e., subject to constant 'change,' i.e., based upon the child's carnal desires of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them. Immanuel Kant, who promoted the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, write of and advocated "lawfulness without law," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., the laws of the flesh and eyes, ruling over and therefore against the law of God, 'justifying' the "lawless one" who first made his appearance in the garden in Eden and "the children of disobedience" who, instead of doing the father's/Father's will, followed after the "lawless one," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' 'justifying' and promoting his way of thinking and acting, evaluating the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in the "light" of the child's carnal desires of the 'moment'' (aufheben), engendering 'change.' (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35

"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." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students ["a psychological classification system"]—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive Domain) "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2: Affective Domain) "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) Marxism, i.e., making right and wrong subject to the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., the "affective domain" became the curriculum (the method of instruction) used by educators from the 50's on. All teachers are certified and schools (including colleges, universities, trade schools, military academies, etc.,) are accredited today (including private, "Christian," etc., including increasingly home schooling material) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies." which (as pointed out in Book 2: Affective Domain) are based upon the ideology or "world view" ("Weltanschauung1") of men such as Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm ("1Cf. Erich Fromm [Escape from Freedom], T. W. Adorno, [The Authoritarian Personality]"), i.e., Marxists.

"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "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." "Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:30; 12:47-50 (excerpts) The gospel message is about a Father sending His only begotten Son, who, obeying His Father in all things command, shed his blood on the cross in order to 'redeem' man from His Father's wrath upon them for their sins, in resurrecting His Son from the grave, 'reconciling' man to Himself, setting His Son at His right hand, giving Him the keys to the kingdom, telling the Son when to go get His bride, that she might partake in His Holiness for all eternity. The gospel message is all about a Son's obedience to His Father, asking us to do the same. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.." Matthew 7:21-23

"We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest"] be restored to the individual [to the child]; that the purposes of society ["the group"] and of his own become identical." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards."(Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) "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." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) James Coleman's "Equality of Opportunity" report was used by the Supreme Court to remove parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (traditional education) from the classroom.

"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3) "A change in the curriculum [method of teaching] is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents ....." We "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding to their belief or position, i.e., refusing to compromise, thus sustaining the father's/Father's authority] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group ['changing' their 'loyalty' from the one restraining the child's carnal nature to the one(s) 'liberating' it]." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating' the Karl Marx in the child, thus 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [challenging the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, resulting in the students questioning and challenging their parent's authority when they get home] and getting them to discuss issues [evaluating personal-social issues from their "feelings," i.e., from their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including their desire for approval, i.e., affirmation from "the group," i.e., from the other children, and their dissatisfaction with authority instead of from their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]." This is done in order (as in "new" world order) "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "The affective domain is [the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the fathers'/Father's authority are], in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed].'" (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education) "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) Changing the classroom curriculum from the teacher 1) teaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) blessing or rewarding those students (children) who get things right and obey, 3) chastening or correcting those children who get things wrong or disobey, 4) discussing with the students (at the teachers discretion) any commands, rules, facts, and truth they do not understand, and 5) casting out any student who questions, challenges, disregards, defies, attacks, etc., the teachers authority to do 1-5 to where the students are "encouraged" to dialogue their opinions to a consensus in a "group grade," "group psychotherapy," facilitated classroom, 'changes' the world from the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority to the "new" world order of facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "children of disobedience" seducing, deceiving, and manipulating children (and adults) in order to 'create' a world based upon the carnal nature of the child, so that all "the people"—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, thus no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.

"For this cause [because they "did not like to retain God in their knowledge"] God gave them up unto vile affections [let them have what they wanted, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they "lusted" after, to their own demise]:" Romans 1:21, 25 "And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

"We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." "We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement [children affirming each others carnal desires and dissatisfactions over and therefore against their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]—there's no restraint and no revolt." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "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 disintegrate a man's personality structure, dissolving his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and making him dependent on another. … brainwashing [where an environment is created which will wash from the child's brain respect for the father's/Father's authority (correlated to Nationalism), turning him against it instead]." (Carl Rogers, as quoted in People Shapers, by Vance Packard)

   Marxism (despite what you might have been taught) is based upon the carnal nature of the child. Karl Marx, as did Sigmund Freud, based his life, and the lives of all mankind upon Georg Hegel's ideology that 'reality' resides in the child, i.e., in the carnal nature of the child and not in the father/Father and his/His authority. "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life,) Therefore, whoever does not make (or have the potential of making) the child "feel good" in the 'moment,' i.e., "feel" in harmony with or at peace with his "self," i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment' and the world stimulating it, inclusive of affirmation (where his "feelings," i.e., "goodness," i.e., his carnal nature of "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment' is being affirmed by others, as he affirms theirs), they are antithetical to the "good life," i.e., they are the enemy of the state. Hegel then wrote, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born): "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lusting" after the pleasures of the world, including (and especially) their desire for approval from others (affirmation)], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." ibid. In other words your spouse, your children, your property, your business, etc., and even you are not yours but societies, i.e., subject to its "felt" needs of the 'moment.' As Carl Rogers explained it above, if it is not common to everybody, i.e., if it does not "have a certain universality" and does not initiate and sustain "psychological freedom," i.e., if it prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks the child from being or becoming his "self" it can not engender the "good life"—which is the bases of common-ism aka Communism, basing the "good life" upon how people think, i.e., 'justifying' their "self," making their "self" subject to their "feelings," i.e., the sensations or "sense experiences" of the 'moment,' i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and the condition(s), i.e., the world around them stimulating them, whether imagined or real, making their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., "the lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes," i.e., that which is of the world only, i.e., of nature only the foundation from which to determine right from wrong, good from evil instead of upon an external authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, which is foreign to their carnal nature, restraining them, requiring them to have faith in the father's/Father's facts and truth and obey his/His commands and rules which are antithetical to their carnal nature (preventing, i.e.., inhibiting or block them from being their "self," i.e., judging/condemning them for "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment they desire, i.e., for being their "self," i.e., for being "normal").

"The life which he [the child/man] has given to the object [to the parent, King, or God—when the child/man humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self," obeying his parent's, the King's, or God's commands and rules as given, accepting their or his/His facts and truth as given, by faith ] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

"Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man [the child] overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower ["History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower, but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum, in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency [sub-consciousness, self-consciousness, self-esteem, self-actualization, progressively 'liberating' "self" and society from the father's/Father's authority]." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)]." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination. The foundation on which the man [the child] of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the carnal nature of the child]; the foundation has to be recovered." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

   'Liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from "an alien and hostile force," i.e., from parental authority was explained by Georg Hegel in his concept of "particular" and "universal." His "particular" (the individual child isolated/divided/alienated from society) is the "self" in the individual child, taken captive to an authority figure who is not in harmony with and therefore is antithetical to the child's carnal nature, dividing the child from that which he has in common with society, i.e., with the rest of the children of the world, i.e., the carnal nature of the child, the father's/Father's authority with his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth not only "repressing" the child but also "alienating" him from the other children of the world, preventing him from not only having peace with his "self" but also preventing him from being affirmed by (and affirming) the other children of the world. In Hegel's mind, i.e., according to dialectic 'logic,' the child initiates and sustains the father's/Father's authority, what Karl Marx called an "alien and hostile force" when he restrains (humbles, denies, dies to) his "self," in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, resulting in the child, out of fear of being condemned and cast out, i.e., being rejected by the father/Father, privately talking to his "self," i.e., dialoguing with his "self" (since the father cut off the child's "Why?" i.e., the child's effort to get the father into dialogue with his "self," with the father's "Because I said so," i.e., "It is written," i.e., "Do what I say or else" response rescuing him, i.e., the father from losing his position of authority, i.e., from abdicating his "top-down" authority—dialoguing with the child would make the father's position, i.e., his commands and rules an opinion, making him and the child "equal" with one another based upon "feelings"), i.e., in privacy 'justifying' his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' in indifference/defiance to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., preserving his "self," resulting in the child resenting the father's/Father's authority as he does the father's/Father's will, in psycho-sociological terms engendering "neurosis," i.e., "thought-action dichotomy."

"belief-action dichotomy" vs. "theory-practice unity"

   "In short, philosophy as theory finds the 'ought' [the way the world "ought" to be, according to the child's nature, i.e., pleasing to the child, i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority] implied within the 'is' [within the way the world "is" according to the child's nature, i.e., desiring the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' resenting restraint], and as praxis seeks to make the two [the world and the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "feelings," i.e., desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them] coincide [removing the father's/Father's authority so that adults, in consensus, i.e., affirming one, can think and act as "children of disobedience," doing wrong, disobeying, sinning with impunity, with no guilty conscience judging/condemning them]." (Comments by Joseph O'Malley Ed. of Karl Marx's, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [those dissatisfied with how the world "is," i.e., subject to the father's/Father's authority, thinking about how it "ought" to be, i.e., subject to their carnal desires of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [established their opinion as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the process of 'change' itself, i.e., the consensus process—there is no father's/Father's authority in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process, only the feelings and thoughts, i.e., the collective opinion of the children, i.e., common-ism—there is no father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth (absolutes) in an opinion, opinions 'liberate' the children from the father's/Fathers standards (Liberté), there is no "top-down" father's/Father's authority in dialogue, dialogue guarantees the children freedom of input and therefore makes them "equal" (Equalité), and the consensus process, i.e., affirming one another's carnal nature, i.e., one another's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature," makes the child's carnal nature, i.e., his love of pleasure (that which is of the world) and hate of restraint (the father's/Father's authority) the "norm" 'creating' "community" (Fraternité), i.e., common-ism aka Communism, engendering a "new" world order based upon the principles of the French Revolution, i.e., "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité," and all the common-ist revolutions following, including the so called "velvet" one's]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) "All social life is essentially practical [when relationship is based upon the child's "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' life is practical, i.e., relational, i.e., reasonable]. All the mysteries which lead theory [thought or opinion] toward mysticism [belief or faith] find their rational solution in human practice [in "building relationship upon 'self interest,'" i.e., in 'justifying' "self"] and in the comprehension ['justification'] of this practice." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #8) "Uch nachdem z.B. die irdische Familie als das Geheimnis der heiligen Familie entdeckt ist, muß nun erstere selbst theoretisch und praktisch vernichtet werden." "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family [with the father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Father's authority], the former [the earthly father's authority] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) "It is not individualism [under the father's/Father's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest"] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [being "of and for self"] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)
   "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6) "... once you can identify a community [where people are willing to 'compromise,' i.e., set aside their belief or faith, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to get along or solve problems], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change." (Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing emphasis added) "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'—the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged." "Freud and Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "Psychoanalysis, mysticism, Freud, Hegel, and Marx – the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen." "Common to all of them is a mode of consciousness that can be called the dialectic imagination." "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Brown, Life Against Death)
   "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—[which] culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan [socialism]." "According to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros itself." "'The conflict between civilization and sexuality is caused by the circumstance that sexual love is a relationship between two people,... whereas civilization is founded on relations between large groups of persons ["community" or "the village"].... In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.'" "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Joseph O'Malley in Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
   "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." (John Dewey, Experience and Education) "Frauds individual psychology is in its very essence social psychology." "Freud's theory is in its very substance 'sociological.'" (Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) Marcuse, quoting Freud, wrote: "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism as quoted in Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [common-ism based upon his carnal nature, i.e., "human nature"] by accepting belongingness to the group [which is affirming the child's carnal nature, i.e., i.e., the child's "lusts," i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's restraints]." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Theory put into practice, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' put into praxis 'justifies' a culture of children thinking and acting according to their carnal nature—a culture of children thinking and acting without a father's/Father's restraint—initiating and sustain a culture of hedonism, i.e., a culture of "abomination."

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4

  It should be noted: Hegel, rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., rejecting God (as did Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud), rejected "belief-action dichotomy"—where the emphasis is upon doing the father's/father's will, the child's/man's nature, i.e., the child's carnal desires and actions thus conflicting with (getting in the way of) his duty to do God's will, i.e., his feelings, thoughts, and actions conflicting with his faith or belief in that which is not of and for his nature, thus while desiring to do God's will, i.e., the father's/Father's will acting according to his carnal nature and the world stimulating it instead, thus, being unrighteous in and of himself, i.e., unable to resolve the conflict himself, needing a savior to "redeem" him from the Father's wrath (damnation), i.e., imputing His righteousness to him (according to his faith in Him), with the Father "reconciling" him to Himself (requiring the cross, i.e., the work of the Son and the resurrection, i.e., the work of the Father, the power of the Holy Spirit, and faith in and fellowship with the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ). By the child obeying the father/Father, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will—because of the child having a guilty conscience when doing wrong, after having done wrong, or when thinking about doing wrong or disobeying or sinning, fearing the consequence, i.e., rejection, which is not necessarily true, since the loving, benevolent (true meaning of the word) father/Father loves his children, hating only their doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., their "bad" behavior, chastening them only when they do wrong, disobey, sin in order that he might learn to do right, obey, not sin, rejecting them only if they reject his/His authority to chasten them, i.e., disrespecting or defying his/His authority, with the child who is still talking to his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his "self" (after having been chastened), i.e., refusing to humble, deny, die to his "self" thus correlating the father's/Father's chastening of him as hating/rejecting him (since he is unable to separate the two, i.e., the father's/Father's love for him and the chastening—the child's understanding of love being based upon pleasure instead of doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., having to do what he is only capable, in his "self," of seeing, perceiving, or understanding as the very opposite of his nature, i.e., missing out on the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' he desires)—the child, according to Hegel (submitting his "self" to the father's authority, as did Jesus Christ to His Heavenly Father), artificially 'creates' an internal conflict between his "self," i.e., his will, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment, i.e., that which is of nature, i.e., of the world only and his desire to do the will of the father/Father, i.e., to please the father/Father, doing that which is antithetical to his carnal desires, i.e., that which is antithetical to nature itself, thus, in the process, giving "birth" to dialectic 'reasoning,' "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialogue., i.e., "Reasoning," i.e., aufheben.
  
According to the principles or 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning,' dialectic 'reasoning' can only become actualized as the child 'discovers' his "self" and all that is of the world are one (synthesis) through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' overcoming (resolving) the conflict and tension (antithesis) between his "self" and the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority, and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so he can be his "self," i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. Thus according to the 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning, the child does not need a savior to 'redeem' him from the Father's wrath, with the Father 'reconciling' him to Himself, requiring the child have faith in and obey Him, but the child needs a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist" to "help" him "redeem" his "self" from the father's/Father's authority, "reconciling" him to his "self" and the world instead, resulting in the child questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., negating the father/Father and his/His authority in his "feelings," thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world—"feeling" "good" about his "self," dying in his sins).

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers) It is the father's/Father's authority (threat of chastening or casting out) that engenders a guilty conscience in the child when he is thinking about doing, doing, or having done what he wants (is tempted) to do, against the father's commands and rules. If the child can be placed in an environment (a "safe zone") where he can share his opinion, i.e., i.e., his "feelings," i.e., his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with other children without fear of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., judgment and condemnation, i.e., being chastened or cast out, the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is negated, allowing him (along with the rest of the children) to do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.

"Change in organization can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior [pleasure, i.e., affirmation from the other children approving of the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]. To be governed by two strong goals [the child desiring to maintain approval from the father/Father while receiving affirmation from "the group"] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [a detachment from desiring approval from the father/Father, i.e., maintaining a "top-down" authority position in favor of affirmation from "the group," i.e., setting aside the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to initiate and sustain relationship with "the group"]. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads [the child is frozen in the 'moment' not defending his father's/Father's position while deciding what to do]. It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective." (Kurt Lewin in Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression) By educators introducing the "affective domain" into the classroom, making the children's' "feelings" of the 'moment' a part of the curriculum, the children's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint guide them in making decisions regarding right and wrong behavior—establishes their "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing the father's/Father's will as the bases from which to build relationship with one another. In doing so they must go through a period known as "cognitive dissonance" where their belief ('loyalty' to the father/Father and his/His authority) comes into conflict with their carnal desires of the 'moment'—with the pressure of group approval, i.e., affirmation from the other children "helping" them make the "right" decision.

"Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief, i.e., their faith in authority, be it in their parent's, their teacher's, their boss's, their leader(s), or God's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity [especially when "the group," excluding, i.e., rejecting them (because of their "ridged," i.e., "prejudiced," i.e., unadaptable to 'change' "negative" attitude, i.e., their holding onto the father's/Father's restraints) is heading down the road, hand in hand, with their carnal desire of the 'moment,' "enjoying" it without them]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

"The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) When the "leader" holds the children accountable to authority, the children tend to retain that way of thinking and acting (whether they like it or not) but when he encourages them to question and challenge authority, making their "feelings" of the 'moment' the foundation from which to determine right from wrong, they, with some "growing pains," i.e., having to let go of their fear of judgment and damnation, naturally go in the direction of "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' resenting restraint, receiving group affirmation—becoming socialists.

"What better way to help the patient [the student, your child] recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [to the facilitator of 'change']? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists [facilitators of 'change'] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the student, your child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [if his classroom experience] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient [the student, your child] changes the past by reconstituting it." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

   By Hegel focusing upon the child, i.e., upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., replacing "belief-action dichotomy" with "thought-action dichotomy" Hegel 'shifted' the focus from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, to the child's thoughts ("feelings" or carnal desires) of the 'moment,' thus 'justifying' the child's need to be "saved," i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority ('redeeming' his "self" by selling his soul to the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., to "the prince of the power of the air") in order (as in "new" world order) to be his "self again, i.e., in order for him to be as he was before God's, i.e., the father's/Father's, i.e., the parent's, i.e., the King's authority came into his life (all being the same in structure or system of thought and action, i.e., "top-down"), thus making it possible for him to be "reconciled" to the world, no longer having to humble, deny, die to his "self" (and the world) in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's, i.e., God's, i.e., the King's or parent's will. According to Hegel, only by the child liberating his "self" from having faith in God, i.e., from having faith in the father's/Father's authority, focusing upon his and others "thoughts," i.e., "feelings" or desires of the 'moment' instead, can "self actualization" (Abraham Maslow), i.e., "theory-practice" unity, instead of "belief-action dichotomy" become a 'reality,' giving the child "freedom," i.e., the right and duty to 'create' a "new" world where his carnal thoughts ("lusts") and carnal actions ("praxis") can become one and the same, i.e., according to nature only, so that he, along with the rest of children of the world can become his/their "self" again, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only, i.e., "normal."

"The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [the children, i.e., "the parts," prevented from dialoguing with one another, were unable to 'discover' what they all have in common, i.e., their carnal nature because they were forced to accept the preaching of the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of the father's/Father's facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith instead]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

   Hegel's "universal" (the individual/the child 'discovering' his commonality with, i.e., his identity in society/within "the group," justifying his "self justification" through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., through dialoguing with others, which 'justifies,' i.e., affirms "self," condemning the father's/Father's authority which forces the child to restrain "self," against his nature, i.e., inhibiting or blocking "human nature") is therefore the praxis of "self" 'justifying' "self," i.e., of "self" 'justification' (dialogue) becoming "universal," as children 'discover,' through dialoguing with one another, that they are all the same, "justifying their self," i.e., using dialectic 'reasoning' in order (as in "new" world order) to "save" their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, needing "help" from outside their "self," i.e., "help" from a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist," i.e., a "savior" (of "self" from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's judgment, condemnation, etc., replacing the father's/Father's love which is sure and patient with "the groups" love which is "self" seeking and fickle) in order to overcome the restraints, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father so they can become their "self" again, thinking and acting according to their carnal nature, i.e., according to their desires of the 'moment' (which are being stimulated by the world around them only)—being "positive"—needing to be 'liberated' from that which is not of nature, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—that which is "negative." Now, instead of dialoguing with their "self" in private ("particular"), through dialoguing with other children in public ("universal"), with the "help" of facilitators of 'change,' children are able to "'justify' their 'self' before one another," thereby, in consensus (having a "feeling" of oneness) with one another (having set aside that which divides them from one another, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "prejudice"), they are able to work together as one, 'liberating' their "self" not only from the father's/Father's authority internally but externally as well, as they, with "group support," i.e., affirmation, initiate and sustain common-ism aka Communism, establishing "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. In consensus (a "feeling" of oneness with one another, i.e., society or community) they are able to therefore "build relationship," i.e., community, i.e., society upon their carnal desires, i.e. the "self interests" they have in common, according to that which is of and for the world only, i.e., that which is of and for "human nature" only. They are therefore able to not only 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority but the world (community, society) from the father's/Father's authority as well, as they establish laws upon how policies and laws are to be made—through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, (engendering freedom from the guilty conscience, i.e., 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority), i.e., in "group psychotherapy," i.e., facilitated meetings instead of or superseding majority vote, representative (in the true meaning of the word), limited government, where those in government are dedicated to serving and protecting the father's/Father's authority, not getting in the way of or inhibiting or blocking the father's authority, i.e., local control, i.e., the father's right of private convictions (freedom of the conscience), property, and business, under God, i.e., under the Father's authority—thereby, using the consensus process, negating the father's/Father's authority in the making of policy and law so that they (and all the world) can be of and for their "self," i.e., carnal, of the world only, 'liberating' "self" from parental and/or Godly restraint, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority (so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity). It should be noted, if after chastening the child is still talking (dialoguing) with his "self" regarding his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, he is 'justifying' his "self," i.e., basing life upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, making pleasure the standard for "good" and restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority the source for "evil," but if he is reproving, correcting, rebuking his "self," in order not to do wrong, disobey, sin, he has "private convictions," basing life upon doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, making the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth the foundation from which to know right from wrong, "good" from "evil."

"Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9

   According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., those who 'justify' their "self" before men, if it is not "of and for self" it is not worth thinking about mentally or doing physically, i.e., it is "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant," needing to be removed as it gets (or has the potential of getting) in the way of consensus, i.e., in the way of the individual, i.e., their "self" and "the group," i.e., the community, i.e., society becoming one and the same in thought and action, i.e., of the world only. Those who seek to unify "theory and practice," i.e., the child's carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., that which is external to the child affecting that which is internal to the child, thus affecting the child's behavior or actions, making the child's "sensuous needs" (that which is of and for the flesh) and "sense perception" (that which is of the world only) one and the same, base the "good life" upon the child's "sense experience," i.e., upon the child's carnal nature and the world stimulating it. History to them is not what the child learns from others regarding the things they learned of the past but is his own life experience ,i.e., "sense experience," making history itself (as well as the future) subject to or adaptable to 'change,' as the child learns to 'liberate' his "self" from the lessons (restraints) of the past.
   The child by nature loves the sensation of the pleasures of the moment—which objects around him stimulate—he does not love the objects themselves that are stimulating pleasure—their value or worth to him being depended upon their stimulating pleasure within him—hating and striking out against (in an effort to remove from his world) whoever (whatever object) is preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking him from having pleasure, i.e., access to the objects that stimulate pleasure, therefore, by nature, resenting/resisting/hating the father's/Father's authority when it gets in his way. Thus, according to the carnal nature ("lusts") of the child, the basis of dialectic 'reasoning,' , i.e., "self justification," the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life is the approaching and augmentation of pleasure and the avoiding and attenuation of pain (including the pain which comes with the removal of pleasure, i.e., the missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' or the perceived future because the child has to behave a particular way, i.e., according to the father's/Father's standards, which results in the pain of rejection when the child refuses to accept the father's/Father's chastening, i.e., correction, reproof, rebuke for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;" Isaiah 5:20 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35

   Rejection (being disenfranchised, i.e., being cast out) by the father/Father applies only to "the children of disobedience," i.e., Marxists, as the father/Father, loving his/His children, hating only their bad behavior, i.e., hating what they do when they do wrong, disobey, sin, chastens his/His children when they do wrong, disobey, sin in order (as in "old" world order) that they might learn to control and discipline their "self," i.e., that they might do right, obey, not sin instead, only casting out, i.e., rejecting those children, i.e., the "children of disobedience" who reject, i.e., question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack his/His authority to 1.) give [author] commands, rules, facts, and truth to his children to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) bless or reward those children who obey, 3) chasten, i.e., reprove, correct, rebuke those children who disobey, 4) discuss, at his discretion, any issues the child wants explained further or clarified, and 5) cast out those children who reject his authority to do the preceding five things. By the child 'justifying' his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint before "the children of disobedience" he becomes at-one-with them, i.e., in consensus with them. As "the group," i.e., "the children of disobedience" affirm his "feelings," i.e., his carnal nature (his carnal desires of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., his resentment toward the father's/Father's authority—which is being reflected or represented by those being "negative" in the consensus meeting, being pressured to either be "positive," i.e., tolerant of the child's carnal nature or leave, resulting in the father's/Father's authority having no true and lasting impact in the decisions, policies, or laws being made by "the group") and he affirms their "feelings," i.e., their carnal nature (their carnal desires of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., their resentment toward the father's/Father's authority—which is being reflected or represented by those being "negative" in the consensus meeting, being pressured to either be "positive," i.e., tolerant of the child's carnal nature or leave, resulting in the father's/Father's authority having no true and lasting impact in the decisions, policies, or laws being made by "the group") the father's/Father's authority is not only negated in the procedures, policies, or laws being made but is also negated in the child himself, negating the child's faith in and obedience to the father/Father, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, resulting in him no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as he joins with the children of disobedience, negating the father's/Father's authority in the community, the nation, and the world, engendering "worldly peace and socialist harmony" so that all children can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be of and for the world only, i.e., be "of and for self" only with impunity.

"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2,3

   The consensus process is the formula for a police state, what we see developing all around us today, where, instead of the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (engendered by the father's/Father's authority) restraining the people—with the citizens doing right and not wrong, i.e., restraining their "self" in obedience to commands, rules, facts, and truth learned from their parents, teachers, minister, etc., in the "past"—which condition is equated to "neurosis" by "psychotherapists" (whose 'logic' falls apart since God is a living God, who speaks to us through His Word "in the here and now," with His Spirit confirming His Word, filling us with His joy, love, and peace in the present, which the world can not understand or comprehend, and is not a god "of the past," stuck in or taken captive to the traditions of men, although man has done his best to do so, making man dependent upon man, i.e., dependent upon mans words and 'reasoning,' i.e., dependent upon man's definition of God and His Word, instead of being dependent upon God and His Word alone, walking by faith, weighing "self," others, and the world according to it)—we are now experiencing the use of 1). seduction, deception, manipulation, i.e., "group psychotherapy," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus in facilitated meetings (in the classroom, workplace, government, "church," etc.,), 2) propaganda (manipulation, i.e., selective information, referred to as "appropriate" information or more commonly "politically correct" information) by the media and entertainment industry, and 3) force (with local, county, state, national, and international forces uniting as one, crossing jurisdictional borders) in order (as in "new" world order) to re-solve the personal-social issues, i.e., the crisis of the day—which is being done (of course) for the "good" of "the people," with the worth of the individual (your worth) being based upon his (your) social-ist/common-unity/common-ist participation, i.e., support.

". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching." "… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

  The 'logic' of contemporary Marxism is: you can kill ("Vernunft," i.e., negate, annihilate, destroy) the fathers/Father in society, in order to initiate 'change' (as in Traditional Marxism, i.e., "dialectic materialism," where what Karl Marx wrote becomes the standard for making decisions, i.e., is preached and taught to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed as given, reflecting the same pattern of thought and action as the fathers/Father's authority—which is to be remove from society—resulting in Communism becoming "Nationalized," following after an authority figure, i.e., becoming stagnant), but if you do not negate the guilty conscience in the children (for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father), through the use of psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy" replacing it with the "super-ego," i.e., with the children's carnal "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (as in Transformational Marxism, i.e., "historical materialism," where the children's "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' become the "ground" from which to determine right from wrong, but in this case in a group setting), the father's/Father's authority—prejudices, i.e., the standards of the past—will be retained in the children's feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with other children and the world, resulting in them passing the father's/Father's authority—prejudices—on to their children, i.e., the next generation, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., preventing the 'creation' of a "new" world order based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., a world where all children, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., be "of and for self" and the world only. The only successful method for accomplishing the 'changing' of the children and the 'changing' of society at the same time is through the praxis (social or group action) of children (and adults) dialogued their opinions to a consensus i.e., 'discovering' through dialogue with one another their common identity (common-ism), that of loving pleasure and hating restraint, in a facilitated meeting affirming their "self," i.e., affirming the carnal nature of the child, thereby not only 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority and the affect it has had upon their life in the past, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, but also desiring the same for all the children of the world, i.e., 'liberation' not only from the father's/Father's authority but also 'liberation' from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying sinning, so that all children (and adults) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. The tree of "the knowledge of good and evil" did not get its name because it was evil. It got its name in that to eat of it you had to reject the Father's authority. Refusing to base knowledge upon His commands, rules, facts, and truth, you make your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., your "feelings" of the 'moment' the foundation from which to know good from evil, establishing pleasure as the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will, making the Father's authority evil. This is the foundation of Marxism, 'justifying' man's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:36-38

   Money, i.e., capital, i.e., stored up pleasure plays into this when the father/Father is recognized by the children, as not only being the providing for their life in the present but also, through inheritance, a provider for their life in the future, providing they obey, do things right, do not sin, i.e., do not think and act contrary to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., question, challenge, disregard, defy his/His commands and rules and attack his/His authority. The "children of disobedience," i.e., the cast out ones, i.e., the "disenfranchised," i.e., those children who, in their "lusting" after the things of the 'moment,' i.e., that which is of the world only, i.e., rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, attacking his/His authority, are not only excluded from the father's/Father's blessings in the present but are also excluded from his/His blessing in the future. They can only gain access to the father's/Father's money, i.e., stored up pleasure by gaining access to his children, turning them against his/His authority as well, 'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority so they can disobey, do wrong, sin with impunity, living off of the father's/Father's money, i.e., the children's inheritance in the present, doing so in the name of "the children," i.e., for the sake of "the people." How far are we in debt? There is no children's inheritance in debt, only "the children of disobedience" in control, using "the children," i.e., "the people" as natural resource, living off their and their children's lives. While capitalism rewards good work, socialism rewards bad, 'justifying' "the children of disobedience."
  
Marxist's, i.e., globalist's are paranoid, fearful that the traditional family will turn to government to rescue them from Marxism, i.e., from globalism, giving their authority over to government, creating Fascism, i.e., National Socialism in the process. Therefore any movement by traditional minded citizens to sustain their traditional way of doing things is responded to as being the source of controversial, promoting prejudice, labeled, by the media, as a being a hate crime, engendering Fascism.
   This is why 'liberals' (and "so called" conservatives), acting like sulking spoiled children in defiance to their parent's authority, demanding their way, are having a tantrum if they can not have what they want, when they want it, blaming anyone not supporting them, i.e., not supporting their carnal desires ("self interest") of the 'moment' (emotionally, "academically," socially, i.e., financially), for getting in their way. While voicing that what they are doing is for "the children," i.e., for "the people," in truth what they are doing is all about them (as spoiled "self"-ish children) 'justifying' and apprehending the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which they desire without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. This is why you can not reason with Marxists, 'reasoning' (understanding, knowledge) to them being dialectical, i.e., based upon their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions ("sense experience," i.e., opinion) of the 'moment' only—"Make me feel good, i.e., 'justify' my carnal thoughts and actions [by setting aside, suspending, as on a cross, your commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to build relationship with me] and I will listen to you."—requiring you to 'reason' from your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from that which is of the world only, affirming ('justifying') their way of thinking (that 'truth' lies within you, i.e., within the world only), in order for you to be 'rational' and therefore 'relevant' in their eyes. It is no different than 'reasoning' with a child who is having a tantrum because he can not have his way. The only problem being, he may be in an "adult" body, with authority to use your credit card, putting you into debt, claiming all the while that what he is doing is for "the children," i.e., for "the people," when in truth he is doing it for his own pleasure and gain. As you will see it all begins in the "classroom" (whether in the home, in the public/private "schools," in the workplace, in government, or even in the "church") where children (including those in adult bodies) learn to either honor and respect the father's/Father's authority or through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, i.e., through the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," learn to question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack it instead.

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

   To make it as simple as possible, dialectic 'reasoning,' the basis of Marxism, is simply you talking to (dialoguing with) your "self" about how the world "is" (keeping you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire), how it "ought" to be (giving you whatever you want, when you want it—Now), and how it "can be" (once whatever or whoever is restraining or preventing you from having and enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire is removed from your life, i.e., negated). The only one who knows what you are talking to your "self" about, regarding your desires of the 'moment' and your resentment toward restraint, other than your "self," is God. When you remove God from your conversation with your "self," no longer letting His Word restrain you, i.e., reprove, correct, reprove you when you do wrong or are thinking about doing wrong or encourage you into doing what is right, according to His will, requiring you to humble and deny your "self, i.e., die to your "self" daily, letting Him direct your steps (according to those of dialectic 'reasoning' a condition equated to capitalism, i.e., capitulation to a higher authority than "self," where the individual is submitting his "self" to an "alien force," i.e., an authority or government that is "hostile" to his "self" in thought and action), all you have is you talking to your "self," making your "self" god, i.e., the center of the universe, making pleasure the 'drive' of life and the augmentation of pleasure its 'purpose'—a clear definition of "self"-isness. According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the only way for you to overcome the condition of submitting your "self" to an "alien force" ("authoritarianism") or "self"-ishness ("anarchy") is to 1). 'discover,' through dialoguing with others, i.e., "justify[ing] yourselves before men," that everyone else has the same natural condition as you, talking to their "self" about the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' they desire as well as about whoever is standing in the way of their apprehending and enjoying it, resenting (hating) them, and, and thus 2). finding common identity with them, 3). work together with them as one, i.e., in consensus, removing any condition in the world that prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks children from becoming "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only, which ironically is an "either-or" condition (either you are adaptable to 'change,' i.e., "You are with us," 'liberating' your "self" and the world from the father's/Father's authority or you are refusing to be adaptable to 'change,' i.e., "You are not with us," i.e., holding on to and supporting the father's/Father's authority, needing to be "converted," neutralized, or removed—French Revolution, Communist Revolutions [violent and "velvet"], Globalism—in the consensus meeting, when you are told that you will not be judged for what you are sharing, so that all can share freely, you are being lied to, you will be judged and condemned by "the group" if you do not think and act like them, i.e., turn belief into theory and facts and truth into opinions so all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, making the facilitator of 'change' god, and the consensus meeting a worship service to him).
   In dialectic "language," not Georg Hegel's, but Johann Fichte's and those following after Hegel, Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis became the formula for understanding and resolving the dilemma of "self," God, and the world—which are antithetical to one another (at least God and the world, with "self" caught in between, with you either submitting your "self" to God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, humbling, denying, dying to your "self" daily, rejecting the world or "justify[ing] yourselves before men," becoming at-one-with, i.e., in consensus with the world, rejecting God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ). Unlike those of dialectic 'reasoning,' where man and the world become united as one in the carnal 'moment,' with God there is no Synthesis, only above-below, light-dark, heaven-hell, sheep-goats, right-wrong, good-evil, righteousness-unrighteousness, saved-lost, redeemed-damned, Spirit-flesh, faith-sight, "love of the world"-"love of the Father," etc., i.e., either-or.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17 "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin [your "self" and the world, i.e., "human nature"] unto death, or of obedience [to the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ] unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16 "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2 "And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Galatians 5:24 "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee." Isaiah 26:3

WHOEVER YOU PUT IN THE THESIS POSITION DETERMINES THE ANTITHESIS AND THE OUTCOME.

   When you put God in the Thesis position, placing Him in the middle of your conversation with your "self," with His Word and His Spirit controlling your conversation with your "self," i.e., your thoughts, He directs your "steps." Even Karl Marx understood this, writing: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Of course Marx wrote this with the intent of placing "self" and the world in the Thesis position instead of the Lord, i.e., writing what he wrote with the understanding that you first have to know what it is you want to destroy, i.e., negate, in order to make sure you destroy, i.e., negate it, in order to get it out of your way. It is quite sobering to know that all (including "ministers") who are of dialectic 'reasoning,' as Karl Marx was, are set upon negating "faith," "love of God," and "will in Christ" from the face of the earth—even if they deny it, the process they use makes it so. When you put your "self" there (in the Thesis position), making you god, i.e., the 'creator' of the universe (in your imagination, i.e., in your thoughts making the world subject to satisfying your carnal desires of the 'moment'), you become "self"-ish, of and for your "self" only. But if you put others, of the same "self" there, 'discovering' through dialogue with them, your and their "common identity" (communism), i.e., 'discovering' with them that the natural 'drive' of life is pleasure, you can, uniting with them in consensus (being affirmed by and affirming them), determine that the 'purpose' of life is not only the augmentation pleasure (for "self" and them) but the negation of any condition inhibiting or blocking it, i.e., God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. Then, working together with them (as one), in order to 'create' a "new" world order based upon the child's carnal nature, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, you can make sure that all the children of the world can become their "self" again, carnal, of the world only, as they were before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into their life, having to be accepted by faith and obeyed. Again, but now adding the Antithesis resultant, when you place the father's/Father's authority in the Thesis position (as Karl Marx explained above), the child's carnal nature ("sensuality") becomes the Antithesis, requiring the child to humble, deny, control, discipline, reprove, correct, rebuke his "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, preventing 'change.' But if you put the child's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., the child's carnal "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') in the Thesis position, making the father's/Father's authority the Antithesis (as Karl Marx intended), all children, being one and the same in nature, i.e., in consensus (Synthesis) can 'justify' the negation of the father's/Father's authority (Antithesis) in their lives and the world, 'liberating' their "self" and world from the father's/Father's authority in order (as in "new" world order) to be "of and for self," i.e., of and for nature and the world only instead. The very essence of Marxism is the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, as well as in their relationship with others and the world. By placing the children's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., "sense experience," i.e., that which is only of the world) in the Thesis position Marx 'justified' the children's' resentment (hatred) toward the father's/Father's restraints, turning the children against the father/Father (author) and his/His authority. If you place the children's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., the "affective domain") in the Thesis position, as Karl Marx did (and contemporary education does), i.e., weighing the worth or value of life based upon the child's (your and/or everyone else's) carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (negating the father's/Father's authority in the process), you are a Marxist—no matter what you say.
   Children (including those in adult bodies), under the influence (intoxication, addiction, possession) of affirmation, i.e., the consensus process are being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority today, negating the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the Patriarchal Paradigm i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's command and rules in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world, resulting in their questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., the father/Father (and his/His authority) without having a "guilty conscience" when he/He (it) gets in their way, i.e., when he/He does not give them what they want, when they want it, as they participate in the opinions being dialogued to a consensus, French/Communist/Globalist Revolution, "team building," "relationship building," facilitated, "group psychotherapy" classroom. Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud understood this would take place when we focus upon and affirm the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which restrain, i.e., which prevents 'change.' While their words differ, calling the children's carnal nature the "proletariat" and the father's authority the "bourgeoisie," the structure of thought and action are the same.
   If you look at structure of thought and action, Marxism is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that children/mankind can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. By "helping" children dialogue their opinions to a consensus in a facilitated, "group psychotherapy," i.e., "group grade," "team building," "relationship building on self interest," etc., classroom, the outcome is the same, children questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., their parent's authority when they get home—manifesting the presence and 'liberation' of Karl Marx in the child's heart. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) All teachers are certified and schools accredited today (including "Christian"—as well as, increasingly, home school material) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, opening "Pandora's box," i.e., making the "affective domain," i.e., the children's "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' the focus (core) of the curriculum, i.e., the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of education (life), turning the children against their parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the process. Their disrespect (contempt/hatred) toward the father's/Father's authority is now not only manifest in the attitude of those in "authority" in education, but also in those in "authority" or in a position of influence in the media, in entertainment, in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in government, etc., and even in the "church." (See diaprax and affirmation charts in Links.)
   Marxism has always been here (it is closer to you than you might think, want to know, or may be willing to admit) but was blocked or inhibited, i.e., restrained by parental authority. In the past it was referred to as . . . Continued.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2017